|
Editor-in-Chief Toby Heaps blogged from Copenhagen from December 8 to December 19, 2009.
UN climate chief Yvo De Boer told press today that the climate negotiations which he had been characterizing all week in cable car terms (stopped, going, etc.), had turned into a roller coaster. He said the Copenhagen Accord was "embraced" by the conference this morning. And that the Accord was a “letter of intent, a willingness to move forward." He later clarified that the conference had "taken note" of the Accord, which "is a way of recognizing that something is there but not going so far as to directly associate yourself with it." Yvo also emphasized that his sense was that almost everybody would sign up to the Accord.
Asked if Copenhagen proved you can't have a legally binding process within the UN, Yvo replied: "Inside a UN setting we have have built [with this Accord] the kernel of a long-term, response to climate change."
"You could argue it is better to address climate change within the G20. It works from an emissions point of view, but it does not work from an equity point of view of who is affected. Part of the reason why people went to the trouble of inventing the UN was so that when we address concerns, like climate change, we take everyone into account."
Yvo said, "I spent about 10 hours yesterday in a small room with President Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Calderon, and another 20 heads of state who were into the nitty gritty of drafting the final text of the Copenhagen Accord."
Yvo said that as a result of Copenhagen, developed countries now better appreciate that the vast majority of developing countries have no intention of letting go of the Kyoto Protocol, and consequently the need for two tracks going forward (Kyoto, and another one for the U.S. who was not party to Kyoto).
One thing Yvo did not mention was that all the countries who sign up to the Accord will have to put down on paper as part of the Accord their mitigation targets or actions in the case of developing countries--which is pretty significant for developing countries.
Obama also managed to escape Copenhagen without doing anything to give unhelpful US Senators excuses to feel like they are being dictated to by the international community. The upshot of this will make it easier for John Kerry to deliver on his guarantee of passing climate legislation in 2010, but as China only came around half way on transparency, this legislation is almost sure to contain border measures to apply carbon tariffs to Chinese imports and other major economies that shirk transparent carbon standards.
Yvo said his Christmas list of two years ago has not changed as a result of Copenhagen. At the top of the list in time for Mexico next year is a legally binding treaty that will keep emissions to levels consistent with holding temperature increases to 2 degrees C.
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf
Key parts in my view:
2 degrees C: We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity.
Memorializing rich country specific reductions: Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economywide emissions targets for 2020, to be submitted in the format given in Appendix I by Annex I Parties to the secretariat by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document.
Memorializing rich country specific actions: Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions, including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex I Parties in the format given in Appendix II by 31 January 2010, for compilation in an INF document, consistent with Article 4.1 and Article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Those mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in appendix II. Mitigation actions taken by Non-Annex I Parties will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years.
Copenhagen Green Climate Fund $30 billion then $100 billion: The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.
Copenhagen Green Climate Fund: Copenhagen Green Climate Fund : The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 to 2012
with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.'
1.5 degrees C: We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Convention's ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Todd Stern, the U.S. climate envoy said this morning the US wanted the Copenhagen Accord to be considered within the context of Article 7.2 (c) which is:
"(c) Facilitate, at the request of two or more Parties, the coordination of measures adopted by them to address climate change and its effects, taking into account the differing circumstances, responsibilities and capabilities of the Parties and their respective commitments under the Convention;"
China's take is no way. They oppose the measure as they don't consider the Copenhagen Accord to qualify as "measures," which begs the question: what exactly do they consider the Copenhagen Accord to be then?
Bolivia's representaive, who has the nicest voice of any delegate this morning, said they want to ensure the UNFCCC logo is not used in affiliation with the Copenhagen Accord, before begging for the meeting to close for the sake of her own human rights, as she has not slept in 48 hours.
US Climate Envoy Todd Stern just said good-bye to a bunch of people and left the plenary with his suitcase on wheels.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon just took the microphone on the Copenhagen Accord. He started off with a joke: "I hope our heated discussion has not helped to increase global warming."
He got down to business: "We have taken a significant step to a global agreement to limit and reduce greenhouse gases. I believe that through this Copenhagen Accord, we will all be able to get what we need."
