In an interview with Pallavi Aiyar, her first to the press since taking over as the new European Commissioner on Climate Change, former Danish climate and energy minister and host of the UN climate change meet at Copenhagen, Connie Hedegaard, lashes at her critics, praises Jairam Ramesh, admits the Kyoto Protocol is a hard sell in Europe and insists the EU continues to be the leader on climate issues. Edited excerpts:
As you are going into your new job, a series of scandals is shaking the credibility of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). The admitted errors on the Himalayan glacier data followed on the heels of ClimateGate. How will it impact your work?
It’s up to the IPCC to correct what’s to be corrected. The weight of the IPCC consists in the research done by thousands of researchers and I have seen nothing yet that fundamentally changes the fact that with a very great likelihood, the human factor is part of the whole equation, although natural causes have their role. There may be some specific areas like the Himalayas where data must be corrected and the chairman and board (of the IPCC) and the UN must take care to be as accurate as possible.
For me, as a politician, what matters is that if we do not listen to this (IPCC’s conclusions), then we might run a huge risk on future generations’ behalf. If we have to wait until scientists are 100 per cent in agreement, by then it will probably be too late to start responding to the challenge. We know that by the middle of the century, we will have nine billion people on this planet, all of them wanting a share in the good life, in modern amenities, transport, housing, food, cooling and heating, including the 400 million Indians who so far have no electricity. So, even if the science 20 or 30 years later shows that the conclusions for global warming are different from what they are today, wouldn’t it be a good idea in any case to invest much more in energy-efficient solutions, to have transport systems that consume less energy and better energy security?
At Copenhagen, there was a lot of bad PR that you received in the Indian press. You were seen as the architect of the leaked Danish Draft, that the Indian side claimed they had not been party to. Can you put the question of this Danish draft to rest? What was this draft, who had been consulted and what role did you have?
When we opened the conference there were several working documents. It was unfortunate that only one working document was leaked, taken out of context and that created a lot of mistrust. It was particularly used by forces who were really not interested in a good agreement at Copenhagen. Try to find any incoming COP presidency that has spent as much time, money, and effort in reaching out to developing countries to know their position, to inviting them to talks, to finance, to capacity building, in order to build up trust.
The trust issue always seems to be the greatest obstacle when talking about international climate negotiations.
Also Read
There are two sides to this, because in politics, even though there is trust, you can always go outside and say, “Oh! I don’t trust this person,” and it looks like there is a trust problem. But, in fact I think the Copenhagen process was extremely transparent and key players were extremely closely involved in everything. When people say there is this mistrust, I would argue that in fact they knew very well the different positions of all the parties, but the reality was that in the end, there was a lack of will to compromise.
What is your opinion of the Copenhagen Accord, the main outcome of COP 15? And, of the process by which it was arrived at, with the US and BASIC countries agreeing to it behind closed doors, without the presence of the EU or Danish hosts?
It was coincidence that the EU was not present, since President Obama was wanting to see the Chinese Premier and went into this room and it turned out that all the emerging economies were there, so we should not over-emphasise that (the EU absence). The fact is that for the first time we saw 80 per cent of the emissions in the world represented in one room, all of them accepting that we should strive to stay below two degrees (rise in global temperatures) and they all said we feel a co-responsibility for doing this; differentiated but common responsibility. That was a good outcome.
Also, there was progress on national communications, technical details, in which Mr Ramesh played a very constructive role. But, it was regrettable that the heads of state could not agree on the (emissions) targets. That’s what the process going forward to Mexico and maybe even South Africa the following year will be about. How we can have targets delivered.
What of the future of the Kyoto Protocol? Does the EU remain committed to the Kyoto architecture?
It’s clear that it’s a hard sell in the EU to say that, “Oh, we stay there but the rest of the world, they do not want to be part of that (Kyoto Protocol).” So, what should be there after 2012 (when the Kyoto Protocol expires)? What matters to us is that we should have the United States and other developed countries come on board and we all know that the US would then say, “Yes, but then China must be equally legally bound.” That’s easier said than done. Of course, the EU cannot see itself alone bound by Kyoto forever, if the rest of world is not there.
There is a sense that the EU perhaps uses the US as an excuse? Is it that the EU is just not willing to come out and say, ‘Kyoto is not going to work’, so they use US reluctance to sign on as a ruse to ditch Kyoto?
Well, many would say that there is a huge problem with Kyoto, because only a fourth or third of the world’s emissions are addressed by Kyoto. So, that must be changed. But, that is in fact what changed at Copenhagen, with heads of states representing more than 80 per cent of global emissions saying, ‘We have a co-responsibility to address climate change’.
There is a perception that the EU is overly soft on the US, which is the greatest ‘culprit’ when it comes to climate change. Yet, the EU tends to blame China and other emerging economies that have virtually no historical responsibility for emisisons, per capita emissions levels that are a fraction of the West’s and far greater developmental concerns as well. Why?
I don’t think the EU was soft on the US in recent years. I don’t think the Bush administration thought that. The one crucial fact is that you will never have a new international agreement unless you get the US on board. If there is a perception that Europe did not bash the Americans as much as before in the fall of 2009, it’s because that would have been counterproductive with the (US) Senate, and we all know how difficult it is to get enough votes there. We (Europe) put a lot of pressure (on the US) behind closed doors, but we put this pressure in a way that is not counterproductive for the whole outcome.
For long, the EU claimed leadership on climate change but Copenhagen seemed to show it was a leader without followers. How is the EU going to try and regain this leadership role?
If you look at which regions have delivered the most so far, Europe is the leader. We are also the leader in committing to a unilateral 20 per cent target emissions reduction target and a 30 per cent reduction conditional on other countries doing more. We thus try and put pressure on other parties to make them deliver. But, I think it’s very important that Europe act with a uniform voice, that there is a strong European voice and for us to have a flexible mandate. Because, when you have to agree between 27 individual countries, then once you find a common denominator, it gets locked. The European Commission is very much interested in securing that (flexible mandate), in a good dialogue with (its) member-states.
What was your assessment of India’s role at Copenhagen?
I’ve usually had a very good dialogue with Minister Ramesh and I know he also took on his own fights back in India and I thought it was a very positive sign when India, only a few weeks prior to Copenhagen ,internationalised some of the domestic initiatives and ensured that before Prime Minister Singh went to Copenhagen, the entire internal system in India, the parliament, had agreed that we had to do even more (to fight global warming).
Over recent years, India has changed from saying this is just about promising never to emit more per capita than the rest of you do, to saying, “Okay, we know that with 1.1 billion people, then it also matters to the whole global equation what we do.” And, on the other hand, the rest of the world also recognises very much India’s need for growth and development. So, we must try and strike the right balance.”