Environment

Dec 3, 2012

Doha(rd) 2012: in an aircon-loving state, more climate delay

The world is talking in the airconditioned confines of Doha, but nobody expects action that matches the science. Renew Economy's Giles Parkinson reports from Doha.

The first slogan to greet arrivals at Doha Airport in Qatar are as optimistic as those that greeted delegates to the climate change talks in Copenhagen in 2009. "Welcome to 12 days that could have an everlasting effect," it pronounced. Not real catchy, and possibly a direct translation from Arabic. But worthy all the same. Sadly, judging by the lack of ambition, and the lack of progress of these talks, it’s not a likely outcome. The second thing that attracted my attention on arrival were two payment booths at the exit of the parking lot. Barely big enough for one person to sit inside, they were each equipped with their own 1 kilowatt airconditioning system with a large hose attached, like a deep sea diver with an oxygen supply. They probably need it. Doha is a city that thrives because of its fossil fuel riches and it has built a western city of stunning shapes and proportions only because it is airconditioned. It has even promised to aircondition the World Cup, which it aims to host in 2022 and will have to do exactly that if the competition is run in the northern summer, where temperatures average 36 degrees from June to August and have peaked at 53 degrees, and could hit good-knows-what in a decade’s time. (Even the seawater reached 37 degrees in 2008). Qatar is one of a handful of Gulf states that deprives Australia of a most unwanted moniker -- the highest emitting state in the world per capita. Australia gets the gong for the category of developed nations, but even it can't compete with Qatar. The world would need more than two planets if it lived like Australians do. If they lived like the Qataris -- the massive buildings, the labyrinth of four-lane highways that seem always often clogged, what must be the highest per capita penetration of Toyota Land Cruisers, and its need to desalinate its water -- then the world would need around five planets. Apart from high emissions per capita, Australia has a lot else in common with Qatar. Both are making efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions -- Australia has its carbon price, a 5% emissions reduction target and a 20% renewable energy target by 2020. Qatar has a 20% renewable energy target by 2030, and has plans to build a major polysilicon plant to supply the global solar PV industry. Both countries are competing -- sometimes in football tournaments, but principally to export as many fossil fuels to international markets as they can. Qatar is currently the biggest exporter of LNG, and Australia is trying to knock it off its perch. And therein lies the problem. Another less prominent slogan at these talks is "Not above 2 degrees". However, the host country and Australia -- the developed nation that some would argue has done the most in the past 12 months to push climate policies -- are in a rush to exploit what the science says is unexploitable. Numerous studies in the past few weeks have reinforced the path in which the world is heading. The International Energy Agency spelled it out in the clearest of terms -- if the world wants to match its climate change rhetoric and limit average global warming to a maximum 2 degrees, then it will have to leave two-thirds of the world's proven reserves of fossil fuels in the ground. The difficulty is that countries like Australia and Qatar -- the Gina Rineharts and the Clive Palmers of the world, listed companies worth trillions of dollars -- measure a vast part of their wealth by the value of the things they have not yet dug up. Here in Doha, however, the difference between urgency of the need to act and the inertia of international climate change negotiations has never been so marked, and neither has the gap in expectations between the developed and the developing world, particularly the poorer and more vulnerable nations.
"We've achieved nothing ... and I'm very concerned. We're fried."
Surprise has been expressed at the rising tensions in these talks, which the developed world had presumed would be merely procedural, tying up loose ends from the messy negotiations at Durban and Cancun so a path could be cleared to an agreement forged by 2015, for a binding global treaty to come into force by 2020. Or course, this does not come anywhere close to the science. For the most vulnerable countries it threatens to lock in failure, and the developed world appears to have completely misread the mood of their negotiating partner. Christina Figueres, the head of the UNFCCC (the UN body charged with climate talks), says each nation needs to "assume responsibility" but she doesn't see much evidence. The US is hamstrung by a hostile Congress, Europe is hobbled by an indolent Poland, China and India are not prepared to make any bold moves until the developed world has acted on its "historic" responsibility, and nations such as Russia, Canada and New Zealand have simply opted out of the process. "I don't see as much public interest for governments to take on more ambitious and more courageous decisions," Figueres told journalists over the weekend. The Qataris seem bemused by the whole thing. Climate change had barely entered the local vocabulary before the talks began -- now it appears on the evening news in some depth each night, and the government even tolerated a street march organised by some recently formed local environmental NGOs. The government has a goal of accumulating globally significant events in the same way as it likes erecting spectacular buildings, but is said to have called in panels of experts when it realised the significance of the talks and the role it was expected to play as host and president. Not that Energy Minister Dr Mohammed bin Saleh Al-Sada has quite seized on the subtleties. Asked at the start of the conference about Qatar's extraordinarily high emissions per capita, he suggested that wasn't important because it was the total emissions that counted. Qatar has a population of just 1.8 million. In a speech to the World Climate Summit yesterday afternoon, he said fossil fuels would continue to be the centre of the world’s energy needs and would still provide 80% of its needs in 2040. Gas (of which Qatar has lots) was good because it was cleaner than coal (of which it has none). So why should Qatar produce less? And he is not alone in thinking that way. Even Scotland’s environment and climate change minister Paul Wheelhouse, who boasted of the fact that it intends to produce enough wind and hydro energy by 2020 to meet all of its energy needs, noted Scotland was also the largest oil and gas producer in the EU. Wheelhouse told me later in an interview that the oil and gas reserves, which would last for decades, were worth $1.5 trillion. Gosh. So how did he feel about the IEA's suggestion then, that the Scots should leave a trillion dollars of that under the seabed? His response was the focus on renewables was part of a plan to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and delay the need for their extraction. But he was sure they would be over time, and they wouldn't lose their value. So far, only Norway and Monaco have made pledges that fit the science. "The offer on the table is deeply inadequate," said Sai Navoti, lead negotiator for the 43 island nations that make up the voting block known as AOSIS. "How many conferences do we have to endure where we go back to our countries and say, 'next year we will increase ambition to reduce emissions, next year we will see finance, next year we will save the climate?' No more next years." Bolivian delegation chief Rene Orellane told Bloomberg: "We've achieved nothing … and I'm very concerned. We're fried." *Giles Parkinson reports on energy policy and the environment for RenewEconomy