He said there are three test going forward:
- We must transform this agreement into a legally binding treaty in next year.
- We must launch the Coepnhagen Green Climate Fund ASAP to help the most vulnerable affectd by climate change and jumpstart clean energy in developing countries.
- We need to pursue the root of higher emissions not folow the path of least reisstance. As current mitigation committments still fail to avoid the path down toward dangerous climate change.
He also said: "Never in history have so many leaders directly enaged in global negotiations of such immense complexity and importance."
Ban finishes with a call to arms: "We have risen to the challenge at this conference. Today we have taken a significzant step forward but the road ahead is still long and difficult. But it is a journey we must make together. Science demands it. The global economy needs it. And the many lives depend on it."
USA: Regarding the Copenhagen Accord, can you clarify that memebers of the conference of the parties will be notifed in wiritng of their ability to participate in this accord.
South Africa wants it to be noted that the setting in which the Copenhagen Accord was crafted was a COP (UN conference of the parties) setting.
Solomon Islands, which stands to be under water, tells Plenary that "we have put our lives in your hands, in the hands of the 25 countries that have come up with this accord. History will judge us. It is not just about finance. It is more about survival."
Papua New Guinea takes the floor and endorses the UN SG's statement. He calls the Copenhagen a quick-start mechanism, which begins to build some of the architecture needed to get going.
Bolivia lays down its position that this COP has taken note, but has not adopted the Copenhagen Accord. He suggests that the process to join Copenhagen Accord cannot be under the UN, but under Denmark or someone like that. This is going to be a sticking point.
Saudi Arabia is trying to to marginalize the Copenhagen Accord outside of the UN as well, and says it will oppose the UN COP playing any role in making it more formal than it is.
The meeting President says he is about to fall asleep after having been up for two days.
Pakistan joins consensus to take note of the Copenhagen Accord, but objects to its lack of transparency, which he says has opened a chasm between countries. He says the road to hell is paved with good intentions and demands that the Copenhagen not be used as any sort of precedent for future decisions.
China has the floor: Maybe all of us are too tired. He appears to be trying to scuttle any shred of relationship between the Accord and the UN, objecting about the Appendix of the accord, which is the most important part because that is the part that lists country's emissions targets/actions. China is worried this may confer obligations on it, which I think is the whole point, at least at some point.
The Chair's response: I am going home. Someone will replace me. Have a happy season. I am going home to a temperature of 25 C.
Venezuela: What was agreed by Venezuela is taking note, and we want it to be noted that the Accord does not enjoy consensus. We trust that the presence of the Secretary General will help parties to not use further devices or ploys to spoil this.
USA Todd Stern up: I am interested to here the comments from my colleagues from Bolivia and Saudi Arabia. I recognize that there was not consensus--there were at least 5-6 countries out of 193 countries that were not in favour of the Accord. I would also like to note that this kind of undertaking is provided for under the Convention 7.2C. This is an opt-in provision. This includes $100 billion in funding per year by 2020, and $30 billion over next three years. It is open to any party interested in participating.
The Conference opened up with a professional this morning. “The Conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen accord of 18th December 2009. The accord will be attached and list of those agreeing to the title shall be specified in the title." “Bam,” goes gavel. Done. Nice. I am not sure exactly what this means though I think it is a victory for the Copenhagen Accord. But the floor here will have the opportunity to debate it, shortly, I hope.
Someone is gonna die. It's 9:04 am, and this thing is still going. I am sitting on a couch outside the Plenary, seriously worried that one of these 60-year old diplomats who have pulled three all-nighters in the past four days might just keel over.
Right now, although I believe passionately in the UN and its ideals, this is the most screwed up meeting I have ever seen, and that is saying something for someone who has had exposure to US third party politics.
Here is where things are at:
President Obama, presumably ignorant as to the bizarre sociology of these UN meetings, screwed up big-time by going on TV and announcing a "meaningful deal" before the vast majority of countries here had even seen the text he helped hammer out. As the G-77 walked out of one of their plenary sessions, there was Obama announcing "we have a deal." Many were stunned to see this and took great exception at the breach of protocol.
