20121208_R4

Source: BBC Radio 4: Today Programme

URL: N/A

Date: 08/12/2012

Event: Loss and damage at Doha: "it could cost a fortune"

Attribution: BBC Radio 4

People:

  • Roger Harrabin: BBC environment analyst
    • John Humphrys: Presenter, BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
    • James Naughtie: Presenter, BBC Radio 4: Today Programme
    • Lord Stern: Baron Stern of Brentford, British economist and academic
    • Rahul Tandon: BBC reporter in India

Female newsreader: The climate change conference in Qatar is continuing beyond its scheduled end as the representatives try to find a way to break the deadlock. The major sticking point has been the amount of aid that wealthier countries will give to poorer ones, to fund cleaner energy and deal with flooding and storms caused by global warming. Roger Harrabin reports from Doha.

Roger Harrabin: The idea that rich nations should compensate poor nations suffering from climatic damages has emerged as a serious issue for the first time in talks here. Against ferocious opposition from the USA, poor nations have succeeded in getting that principle into the final negotiating text, with the prospect of getting it embedded into a UN institution next year. If the US is left alone fighting against the chair's text, its negotiators face a sore dilemma - bow to the majority and accept that nations which cause climate change bear a moral responsibility to other nations damaged by it, or to refuse to sign. If the US vetoes the text, President Obama will be accused of hypocrisy and failure after recommitting himself to tackling climate change since his re-election. If the US agrees the text, the President will face criticism from Republicans whilst he's trying to negotiate his own deal over US government finances. Suddenly this conference has become very dramatic.

* * *

John Humphrys: And some very interesting developments at the climate change talks in Doha. Our environment analyst Roger Harrabin is there - and this is the rich nations facing the prospect of having to compensate poor nations for climate change. Like - what? How?

Roger Harrabin: Yes, well, I mean this is - if it happens, if it goes through, this is a real watershed, John. From the start, poor nations have been saying "Look, you know, if we lose land - we're a small island state, for instance, or we're Bangladesh - we lose territory because of climate change, because of rising sea level. You've got rich - you rich nations have got rich by polluting, and you've caused a problem on us [sic], therefore you owe us compensation." Well, the rich nations have run a mile from this. They have agreed funds in the past, albeit reluctantly and stingily, according to the developing nations. They have agreed funds to help the poor nations adapt to climate change and to help them get clean energy. But the principle of compensation - or loss and damage, as it is - has never been accepted before. And now suddenly it's in the final negotiating text, and the USA are really on the spot, because the US negotiator has been heard saying "Look, I'm going to kill this. I'm going to block this". But if he does, then back home, you know, President Obama has re-pledged himself to tackling climate change. The US may be standing alone against the will of the international community on this, and that is going to be a very sore dilemma.

John Humphrys: So, are we - as Britain and other European countries - are we prepared to go along with it?

Roger Harrabin: Well, look, the EU are meeting at the moment, and they haven't got a formal position on it, but the word I'm getting is that the EU will just about live with this. I think it was - this was quite close to what they call the "red lines" here, lines beyond which countries will not go. It was an absolute red line for the Americans, and I think this was very close to the EU red line. The question will be: how much support can the Americans drum up from allies? You know, will Canada stand by it? Will Russia stand by it? If America is left standing alone, it really is in a very difficult situation. But then again, if it agrees this mechanism to go through - and I have to say there's some weasel words around this, in the way there always is at these conferences, and developing countries are not happy because it's not as firm as they wanted - but if this text goes through, raising the prospect that next year there'll be a mechanism for loss and damage, then Republicans in the US - where they're debating the fiscal cliff, as you know well - this is going to be a really hot issue.

John Humphrys: Indeed, because -

Roger Harrabin: Are we really committing - are we really committing to this? So, I think the Americans have lost, either way, on this.

John Humphrys: A quick thought - it could cost a fortune.

Roger Harrabin: Well, the Americans are saying "Oh, this could cost us a trillion dollars". Now, nobody knows where they got that figure from - they appear to have plucked it out of the sky. I spoke to a Bangladeshi expert, who said "Look, we don't know how much it's going to cost. What we want the Americans to do is to negotiate a limited amount of liability, otherwise they will face unlimited liability in future." And, you know, some of the experts I've been speaking to - real veterans of these talks, and diplomats - think this is a real watershed in the talks, that this principle is now about to become embedded, unless it gets vetoed. And we'll know sometime today - let us hope, we know sometime today. It should have finished yesterday.

John Humphrys: Roger, many thanks.

* * *

James Naughtie: The climate change talks in Qatar have resumed, after a sticky day or two - and they may yet produce quite a dramatic conclusion - for the first time, the UN conference may support the principle of compensation by rich, industrialised countries to the developing world affected by climate change. Poorer countries have long argued that they deserve assistance from countries whom they blame for causing changes in the climate for which they end up picking up the bill. We'll talk in a moment to Lord Stern - the Stern Report, you'll remember, was one of the most important contributions to the political and economic debate here, on climate change, in the last few years. First we'll go to Rahul Tandon, our correspondent in Calcutta. And Rahul, it's a matter of intense interest to India, isn't it.

