The UN Climate Change Conference, to be held in Copenhagen two months from now, is an event of massive significance for the whole world. Decisions taken, or not taken, will have a profound influence on how the greatest challenge of the 21st century is addressed.
Just in case anyone has missed that point, Professor John Schellnhuber, one of the leading global warming experts, described Copenhagen as “the most important meeting in the history of the human species”. Well, you can’t get much more important than that.
The questions to be addressed at Copenhagen are complex and profound. Will the US, the world’s biggest polluter, make any meaningful commitment under President Obama or will his predecessor’s total opt-out from the Kyoto Treaty cast too big a shadow?
Will India and China, the world’s still-developing industrial behemoths, accept binding targets or merely a form of aspirational words? Will offsets be recognised as a means of allowing rich countries to transfer their carbon-reduction responsibilities to poor ones in exchange for money?
And in the light of all that, will a deal be reached which will put the world on target to cut carbon emissions so that global warming by 2050 is restricted to the magical figure of 2C above pre-industrial levels? If that is not achieved, the implications for future generations are dire indeed.
Big issues, most would agree. But in our own wee kailyard, all that Copenhagen adds up to is another petty political row about whether an SNP minister in the devolved administration should be allowed to strut his stuff as part of the official UK delegation. Forget the future of the planet. Let’s get on with business as usual.
Scotland will, of course, be heavily represented at Copenhagen. Indeed, the prime minister – who is indisputably Scottish – will lead the UK delegation, which must speak with one voice at the highest level of negotiations. For anyone who cares about the future of the climate-change debate, it is the outcome of these negotiations that matters, not the identity of bit-players.
There are hundreds of nations in the world that are not states, while most states are made up of various national identities. Scotland’s position is a lot less unique that the nationalists like to pretend. Does Alex Salmond believe that Wales, Brittany and Catalonia – to name but three – should also be cluttering the Copenhagen stage? Or is it just himself?
We are told that Scotland has “the most ambitious climate-change targets in the world”. That’s bunkum. Deeds are what matter and the most significant and distinctive thrust of Scottish Government energy policy is to abolish our main existing source of carbon-free electricity, namely nuclear power. That, thankfully, is not the position of the UK Government and there should be no room for confusion or grandstanding about that point in Copenhagen.
Instead of looking for international platforms to boast about how good we are, the Scottish Government might pay more attention to making a few things actually happen. Bluster and target-setting are no substitutes for actions and I see little evidence of actions leading to a reduction in Scotland’s carbon footprint. Quite the opposite if they get rid of nuclear.
So there is an awful lot of work to be done at home before we start telling the world how good we are. Anyway, that is not what Copenhagen is about. It is about negotiation. It is about getting meaningful commitments. It is about reconciling economic ambitions with environmental obligations.
Let’s hope that Scotland – like the rest of the world – hears a lot more about all of that, and less of the tedious political bickering, over the next two months.
Maybe I can quickly revert to the subject of last month’s column – the need for Ofgem to take a far harder line against utilities, which are ripping off consumers by failing to pass on the cuts in wholesale prices with anything resembling the alacrity applied to raising them last year.
I suggested that the letter which Ofgem sent out, asking the big six to do better, was unlikely to have them quaking in their boots. Since then, Ofgem has published the six responses and – surprise, surprise – they all say the same thing in different forms of words. Essentially, they tell Ofgem to clear off. Result? Prices are more likely to rise than to fall.
So the ball is back in Ofgem’s court – and also that of Government. Consumers are being overcharged by about 25% for their gas and electricity based on the companies’ refusal to pass on the reductions in wholesale prices which followed last year’s massive increases.
In the run-up to a general election, and with a long winter ahead, that is not a good place for any Government to be.
A little bit of political intervention is surely overdue.
