Client_News

Houston attorney Richard O. Faulk, chair of the litigation department, environmental practice group and climate change task force of Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, is attending the United Nation Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen as credentialed member of the press.

His reports, including this one which appeared on Dec. 11, 2009, have been published in Andrews Environmental Litigation Reporter.

Some people think that "Climategate" will ultimately undermine everything that the UN is attempting to resolve in Copenhagen. The truth, however, is that the parties - all of whom profess agreement that man-made global warming is a reality - are doing a powerful job of self-destructing outside the scientific controversy. The divisive issue is, as expected, which nations will bear the costs necessary to deal with climate change, and how those costs will be apportioned.

Deputy Head of the Chinese delegation, Su Wei, demanded that the United States, the EU, and Japan make adequate reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. He clearly believed that the United States was the primary culprit, saying that the financial support from the United States to developing nations was the key to a successful conference. He then refused to accept a proposal that the "economically advanced" developing nations - such as China - commit to significant emission reductions and also contribute to the financing of mitigating and adapting to climate change in the poorer nations.

With this statement, China clung tightly to the Kyoto Protocol, which stipulated that no developing nations, even those which are economically successful, are required to cut emissions or provide funding to poorer nations. Su Wei showed no sign that China was willing to compromise on this "hard line" position.

If China thought it had a monopoly on uncompromising statements, it was quickly proved wrong when the United States stepped up to the podium. Todd Stern, the US Special Envoy for Climate Change, starkly rejected extreme positions, such as those that suggest that the US owes "reparations" for damages caused by historical emissions. He also disagreed, as did the last installment of this column, that China, as a prospering economic power, is comparable to poorer nations, essentially questioning China's status as a quasi-representative for the developing world.

The US position was apparently intended to drive a wedge between the Chinese and the truly "developing" nations it seeks to hold within its negotiating orbit. The strategy seemed designed to encourage nations not enjoying China's economic "boom" to form a new unit to deal with developed countries willing to provide assistance. Money, to be blunt, is the wedge, and it was refreshing, at least to American ears, to hear our government finally stand up and refuse to subsidize its largest competitor - a competitor that, to date, wants to do less, take more, and give nothing.

What can we understand about this situation? Can an overall strategy be seen from these developments? It is indeed possible to see something new and very different emerging from these activities.

First, it seems unlikely that the United States and other major developed nations are going to support any transfers of wealth from their coffers to the Chinese and other relatively prosperous "developing" nations.

Second, we may be observing the formation of a hitherto unlikely alliance between the most prosperous nations and the "most vulnerable" countries. This alliance benefits both sides by forcing the Chinese, and similarly situated nations, to accept reductions and make contributions in view of their emerging position as major - and increasingly prosperous - emitters.

In the midst of these machinations, perhaps the "most vulnerable" nations are learning to "let every eye negotiate for itself" by making their unique and morally sound case more visible. More importantly, perhaps they are also learning to "trust no agent" when cultural survival is concerned. The islanders and their colleagues probably recognize, by now, that trusting others to deliver moral messages is a dead end - especially when the proxies do not share common risks, when they stand to gain disproportionate advantages - and when they attempt to use someone else's money to advance their own interests.

Read and find Mr. Faulk's full report on the Climate Change Conference at the firm's website www.gardere.com.