The Copenhagen Summit dragged itself to a messy close with the conference agreeing to ‘take note’ of an Accord that was blander than a ‘Best of Westlife’ compilation.

During the two weeks, despite the herculean efforts of Ed Miliband, the basic fault-lines in the process reared their ugly heads. Obama was unable to bring anything concrete to the table due to internal politics within the US. China and India refused to commit to any numbers that would undermine their economic growth. The inequality issues between developed and developing countries proved insurmountable and the archaic negotiation process provided the final cherry on top of the fudge cake. 

What then does all this mean? Of immediate concern is that the whole negotiation process has left the UN looking like a boxer who has faced a 15 round battering. Whether it has the energy, ability or inclination to re-enter the ring and reinvigorate the process looks debatable.

Without this centralising drive, it will be up to civil society, companies and governments operating either independently or multi-laterally to achieve the carbon savings required. 

The Copenhagen Accord does provide these organisations with some rays of hope. These include the recognition of the scientific imperative to act, the £30 billion funding available for developing countries, the commitment to protecting the world’s forests and the retention of the Kyoto principle placing lead responsibility on developed nations who have profited from a carbon-intensive past.

I think that the Copenhagen Summit will have reinvigorated many of these organisations in their efforts. Hearing first-hand experience of the most vulnerable communities to the climate changes already taking place, witnessing the amazing ingenuity many are already showing and understanding the level of activity already taking place could lead to greater collaboration, and at the end of the day, this might well be the major legacy of the summit.

Green taxes

One of the main claims made by the climate sceptics is that governments are using climate change as an excuse to raise green taxes. Unfortunately our Treasury doesn’t have this level of coherency in its tax policy as was witnessed by the pre-budget statement. 

A low carbon taxation policy would seek to reduce the tax burden of employing people, it would radically increase the cost of using resources, and it would build in social safeguards to ensure that those on low income are not adversely hit by higher food, fuel and water costs. If there was this clear narrative, I am sure that people would understand the role and effectiveness of green taxes.

Unfortunately the government’s finances are in such a mess that Alastair Darling is seeking to raise money from all sources. To justify the pain he points out the environmental benefits of some of his taxes, which immediately sparks public anger, especially when these tax increases go hand-in-hand with another whacking great rise in national insurance which will make it even more expensive to employ people.

The messenger

Another of the impacts of Copenhagen has been the resurgence of a strong climate sceptic movement. Classic headlines over the past few weeks have included ‘Global warming is a load of snowballs’ and ‘Climate nut Brown ruining Britain’ peddled by the likes of The Express, The Mail, and that bastion of journalistic brilliance, The Star. 

All of these headlines provide added ammunition to the widely held view that climate change is a scientific con designed to take make our lives as difficult as possible. Challenging the integrity of these headlines is essential if public support is to swing behind decisive political action. 

The question is who is best placed to lead a more reasoned debate? Scientists have proved woefully inadequate communicators, government does not have the public’s confidence, and pressure groups are so deep into the intricacies of the policy that I'm sure most people can't make head nor tail of what they are saying.

Perhaps Copenhagen will create a new partnership of organisations from across society that can present the scientific evidence in a way that is clear and unbiased allowing a proper debate and increased public understanding?

Contact Trewin

Do you have a question for Trewin? Send him a message using our contact form.