The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Copenhagen is now 5 days old. As expected, the gathering of 193 country delegates and a combined 16,500 international negotiators, NGO representatives, activists, and journalists at the Bella Center is showcasing some of the most difficult political and economic challenges facing the global community today. Given the importance of curbing climate change from unabatedly dangerous levels, some are calling it perhaps the most important diplomatic meeting in human history.

Source: Flickr Creative Commons/mrlins

Many of the thornier issues that have held up agreement in the past continue to stifle negotiators at Copenhagen. Specific targets on emission reductions for industrialized and developing countries, mechanisms for financing mitigation and adaptation efforts in countries that lack the wealth to afford such measures, and information and technology sharing between nations are several prominent examples of areas in which nations have consistently had trouble reaching consensus. (For more information on the latest developments at Copenhagen see COP-15 official news releases.)

One of the more notable developments coming out of the conference this week is the debate surrounding the position being put forth by the Alliance of Small Island States, spearheaded by Tuvalu, on a counter track to the Kyoto Protocol that would set stricter targets for temperature increases. Aosis, as the alliance is known, has proposed the creation of a Copenhagen Protocol that would be both legally binding and more aggressive in its targets for emission reductions amongst both developed and developing countries. (Read more about the proposal here).

Source: COP-15

Tuvalu and the other Aosis nations, along with a number of other G-77 nations from sub-Saharan Africa, are refusing to sign onto any new global climate agreement that allows for more than a 1.5 degree Celsius increase in temperature. Aosis contends that any temperature rise greater than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which would require emissions to stabilize and return to 350 ppm (they are currently at about 387 ppm), would create an unacceptable and existential threat to their livelihoods. They have made the case that their countries are already seeing the impacts of climate change firsthand, and are by far the most vulnerable to its continued and unabated advance.

By contrast, major developed nations and some of the larger developing nations including China and India have set a 2 degree Celsius temperature increase as their benchmark for avoiding “dangerous” impacts from climate change. The 2-degree figure would require emissions to stabilize at 450 ppm, a figure that the IPCC has identified as a threshold for avoiding “unacceptably dangerous” impacts from climate change. (Read more about the official draft texts for an agreement being circulated at the conference). However, other prominent scientists including renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen, contend that 350 ppm must instead be the target, lowering the temperature threshold to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Many policy makers and scientists counter that the 350 goal, while bold, would be all but impossible given that emissions have already exceeded that mark and developing economies and thus emission levels continue to grow along the IPCC Business-as-Usual scenarios. Emissions would essentially have to stop tomorrow in order to meet such a target.

One of the more interesting side-notes of the move by Aosis is that it not only essentially splits the UN directly down the middle, it also divides the G-77, and in particular, pits China against a sizeable number of other G-77 countries — those that are most vulnerable to climate change’s destructive impacts. China has historically advocated and advanced the collective position of the G-77, but given its own emissions growth and soaring economic development, a schism may have been inevitable. China’s position as a leading voice for the G-77 has remained largely intact over the years, and it remains to be seen whether the rift will be amended or if it is instead indicative of a more fundamental shift.

Photo: Lauri Myllyvirta

Climate change is already an acute reality in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like Tuvalu across the world. Earlier this fall, government ministers in the Maldives held an underwater cabinet meeting to highlight the vulnerability that these nations face if sea levels rise as projected along the IPCC Business-as-Usual scenarios for emissions growth. SIDS, alongside many other developing countries in the G-77, have not contributed to global increases in emissions and now find themselves victim to environmental changes that were induced by other wealthier industrialized nations. Many advocates are calling it an issue of global justice, and decry the positions of wealthier nations as essentially sealing the fate of poorer, low-lying nations to the sea.