Openhagen

© Michael Bührke

© Michael Bührken, Source: pixelio.de

© BMU

© BMU

View large image in photo gallery

Everything is open. This is the conclusion drawn by many after the Copenhagen Climate Summit that many pinned such high hopes on. Great disappointment prevails, a compromise rather than a solution being the only result. It was not for nothing that Copenhagen was coined “Openhagen” by the media. What are consequences of the open end of the climate conference? And what does this mean in concrete terms for the international packaging industry?

Copenhagen, 7 to 18 December 2009. International Climate Summit. The media hype is enormous, hopes are high and expectations low. Representatives from 194 nations intended to negotiate – and adopt – a follow-up agreement on the Kyoto Protocol. Over 40,000 people are said to have travelled to the huge event held in the Danish capital. Heads of state demonstrated optimism while climate experts and environmental organisations were sceptical. Rightly so – as it turned out: the Climate Summit is considered a failure.

Minimum Consensus

The original goal was to bindingly decide on the core elements for a new climate convention. This goal has not been achieved. From the EU’s point of view the Conference should have been concluded with a new legal convention to follow on from the first compliance period of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. As a second step the aim was to at least conclude a political agreement that defines the key elements of a new convention. Over the last two days of negotiation a group of representative heads of state and government developed the “Copenhagen Accord”: a political declaration so far only of a binding nature for those states involved. Here some core components of the future international climate policy were laid down. The Climate Conference plenary, i.e. the general assembly of all 194 member states to the Climate Convention, took note of the text and accepted it as a basis for the negotiation process. However, the paper did not meet with the approval of all states. However, industrialised nations and the vast majority of the developing countries support the adoption of this Copenhagen Accord. In contrast to the targets previously laid down by the EU this result is a minimum consensus achieved primarily between the USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. And the only alternative would have been to part without any agreement whatsoever.

The Contents

In the “Copenhagen Accord” all supporting states admit to the target of limiting global warming to below two degrees. Industrialised nations commit to economy-wide reduction targets by 2020 with progress being verified in 2015. Developing countries pledge voluntary self-financed climate protection measures and accountability towards industrialised nations. Furthermore, industrialised nations will make available up to $ 30 billion for climate protection in developing countries for the period 2010 to 2012. For 2020 it is agreed to mobilise $ 100 billion annually for climate protection measures. The majority of these funds are to flow via a “Copenhagen Green Fund” still to be established. Additionally, a “Technology Mechanism“ and a “REED Mechanism” are to be installed with a view to providing additional assistance to developing countries.

What Now?

To keep the temperature rise to below two degrees thereby preventing the worst consequences of climate change, largely greenhouse-gas-free economic operation is required. Global emissions must be reduced by over 50%. This means the necessary reductions in industrialised nations amount to between 80% and 95% by 2050. The trend reversal must be reached by 2020 at the latest. This again means that by 2020 industrialised nations will have to bring down their emissions by 25% to 40% as against 1990. To attain the 2-degree target developing countries will also have to reduce their emissions by 15% to 30%.

But what do these figures and agreements mean in concrete terms? What are the implications for the global economy? And for individual companies? The concrete repercussions to be expected are still unclear. In this connection Welt.online comments that CO2 emissions are inextricably intertwined with the existence of billions of people and asks: “What would be the benefit if temperature rise was limited but human existence and activities were ruined in the process?” If you tried to supply the world with 100% energy from renewable sources this would cost $ 100,000 billion according to recently published figures. The abstract target proposals made by climate policy come up against clearly existential limits.

Packaging as Climate Protection

That there is a need to act for everyone will not have gone unnoticed by any company in industry and trade anymore. Like many other sectors of industry the international packaging industry also responded a long time ago. Reduction of CO2 emissions, indication of carbon footprint, sustainability, etc. – these are the buzzwords of our time and therefore top the agenda for most every packaging manufacturer. The future doubtlessly lies in climate-friendly packaging, be it paper, cardboard, (organic) plastics, metal or glass – all packaging material producers bank on recyclability, the use of renewable raw materials and publish remarkable life cycle assessments. This holds great opportunities especially since the packaging industry has been used to making its contribution to environmental und climate protection for years now. This holds true for the production of packaging materials and aids, as well as for all other packaging-relevant processes from automation to weighing and filling technologies, in brief, for all links of the supply chain. And until there are any concrete instructions to act companies can only follow the once charted course of good practice – whereever this may lead.