Then, after pulling two-consecutive all-nighters, the Danish PM, heading up the conference convenes all the delegates, many of whom had never seen the text of the "Copenhagen Accord", and says, here you go, take a look at this and let us know your thoughts in one hour. A number of countries went ballistic, including Sudan, who strangely was one of the countries that produced the Copenhagen Accord who likened the process and document to the Holocaust.
There seems to be two serious options at the moment, and one creative way forward put forth by UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband.
- Adoption: The Conference of the Parties adopt the Copenhagen Accord.
- Rejection: The Conference of the Parties chose to just include the Copenhagen Accord as a miscellaneous submission to be filed somewhere not too important, and to have a Cop 15.5 in 6 months or so.
The UN is a consensus organ, and so over the course of this meeting tonight/this morning, just one or a few parties have been able to completely hold hostage the rest of the world on moving forward.
Ed Miliband has proposed an elegant solution: Take option 1, and include as a footnote those countries that object. In effect, put your hand up if you object, and you won't get any money.
The countries that want a 15.5 are:
- Saudi Arabia
- Nicaragua
- Bolivia
- Venezuela
- Cuba
- Tuvalu
China has been conspicuously quiet, saying nothing all night. I am getting the feeling China is not that concerned to see a deal go through. The Maldives said, without naming China outright, that in the meetings of the 25-30 leaders that produced the Copenhagen Accord, the big developing countries had played a destrictive role in nixing strong committments developed countries were willing to make because of their own unwillingness to reign in emissions. China's lead negotiator Su Wei told me that he knows the US Senate will not ratify any deal that leaves China without binding obligations, and he doesn't care too much. In his view the US Senate will come around to China's point of view at some point. As Su put it: "In China we have a saying. It is worth waiting for a feast. And we are happy to wait for this banquet."
The poor Danish Prime Minister does not look good at all. He is dangerously sleep-deprived and basically being propped up at the moment by a seasoned looking veteran diplomat, who whispers in his ear what to say. I think it is a pretty safe bet Denmark will never again apply to host another of these UN climate change meetings as long as he is Prime Minister.
In the future, these meetings should be run by professionals who know all the players and issues, as this is not working.
The UN honchos and Danish PM are huddled on the main plenary stage in a legal pow-wow it appears fleshing out Miliband's footnote solution. I am hoping the delegates will show some mercy, and take Miliband's elegant solution.
It's 5:20 am. There is certainly no Copenhagen Consensus at the moment. Obama is somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean in Air Force One, and he and other world leaders, are looking like they left before the job was done. After more than an hour hiatus, the meeting reconvened, with the Danish PM proposing a compromise to consider the Copenhagen Accord a submission. Nicaragua seemed to nix this. And the Danish PM, President of the Meeting, took off without further notice. Everyone is milling about, and the outcome is up in the air. This is bizarre theatre.
The Danish PM is back and mumbled something about including the Copenhagen Accord as a submission document, identifying which parties put their names to it. India has expressed concern that the Danish PM should ask those countries for permission first.
Nicaragua has withdrawn their request on behalf of them, Cuba, Venzuela and Bolivia to suspend the meeting.
Sudan is up again, repeating their position that this document is a pox on developing countriies and the UN. Sudan is calling this a "suicide pact, an incineration pact." He just said this agreement is based on the same values that piled 6 million people into furnances in Europe."We do ask you to destroy L-9, destroy it, delete it from the UN system completely."
Maldives has starting speaking. Sudan is back. He had not finished to tell the Danish PM in his role as Prime Minister, he has been biased, violated all the rules of transparency and fairness.
Maldives weighs in: "I commend the leadership of Danish leadership. We have a real danger of UNFCCC talks going the same way as WTO talks. The science is suggesting that this cannot be allowed. We have a window of space in the next seven years to present the world climate from reaching tipping points." Maldives asks countries to adopt this document to large applause.
Canada finally. To compare this initiative to the Holocaust is profoundly offensive to me and my delegation. These remarks should be withdrawn.
