Climatologist Jean-Pascal Van Ypersele at COP 15

 Interview prepared by Natasja Bohez Rubiano and Julien Demoustier

EOE: Do you think the Danish Prime Minister’s objectives to reduce CO2 by 50% in 2050 or the EU’s aims to reduce CO2 by 20% in 2020 are sufficient and realistic?

J.P. VY: That entirely depends on what you call realistic. If we want to prevent global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees, developed nations have to cut CO2 emissions from 50% to 80% by 2050. It is better to set objectives rather than not having any at all. In terms of what is sufficient to stop global warming, it is not enough if our efforts simply stop at staying below a temperature rise of 2 degrees. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) can however not determine “absolute” figures. In other words, we are responsible for recording scientific observations but establishing a limit for the rise of global temperature is ultimately a political choice.

EOE: How can the EU play a major role in the negotiations given that Europe is not the world’s largest CO2 polluter?

 

 

J.P. VY: The USA and China produce together nearly 40% of worldwide emissions whereas the EU is responsible for contributing to global warming with an emission rate of 12%. Notwithstanding, Europe plays a key role in the negotiations because of its credibility. We can not forget that we signed and ratified the Kyoto deal because of Europe, even if at the time opposition from the USA and Australia was fierce. What’s more, Europe is the only region in the world to group countries that put in place greenhouse gas emission trading schemes even before Kyoto entered into force in 2005. Meeting commitments to regulate and reduce emissions in the context of the Kyoto Protocol sustains Europe’s credibility to remain a forefront runner during the negotiations in Copenhagen.

EOE: Transport is not covered by the Kyoto Protocol although it is responsible for about 25% of worldwide emissions so the right priorities need to be set to make transport more sustainable to contribute to a low carbon future, how do you expect this to happen if no legally binding measures are taken at Copenhagen?

J.P. VY: If you set a price for carbon, it will automatically spread to all the sectors, including transport. The real challenge that we are facing is air traffic which within the transport sector shows the most rapid increase in emissions and is predicted to increase even more in the future. The problem with airplane fuel is that it’s not part of the evaluation system and is thus not taxed. This is of course a huge distortion for competition with the railway market. However, Europe is once again a forefront runner in this domain because it is pushing the aviation sector more and more to respect the environment.

EOE: Apart from statistics, there is much talk of different indicators to measure CO2 (the Chinese for example have proposed carbon intensity as an indicator). To what extent is this a problem given that this distracts the attention from the objectives?

J.P. VY: Indeed, if you use carbon intensity in the atmosphere as an indicator, you partly risk diverting attention from what is really emitted in the air. If we want to control pollution, it makes much more sense to measure emissions per inhabitant. It’s not possible for an American to emit 25 tons a year, a European 12 tons, a Chinese 5 tons and an African less than 1 ton a year if global CO2 emissions are to be regulated in a fair way. In the long run we need to evolve towards a situation where CO2 emissions per inhabitant are on a level playing field between developing and developed nations.

EOE: The discourse from industrialised countries and developing nations underlie very different interests, is it therefore not difficult to say that they are speaking a common language?

J.P. VY: We are evolving towards a better understanding because climate change is a global phenomenon. What needs to become compatible is the trajectory towards solving climate change. Even if the responsibilities are different, they are common. Developing nations insisted on this notion which is at the basis of the Kyoto Convention. We all know that climate is not an asset that can be negotiated; it is the patrimony of humanity.

J.P. VY: What are your hopes for the much expected COP15 deal?

That we may conclude a deal that is consistent with what the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change has put on the table. We command the means to reduce emissions because the technology and the technological resources are available. We see the change in attitude with over 100 heads of state reunited in Copenhagen. What we need now is the political will to successfully conclude a successful COP15 agreement.

 

 

 

Tags: 11th Issue

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website