Addressing Climate Change - Remarks by H.E. Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia

New York - UN, 10.2.2008  |  speech

Distinguished President of the General Assembly,
Honourable guests
Ladies and Gentlemen

In April last year something unusual and potentially significant happened at the UN: The Security Council discussed the isues of energy, security and climate in a single, comprehensive debate.

Why was that debate significant?

Certainly not because of its outcome - it was too early to reach specific conclusions - let alone formulate a coherent policy.

Neither was that the only important debate held at the UN. Its significance stems from the simple fact that the issues of climate and security were addressed in a single debate and that the combination of the two was put before the Security Council.

This is significant because only the most serious, the most pressing, the most disturbing and the least promising issues of international peace and security are put before the Security Council. Only when other avenues have been exhausted- or missed - an issue becomes a matter with which "the Council is seized" - as we say in the jargon of the UN.

Involvement of the UN Security Council in the issues of climate change conveys a sense of urgency. And urgency has become central in any serious approach to climate change.

Several examples which demonstrate the link between security and climate change were put before the Security Council.

Melting of ice and rising sea levels are expected to produce major changes to the world's physical landmass and water availability, which, in turn, is likely to lead to border disputes and wars for territory and water. This prospect is likely to be preceded by emigration from areas which will become uninhabitable due to reduced freshwater availability and declining agricultural capacity. The war in Darfur has offered a taste of what might become a problem in many parts of the World.

Tensions around energy supplies and resource shortages add to the picture. Climate change will almost inevitably complicate the question of balancing World's climate and energy objectives. This balancing will be difficult to manage. Tensions, disputes and armed conflicts cannot be excluded.

It is no secret that the most adverse effects will take place in developing countries where poverty and social tensions represent an additional source of potential conflict.

In fragile states with weak institutions and systems of government, pressures resulting from global warming could pose insurmountable problems of governance. Local capacities are likely to become overwhelmed and unable to adapt to the new and growing needs and therefore a factor of instability.

On the other hand, the more developed parts of the world, including Europe, will not be spared. The rising sea level and more frequent and severe weather events, such as storms, floods and droughts are already occurring. These disasters have proven very painful and costly. The fact that their consequences in the developed world have been partly managed and – to add a slightly cynical note - "affordable", should delude nobody. As a harbinger of a new era of threats to our existence these disasters are frightening and should serve as an overdue reminder for action.

But even if considered only in terms of their cost, the disasters of the recent decades must be considered as a global problem of cardinal importance. According to IPCC, the economic cost of weather-related events in the period 1980 – 2004 totaled $ 1.4 trillion. This and other pertinent statistics add to the trauma of climate related disasters - and to the resulting call for action.

But what constitutes an appropriate action?

It would be naive to believe that the UN Security Council or any other political body could succeed in countering the threats coming from the global warming and climate change. It is clear that a much broader front is needed.

It would be unrealistic to believe that states alone can do the job. States, negotiating at the international level, define their national interest narrowly, most often insisting not to give up too much, and are usually thinking in terms of the immediate or short term effects. More distant objectives are much more difficult to include in an international negotiation. The natural result of this is incrementalism.

The state system as we know it has been developed for the purpose of minute management and careful adjustment. This is adequate for many international issues and will continue to be so. But there are large problems involving serious threats. In the face of such challenges we need, as many commentators insist, transformation, not incrementalism. We need real and immediate change, not gradual evolution. Now, more than fifteen years after the conference in Rio de Janeiro, we know that incrementalism will not do. We have a diagnosis but we have not responded with an adequate therapy yet.

Such a therapy requires, as a minimum, three sets of prescriptions/procedures. They are:

• Broaden the front,
• Negotiate now, and
• Lead by example.

The state system alone is too weak and inadequately prepared for the task. Strong pressure groups capable of changing social realities within states are needed. NGOs, the media and other elements of civil society need to be mobilized. Business sector will have to assume a critically important role. Innovation, new technologies based on clean energy, and the much needed changes in the patterns of consumption can emerge only as a result of changes in economy. It is encouraging to see the expansion of business initiatives aiming at such changes – in Europe, in the US and elsewhere. But business needs a proper regulatory framework and an adequate investment climate, including stimulating tax systems. Reliance on market forces alone will not do.

The second procedural prescription relates to the process of negotiations. At Bali an effort was made to accelerate the pace of negotiations towards a comprehensive global agreement on post -2012 climate regime. This has succeeded, but only partly. The Bali roadmap defined the timing and objectives but it does not in itself guarantee success. Hence the importance of the thematic debate of the coming two days. It is vital to start this year's negotiations wih an idea of benchmarks, so that the process of negotiation moves gradually and does not, as is usually the case, leave all the difficult issues for the endgame in 2009.

And finally and most importantly, there is a great need for leadership by example. It seems clear that that incrementalism in the global apoproach to the issues of climate change will not do and that a radical transformation of policy is called for. But such a change will occur only if the fear of the approaching disaster is serious enough and if a good way out is proposed. It seems that the existing awareness of the dangers we face is becoming mature.

Elements of the way out also exist but they still lack coherence and are not accepted as priorities everywhere. Both can only come as a result of inspired leadership.

The European Union is aware of that and has offered an example. Its recent decisions include, as you are aware, ambitious objectives. The key among them is to achieve, by 2020, a 20% green house gas reduction compared to 1990. This, obviously, the EU has to achieve as its independent commitment while it is prepared to achieve, as part of a general international agreement, a 30% reduction in the same time frame, i.e. until 2020. There should be no doubt about the seriousness of this and other commitments. There should be no doubt about the readiness of the EU to lead.

But the EU cannot lead alone. It can be an effective partner in the global leadership required now. It needs an indispensable partner - the US. Moreover, it is clear that the credibility of all global commitments and their implementation vitally depend on the US. Without serious reduction in greenhouse gases in the US the World is not likely to follow. Without serious investments in the US in science and technology the solutions may be too late.

Is the US indispensable? Yes, it is. But indispensable also means interdependent. The EU, i.e. another indispensable player, is also aware of that. This is why it has proposed two sets of targets – those achievable individually, and the more ambitious ones which can be achieved together only . It is easy to see that only the more ambitious objectives are likely to suffice. But for that to happen leadership is needed. As often before, the world is facing a clear realization: in matters of climate change, leadership is the key.

And it is not only the key to solutions of the issues of climate change but also the key to credibility and global leadership in general.