The COP 15 conference in December in Copenhagen failed to deliver what the majority of forward thinking individuals, businesses, NGO’s and governments hoped it would deliver, i.e. a legally binding commitment on countries to reduce their carbon emissions in absolute terms.  The reality is that leading up to Copenhagen it was clear that although there was some political will, the conclusion of a legally binding treaty was but a pipe dream.  What does this mean?  Are we doomed to political inaction or is there any hope that we should cling to?

In the first instance, let us examine the Copenhagen Accord; the document that emerged at the 11th hour through agreement s concluded behind closed doors between the US and the so called BRICS nations.  Although this amounts to no more than a letter of intent, it is actually a step in the right direction and acknowledges that government’s actions will be determined by those required by science.  The climate change naysayers may as well jump on another bandwagon as this is a clear declaration that governments will take action based on anthropogenic climate change.   This is a major step forward and should not be glossed over.  It also commits signatories to declare reduction targets by no later than 31 January 2010 although without any binding legal targets around this, it is questionable how much this will yield.

In the circumstances, many believe Copenhagen did not deliver but to get the consensus of over 190 nations in an economic climate of financial instability is tantamount to impossible.  Governments will eventually come around, when climate change becomes even more apparent and the financial implications of inaction start to impact their electorates.  How easy has the US forgotten hurricane Katrina?  Would it be the same if Katrina’s storm surge had hit New York?  In Southern Africa we continue to have catastrophic ‘100 year’ floods and desertification continues to increase in other areas.  How much longer before the masses rise up and demand action due to food and water shortages?  Unfortunately we must acknowledge that in the main, elected governments think short term (usually no more than 5 years as their elected term) and hence action is driven by thoughts around the electorate and what will bring votes.  Although climate change for most is the number one priority, for many others it revolves around healthcare, financial stability and poverty alleviation.

Does this mean that with no deal we can all cop out and wait for the governments of the world to reach consensus, potentially in Mexico in 2010 or beyond?  If we do opt out as individuals and business, at what cost not only to ourselves, but to the future and the future of the unborn custodians of our planet? We cannot and must not allow this to happen.

The failures of Copenhagen must not be used as an excuse for our inaction.  The science is still valid, irrespective of whether we now have a binding target or legislation that governs emissions.  Cap and trade regimes and taxation are still on their way, although probably delayed due to Copenhagen’s inability to produce a treaty.  Merely because our elected officials have failed in their actions does not mean that we should follow.  It is incumbent upon business now to reduce emissions through energy efficiency, technological innovation, adaptation and mitigation.  In fact, more so than ever, business now needs to take the lead in this respect.

 The business case for sustainability is as valid as it has ever been and those that continue to procrastinate will face an uncertain future.  Irrespective of what our governments have failed to do, it makes sense for our finances, for our shareholders, for our marketing, for our customers but more importantly for our science to reduce emissions.  Reducing emissions, almost always reduces cost, sometimes with staggeringly short payback periods.  Action makes sense and should not be delayed for yet another year.  Action by business needs to be immediate, sustained and embedded within governance structures as a matter of urgency.

In conclusion, science has spoken, governments have not. Individuals and business should not be coerced into a false sense of security.  They need to make their voices heard and take action.

Tags: carbon footprint, climate change, copenhagen, energy efficiency, green office

This entry was posted on Monday, January 11th, 2010 at 9:54 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.