Striking a deal in Copenhagen

As the conference winds down, the countries of the world are scrambling to strike a deal.

The developing nations claim – correctly – that the industrialized nations have generated most of the pollution believed to be causing climate change. These developing countries believe the industrialized world should provide massive funding to mitigate or halt climate change.

The industrialized world claims – correctly – that enormous transfer of wealth guarantee nothing without better safeguards that monies will be spent efficiently and effectively.

Further complicating this dilemma is the fact that some large developing countries are extremely wealthy and are generating enormous amounts of pollutants themselves.

These are major sticking points, but there are many other challenges and nuances. For example, what is the role of indigenous peoples? If an enormous fund is established to protect the rainforests, does a piece of the action go to the Indians, or does all the money go to national government (or state governments? Or NGOS? etc. etc.) Can indigenous people negotiate conservation accords on their own (so-called “subnational rights”) or does everything have to go through national governments?

And what is the role of monitoring? Several governments, still smarting from a legacy of colonialism, loathe the concept of industrialized nations checking to see whether these developing nations are keeping their promises in terms of protecting forests or emitting pollutants. Industrialized nations argue that accepting major funding to modify carbon output or carbon capture means that you must agree to be monitored. The discussion continues…

Some of the best news of the conference comes from the technological world: we can remotely monitor down to the level of a single tree in many forests of the world. Yet agreements need to be reached on the role of monitoring if this technology is to prove as useful as it can be. And enhanced forest monitoring without enhanced forest protection would ultimately prove futile.

-Mark J. Plotkin, Ph.D.