World leaders have failed to break new ground in climate talks, making the chance of finalizing a full global treaty in Copenhagen in December remote.
The stalemate followed brief optimism that China's President had travelled to a one-day UN climate summit in New York with firm commitments to reduce the growth in the emissions China produces.
But the hype about a new direction from the biggest developing economy – which would have pressured developed countries, notably the United States, Europe and Canada, to commit to binding cuts and offer huge sums to compensate poorer nations for restraining emissions – was not fulfilled.
Instead, Chinese President Hu Jintao left his promises vague or emphasized domestic measures rather than binding international commitments – and the focus for December's negotiations turned toward a pared-down, Plan B agreement-in-principle, rather than a treaty.
Yesterday's summit was more speeches than negotiation, but there had been speculation that China would offer a new direction that could spark stagnant talks before formal negotiations in Copenhagen.
But neither China nor the United States, the world's two biggest emitters, offered a way to bridge gaps between rich nations and fast-developing ones.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper skipped most of the proceedings, attending only a leader's dinner last night, saying Canada will march alongside U.S. policy.
Mr. Hu outlined some specific, ambitious measures to combat greenhouse-gas emissions within China – such as targets for using renewable energy sources – but he did not set any overall targets for emissions, or indicate that China would be willing to commit to goals in an international treaty.
He said China would “endeavour” to reduce the amount of emissions it produces per unit of gross domestic product “by a notable margin” by 2020 – in other words, to pollute relatively less as China's economy grows, but perhaps not cut overall emissions.
“That can be good, but it all depends on what the number is,” said President Barack Obama's climate change adviser, Todd Stern. He said the United States still wants to get as much of a deal as it can in Copenhagen, but all the details will not be done there.
Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice said: “China has said they would sign on to an agreement, but whether they would take on binding targets is the essential question.”
This week, major players had already started to discount a complete treaty being struck in Copenhagen. European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Monday it's too late to complete an agreement with detailed target numbers for all emitters.
In interviews this week, diplomats expressed concern that expectations must be lowered or a stark failure in Copenhagen might doom progress to an eventual treaty, perhaps next year.
“We're generally moving beyond Plan A,” Michael Levi, a New York-based expert on climate-change negotiations at the Council on Foreign Relations, said in an interview after Mr. Hu's speech.
“Plan B is still a very difficult plan. I don't think the basics for that are in place. But if we focused on that, it would be doable.”
Plan B, he said, is an interim step – a set of political principles, and basic legal forms, with the details to be negotiated later.
The Copenhagen talks were supposed to be the final negotiations for a treaty, and the basic principles had emerged: Developed countries would agree to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020, and growing developing countries would restrain the growth of their emissions so they would be lower than if they took no action.
And the richer countries would finance a pot of money – Mr. Barroso suggested €100-billion a year – to finance the transfer of clean technology to poorer ones.
But developing countries such as China and India are so far unwilling to commit to legally binding targets, which richer nations insist upon – arguing that developed nations, bigger per capita emitters, should set the example.
The amount and source of the green funds for poorer nations – to be discussed by world leaders at a G20 summit later this week – is also in dispute. Developing countries want wealthier governments to commit predictable funds, but the United States and Canada want much of it to be generated from future trading in emissions credits.
Now, Mr. Levi said, success lies in moving toward interim steps, forgetting the sum of money for green financing, for example, and fleshing out the principle: that richer nations will provide funds, tied to developing countries' concrete actions to curb emissions. Whether every country is taking on some binding commitment could be set, even if the specific numbers are different. “All countries must be taking on similar types of commitments, or there's no progress,” he said.
Despite the indications that many players are scaling back goals for Copenhagen, the Canadian government has not shown any sign of shifting gears – though it has taken criticism as a mere spectator.
Mr. Harper made a brief visit to the summit, and was blasted by environmentalist as “missing in action.” He insisted that what is key for Canada is close co-operation with the United States.
“We want to see an effective international accord, one that includes all the major emitters of greenhouse gases, and of course, we're working continentally with the Obama administration on a truly integrated approach,” Mr. Harper said after an afternoon visit with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Diplomats from other nations say Canada's credibility at international negotiations is weak, because it didn't come close to meeting its Kyoto Protocol targets, and has set targets for 2020 that are among the weakest of large, wealthy nations. Instead, seems content to let the United States and China dictate the agenda.
“Those two countries are 50 per cent of emissions,” Mr. Prentice said. “They are the two countries that are going to have to bridge those differences.”
