Executive Talk
UNWTO responds to eTN's article on Copenhagen climate change conference
I know that David Beirman would have expected my response having been kind enough to quote me - so here goes.
The glass is half full not half empty. There are four missing pieces from his, as usual, excellent analysis.
FIRST, no mention of the time frame of 40 years to stabilize the Earth’s temperature. The sea rise doesn't hit today - and that isn't meant to be callous it's factual. We have to start now and we have to keep ratcheting up our actions without any slackening off. But we should be realistic about the real demands. 40 years ago there was no Internet, no global TV, no mobile phones, no Europe, no friendly China or Russia, and even International Tourism was in its infancy. And as Toffler noted the pace of change is accelerating. Innovation in cleaner fossil fuel, renewable, bio-fuel etc offer great hope during such a period looking forward. And large sums of money, incentives and sadly the easy way out - taxes will change the intensity of research and adoption.
SECOND, the key polluters did reach an understanding albeit an accord not an agreement and that is a global first and it included the leading developed and emerging states, as well as providing the starting point for the massive finance framework that the poorest demanded for adaptation. Yes it isn't binding but who can hold a state to meet those obligations anyhow ... look at the existing 1 percent of GDP poverty commitments!
THIRD, it's cloud cuckoo land to expect the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Mexico or Bonn to address the issues industry by industry - it will be tough enough to take the Copenhagen pieces to the next levels - particularly around the targets, aspirations and verification issues. And aviation will be very much an International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) responsibility.
FOURTH, the industry is making improvements but they are for the most part only the first steps in the essential measures needed to make the changes in carbon reduction to live up to what governments will require in the Copenhagen Register (again note by 2020). But David rightly notes that with commitment (not hype) we can easily do it (by 2020 and 2050) if we get serious now - hence the Live The Deal initiative.
To read David Beirman's article, go to http://www.eturbonews.com/13406/implications-copenhagen-climate-anti-cli...
Comments
In responding to Geoffrey Lipman's comments on my article I do so out of great respect for his vision and great leadership of the global tourism industry.
Geoffrey quite correctely points out that the effects of climate change do occur over a long period and action to reverse the human contribution
to it would require major long term changes to our patterns of consumption.
Had the Copenhagen glass been half full as he suggests I would have regarded this as a major achievement and would have acknowledged it. However
the toothless ststement of intent struck (albeit with the involvement of some of the world's greatest polluters) is far short of the expectations
of binding agreements that the 192 countries represented at Copehhagen had expected. I think even the great Danish story teller Hans Christian Anderson would have struggled to turn the Ugly Duckling which emerged from the Copenhagen Conference into a swan.
I agree that a macro solution to Climate change and emission reductions is eminently better for the world than trying to tackle the problem industry by industry. However the history of international diploamcy is littered with failed attempts to imposes global solutions to major world problems unless there has been a high level of shared commitment. Baby step diplomatic developments in reaching broader agreements have been more the rule than the exception. My "cloud cookoo land" suggestion is clearly a fallback position.
The reality is that many of the governments which have been advocating the accord which was agreed to in Copenhagen have a very tough time selling it in their own countries.
In my own country (Australia) the government (whose leader Kevin Rudd is an enthusiastic proponent of emission reductions) recently failed to pass legislation in the upper house of parliament to support emission reductions and carbon trading scheme far more modest than anything discussed in Copenhagen. The opposition that Rudd and other governments face comes from environmentalists on the left who demand far deeper emission cuts than most pragmatic governments would support and the conservatives on the right who are still in denial about climate change. In a nutshell this problem was clearly exposed in Copenhagen.
Unfortunately, the insipid outcome of the Copenhagen Conference has put a very strong spring in the step of climate change sceptics in Australia and other countries.
My final comment does not relate directly to Geoofrey Lipman's comments. Most international agreements which succeed are
negotiated in secret, certainly away from the press and the best role heads of governments can adopt is to sanctify a done deal rather than risk their reputation by being visible players in agreements which may fall sort of expectations.
+
Post new comment