Rahul Tandon [with traffic noises in the background]: I think "is it?" has to be the real question. I'm standing at a set of traffic lights in Calcutta - there are cars all around me, I can see a bus polluting fumes into the air, some of the people around me are wearing masks at the moment. But I think the honest truth is, if you think about the Indian newspapers, you hear very little talk of climate change. At the moment, you'll hear a lot of talk about Monty Panesar, and really the issue doesn't seem to be that important at the grass-roots level. And until that changes, I think, you will not see pressure coming on the government, maybe, to try and deal with this issue. I've been out talking to some students from India's new, young middle-class generation, this morning, and what they feel is: if India is to tackle the problem, they need more help from the West to deal with the issue.

Male student 1: That, I think, is a fair argument. Because, given the cycle of development that maybe India and China is, even if you compare the emissions that both the West and, say, India and China are doing, the West is far ahead in terms of the number of per capita emission. There again comes the question of technology transfer - if you can transfer your technology, the West have treated [?] us ready to, you can bring down the emissions. But you ask India to voluntarily cut their emissions, is not a very good idea, I believe.

Male student 2: They are being criticised for unfair [?] because it has to develop as a country, to reach to the level at which the US and the UK have gone, so - it's unfair, on their part.

Rahul Tandon: Are people in India bothered about these issues?

Male student 3: Mostly, they're not. A lot of people are not aware of the kind of problem that they're going to face, in times to come.

James Naughtie: Well, Rahul Tandon, in Calcutta, thanks very much for that glimpse of popular feeling on this question. We're joined, as I indicated earlier, now by Lord Stern - former World Bank Chief Economist, author of the Stern Review, professor at the LSE. Lord Stern, good morning.

Lord Stern: Good morning, James.

James Naughtie: I know you were in Qatar and you're keeping a close eye on developments, as the conference comes to a conclusion. If there is some inclusion, in the final text, of a right of the developing world to get something by way of compensation from the industrialised West, how big a development is that, do you think?

Lord Stern: If it came out like that, Jim, it would be an important and major development. But my understanding - and I've been on the phone for much of the last two or three hours to people very closely involved in the negotiations - my understanding is that this is mostly focussed on the small island states, who of course are very immediately threatened by these issues, so it's to find a way to help directly the small island states.

James Naughtie: Without committing, for example, the United States to the kind of deal which it would find very hard to sign up to.

Lord Stern: My guess is that they'll find a way to focus on the small island states, without opening up the issue of compensation very generally. They've come a very long way in these talks, and they're laying the foundations for an agreement three years from now - 2015, which will be in France. And I think it's important to recognise how far they've come. And they've extended the Kyoto Protocol - or they will, if it all goes through - to a second stage. They've recognised just how big the gap is, between where we're going and where we need to go. I mean, we're headed into very dangerous territory, perhaps towards three and a half or four degrees Centigrade, on current plans. And that, I think, is starting to be recognised much more clearly. So if this all hangs together, over this next 24 hours, then I think those foundations will be very valuable, to go forwards. And I think the UK delegation - I've been very close to them, of course, I'm a cross-bench peer, I'm not part of government -

James Naughtie: Yes.

Lord Stern: - UK delegation have been doing very well in working with the EU to hold this together.

James Naughtie: You mentioned that figure of three or four degrees - you're well aware that a lot of people are still sceptical about the science, despite the insistence of many people in the scientific community that the essential facts are beyond dispute. And people do say "Well, three degrees... you know, what's that going to mean?" Just remind us what a change of that magnitude - if it came about - would mean.

Lord Stern: Well, we haven't seen three degrees on the planet for around three million years. We've been around, as human beings, for about 250,000. So we've no idea how well we could cope with this. It would come with a pretty big risk of four degrees - the World Bank has just published a major publication on what that would mean. It would probably mean hundreds of millions of people having to move, because of rising sea levels, because of the failure of the monsoon, because of desertification, for example, in southern Europe.

James Naughtie: It would affect food supplies, irrigation and all that kind of thing.

Lord Stern: Absolutely - it's about water, in some shape or form, or the lack of it. But it's about change, so people will have to move, and when hundreds of millions of people move, that's a great risk of conflict, of course. So the stakes are really very big, and one good outcome of this discussion is that there's been increasing realisation of just how far we are away from where we need to go, and the importance of closing that gap. So I do hope it hangs together - my guess is it probably will, but it might take another 24 hours, who knows? Normally these kinds of issues are resolved, but these whole things are packages, so it's not over 'till it's over. But if it is resolved, then I think that foundation will be very good. And I think the UK delegation, as I mentioned - civil servants, ministers, LibDem, Conservative ministers - have been working very effectively to try to bring this to fruition. And it's an example - in contradiction to what you said about Owen Patterson just now - of the EU working together in a very effective way, on a crucial issue.

James Naughtie: Lord Stern, thank you very much.