Ethiopia now: on behalf of the African Union, yes, like any other multilateral discussion, the document is a compromise document. As Maldives has said, action postponed is not in the interests of people that will be hurt by climate change.
Brice Lalonde from France is up: Heads of States representing 4 billion people worked to get this document. We are deeply wounded by the accusations and suspicions when all we did was try to break the deadlock.
Sweden for the EU: "It does represent the way forward. The reference to the Holocaust is despicable."
Senegal: We support Ethiopia, however we regret certain points not reflected in this document.
Ed Miliband from the UK wants to speak, but his microphone doesn't work. So he has moved over to use the microphone of the US but it does not work either. It is working now. "We have two roads. There is a road of document that has been produced that has been done in good faith that is by no means perfect. It is a document that in substantive ways will make the lives of people better. It does a limited number of things, but important things. The other choice is what Ambassador Lumumba offers us. It is a choice of disgusting comparisons to the holocaust and of wrecking this conference. What will world think of us if we come out after two years with simply an information document? I urge you Mr President for this document to adopted as a Conference decision." Long applause.
The Danish President says: "Four countries oppose Miliband's proposal, so it cannot be adopted. I urge every country to sign this document."
Cuba is getting indignant, accusing the UN of blackmail.
"This paper will not be adopted," says the Danish PM.
Slovenia proposes solution: This paper could be adopted with a footnote where the countries against it are listed by names.
Gabon says they endorse that these negotations were constructed in good faith.
Grenada greets delegates with "good morning," as it's 6:10am. There was absolutely no indication that this was an illegal process. Grenada calls on major parties to follow through on their commitments. She says I cannot sit here and see the work of my government, my PM, and my long tired self to be thrown out. I call on my brother from Sudan to rethink his conclusions and to get hold of his emotions, and I will help him. I too am unhappy. We have to help each other, not condemn each other. I encourage us to go forward.
Japan says we are here to do our utmost to save the earth. It is shameful of ourselves condemning each other while the whole world is watching us.
Papua New Guinea enters. "Papua New Guinea supports this document. But many of the flaws are due to us as G-77 countries ourselves. Many of the Annex 1 countries were willing to pledge deep cuts, but G-77 countries cut them out. While many of the Annex 1 countries sent their leaders, some G-77 countries sent their officials and it was these officials who struck out these commitments.Over 100 leaders have come here. The world is watching us. We support adopting this."
Todd Stern from the US now: "We applaud the chair. There was broad participation from 25-30 countries including the President of the US. The President met with the leaders of China, Brazil, and South Africa to bridge important gaps. It is disappointing to see the work down there not recognized or in some cases disowned by some people who participated in it." Stern says the UN itself stands on trial on this issue.
Norway says for one week, nothing happened. But he says one step forward is much better than two steps backward. He also takes great exception to climate aid being called a bribe. "I am not a lawyer. My mother is a lawyer, but I have no intention of being a lawyer. However, it seems that if the vast majority of countries want to move together should be able to move."
Russia also supports adopting the accord.
This thing just keeps going and going.
I am sitting outside the Plenary Hall with Jack Layton and Olivia Chow.
The Danish PM has just introduced the text and asked the parties to review the Copenhagen Accord and to come back in one hour.
Tuvalu is not happy: "We work under the umbrella of the UN. Within the UN, we as nations are given respect large or small. We have processes to consider the matter collectively. This is called the conference of parties. This is disrespecting the UN process."
Jack Layton comments, "These guys do have a considerable stake, they're the first ones to go under water."
Tuvalu goes on: "Anything above 1.5 C spells the end of Tuvalu. Can I suggest in biblical terms, it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future. Mr President: our future is not for sale. Tuvalu cannot accept this document."
Now Venezuela is not happy either. "We demand we should not suspend these talks. If we have to make a point of order by cutting our hands and drawing blood to convince you of our right to speak, we will."
Jack just came back with the new text, and unlike the version at the New York Times, the targets for countries listed in the Appendix are blank.
There are some important changes between the document that was left when Obama took off and the one that was just circulated to diplomats at the Plenary. The chart for rich countries' mitigation previously included: emissions reductions by 2020, status of the pledge and whether the pledge included land-related emissions. The new one just includes emissions reductions, base year, and the fields are all empty.
