To start with, it is expected that the talks at Copenhagen will not produce a new treaty to replace the failed Kyoto Protocol, but the aim is rather more modestly to produce agreement around a set of “core essentials” for movement on future negotiation.  

This is nothing more than a replay of what happened in the run-up to the conference that produced Kyoto, where most of the participants agreed “in principle” to the essentials of the treaty, but then proceeded to water it down, wreck it and sabotage it, finally turning it into a dead letter with the withdrawal of the United States.

Worse still, the principles to be agreed upon are a step backward on what was agreed upon at Kyoto.  Rather than being driven by any desire for international cooperation in the face of an unprecedented crisis, economic concerns such as how willing countries are to reduce their emissions are at the centre of negotiations.  

Beyond this, there is talk for the first time of how much developing nations, such as India and China, are willing to do.  This is something that was explicitly left out of Kyoto, in the interests of international equality and because the vast bulk of greenhouse gas emissions are not from these countries.  

Twelve years on and the situation remains much the same – global inequality is still entrenched and the eight most industrialized nations still account for nearly half of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. 

So why all the excitement about the conference?  

While many environmental activists would agree that the aims of the Copenhagen talks are fatally modest, most nonetheless continue to put the main of their efforts into convincing the various delegations to take a more principled stand on regulating greenhouse gas emissions.  But climate negotiations have proved to be a dead-end. 

The first attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the global stage occurred in the 1990s.  The 1990 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, a group of leading scientists convened the UN, predicted dangerous rises in the global temperature if carbon emissions were not cut by 60 percent before the year 2040.  It established a new sense of urgency on the issue that led to the signing of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992.  Although the parties to this agreement accepted that climate change was a serious problem, there was little in the agreement that produced any action.  The stated ‘first step’ of reducing carbon emissions in industrialized nations to 1990 levels by the year 2000 was entirely voluntary and in all but a few unusual cases, still has not been met.

The failure of the UNFCCC to curtail growing emissions only increased the urgency of action on the issue, and led to attempts to create a stronger treaty, and the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.  While the reductions in emissions required by the Kyoto Protocol were only very small – only 5.2 percent across the developed world – it did seem that some ground had been broken in enforcing the regulation – the targets signatory nations committed themselves to were to be “legally binding”.  When the time came for implementation of the treaty, however, it began to fall apart.

Nations with competing economic interests sought to incorporate loop-holes in the treaty that would allow them to continue carbon emissions at the expense of their rivals.  Two key mechanisms through which this was achieved were emissions trading-schemes and carbon sinks.  Emissions trading schemes effectively allowed countries to exceed their emissions caps by trading away pollution with nations who hadn’t exceeded theirs.  Attempts at instituting such schemes were usually dismal failures.  One scheme in the European Union, found that the “carbon credits” given out were in such high demand that they were over-allocated, combining with an effective collapse in the price of the credits rendering effective regulation difficult, if not impossible.

Carbon sinks are meant to work by supposedly reabsorbing carbon produced by industrial activity.  The idea is among nations with both large emissions and large areas of forest and in some proposals, grasslands, wetlands and oceans.  Countries with large carbon sinks are able to gain extra credits, essentially reducing their emissions through watching trees grow.

The economic interest of countries was a determining factor on their position in negotiations.  Both the United States and Japan – who formerly opposed any legally binding limitations on emissions – substantially increased carbon dioxide emissions in the period 1990 to 2000, the US by 12 percent and Japan by 14 percent.  Along with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Russia and the Ukraine, they favored the use of carbon sinks to offset emissions, allowing themselves a slight increase.  The main support for a scheme that was “tougher” on polluters came from the European Union – also for economic reasons.  The European Union had increased carbon emissions by only 1 percent in they 1990s, mostly due to decreases in the United Kingdom and Germany.  In the United Kingdom the decrease was occurred as recession and international competition closed most of that country’s coal industry, forcing a switch to natural gas as a source of power.  In Germany, the decrease came following the reunification of West Germany with an economically destroyed East.  These results were then combined with the rest of Europe, offsetting the high increases of some European nations and producing only a small net increase.

In March 2001, worried about the damage that could occur to its own economy while its chief rivals were left untouched, the United States unilaterally pulled out of Kyoto.  As the treaty had to be ratified by nations accounting for more than 55 percent of the world’s carbon emissions (the United States alone produces about one quarter), the hand of other countries opposed to tougher standards was strengthened, forcing the European Union to concede on point after point and Kyoto was wrecked.  The “legally binding” nature of the treaty was dropped, and was replaced with language that made it “politically binding” – meaning that the only penalty for not reducing emissions was a bigger target for reductions in the next round – hardly a convincing way forward for the global environment.  As is usual in a world dominated by capitalism, the interests of economic competition had at every turn won out against international cooperation.

So if the world’s nominated “leaders” are too concerned with squabbling over the profit rates of their economies to save us, who can?  Socialists see the solution as lying in the hands of ordinary people.  By this we don’t mean the so-called power of public opinion – what we mean is that the interests of ordinary, working class people line up much better with environmentally sound approaches to the economy than do those of political and business elites.  We need a new perspective on the environment, a radical break that takes us away from all the tired old institutions of capitalism, dominated by search for ever-growing profits, and replaces them with new institutions centered on environmental health and well-being – which means human health and well-being.

There are a number of reforms that could be implemented very quickly that would not just improve working people’s quality of life, but also make a substantial reduction to emissions of greenhouse gasses.  Transportation is the third largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and a substantial proportion of that comes from cars.  Free, accessible and decent public transport already exists in some cities around the world and could vastly increase the mobility of millions of people, while at the same time being both more efficient and environmentally friendly.  Comprehensive insulation would not only make homes warmer and cheaper to heat, and eliminating the health risks posed by cold, damp and moldy houses, it would also contribute to reducing emissions from New Zealand’s third largest source of carbon dioxide emissions (and the single largest source internationally) – electricity generation.

Additionally, working class organizations and unions can be some of the most effective fighters for environmental causes.  Strikes for the preservation of areas with environmental values – so-called green bans – were a particularly effective form of environmental action taken by the Builders’ Laborers Federation in Australia between 1971 and 1974.  42 Green-bans were initiated in conjunction with residents groups to help protect environmentally and historically significant sites ranging from neighborhood forests to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney.

Ultimately however, reforms won’t be enough to save the planet.  Much more far-reaching change is needed.  We live in a world run for corporations and dominated by the profit motive.  Capitalism is addicted to the cheap hit it can get for burning fossil fuels as its number one energy source, and it’s unlikely to be weaned off it without massive economic upheaval.  Changing that means a revolution in the way society interacts with the environment, including a revolutionary change in our institutions and social structures.  We need to effect a change from burning fossil fuels to more renewable energy sources.  Industrial activity is the second-largest source of greenhouse gasses worldwide and many of the largest polluters earn subsidies for doing it.  These need to be ended, even if it means that the profits of the bankers and industrialists take a hit.  In the final assessment, industry itself needs to be reorganized, adopting new technologies and processes to serve human and environmental needs rather than the endless pursuit of profit.  Already glimpses of a solution can be seen, in the best interests of working people and in the attempts of workers and activists to change the world around them by living “cleaner and greener”.  What remains, is to give them the power.