Beyond Copenhagen

Adil Najam is the director of the Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future and Professor of International Relations and Geography & Environment at Boston University. He was a leading author on the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Najam was on a speaking tour of Europe when he dropped by the Deutsche Welle studios to talk about where action to tackle climate change is heading following the Copenhagen summit.

Deutsche Welle: UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said the result of Copenhagen was disappointing, not enough, and that a window of opportunity is now closing faster than before. Was Copenhagen a failure?

I think his general assessment is correct. Copenhagen wasn't a success. But it isn't a failure yet. The process is continuing and we must not let it fail.

What negative tendencies should we avoid repeating when delegates gather in Bonn in the middle of the year?

We didn't get the kind of targets, binding agreements or voluntary policy commitments we were hoping for from the major countries involved. And some people might be losing faith in the prospect of reaching a truly global agreement. I think that would be a terrible thing. We need a global process. We need a UN process. I think that is what we will be aiming towards in Bonn.

So you don't agree with the people calling for coalitions of the willing, to try and get things moving instead of allowing the UN to solve this problem?

No, this is a global problem, a planetary problem. You can't exclude people from the solution. Having said that, I think different countries have different roles to play and the negotiations should involve different countries addressing different aspects, like solving a big jigsaw puzzle together. The idea that you can get a handful of "important" countries together to solve the problem is only going to land us with more problems.

Securing adaptation funding was a major concern for developing countries at Copenhagen. You've compared the situation to that in Haiti with the extraordinarily high death toll there. Obviously, the earthquake wasn't caused by climate change, but why are poor countries so hung up about the issue of money?

I think they're hung up about the issue of adaptation rather than money. At Copenhagen many countries seem to have realized for the first time that this is going to mean some terrible things for them that will cost money. Most of the cost will be borne not just by poor countries, but by the poorest people. That's what happened in Haiti. That's what always happens. One of the amazing things that happened at Copenhagen was Brazil saying it didn't want money. It said it would fund itself provided it was given the right policy.

Interestingly, you've said you're not so worried about the binding targets for emissions cuts like those enshrined in the Kyoto protocol. Why is that?

I remember the binding targets and I remember countries not taking them seriously including countries that were at Kyoto. I'd like countries to set targets and stick to them. To me, the most important thing is concrete action. Since Kyoto, we've seen some countries without targets take action while other countries with targets haven't taken action. I'm interested in seeing real policy commitment. Whether it's voluntary or mandatory at the international level is less important, although I think mandatory is preferable as that signals to the rest of the world that we are serious about it.

The United States is going to be crucial for any serious efforts to tackle climate change but we're seeing President Obama's ratings slip. His healthcare legislation is taking a beating and it's taking up a lot of time. What are the prospects that the US can deliver any meaningful climate bill this year?

I hope it will. I think the presence of US leaders at Copenhagen and the statements and voluntary commitments they made sent a clear signal that the US is taking the issue seriously. I hope Copenhagen also sent a message to President Obama and the US public and business community that the issue is too important to ignore. I think it will largely depend on what happens to healthcare. But feelings about climate change have begun to shift in the US. People of all parties want climate regulations.

But right now, what's on the table is far from what the science demands…

Yes, and that's true for all countries, not just the US. But I'm concerned that in wanting to do more we might not even do the little we can. I'd like to see countries step up measures even if we can't reach our goals immediately. Let's start doing the things we can and then ramp it up. They have a fitting expression in the US: Let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good.

You liken the search for finding the right forum for addressing climate change to puzzling over a Rubik's Cube.

Yes, I think some people think there's a magic formula. If we figure out which two or three countries should sit down and solve the Rubik's Cube, everything will be alright. But I think it's more like solving a huge jigsaw puzzle, one so enormous that you can't do it alone, you need the whole planet.

The science of climate change can provoke very strong feelings. Who is responsible for injecting the heat into this debate? Is it politicians, the media or even the scientists themselves?

All of the above. I think they all need to take a step back and consider how high the stakes are. Politicians sometimes try to hide behind science because of the strength of public sentiment. They want the scientists to make the decisions but political decisions should be made by politicians. The scientists are there to understand and interpret the data but they shouldn't proscribe policy. And everyone should take care to avoid exaggeration. I believe the data proves that something serious is happening to the climate. The evidence that we can be sure of is overwhelming enough. It doesn't need to be dramatized. The debate is being played out in the public eye, in newspaper headlines. That's not how scientific debates are usually conducted. The credibility of science itself is at stake. If people keep hearing stories about scientifically inappropriate behavior, they'll start losing faith, not just in the climate issue, but in science itself. That can't be good for society.

Interview: Nathan Witkop
Editor: Anke Rasper

For the unabridged interview, follow the audio link below.