The Copenhagen Meet 2009 was unable to provide a unified platform to seek solutions for problems precipitated by the climate-change crisis. As a result, environmentalists and ecological conservationists have been trying to seek answers which caused such a keenly sought-after forum to disappoint and temporarily halt the efforts aimed towards adopting a global, climate policy. Among the many theories that have surfaced in the past few months, few have been able to look beyond Copenhagen’s shortcomings, i.e. they have been unable to put forth an alternate approach that is efficient enough to ensure that such a debacle doesn’t happen again. However, an exception to this norm has risen in the form of 'The Hartwell Paper'.
This is essentially an international report co-authored by 15 specialists who were assembled from around the world. The paper owes its title to a location, set outside London, called the Hartland Home where the work began in February 2010. The report was later crafted at the LSE and since its release; the Paper has been engaging a lot of attention. The Hartwell Paper took nearly three months to complete and it emphasizes that the disappointments suffered in 2009 in our efforts of progressing towards an ecologically-sensitive form of existence should be used as an opportunity to decode our shortcomings rather than being looked upon as an excuse for not pursuing the cause of averting, the climate-change crisis.
Hartwell Paper on the Copenhagen Meet
The Hartwell Paper isn't overly critical about the Copenhagen Meet and it doesn’t border on cynical comments about any of the developed nations or any world leaders in particular that spearheaded this forum. However, it doesn’t mince words about explaining how the entire approach towards solving the global warming crisis was flawed from the beginning and indicates that the Copenhagen debacle was largely inevitable. The Paper repeatedly says that the ‘Climate Policy’ that was often highlighted at the Copenhagen Meet was largely based on the Kyoto Protocol and this concept itself is blemished. For starters, the UNFCCC-backed Kyoto Protocol perceived raising ecological performance across the world as a ‘policy issue’, i.e. it led people to believe that adopting or foregoing greener measures was essentially a matter of various national governments adhering to the standards set by the ‘Climate Policy’.
Page 15 of the Hartwell Paper puts forth an interesting explanation—“How climate change was systematically misunderstood 1985-2009?” Here, the inadequacies of the Kyoto approach are further explained. This includes an indication towards the wrongful assumptions that were made on the basis of summits that didn’t address the problem of emissions levels from a global viewpoint. However, it was noted at the Copenhagen Meet that adopting the ‘Climate Policy’ wasn’t as much a political issue but a socio-economic problem since many nations simply didn’t have the resources to adopt the proposed, environmental-performance standards. The Hartwell document calls for an undemanding approach. This is best exemplified by its proposal wherein it states that something as “all-inclusive” as the Kyoto Protocol should be further divided into separate, smaller units so that each issue can be addressed in an easier manner.
What lies at the core of Hartwell Paper?
The Paper substantiates that seeking emissions cuts or de-carbonization on a global scale is critical and pursuing this objective isn't wrong. However, it advocates that the approach of doing so should be more practical. The Paper uses the word ‘pragmatic’ for underlining the need to make global-level, de-carbonization policies, politically adoptable. Further, the Paper lays down three, basic objectives:
The need to ensure that energy resources are available for every global citizen, notwithstanding the level of emission cuts achieved by the parent government
The measures undertaken to reduce emissions levels shouldn’t be so penetrative that they further upset the delicate ecological balance that currently exists
Global societies should be prepared with contingency plans if they are faced with calamities induced by global warming trends—without this, the incentive for smaller, struggling economies to adopt emissions cuts and ecological performance is very limited. Adopting this goal is necessary because the advocated methods will take a long time to take effect. This is highlighted as the ‘resilience goal’ in the Paper.
Delving Deeper into Hartwell Paper’s Objectives
The Hartwell Paper is the work of independent analysts from across the world. As a result, it has been able to present solutions that are practical from a global perspective. Most of the suggestions presented by these authors emphasize on seeking a better ‘approach’ rather than find fix-all kind of solutions. Some of these suggestions have been explained below:
1. Dealing with Emissions Cut Policies
The Paper clearly states that having a single, global climate policy isn't the wisest approach. The reasons are simple—the environmental performance benchmarks set for every nation should be able to seek political and social acceptability within that nation. The Paper has put forth some goals like the Sustainability Goal. The Sustainability Goal is oriented towards ensuring that any kind of ecological policy is able to balance itself with the social and economic challenges with a particular region. This is something that was sorely missed at the Copenhagen Meet wherein many of the developing nations repeatedly said that putting them in the same bracket of environmental performance, as some of the more developed, European nations didn’t seem just. The Hartwell Paper also says that the increasing emissions cuts can be pursued only when the basic demands, including power supply, for various nations are addressed.
2. The Issue of Accessibility
Whether it is a global energy policy or an emission-cut policy, the basic idea should be to create a sustainable-but-affordable energy-supply resource. This ensures that the poorer nations are able to adopt the developmental standards that are being put forth by the developed nations. Essentially, what this means is that the presence of greener, affordable energy resources provides an unbiased platform for various nations to showcase their emission-cut or de-carbonization performances. The Paper uses statistics to emphasize this point wherein it states that 1.5 billion people around the world lack access to electricity—how does the concept of green energy make sense when even basic energy supply is not accessible? There is an urgent need to make the use of alternate energy sources like solar panels, nuclear plants and bio-fuels more ‘accessible’. Further, the Paper emphasizes that a part of the proposed carbon taxation should be dedicated towards the cause of discovering cheaper, greener energies rather than being incorporated as government earnings.
3. Looking beyond the Obvious
The Hartwell Paper makes a simple but rather interesting observation—if the gradual warming of our planet due to emissions is calculated, it emerges that only 45% of the emissions are being caused by the much-maligned fossil fuels—how about regulating the other, bigger 55% of the problem? The Paper tries to look beyond the usual issue of de-carbonizing economies through reducing fossil fuel usage. It quotes the example of black carbon or soot that is produced from internal combustion and is notoriously responsible for polluting our environment. The decreasing levels of air quality are also caused by non-fossil fuel gases produced from organic compounds like. Thus, looking at carbon emissions from a strictly industrial perspective too is wrongful.
First Impressions
Perhaps, the most unique aspect about the Hartwell Paper is where it says that emission cuts or de-carbonization cannot be looked upon as measures to solve global warming and the resulting, climatic vagaries, i.e. environmental performance can neither be achieved quickly nor it can outdo the damage induced by carbonized emissions in a calculated period. The Paper’s ideology seems to be aimed towards making people understand that becoming greener or adopting sustainable technologies should be pursued as a continued process of attaining a better equilibrium with our ecosystem and not looked upon as a cure to any ‘problem’ since ecological degradation isn't a short-term crisis but a culmination of how we have lived for countless years.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/05/hartwell-paper.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8673828.stm
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/mackinderProgramme/theHartwellPaper/
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf
DoBeGreen
we share environmental information




