How (not) to save the world in 12 days
Climate change may or may not be a certainty, but efforts to curb it are an important barometer of human cooperation.
Was the just-concluded Copenhagen summit on climate change really an initiative to save the world, as some expected? Probably not, for reasons I enumerate below. Nevertheless, Copenhagen mattered – not to stave off the impending disaster of global warming, but simply as a test case for humankind’s ability to solve complex problems thru cooperation.
First, let me list the reasons why I believe COP15 (the Copenhagen summit on climate change held from Dec 7-18, 2009) should never have been expected to deliver the world from a death-by-warming fate.
1. Humanly-induced climate change is hardly the cast-iron certainty it is frequently made out to be. The climate is a humongously complex creature, determined by the intersection of phenomena as diverse as solar variations, earth orbital perturbations, variations in the behavior of oceans, the atmosphere, tectonic plates, etc. Each of these – let alone the interactions between them – is too poorly understood, and it will take several years before climate modeling becomes sophisticated enough to begin to definitively answer questions relating to climate change*. For some very thought-provoking arguments as to why human-induced climate change should not be taken as a given see here, here, here, here and here.
2. Even if global warming is assumed to be a reality, it is hopelessly optimistic to believe that placing national emission caps will work to curb it. Such quotas are fiendishly difficult to monitor – countries fiercely resist monitoring attempts as an infringement on their sovereignty. In addition, each country believes some other country / countries should bear a greater load in terms of curbing emissions. Thus, the developed countries believe the emerging economies should do more and vice-versa. Countries that are seen as most affected (e.g. the Pacific Islands) believe everyone else should do much more. Such intractability is typical of a tragedy of the commons situation, of which this is a classic example.
3. People (especially Governments) are not very good at getting together to solve complex problems. Such concerted action is inevitably fraught with distrust, veiled self-interest and political machination. If this were not the case, the United Nations should have consigned armed conflict to the dustheap of history decades ago.Program and Risk Management 101
Thus at the very least, the Copenhagen summit should have been preceded by far greater preparation. A basic tenet of Program Management is that enlisting the collaboration of all stakeholders needs hard work and can hardly be taken as a given. Beginning months in advance, countries known to be recalcitrant including the emerging economies and the G77 should have been brought round through extensive socialization. The organizers appeared to be taken by surprise at the confrontational stance taken by the emerging economies and the G77 a few days into the summit. Surely this was a risk that should have been anticipated and prepared for. Similarly, the integration of the Kyoto Protocol should have been well thought out, rather than having to be brought up almost as a surprise element (even a deal breaker) well after the summit was under way.