The information for developing country mitigation lists "actions" in the new version rather than "targets."
Bolivia is unhappy as well about the methodology as they are being given a document they haven't had access to, and asked to come back and give their opinions on it in one hour. "We do not believe this is respectful. We are seeing actions in a dictatorial way. This is unacceptable."
Cuba too, predictably is unhappy. They just called Obama an Emperor. "I regret deeply the way in which you have conducted this conference. I can already tell you we will not accept this." Jack points out: "They get hit with the hurricanes, they know what the hot sea is like."
The U.S.' Jon Pershing is up next. No, wait. Now Sudan is speaking. Sudan says, "Mr PM says I actually pushed the button when I saw Nicaragua." The Danish PM throws up his hands: "Who wants to speak?"
Ok, here we have Nicaragua. They are trying to keep Kyoto alive. They are proposing a completely new agenda to suspend COP 15 and come back in June 2010.
The gauntlet has been thrown down. No one adjourned the meeting, but everyone is milling about.
It looks like the hour break, and the US didn't get to speak, which is probably just as well.
The New York Times has posted the latest text of the Copenhagen Accord
Though I am not sure how official it is, as there is a note on page 9 below the developing country carbon mitigation plans that reads: "This information has been obtained from media outlets and hasn't been confirmed with the Government of the countries listed above."
Australian PM Kevin Rudd's entourage just swept me into a press conference with the Prime Minister as I was on my way to get a quick bite for what looks like another all-nighter in the making.
"At 1am Copenhagen time this morning, we agreed on a Copenhagen Accord. ...This Copenhagen Accord, agreed to by 25 countries will be put to the Conference of the Parties, which understand will be submitted later this morning."
"This is the first global agreement on climate change action between rich countries and poor countries."
"This is the first time rich countries and poor countries have agreed that we should keep our temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius."
There is a big rift that has opened up in the G-77 group of developing countries according to the Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, is a Sudanese diplomat, who is the chief negotiator for the G77 group of developing nations.
However, on being pressed whether he was speaking for the G-77, he said "no." When I asked him if everything he said was just the position of Sudan, he said, "everything I have said is a personal statement."
Lumumba, who has been outlandish the whole two weeks, called today's Copenhagen Accord "the worst development in climate change history." He had many well-worn objections, but could not explain why key G-77 members, including China and India, did choose to put their names to the accord. When I asked him if the deal is bad why China and India agreed to it, he said, derisively, "go ask them."
Lumumba, also suggested, through I think erroneously, that the Copenhagen Accord, which allows countries to sign up to anytime in the future is annuled if any countries chose not to sign up. I checked with the Washington Post, who is here, and they didn't think it washed either.
We are still waiting for the EU conference and crucially the main plenary where all countries will be represented.
I just obtained a copy of the final Copenhagen Accord, and it differs from the earlier version in two significant ways that cancel each other out.
The final text of the Copenhagen Accord does not include the provision for global emissions to be cut by 50 per cent by 1990. Nor does it include the disguised equity in per capita emissions.
It does enshrine for the first time in an international accord for the first time emissions commitments from developing countries including China, India, Mexico and Brazil. That is a huge first step. While the transparency measures are less than some would like, Obama did make the point that a lot can be verified via satellite monitoring. He called it a good first step and trust building measure on the road to a legally binding agreement.
I am off to a scrum with G-77 lead negotiator.
- Accepts 2 degrees Celsius as a critical threshold.
- Copenhagen Climate Fund: Quick-start $30 billion 2010-2012 for poor countries. $100 billion/year to poor countries by 2020 subject to transparency of mitigation actions.
- Enshrines principle (thank you Nick Stern) that "low emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development."
José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission and Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt are just finishing a meeting and will be in the second press room of the Bella Centre shortly to make an announcement.
A U.S. diplomat just told a colleague and I that Obama is leaving in 40 minutes, and he will hold a press briefing before going, likely in a more private setting than the press room. Danish TV also confirmed that Obama's plane is booked to leave at 10pm Danish time in 2 hours.
