CONNIE HEDEGAARD (THE DANISH MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY) - 22 November 2009
Since the early '70s the Danes have been pretty much ahead of most of
the world on issues like sustainability, including carbon reduction.
They're not the hosts of the upcoming climate change summit by chance.
They've got serious environmental cred. So how does the host of the
summit, Connie Hedegaard, the Danish Minister for Climate and Energy,
explain why the international gathering - billed as the most important
in human history - now looks like producing nothing more than a lot of
spin and political hot air.
GEORGE NEGUS: Minister, thanks very much
for your time because you must be one of busiest human beings on earth
at the moment. Tell us this now. I mean, is it going to be a deal or no
deal, a treaty or no treaty, a legally binding arrangement or a loose
one, one stage or two stages? It's very difficult for ordinary people
out there, even boneheads in the media, to know what you're actually
hoping to achieve, because it seems to us that maybe the expectations
were too high. And now this is becoming almost a publicity stunt, a
marketing exercise to raise people's awareness that may or may not
achieve anything.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD, MINISTER, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY: You could call
it marketing or you could say to increase the political price of not
delivering in Copenhagen. And I really do believe that what we've been
trying to do over the recent two years is to take care that the
political price of not delivering in Copenhagen will become so high
that no country, no government can afford to pay that price.
GEORGE NEGUS: What's the political price?
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: I believe that, say for instance, the United States
came empty handed to Copenhagen, there would be a tremendously high
political price for President Obama and the administration.
GEORGE NEGUS: Would the whole thing fall over then and there?
They come
without an offer.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: You know, it's very difficult to predict what would
then happen, but I just think that if you have to make very, very
difficult international agreements, like the one we're trying to put
together here, then you must also take care that the awareness is risen
out there, that people know this is important, that businesses say to
their government, "We want you to act." That the civil society, NGOs,
all of them put their maximum pressures on ministers, on parliaments,
on governments.
GEORGE NEGUS: Sounds to me like what you're saying is that if
no actual
arrangement, no actual deal, no actual agreement, legally binding or
otherwise - it doesn't happen - then this has been worthwhile because
at least people now know what all the fuss is about.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Well, you could say that. Yes, that of course is
important. You could also say that in one sense Copenhagen is already a
success, namely in the sense that we, despite of the economic crisis,
have managed to keep climate change high on the political agenda
internationally. Who would have thought that?
GEORGE NEGUS: But you have almost been competing with the
global
financial crisis for the public's attention.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Of course, that was one of the scenarios that we had
not predicted. And, of course, that will not make a deal any easier in
one sense. On the other hand, many governments are looking after a way
out of the economic crisis and still more governments start to realise
that to turn our economies into green growth economies, that is also
one of the ways out of the economic crisis because it can create jobs.
GEORGE NEGUS: The two can work together.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: You have seen it here in Denmark. It can create jobs,
it can create income, it can create export revenues.
GEORGE NEGUS: Maybe the problem here is not political or
scientific or
economic, or even international. Maybe the problem is human. This is a
quote that I would like to read out to you. Scientific questions are
interesting and irrelevant, according to this writer. "But it was never
on the cards that Western societies would sacrifice economic growth for
the uncertain benefits of fighting climate change." People think at the
moment, they think about themselves, they think about their children,
they think about the economic benefits, they think about economic
welfare. They think there's a problem out there called climate change,
but they're not prepared to take that risk, but they will back
economics and their own welfare against the risk of what the effects of
climate change may be. In fact, what you are battling is not human
nature, it's human frailty.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Yes, but probably also human nature that we are
better relating to what we see just in front of us instead of relating
to something happening in the future. But there things that have been
changing because still more people realise that things are happening
already now, and I also think that the argument that this is not a
question of not having growth. This is a question of having a more
intelligent, a smarter kind of growth, when we know we're going to
become 9 billion people on planet Earth by the middle of this century.
I think there is a growing understanding that things are interlinked,
things are connected, and maybe the only way we can sort of preserve
our lifestyle is to invent smarter solutions, and solutions that will
not harm the environment as much as so far.
GEORGE NEGUS: Are you very happy with President Obama at the
moment?
There was the moment there where you sounded quite frustrated and angry
that he was prepared to accept a Nobel Peace Prize but wouldn't put an
offer on the table for a concrete deal.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: I still believe that it would be impossible for
President Obama to come empty-handed or to send his delegation
empty-handed to Copenhagen.
GEORGE NEGUS: Do you really think he will?
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: I believe that he, personally, and his administration
is doing their utmost to secure that they will not send an empty-handed
delegation.
GEORGE NEGUS: That sounds a bit like wishful thinking.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: No, not just that because the Senate could have
postponed this into the new year, 2010, but still very good and very
skilled people are working day and night to try to secure that they
have their own American legislation passed. You should compare it to
the fact that over the former eight years, they literally did not.
GEORGE NEGUS: True.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: It's a bit strong to say 'nothing', but they didn't
do enough. Now they are actually trying to change tracks back in the
United States.
GEORGE NEGUS: Yes. What do you want President Obama and the
Americans
to bring to the table because obviously you think, without that, then
very few other people are going to fall into line in this whole idea.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: I would very much like to see the Americans, as well
as other developed countries to bring ambitious reduction targets,
reduction commitments to the table, not just hot air.
GEORGE NEGUS: What does 'ambitious' mean?
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: but, but, commitments. If they cannot deliver as much
as, for instance, the European Union, or for that matter Australia, by
2020, what could they then deliver by 2025? What could they deliver by
2030? That would mean a lot to the whole equation. You asked me before
about what kind of outcome can we get from Copenhagen? Yes, it is
probably true that will not get the legally binding treaty down.
