By Paul Luttikhuis

When the last negotiating session before the Copenhagen climate change conference, in Barcelona in early November, ended without much progress being made on the key issues, Yvo de Boer, for the first time, showed signs of frustration.

"Time is running out," the Dutchman who was appointed executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2006 told the media. "We do not have another year to sit on our hands. The deal must be done in Copenhagen."

With less than a month ago until the Copenhagen summit De Boer is more optimistic - or perhaps more realistic about Copenhagen. There may not be enough time left to work out all the legal details at Copenhagen, he says, "but we will have an agreement".

After the Barcelona conference you said, for the first time, there will probably not be a full treaty in Copenhagen next month?

"Yes, there are still too many texts on the table. There is not enough time left to turn all that into a treaty. But Copenhagen is not all or nothing. I still believe we will reach a strong agreement in Copenhagen. I still believe we will have targets from the industrialised countries, transparency from the developing countries and clear rules about how to finance it all. And I believe we will have the kind of rules that will allow the new framework to become operational immediately. If there is clarity on these three points, we will have the willingness on the part of the international community to work towards a treaty. Working out all the legalities will take some more time, perhaps six months."

Do you think the US will ever sign a treaty that resembles the Kyoto protocol?

"Why not? After all, they signed the 1992 Rio climate treaty. Its rules were much vaguer, dealing with the obligations of the industrialised world as a whole. Now it is much more specific. The Americans didn't turn down Kyoto because it was an international treaty, but because there were no targets set for the developing countries and they were afraid it would hurt their own economy. The Americans are saying they want a legally binding instrument this time."

But a new treaty will cost a lot of money, and the financial effort still won't be divided equally.

"That's true, but the climate agenda is no longer an isolated issue. One of the main incentives for climate change policy recently has been Russia's shutting down of the gas supply to Ukraine. It combined the three main issues: energy supply, competition and the climate. It has become a common agenda.

"Already after the oil crisis in the early 1980s there were calls in the US to rid ourselves of our addiction to oil. If you look at Obama's economic recovery plan, a big part of it is about creating jobs in a new sector of the American economy: Obama is trying to link the energy supply, the climate and employment.

"Of course countries will have to spend money in the short term, but we know that doing nothing will cost more in the long run. There will be imperfections in the international market at first; it will take time to work these out. But there are 400 million people in India who don't even have access to electricity – you can't reduce what you don't have."

Isn't the problem with the developing countries that their rich people are hiding behind the poor people?

"If you look at per capita emissions India is still at the bottom of the list. Of course there are rich people in India. I wouldn't be surprised if it had more millionaires than the Netherlands has citizens. But that's no reason to apply a kind of climate discrimination. Do we really want a situation where people pay a certain amount if they make 20,000 euros a year and twice as much if they make 40,000?"

The question is whether you should look at per capita emissions or emissions by country.

"The developing countries want to look at per capita emissions and historic emissions. Science discovered climate change was a real problem some 15 years ago. By then the West had already had a century of industrial development and pollution. We got rich while the problem didn't exist yet. So we can't just tell the developing countries: in order to solve the problem you have to remain poor."

What are the biggest obstacles in Copenhagen?

"They are mostly financial. Rich countries are afraid they're going to be spending a lot of money on reducing greenhouse gases, while their industry runs off to the developing countries, resulting in zero gain. They're also afraid any money going to the developing countries will be used to strengthen the latter's competitive position. That they will in effect be paying the Chinese to produce goods at a cheaper price than they can.

"This is why it is so important to reach an international agreement that says: everybody is pulling their weight. That doesn't have to mean everybody is pulling the same weight, just that everybody is pulling."

It is precisely because everything is connected that the negotiations seem to have stalled. How do you get past the status quo?

"By bringing together the people who are able to make the right decisions and to put multiple proposals on the table. Rich countries need to come up with ambitious targets, and they have to bring money to the table. Then the big developing countries will be prepared to reveal their own plans, and there will be small developing countries with serious reduction plans that merit international financing. But all those things need to happen simultaneously. Europe has lately been saying: we are prepared to pay, but we first want to see the targets of the Americans and we want to see elaborated plans from the developing world. That's how you get into a chicken-or-the-egg situation."

So the EU should make the first move by saying: this is what we stand for?

"Exactly. That doesn't mean they have to sign a blank check. Europe should have said all along: we are prepared to pay this much if you are prepared to do this much. That way you don't just bleed money; it is linked to certain conditions."

What is the point where you can ask developing countries to contribute?

"That's the wrong question. India is already spending 2 percent of its BNP on climate change policy without getting any international support in return. China has a 20 percent energy efficiency improvement target, which it is funding itself. China is the number one producer of wind energy technology. In the absence of an international treaty many developing countries are already doing a lot to adapt to the consequences of climate change and, in their own interest, to make their economy more efficient. I would almost say that China, without any outside help, is now the world leader in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

"The question is: how do you make sure those ambitions do not distort competition? And how do you apply financial aid to make sure green technologies that wouldn't stand a chance otherwise are implemented anyway? This is not subsidising other countries' competitive positions, but financing niche environmental technology. The Kyoto protocol already has an instrument that allows countries to reduce emissions at home, or to do it in the developing world where it is cheaper. This is about a lot of private money, and just a little bit of state aid."

But it is precisely the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) in the Kyoto protocol that has come under criticism because it is supposed to encourage corruption and is altogether an unwieldy instrument. Was it ever more than a failed experiment?

"It is an experiment that involves billions of euros. It's true that it's just a drop in the ocean compared to the work that has to be done. The main criticism of the CDM is that it is far too complicated. And why is it so complicated? Because countries want to make absolutely sure it will effectively lead to a reduction in emissions. That's how you get a complex and expensive bureaucracy.

"But these instruments all started out as experiments. The same is true for emissions trading in Europe. Far too many emission rights have been given away for free in the beginning. Now the belt is being tightened and companies are being made to pay for pollution rights. That's what you call learning by doing: you gain experience and you adapt accordingly. Politically speaking it was very smart to go about it this way."

Experts are always stressing the need of a binding treaty in Copenhagen. How bad is it if we fail?

"We will have an agreement. We just won't be able to work out all the legal details in Copenhagen. It's like voting a law imposing an 80km per hour speed limit: it won't go into effect until January 1, but we're already going to observe the new speed limit because we know it's better for the environment. I'm talking about a list of targets from the industrialised countries, a list of commitments from the developing countries, and a list of financial contributions. If the Netherlands or Canada or the US are on the financial list, there isn't a politician in the world who will be able to backtrack on that, provided that those lists are part of a treaty."

Do you think the US will come up with their own reduction targets? The fight in the Senate over climate change is far from over.

"I believe Obama will come up with a figure. And if he's smart it will not be higher than what is currently being discussed in the Senate. Otherwise you will get the same stand-off between the government and the parliament that proved fatal for Kyoto. I got a call just last week from [Democratic] senator John Kerry. He said he is sticking to the 20 percent reduction in the legislation currently being debated. So if Obama goes for that 20 percent he has political support. If he goes for more he will be on his own."

Meaning that the US is sweeping the entire Kyoto protocol under the rug?

"That's correct. But right now America is 14 percent above its 1990 level. So if Obama would say now: let's aim for a 30 percent reduction in 2020 compared to 1990, that means the US would have to reduce emissions by 44 percent in 11 years time. That's just impossible. Countries are where they are. We can't rewrite history. You can't force America to first undo the entire Bush era."