Yvo De Boer said that a plenary of all the parties wil convene later tonight to seal the deal, so to speak.
The New York Times just reported:
“It’s not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change, but it’s an important first step,” the official said. “No country is entirely satisfied with each element, but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make progress.”
“Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of two degrees celsius, and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines,” the official said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/science/earth/19climate.html?hp
Because of the design of the Bella Conference Centre, the most direct route for Obama to get from his U.S. delegation private room to the room where the leaders are hashing out the Copenhagen Accord is along the top row of the auditorium. He just walked by again en route to the leaders' meeting room, and we caught him, with his negotaiting team in toe, waving just as he ducked through the entrance.
The next minutes or hours will determine a lot.
Ok. An official just told a full room of international press that "the US has no intention whatsoever of holding a press conference."
There is a problem, apparently, with the press conference room not being secure enough for thew leader of the free world to address a mob of press.
We wait.
So Obama was coming to a press briefing. Press scrambled in to the press hall, but so far no Obama. I just caught word from the Brazilian delegation that President "Lula" has left for the airport. That is either really good news or really bad news. Lula was an essential lynchpin bridge between poor and rich today meeting together with Obama, Wen, Singh to broker an agreement. Let's hope he left happy.
Stay tuned.
About 4 hours ago, I thought the Copenhagen boat had sunk.
Bjorn Lomborg, the climate sceptic was sitting beside me as I wolfed down a quiche and coffee. Bjorn looked smug as the cat that ate the canary. Meanwhile, Lord Stern, the economist turned climate crusader, looked like he might cry.
But the most recent leader’s draft, which has some blanks to fill in, but I think will be adopted, is a watershed moment in several crucial ways. Of course it does, in a few areas, employ the old Canadian solution for solving tough intractable problems: procrastination. Too bad the UN doesn’t have Royal Commissions.
The leaders of the world have just finished a meeting to flesh out the latest draft. And Obama is walking into the press breifing room where I am luckily already sitting.
See my analysis below, which will be updated as Obama speaks to us, which I think will be in a few moments.
Here are the big highlights:
- Accepts 2 degrees Celsius as a critical threshold.
- Cut global emissions by 50% by 2050 from 1990, “taking into account right to equitable access to atmospheric space.” [this, on the face of it, is a huge concession by the U.S. to China, India and other developing countries, as it says that we are have same per-capita rights to greenhouse gas emissions. This works out ok, if the incoming low-carbon economy brings emissions down dramatically all around. But God help us if the convergence point is closer to current rich country levels than poor country levels.
- Copenhagen Climate Fund: Quick-start $30 billion 2010-2012 for poor countries. $100 billion/year to poor countries by 2020 subject to transparency of mitigation actions.
According to a U.S. official, the U.S. underestimated coming into Copenhagen how much of a sticking point keeping the Kyoto Protocol would be. The Kyoto Protocol divides rich and poor countries, with one set of obligations for rich countries and essentially a soft to no set of obligations for poor countries. Coming into Copenhagen, the U.S. wanted to get rid of this segregation and have just one arrangement for all major countries. The poor countries dug in and said that was a deal breaker. The poor countries seem to have won, which in one way is bad from the atmosphere’s point of view in that 97 per cent of the growth in greenhouse gases over the next two decades is expected to come from developing countries, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). But it is good for fairness, and there is enough tofu-meat in this accord to give rocket-boost to the burgeoning trillion dollar green economy, which should end up making many of the lower carbon technologies the cheapest option, eclipsing many of the concerns of poor countries reluctant to trade off development for the environment.And shattering the business as usual projections by the IEA.
The Copenhagen Declaration has been upgraded in name to a Copenhagen Accord, which I understand is higher on the pecking order of diplomatic outputs.
The Copenhagen Accord is set to include two appendices listing the carbon reduction measures taken by rich and poor countries. Rich countries (Annex 1 parties to the Convention), including the U.S., which was not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, will have to individually or jointly make “economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 yielding aggregate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of X% in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y% in 2020 compared to 2005.” Delivery of reductions and financing will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with internationally prescribed standard that is robust and transparent. While group targets have been announced in many communiqués, putting country specific emissions commitments to paper is significant. This measure allows China to safe face, and probably doesn’t make a big difference.
