Is Copenhagen really that important?

Just two week ago the bishop of Den Bosch, a town in the southern part of the Netherlands
blessed 200 electric scooters, which were about to travel to Copenhagen. Copenhagen must
turn into a success and there are more than sufficient resources to make it a success. That is
the message the scooter ride wants to express. The whole campaign exudes an almost
childlike naive faith in the possibilities of politics and government. It also indicates that
"climate change" is beginning to turn into something like a religion.
The chance that a conference with more than 190 participating countries will be a success is
low. A meeting of this size is too complex, too large and too bureaucratic. But is it really crucial whether Copenhagen will be a success or not?

Opportunities and threats
When we in the Netherlands and perhaps elsewhere in Europe talk about important and
necessary initiatives, then there is an unmistakable tendency to look to the government for
help and guidance. Europeans tend to look at government as a sort of fountain of salvation.
But is that right? Are we looking in the right direction when we want action to combat
climate change? According to Ernst & Young, it is better to look at what the business is doing and what kind of initiatives is being taken in that respect. The consultants claim that, the theme of climate change has in one year’s time moved from place 9 to place 4 in the CEOs’ agenda. There has clearly grown a sense of urgency and this applies both to the big
international companies and for SMEs. "Climate change" has become a strategic issue
and top management is forced to take into consideration the possibility of (new) regulations
when planning new projects.
Behind this changed corporate attitude naturally there is more business than moral
consideration. According to AT Kearny share prices of companies that link their strategy to
sustainability fare 15% better than the industry average. This improved share price
performance is directly related to government policy. Worldwide, governments and tax
incentives last year totalled USD 430 billion. Governments are not only promoting, but also enforcing. Between July 2008 and February there were more than 250 global force
regulations. In the end we witness here a typical example of a "stick and carrot" policy.

A momentum of its own
The role of government is one of creating conditions. According to Goldman Sachs regulatory changes are starting to pay off. The time is not far away that the attitude of a
company relative to climate change will be decisive for his business achievements. The
investmentbank expects that in a not so far away future, 60% of the cash flow of CO2-intensive companies like utilities can pass from companies that have spent little or nothing on curbing their CO2 emissions to companies that have invested heavily in new technologies. The motto is: invest or go broke!
But isn’t that the precise reason why Copenhagen matters? Copenhagen should make sure
That the right decisions are taken when determining the balance in the “stick and carrot
policy. Maybe, but maybe not. What matters is the 'tipping point', the turning point, as
Goldman Sachs calls it. And it looks like this turning point is near. Whatever the outcome of
Copenhagen investment in "renewable energy" world-wide will increase by 50% to USD 200
billion. Regardless of Copenhagen the U.S. doubled its 2010 spending on green energy to $
60 billion, with the U.S., China and a dozen other countries will set up a fund of $ 177 billion for their joint green energy initiative.
National Grid, the electricity network in the United Kingdom shapes its policies according to
European and British regulatory requirements. Copenhagen will have little or no influence on this policy.
It seems that "climate change" is developing a momentum of its own and is moving towards the 'take-off phase. The effect will be that accelerating technological progress and mass production at low cost are within reach.
Is Copenhagen therefore a waste of time and money? ? That is a simplification of what happens. As the International Energy Agency announced in November, international policy is necessary to combat the effects of desertification, long periods of drought and counter the rising sea levels in many parts of the world.
The climate train has already left the station and an increasing number of industries are trying to jump onboard. And that is exactly how it should be done.

Sources:

[1] Ernst & Young, The business response to climate change. Choosing the right path, 2009
[1] A.T. Kearny Management Consultants, Green winners-the performance of sustainability focused companies
during the financial crisis, 2009
[1] HSBC Global Research, The green rebound. Clean energy to become an important component of the global
Recovery plan, 2009
[1] Deutsche Bank, Global climate change regulation policy developments. July 2008 – February 2009. February 2009
[1] Goldman Sachs, Change is coming. A framework for climate change- a defining issue of the 21st century. May 2009
Bloomberg, Copenhagen defied by$ 200 billion green investments, 2 december 2009