Free Trial

You've hit members-only content.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

25 comments

Leave a comment

25 thoughts on “Doha(rd) 2012: in an aircon-loving state, more climate delay

  1. Person Ordinary

    Without a global price on emissions, the dollar value of the fossil fuels makes burning them irresistible – regardless of any other measure. But with a global price, say one that rises year by year, the economics will automatically create the transition to lower emissions energy sources. No other policy is needed. No other policy is meaningful.

  2. Person Ordinary

    The major obstacle to getting a global price is the question of whether developing countries should pay the same price as developed countries. The developing countries argue that having to pay a higher price to reach “developed” status than others did is unfair. This is true. The developed countries argue that having to pay a higher rate now than the developing countries puts them at a competitive disadvantage. This is also true.

    What is the compromise? The magic formula?

    If the US and China could only agree on such a compromise, they could set up a world wide body to enforce it, regardless of the will of all other nations … Together they have the clout to create a WTO/IMF/World Bank style stand-over organisation, and manipulate energy policy just as brutally as those organisations currently manipulate global trade and finance. It is not ideal, and it is not what the Left have tried for a long time to achieve on the back of the climate imperative, but it may be the best hope for real action …

  3. Andybob

    Isn’t euthanasia supposed to be illegal ? Why should mass suicide be any different ?

  4. Mike Flanagan

    Warern J
    Having waded through a considerable number of reports available on the net from universities, Met Departments, NASA, IPCC, USA, British and Aussie defence department etc, that are peered reviewed, I would be interested in the links to the papers you reference.
    Perhaps the COP structure initiated by the UN is not the optimum framework to initiate our collective reactions to what our best brains in the area are telling us. The initial emissions agreements, between twenty odd nations under the EC umbrella, to arrive at Kyoto, were a painful exercise.
    Maybe more emphasis to arrive at a collective decision could be better advanced by the UN, through the fostering of regional, and or, common economic groups of nations to negotiate among themselves.
    Cop 15-20 have, and are, all proving to be about political posturing and positioning for national economic advantages as perceived by groups and individual nations. They have all proved to be failures to create international mechanism to avoid what our scientists have been projecting and have left a good many of the public confused and disappointed by their inactivity.
    About all these COP gatherings offer, is a timeline to complete more studies and reports, all of which have been even more alarming than the last. It must be said these reports are valuable and the gathering number of reports from the economic(IMF World Bank) and accounting (PWC et al) bodies indicate that our financial sector (banks) are reacting in their business programs to these scientific reports. This could be far more significant than even the feeble efforts done by our political masters.
    While, Ms Gillard, Combet and co, should be congratulated for standing up to the vitriolic response of their political opposition it is clear, from the science, they have only dipped their toe in the ocean of dilemmas that climate change will cause, and require changes to both individual and national aspirations and practices.
    It is not just GHG we have to reflect and modify our ways to resolve, we only have to pass cursive eye of the implications of our destruction of the oceans, pesticide application and regulation and we can add innumerable industrial process and modern human practices that need to be reviewed with the long-term bio-implications in mind.

  5. Rohan

    Mike Flanagan, why waste the time responding to a denialist brain dump?

    By engaging you implicitly lend them credibility.

  6. Mike Flanagan

    In most instances I agree with you Rohan. But I do think that the more eloquent of this group that make assertion, using an undefined or nameless academic treatise to support their assertion, I think should be engaged.

  7. Steve777

    It is clear that little or no effective action on mitigating the causes of anthropogenic climate change will be allowed until the effects start to impact on the profits of major corporations. At that time, business interests will start demanding that governments do something about it and that somebody else pays for it.

  8. Person Ordinary

    @Steve777

    The way that “the effects start to impact on the profits of major corporations” is a global price on emissions, is it not?

  9. Steve777

    Person Ordinary – agreed. A price on carbon and global arrangements to manage it makes perfect sense, as even John Howard and his team seemed to agree just 5 years ago. I was just expressing a view that it was unlikely to happen because of the powerful vested interests, including the Fossil Fuel industry, pushing to block or delay a price on carbon or any other effective action to mitigate climate change. And our Opposition, which will probably be our government next year, have decided to play politics with the issue for short term gain. Once they take government, Australia will resume the ‘spoiler role’ it played in international forums on climate change under Howard.

  10. Person Ordinary

    “… it was unlikely to happen because of the powerful vested interests …” – Agree absolutely.

    So the only real prospect I can imagine is if the two most powerful vested interests that exist, the Chinese government and the American elite, consider that an aggressive compromise serves their common self interest. Unfortunately, this seems unlikely too – we may actually, in all rationality, be doomed.

    The only force that could overcome even those two heavyweights is public opinion, and the political will it could generate, but with the state of the media in both China and the West, we are collectively too deluded to demand any real, adequate action …

    Here, I can’t see the coalition winning government with Abbott at the helm, but if we do swing to the Right, we may effectively be deciding to commit biocide – kidding ourselves that even if we do nothing for a while, we can fix it all later …

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...