Poor countries (non-Annex 1 countries) will implement mitigation actions listed in an appendix to limit emissions, and will be subject to “domestic measurement, reporting, and verification, the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years.” This, although it appears silly, is a key concession by the U.S. which had said all conference that it would accept nothing less than internationally verified mitigation actions by major emerging economies such as China.
The rich countries are also promising to increase overseas development assistance by 100 per cent by 2020. Specifically, rich countries commit to provide “quick-start financing” of new and additional resources of $30 billion from 2010-2012 for balanced allocation between adaptation, mitigation, including forestry. In the context of meaningful mitigation mechanisms and transparency, developed countries support a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This $30 billion is unconditional and will include details provided in an appendix. The $100 billion, which will come from variety of sources isn’t as fleshed out, but calls for governance mechanism with equal representation by developing and developed countries.
The accord calls for this “Copenhagen Climate Fund” to support mitigation including forestry, adaptation, capacity building and technology development and transfer in developing countries.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 18, 2009
Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
Copenhagen Summit, Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009
Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
###
World leaders are meeting right now in the Arne Jacobsen Room to rescue the Copenhagen summit. Obama is in there as well. Sarkozy just came out and gave a briefing. Sarkozy said China is proving problematic because China is opposing putting their targets into a declaration. China is taking a hardline stance on transparency measures Secretary Clinton stated is absolutely necessary in order to establish a deal.
Obama’s plane has landed. I hope he slept well, as today’s talks are not going to finish early.
The likely outcome in Copenhagen has been downgraded from political accord to a political declaration, with a silver lining: a six-month deadline to agree to get a climate treaty in place that will keep temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius.
In the context of a vast gulf between major rich and developing countries, the economics of climate change Sherpa Lord Nicholas Stern, who is intimately involved in behind the scenes negotiations, is predicting Copenhagen may indeed be a success.
Looking battle weary on the last scheduled day of the Copenhagen talks, Stern told me just now between brisk strides: “There’s a lot of work to do, but I think we’ll get there.”
Last night, 28 world leaders including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leaders of major players at the summit from Europe to Asia to Africa to Latin America to the Maldives, met at President Sarkozy’s instigation to rescue the floundering Copenhagen summit.
Although he was in town, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, did not attend, instead sending his Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei.
Presently, about 28 heads of state are looking at text for a political accord they left their Sherpas to massage last night after they retired to sleep at 3am.
A western official who attended the talks said that the most unhelpful countries were India, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, which is seen as marionette whose dance is choreographed by China.
China remains the biggest obstacle to a deal, but is acutely sensitive to being isolated or singled out for Copenhagen failure.
The political declaration as it stands contains language to the effect that goes some way to addressing the “transparency” concerns [of verifying emissions reductions] of the U.S. that Clinton said is a deal breaker.
The prospect of countries applying carbon taxes on imports from free-riding countries (who do not place a price on carbon) remained a point of fierce contention, with China and other developing countries in opposition and the U.S. and France in support.
The political declaration in its current form, crucially, also contains text that would set a six-month deadline for reaching an international treaty to keep temperature increases to less than two degrees.
Stay tuned.
French President Nicholas Sarkozy and Brazilian President Luis Inacio Da Silva (“Lula”) just held a press conference in the ornate five star D’Angleterre Hotel (where Michelle Obama stayed on the Obama’s last trip to Copenhagen), announcing that they would be hosting a working session of world leaders tonight starting at 10:30 pm, intended to include representation from all the regions of the world to break the political impasse in Copenhagen.
President Sarkozy was careful to say that this session was not intended to cast aside the negotiations being carried out under the UN and Michael Cutajar, but to “reflect” them and help “establish political principles that have been in discussion for months to make Copenhagen a success. “We need to ratchet things up and switch gears. We need to use this time before us.”
