Opinion

We asked leading scientists, politicians and business people to tell us their hopes and fears for the imminent climate change talks.

R. K. Pachauri

My best hope is that developed countries agree on commitments to reduce emissions by 2020 more or less in keeping with the stated position of the European Union. I also hope that there will be a commitment to fund mitigation and adaptation measures in some of the poorest countries, as well as some arrangement for facilitating access to technology. My expectation is that if these measures are committed to by the developed world at a reasonably early stage, several developing countries will put forward their own national action plans.

My biggest fear is that we get a weak agreement which does not represent any commitment to action. If that happened there would be a great deal of finger-pointing, and gloating on the part of the vested interests who would like to defeat any effort to get a meaningful agreement. I believe such a scenario would represent a major setback.

R.K. Pachauri is chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

John Schellnhuber

We can no longer hope for an ambitious legally binding agreement. The decision-makers have clandestinely sacked the "Bali road map". This leaves room for better or worse. If leaders really wish to avert the imminent crisis, they can seal a political deal that limits global warming to 2 °C and sets fair principles for burden sharing, as reflected especially in the equal per-capita budget approach where national emissions budgets are set according to population. This outcome may actually be superior to a hasty pact. In the negative scenario, a combination of procrastination and pusillanimity could result in wasting time for nothing.

John Schellnhuber is director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, and a scientific adviser to the chancellor, Angela Merkel

Richard Lindzen

I fervently hope that Copenhagen will avoid canonising the absurd notion that climate is determined by any single parameter like CO₂. The dubious attempts to link this parameter to every form of catastrophe is producing unwarranted fear. Imposing this notion as a matter of international law will set science back several centuries. The accompanying policies seem designed to do the same for society as a whole. The carbon control movement, like every malicious movement, seeks to cloak itself in an aura of virtue. Sentient citizens should be able to see through this patent ploy.

Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Jeremy Leggett

I most hope for an agreement for mass mobilisation of clean energy technology as though for war. We know we can do this if government, business and people come together in a critical mass. But if we are to do it, the days of rhetoric without action and greenwash without investment must end forever. The majority of governments have sought a treaty with teeth for 20 years now, and time is running out fast. Leaders tempted to present a non-binding framework agreement as a ground-breaking advance must not be allowed to get away with it.

Jeremy Leggett is a renewable energy entrepreneur based in London

Raúl Estrada-Oyuela

Unfortunately, the lack of clear US policy on emissions reduction will prevent the conference from achieving its aims. In fact since 2004, when Copenhagen was arranged, it was clear that the timing was wrong. A US government inaugurated in January 2009 had no possibility of adopting a new climate policy in 10 months, after eight years of denial by the Bush administration. The best possible outcome will be a serious political commitment of all parties, including "mega" developing countries and Russia, to continue negotiations in June 2010.

Raúl Estrada-Oyuela is an Argentinian diplomat. He chaired the 1997 Kyoto protocol negotiations

Richard Folland

The financial sector has a major stake in Copenhagen. Decisions there will affect investment and business. At J. P. Morgan, we are significant participants in the carbon market as traders, project developers and in voluntary carbon offsetting.

Our hope for Copenhagen is that we get clarity, to set out the long-term policy framework that investment needs. Parties could, for example, reform and improve the Clean Development Mechanism. This is criticised, sometimes justifiably, but its achievement in incentivising private finance for clean energy projects in developing countries is undeniable. Our fear is that an inability to reach an agreement puts these decisions on hold, thus delaying investment and therefore emissions reductions which are urgently needed.

Richard Folland is climate change and energy adviser to J. P. Morgan

Susan Solomon

I'm very confident that armed with good understanding, society will ultimately make good decisions. In the past few years the world has come a very long way on public understanding of climate change and agreeing on the need to deal with it. Nobody would have expected such an improved level of comprehension five years ago. That is a major advance that I hope will be celebrated no matter what the outcome of the meeting happens to be. My biggest fear is that the science will be misrepresented due to the strong emotions surrounding this meeting. Keeping emotions separate from science is hard, but it's fundamental to a lasting and durable understanding that is needed for real progress.

If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.