COP15 Host Connie Hedegaard: Time to Get Off the Fence

"The crisis has presented us with a marvelous opportunity to rethink the way our society is structured, and the way business works. Most people accept that "business as usual" is not an option. Something has gone wrong. So we need to do things differently in future."

The Danish Climate Minister, Connie Hedegaard, heads the team of negotiators preparing for the climate summit in Copenhagen in December. Time Magazine has just placed her in its top hundred of the most influential people in the world – a list that is otherwise dominated by Americans.

And she will certainly need influence in order to meet her target: to get 192 signatures on an ambitious agreement that obliges participating countries to start cutting their CO₂ emissions fast.

Preparations for the summit have been underway for some time. But meanwhile, global economic growth has gone negative in the great majority of countries. This may weaken the political will to sign an agreement that has wide-ranging consequences for the economy.

"Everyone is preoccupied with what a climate solution might do to competitiveness. But I believe that innovation and new solutions can give birth to a new economy and create new jobs.

Whoever starts will win strategic positions that will endure throughout the 21st century," says Connie Hedegaard.

It sounds as though you want to stage the whole discussion of the climate agreement in a new way.

"I do. This is not about privation, but about solutions. In Denmark, energy technology exports rose by 13 percent in 2008 – more than twice as much as total exports. That tells us that these solutions can bring profit, growth and jobs. If political leaders understand the context, they will not wait until the economic crisis has passed before addressing the climate challenge. Solving the climate problem is not a bar on growth. It's the only path to growth that we can afford."

Connie Hedegaard acknowledges that this understanding has yet to get through to global leaders. She compares the present phase of negotiations with the pick-up-sticks game "Mikado."

"All the easy sticks have been picked up. Now we've reached the point where the players have to take risks. We need something to happen for the game to continue."

This "something" is murmuring around government offices across the globe. But Connie Hedegaard has made it clear that most of the attention is focused on one particular place: Washington.

You've claimed that the Americans were sitting on the fence. How do you see things now?

"It's easy to have meeting upon meeting just to realize that things are moving painstakingly slowly. It's also worth remembering that exactly one year ago, the American President said that the United States would permit increasing emissions of CO₂ until 2025, and only then start cutting emissions. President Obama has now said that the Americans will stabilize emissions at 1990 levels in 2020, and they are discussing going even further. We have won thirty-five years after the new administration in Washington took over," says Connie Hedegaard.

But the new American President is one thing. His political backdrop in the U.S. Congress is quite another, and the precedents are worrying. In December 1997, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, only to realize that he was unable to gain the necessary approval of Congress. To this day, the situation remains unresolved.

"In the White House itself, I sense a great willingness to go as far as they can. But of course they are also afraid of promising something they can't deliver. They are slaving away preparing an ambitious American policy, but there is great resistance in Congress. In the Senate, the President needs sixty votes. The Democrats can get there by the skin of their teeth, but to do so they need the backing of senators from coal states. And they have yet to win that backing. That part of the game will be played out over the coming months."

Even though the United States is of unparalleled importance, the picture is much the same, Hedegaard says, across the negotiations board. Big industrial nations like Japan and Canada have also shied away from touching the risky Mikado sticks so far. The same applies to the other major clique at negotiations: the developing countries.

"By 2020, emerging nations will represent two-thirds of all the CO₂ emissions in the world. Countries like China, India, Brazil, and South Africa need strong economic development, but they need to create their growth in ways that limit emissions. To solve the problem, we need them to be on board in the grand equation. The need for emerging nations to contribute to an agreement has only recently begun to be recognized, but understanding is gaining ground. For instance, a major nation like Mexico has set a target for how much they want to reduce emissions."

However, Connie Hedegaard still thinks that the richest nations bear a special responsibility. "Just look at a subject like financing. It's true that emerging nations themselves need to do a lot, but they always lack the technology, and some of them also lack the economic capacity to switch. This is where the rich world must help. We need to put the money on the table. We're talking about real extra resources," she says.

Where that new money comes from may be one of the major hurdles in the coming negotiations.

The sums are not small. For instance, Connie Hedegaard points to an expansion in the world trade in CO₂ quotas, with the poorest nations selling emission rights in order to finance their obligations. But quite different sources may also come into play, such as a global tax on bunker oil or kerosene.

"There is a 'polluter-pays' principle that is highly integrated into international environmental regulation."

The poorest nations of all are particularly vulnerable to climate change. They are being hit hard and have not contributed much to the problem. Connie Hedegaard thinks that this group of countries should also be interested in an agreement at Copenhagen.

"At the moment, developing nations are asking what use an agreement is to them. It's great when the U.S. establishes a Major Economies Forum for 17 of the richest countries, and it's all well and good when the G8 nations discuss among themselves. But we need to remember that Denmark is hosting a U.N. conference where 192 countries will be approving an agreement", she says.

Do you think a strong Copenhagen agreement is possible?

"I'm always being asked if I'm an optimist or a pessimist. I answer that I'm a realist. There is a very long way to go. But we are working hard to create an understanding for the fact that it is worth investing in what is needed to get an agreement. I know very well that some are advocating for waiting until better technologies are developed. But the knowledge we have shows that the worse the problem gets, the more expensive it will be to manage it, and the more it will threaten our traditional way of life. Or, to put it positively; the earlier we act the less we will endure in the way of prohibition and privation."

What does business need to do to get a successful agreement?

"Enterprises need to deliver good business cases. That will show that it isn't just political posturing when I say that it's good business to get ahead of the game. And it is a practical demonstration of how to do it. And businesses also need to help inform the public of the facts."

At the same time, though, she calls for business to demonstrate political realism and a will to collaborate constructively. "There is a tendency for businesspeople to want standardized rules for all countries all over the world. That's a lovely vision, but it will not be realized any time soon. By 2020 at best. And it will take many years before China joins in on the same conditions as everybody else. So I would like to hear the international business world's suggestions on how we realize our visions on those premises. How do we get there without damaging enterprises? What is the best way of getting through the transitional period?"

Jens Reiermann is a reporter for Monday Morning | jre@mm.dk

*Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in the May 25, 2009, issue of Monday Morning. Photo credit: CopenhagenClimateCouncil/PeterSørensen ©