Tribune – Comment, news and reviews from Britain's democratic left – Join the Conversation

There is all still to do as the Copenhagen deadline looms, warns Stephen Minas

In complicated negotiations, the perfect is often the enemy of the good. At Copenhagen, the perfect will be a non-starter. So remote are the apparent prospects of a legally-binding deal that officials have been hard at work lowering expectations. Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, used to urge negotiators to “seal the deal” on a legally-binding agreement. Now he wants an “ambitious, politically-binding agreement”. Fredrik Reinfeldt, the current President of the European Council, thinks that even this may be beyond the international community, with a substantive deal “simply impossible to deliver”. The draft treaty is still much too long; everybody’s ideas are still in it. Duly alarmed, the cabinet of the sinking Maldives has held an underwater meeting in the sea.

There is much to be alarmed about. In 2007, the Bali conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed that a binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol would be finalised in 2009. The “Bali Road Map” would lead to Copenhagen. However, less than a month before the conference, fundamental political disagreements remain unresolved. October talks in Bangkok broke up amid acrimony, with a member of the G77, the negotiating bloc of developing countries, and China accusing wealthy countries of “moving to somehow kill the Kyoto Protocol – something that we could not accept”. This complaint was renewed in Barcelona last week, with threats that the G77 will boycott Copenhagen.

The issue of fairness lies at the heart of the trouble. Essentially, developing countries led by China have argued that, because the rich are historically responsible for the great bulk of climate change, they have a moral obligation to solve the problem. Developed countries led by the United States have countered that greenhouse gas emissions are rising fastest in developing nations, so they, too, must take action.

This impasse concerning climate justice has not yet been broken, despite some encouraging moves. Chinese President Hu Jintao’s commitment that his country would cut emissions “by a notable margin by 2020” was broadly welcomed, but an actual target has not been announced. Similarly, last week, European leaders agreed to pay their “fair share” into a proposed fund for mitigation efforts in developing countries. There was, however, no agreement on a figure. Nine eastern members of the European Union baulked at an actual amount, insisting on their own relative poverty.

Regardless of China and Europe’s efforts, the conference will not succeed without a strong US commitment. The Americans vetoed Europe’s proposal of a carbon tax in 1992, before withdrawing from the Kyoto process altogether. Barack Obama’s administration is committed to action, but faces questions of political will and capacity. The bill that would clarify America’s position remains at the Senate committee stage and US delegates will go to Copenhagen with indifferent public opinion at their backs.  A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll found that only 44 per cent of Americans think “the government should place the highest priority on addressing climate change’, compared with

94 per cent of Chinese, 89 per cent of Britons and 82 per cent of Indians.

So it is not surprising that Lumumba Di-Aping, the chair of the G77, recently complained that the “ambition” of developed countries is “so low it is unbelievable”. But there will be tough negotiating within the developing world bloc itself. The Alliance of Small Island States, understandably, presses for urgent action, while the oil exporters take a longer view. And, in terms of economic interests, the emerging powerhouses of China and the other fast-growing economies of countries such as Brazil have at least as much in common with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development nations as they do with Africa.

Dismayed by this cacophony of competing interests, some have proposed a “G2” of the US and China to sort it all out. But while bilateral co-operation on climate change was recently upgraded, the substantive positions of the two countries have not moved far beyond the “mutual suicide pact” described by energy analyst Joe Romm in 2008.

Nor would other powers accept a G2. As recently as August, India’s environment minister emerged from talks with the Chinese to claim there was “no question of China doing any side-deal” with the US.

And, in October, European Commission president José Manuel Barroso claimed the EU would “drive the momentum towards Copenhagen”, while Gordon Brown says that “Europe is leading the way”. So a G2 shortcut is unlikely. A consensus – thus far elusive – will have to be found.

But Copenhagen could yet surprise us. Diplomats are not automatons. They interpret their instructions, work through fatigue and sometimes have ideas. The Clean Development Mechanism, under which there were $7.4 billion worth of project-based transactions in 2007, was agreed only on the final night of negotiations in Kyoto.

Less than a month before Copenhagen, there is a firm consensus only that “something must be done”. Building a substantive outcome on this modest foundation will require wit and will of heroic proportions from the negotiators.

Stephen Minas is a a reporter for The Diplomat and will be covering the Copenhagen conference