Equality of discontent likely

The debate on what needs to be done about global warming and climate change, if anything at all, has been heating up considerably over the last few weeks in the build-up to the United Nations climate summit to be held in Copenhagen from 7 to 18 December. If conflicting claims have left you confused, you are probably closer to understanding the complexity of it all. World leaders seem to be heading for some form of consensus on what can be done, which in practical terms would probably mean very little.

The Copenhagen summit is intended to bring an accord to replace the Kyoto Protocol on global warming that runs out in 2012 and that has to date not been signed by the United States, which is the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gas – out of fear of the impact on its highly intensive energy economy.

Only last week, the South African Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs accused the US, where draft legislation requiring compulsory greenhouse gas emission reductions is being held up in its senate, of “holding the whole world to ransom.”

It is, however, not only in the US where the debate on global warming and the reduction in greenhouse gases holds serious domestic political implications. Anglo American chief executive officer Cynthia Carrol recently warned that if the Australian government goes ahead with its proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme, more than 2 000 coal-related jobs would be lost.

Other major industries such as the airline sector, which is also a major contributer to greenhouse gas emissions, is globally in economic straits and can hardly afford the cost implications of emission reduction schemes.

In South Africa, there are limits to what is affordable in terms of subisdising the development of cleaner renewable energy sources.

In the United Kingdom, the latest figures indicate that only 25% of planning applications for onshore wind farms are gaining approval.

During the present economic period, in which global and domestic economies are battling to come to grips with the effects of the worst recession since the Depression early in the previous century, it is also difficult to see the argument that the 'rich' developed world should financially assist the developing world in dealing with the effects of global warming.

Fact or ideology?

While some leading scientists claim that Copenhagen is the last opportunity to arrest runaway global warming, a massive security breach at the IT facilities of those very same scientists has left in doubt the integrity of the very basis on which an accord is sought.

Hackers broke into the server of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, and posted more than a thousand e-mails and documents which have circulated between climate scientists. Some of the e-mails seem to suggest that there was a deliberate manipulation of certain data to boost claims about the rate of global warming.

It would require a massive and intensive expert investigation to substantiate or refute these claims, but it has added new fuel to the claims from some quarters that the global warming 'movement' is driven more by ideology and economic interests than real hard and verifiable facts.

It is against this background that one should judge the downscaling of expectations for Copenhagen over recent weeks from achieving a “legally binding” accord to reach political commitment, which would leave more time to work on the details of a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol.

In the final two weeks before the start of the Copenhagen summit, the indication of more and more heads of government – including US President Barack Obama – attending the final stages of the summit lifted hopes for a positive outcome.

All considered, it would seem that the most likely outcome is one of political consensus on “the way forward”. If the most workable definition of consensus, namely “equality of discontent”, is considered, it would seem that the world would not have all that much to cheer about.

This prospect raises the question if individual countries, regions and/or economic blocks would not do better to put to use as many resources and creative energy as possible towards finding ways of dealing with the implications and impacts of inevitable global warming.

For many countries, particularly those in the developing world, it may be close to impossible to balance the cost of globally set targets with domestic economic needs while relying on the assistance of developed countries that may have their own huge domestic issues to deal with.