Imperceptibly, the tide of debate is turning on climate change

November 24, 2011

By John Prescott, John Gummer and Michael Jay. The opinions expressed are their own.

The forthcoming Durban conference comes at a major crossroads in international relations, with continuing economic malaise in the West being counterpoised with the increasingly rapid shift of power to emerging economies.  Mirroring this structural change is a fundamental shift in the centre of gravity of the global climate change debate that few have yet to recognise.

While the outlook for Durban is highly uncertain, a critical mass of countries are currently advancing landmark domestic climate change legislation at a pace that contrasts sharply with the UN-brokered talks.  This trend, which is being largely driven by emerging economies, is nothing less than game changing.

In the last six months alone, as a forthcoming study, by Global Legislators Organisation (GLOBE) and the Grantham Institute at the London School of Economics, documents:

•    China is developing comprehensive climate change legislation and has included carbon targets in its latest Five Year Plan.
•    South Africa’s government has released its climate change white paper, including a raft of measures such as renewable energy targets and a carbon tax.
•    In Mexico, all political parties in parliament recently agreed to come together to back a comprehensive climate change law.
•    South Korea is in the process of passing legislation for an emissions trading scheme which would be binding by 2015 and covers those facilities producing more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.
•    The Australian government’s carbon tax bill will become law in 2012.
•    Germany has outlined a radical new energy plan in response to the Fukushima disaster, including a massive increase in renewable energy investment.

Adoption of such landmark initiatives is — with a few notable exceptions (Australia being prominent) — largely bipartisan.  One key reason for this encouraging move towards bipartisanship is that many legislators increasingly recognise the positive co-benefits of climate change legislation which range from energy efficiency and increased energy security to the reduction of air pollution.

This, in turn, symbolises a crucial shift which is a key part of the wider change.  Previously, the political debate on climate change has been largely framed around the narrative of sharing a global burden — with governments, naturally, trying to minimise their share.

Now, legislators increasingly view the issue as one of national self-interest, with each nation trying to maximise the benefits of climate change legislation.  Indeed, those countries with strong national legislation are already attracting most inward investment on low-carbon technologies because there is business certainty (rather than high regulatory risk) for such investments.

Encouraging as this shift is, it is as yet insufficient to avoid dangerous climate change.  Nonetheless, the national legal and policy frameworks to measure, report, verify and manage carbon that are now being created could potentially be ratcheted up, especially as governments experience the benefits of lower energy use, reduced costs, improved competitiveness, and greater energy security.

As this happens, the goal must be to translate such progress into a comprehensive, global deal brokered by the UN to build on the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period which expires at the end of 2012.

Such a deal — as opposed to the incremental one agreed at Cancun last December — will probably only be possible when even more countries are committed to taking action on climate change because it is to their advantage rather than out of perceived altruism.  In other words, such a deal will only reflect domestic political conditions, not define them.

Given this outlook, and as difficult negotiations in Durban approach in uncertain economic circumstances, a key danger is that some countries, including here in Europe, might lower their long-term ambition and harden their stances in dealing with other countries.  At a time when, as we have argued, the climate change debate is undergoing such profound change, this would be ill-timed.  Indeed, the forthcoming UN summit is exactly the right time for countries to invest more in climate diplomacy and practical international cooperation to help expedite the creation of conditions on the ground that will enable a comprehensive global treaty to be reached in future.

Rt Hon John Gummer, Lord Deben, is President of Global Legislators Organisation (GLOBE) and former UK Secretary of State for the Environment.  Rt Hon John Prescott, Lord Prescott, is a Member of GLOBE, and former UK Deputy Prime Minister and Europe’s Lead Negotiator at Kyoto; Michael Jay, Lord Jay, is Vice President of GLOBE and former head of the UK Diplomatic Service and former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s G8 Sherpa in 2005 and 2006.

Image — Buddhist monks help local residents build a barrier to fight floods in Pathum Thani province October 12, 2011. REUTERS/Damir Sagolj


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

The tide turned in this debate a year or so ago when the climate change scientists were found to be fudging their data and not offering true peer reviewed science.

Before we spend trillions of dollars on some solution, first they have to prove that there is actually a problem. Next they have to show that man is actually the cause of that problem. Then they have to show that their solution has any chance at all of solving that problem.

There is simply too much unknown at this time to even be thinking of throwing money at the so-called solutions that they came up with. Right now this is all about the money, redistribution of wealth, and not about saving the planet.

Posted by Dragos111 | Report as abusive

If there is any “bipartisanship” involved, it is likely because some of the subsidies to the “green” companies are being used to bribe both parties. When Congress starts passing laws that force consumers to buy overpriced products either in healthcare or energy there is an enormous amount of money involved and lots of graft in the form of campaign donations. The public in Europe has started to wise up to this scam because of the enormous expense and tiny gains involved. The public in the US is trying to rid itself of “the best government money can buy” to save the country from ruin. If it succeeds, the green companies are going to have to provide practical solutions or follow the solar cell companies into bankruptcy.

Posted by MassResident | Report as abusive