GEORGE NEGUS: That's a serious sticking point, isn't it? Other
countries don't want to be told by other countries what laws they
should pass.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Exactly. We want it to be something that can very,
very fast - after Copenhagen - be turned into a legally binding treaty.
GEORGE NEGUS: So, you have accepted the fact that in that
period from
December 7 to December 18, you are not going to end up with any legally
binding agreement at all?
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: We hope No, I don't think so. We would like to see
it. I would like to see it. My government would like to see it.
GEORGE NEGUS: If I can interrupt you, you have said, "Half an
agreement
is not an agreement."
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Exactly, and that is why, meaning, that means we want
to see an agreement that commit parties to reductions, to an adaptation
framework, to a technology transfer framework, and to specific
financial contributions.
GEORGE NEGUS: But no laws and no sanctions? Nothing you can do
to wield
a big stick, to say to these countries, "You have made these
commitments, keep them." They could turn a blind eye. They could look
away.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Yes, but you know, there are two sides to that.
First, we're discussing how can we measure, report and verify what is
being agreed in Copenhagen, and that is very crucial. On the other
hand, it is probably also true that where will you find the stick that
is big enough if, for instance, China and the United States said, "We
have committed to this," but what will you do with that stick if then,
after some years, you saw that they were running behind that schedule?
It is not that easy in the international community to find out exactly
how you going to do that, but you can try to secure that there will be
maximum transparency, that countries will be accountable to the world
community that we will know, we can blame you for what you did not live
up to.
GEORGE NEGUS: It sounds to me like these good intentions are
not
enough, but this is something as much and all as most people in the
world - sceptics, deniers and political conspiracy theorists aside -
would like to see something really positive come out of this, that it
is largely wishful thinking, and it's an impossible dream.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: As I see it, you can call it a dream but I don't
think there is any sustainable alternative and I can see that all the
other alternatives would mean that it would take much longer until this
world started to respond to the challenge.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is it possible that we all thought it was all
too easy,
that we never realised.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: I never thought it was very easy!
GEORGE NEGUS: such a large problem. You were never going to
get to it
in a few days in Copenhagen in December 2009. This could go on for some
time. You've said that you don't want the process to go on forever. But
is it one year? Are we looking at one year, two years, three years, are
we looking at - Kyoto took three years.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: But the problem is it has been at dragging on for
many years, many years without results, many international conferences
without anything coming out of that. So, I believe that you must, at a
certain point, say "Now we have this deadline." It was not set by me,
it was not set by Denmark. It was set by 192 countries. All of them,
two years back, said exactly what you just said - "We can't just talk
and talk. OK, let's set this deadline." And that deadline was
Copenhagen, December 2009.
GEORGE NEGUS: Our people, Penny Wong, the Minister for Climate
Change,
Peter Garrett, the Minister for the Environment, Kevin Rudd, the Prime
Minister, who is a friend of the chairman of this whole Copenhagen
exercise - are you happy with the way Australia is going? We're still
messing about, arguing politically about what we should and shouldn't
be doing. We still have our total disbelievers in the whole idea. I
mean, we may not come to Copenhagen and put something on the table for
you.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Well, I still believe that Australia will be among
those countries actually being able to deliver in Copenhagen. I was a
bit worried earlier this year but then I saw the proposals coming out
of Australia in May and June and I know that Penny Wong has now been
fighting to get it through your Parliament. We missed her very much at
the pre-COP.
GEORGE NEGUS: Because that was what she was trying to do.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: I know that she was busy trying to get it through
your Parliament. I mean, Australia will be one of the most affected
continents in the world, so I see absolutely no reason why you should
not be serious about this and I'm sure that Australians have realised
over recent years that this is definitely a very, very hot issue which
should be addressed.
GEORGE NEGUS: If we turned up here without something to - an
offer, as
you put it - and we were in the same situation as the Americans, for
instance, and there a lot of people in Australia that say we should
wait until after Copenhagen before we commit ourselves.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: But, still, your government has said that they will
come up with the targets - 24% compared to 1990, that it will be
reduced by 2020.
GEORGE NEGUS: Are you happy with that?
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: That is more or less almost, less 1%, but it's almost
within the range of what the IPCC, the International Panel on Climate
Change, has recommended.
GEORGE NEGUS: Is it possible that The Africans have already
walked out
of Barcelona in the pre-talks. Is it possible the whole thing could
come apart?
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Everything is possible within the UN system and
within these kind of conferences. We know there are differences, yes.
We know it's going to be difficult, but in whose interest would it be
if we gave up, after all this pressure, all these expectations out
there worldwide, if we, on December 18 in Copenhagen, we, the leaders
of sort of the world community, ministers from all countries said, "Oh,
we couldn't do it."
GEORGE NEGUS: We'll let you go. Thanks for talking to us. I
know how
busy you are. Thank you.
CONNIE HEDEGAARD: Thank you very much.
GEORGE NEGUS: Connie Hedegaard, Denmark's Minister for Climate
Change
and Energy, and how would you like to be in her shoes right now?
Where we are now, by the way, is the Copenhagen Congress Center,
appropriately with its very own wind turbine, where the great 2009
climate change drama will be played out next month. And I guess we're
just going to have to wait and see what emerges here in a few weeks
time - whether the formidable Miss Hedegaard and, of course, the Obamas
and Rudds of this world can actually pull off something vaguely useful
on the issues of global warming and climate change.