Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant or accept liability for the accuracy or usefulness of the transcripts. These are copied directly from the broadcaster's website.
Danish document divides rich and poor -

View in ParlViewView other Segments

ELEANOR HALL: To the controversy over the leak of a document at Copenhagen that is splitting the
climate summit on day two of the event.

The leaked document from the Danish Government appears to suggest that developed countries could
end up with a far bigger carbon allowance per person than developing nations.

This sparked a furious response from poorer countries who argue the carbon burden should be borne
equally.

Antony Froggatt is a senior fellow at London's Chatham House and a specialist in energy,
environment and development.

He spoke to the ABC's Europe correspondent Philip Williams about the controversial document.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Well Antony Froggatt there've already been cracks emerging in the conference, I
suppose that's to be expected. But it seems to be a division coming down to the rich and the poorer
countries.

How can that chasm now be breached?

ANTONY FROGGATT: I wouldn't say that cracks are starting to appear. I think what we're seeing is an
indication of the political tension that is already existing. In the past, COP negotiations, this
is the fifteenth, that tended to only occur in the last few days but now we're seeing it on the
second day.

So for me it's a real indication that this is high political tension. In some ways it is largely
the usual split between the developing world and the developed world and the tension that we're
seeing I think is reflective of two things.

One is a sense from the developing countries - China, India, South Africa, Korea - they feel that
they've already put significant plans on the table to reduce their emissions at cost to themselves,
and to some degree at a cost to their own development and this can only go so far.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Is there a disproportionate burden on developing and undeveloped countries?

ANTONY FROGGATT: I'm not sure it's a disproportionate burden because we're all going to face this
problem. It is truly requires a global effort but yet we know that the developed world in some ways
has more finance available to pay for this.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: So is the answer, realistically, especially in the short term, that the developed
world simply has to come up with the billions to satisfy the developing world that yes, something
is being done for us here and now?

ANTONY FROGGATT: Yes. I mean basically there's a number of pillars of the Copenhagen agreement and
one of the key ones is financing and how much money is made available to assist developing
countries. Because putting in low carbon infrastructure, for example housing, is more expensive.
You can either knock them up cheaply and therefore they have low levels of energy efficiency or you
can spend a bit more and where does that money come from?

So it's clear that the developed world is going to have to pay. I would argue that what needs to
come out of Copenhagen is a very fast reactive fund which is for the next couple of years, which
will be in the order of 10 billion, but yet clear plans for going forward to 2020. How you are
going to generate the quite large sums of money, people are talking 150 billion per year by 2020.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: Unfortunate timing of course with the global financial crisis.

ANTONY FROGGATT: Absolutely. I mean on the one hand absolutely, I should say, because we know that
it's going to be expensive. But on the other hand some of these measures are actually, make good
economic sense. For example if you invest in energy efficiency over the long term you save
significant amounts of money.

And in particular if the price of energy is going to rise and we have seen that over the last, I
mean if you look back at what the price of energy was five years ago we're now double that and only
a year ago we were double what we are now.

So actually investing in some of these measures is actually good for the economy.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: National interest of course often overtakes these sorts of negotiations and every
country is out for the best deal possible, it's understandable. But is there a point do you think
during this conference where people do say, hang on, this is bigger than all of our national
interests, we do actually have to come up with an agreement because it's in all of our interests?

ANTONY FROGGATT: As someone who has studied this issue for a number of years I would say I hope so.

PHILIP WILLIAMS: But do you think that is actually what will happen in the end or do you think
national interest will still predominate?

ANTONY FROGGATT: I would say that within the framework of Copenhagen plus, ie. potentially another
conference in six months time mid 2010, and maybe even going into Mexico at the end of next year, I
think that there will be an international agreement, it will be a binding agreement, it will set
clear targets, it will set financing packages and it will enable adaptation and technology
transfer.

ELEANOR HALL: That's Antony Froggatt, a specialist in energy, environment and development with
London's Chatham House. He was speaking to Europe correspondent Philip Williams.