A failure in Copenhagen break this dynamic

The hope born a few months before Pittsburgh likely extinguished after Copenhagen. Earlier this year, everything suggested that significant progress could be achieved at the climate summit in the Danish capital in December. At that time a voluntary and United Europe sent a message, namely a unilateral commitment to reduce its gas emissions by at least 20 greenhouse compared to 1990. In the United States, in the enthusiasm of a presidential victory like no other, Barack Obama said at the outset of his mandate, willingness to invest not less than 150 billion for renewable energy and reduce U.S. emissions 80 in 2050. Expressed in the same references as those used by Europe, this represents only a 3 reduction, but constitutes a major step forward with the acceptance of a binding objective. Finally, China for the first time explicitly, referred its willingness to contribute to the fight for climate.

But today, while we are facing an unprecedented crisis, the good intentions turn into much more vague promises. Barack Obama, ferraillant to pass his health reform, sees a reluctant US Senate to vote on energy and climate legislation. Its representatives come very probably in Copenhagen with bonnes words but few commitments. Another large country, the India, wants to go it alone in announcing it will decide its own objectives, regardless of international constraints, were they accepted by others.

Therefore, now, it is illusory to hope for an agreement on a treaty, it is imperative that obtain at this Summit, an agreement policy on binding targets for the major industrialized countries to the planet. This agreement will need to define the mechanisms to implement and, of course, an ambitious would very quickly lead to an international treaty calendar.

If it is important that Copenhagen is not a failure, it is above all because it would blow of brutal judgment in a process begun in Rio in 1992 and, especially, in Kyoto there are twelve years. The mobilization of economic policymakers is now strong and unambiguous and results, of course all too modest, are there! In France, for example, industry reduced its emissions by 24 between 1990 and 2007, while industrial production increased by 15. In Europe, a CO2 emission permits market has been in place and, despite some imperfections, it gives a prize to the reduction of CO2 emissions, allowing economic actors to integrate this parameter in their decisions. In the public and private laboratories, tens of thousands of researchers develop technologies needed for a carbon economy, lower emissions, capture, storage or destruction of the CO2. The very low emission of CO2 classic, hybrid or electric-powered vehicles are no longer at the stage of the curiosities of fairs, but on the eve of an entry in force on the market.

Europe has taken a leading role in this mobilization; European manufacturers have responded present and undertook with determination in projects and long-term investments. A failure in Copenhagen break this dynamic. It would be even more damaging that Europe, which today represents only 17 of mondiales emissions, can resolve the issue of climate change. It would also take the risk of its industrial, which bear much stronger constraints that elsewhere, be heavily penalized in global economic competition. A double penalty which our Europe is not needed in these times of crisis.