President Lula warned that the “pessimism, which existed at the conference until a few hours ago, can be nefarious, yet I feel this could turn into a sense of optimism. It would be unforgivable for us to spoil Copenhagen.”
“The fact that we still have a divergence is justification for us to be here,” Lula said.
Asked how such a dinner could take place without the leader of the U.S., Sarkozy said that Secretary of State Clinton, who is here, is in position to move things to where they need to be by tomorrow morning. President Sarkozy also said both he and President Lula spoke to President Obama yesterday on this topic.
Originally the conference was planned to include Ethiopian President Eles Zenawi, but about 35 minutes before Sarkozy and Lula arrived, a third podium and the Ethiopian flag was taken off the stage.
Sarkozy said that Zenawi was on “the same wavelength as us," and that he would be speaking to him again shortly.
Sarkozy said that German President Angela Merkel and UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, were both supportive of this effort.
Brice Lalonde, Sarkozy Environment Ambassador (and cousin of U.S. Senator John Kerry), said he could not confirm if Premier Wen from China would or would not be attending. Sarkozy said he thought that China was right when it said that the U.S. could do more, but the U.S. was also right when it said that China can do more.
For his part, Sarkozy is pushing hard for a EU commitment to slash greenhouse gases 30 per cent by 2020 from a 1990 base year, while Brazil’s commitments are arguably more ambitious than Canada's, which is not a developing country.
Waxing philosophical, Lula said, “Politics is like a cloud. You look up the sky. It has a form. You look again. It has changed completely.”
Sporting a big smile, UN Climate Chief Yvo De Boer just announced that "the cable car is moving again," meaning that the countries have finally risen above the procedural wrangling to at least agree on the process they are going to use going forward: with two contact groups, one that will deal with the Convention and one with the Kyoto Protocol and then they will report back to the Plenary.
The Danish Prime Minister, who is President of this Conference, made it clear a half hour ago that the only basis for work will be the two texts put forward above.
However, there are a number of head of states here, and some of them are going beyond this process to develop their own ideas. De Boer is worried about too many cooks in the kitchen and too many kitchens, but said that engagement from Gordon Brown and other heads of State can
Hillary Clinton just held a press conference. She said two significant things, which were designed to--and seem to--put the ball squarely in China's court if this summit succeeds or fails.
- U.S. is ready to work with other countries to offer support of $100 billion per year to developing countries, with a particular focus on adaptation and forestry for the poorest and most vulnerable, IF all major economies agree to meaningful mitigation reductions and stand behind them with "transparency."
- Using the word transparency is a concession from the language that Climate Envoy Todd Stern has been using all week, which is "legally binding and accountable."
“In my 15 years of covering these climate talks, I have never seen the United States commit to this kind of long-term financing," Andrew Deutz, director of International Government Relations at The Nature Conservancy, the largest United States environmental nonprofit
She also suggested that President Barack Obama may not come to Copenhagen. She was asked if there were truth to the rumours the President might not be coming, in the wake of a negotiating process that has gone haywire, with procedural pettiness and "form triumphing over substance" according to Australian PM Kevin Rudd. Her reply: The President is planning on coming...Let's hope he has something to come for."
Copenhagen, Bella Center
After an all-nighter of international climate diplomacy, which seems be somewhat slower than the rates at which glaciers are melting, the main part of the text of the Copenhagen climate talks is back to square one.
It [Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action Under the Convention] is not only bracketed in its entirety (which means that the text is under discussion and not agreed upon yet) but many countries requested brackets on top of brackets, and some brackets on top of brackets on top of brackets with altogether new options, if that makes any sense.
Meanwhile Hugo Chavez just showed up, and heads of State from about 115 countries will all be here within the next 48 hours to hammer out a 192-country consensus, or go home with egg on their face. It is almost time to ask: do you believe in miracles?
Below is my recount of the marathon all-night session Tuesday night:
1:58 a.m.: It’s almost 2 a.m. Copenhagen time, and I am sitting amid diplomats from 190-odd countries who are milling about in a plenary hall waiting for the negotiations to resume, which, if you believe the scientists, may decide the fate of humanity.
The lights are bright enough to give you a suntan—as if you are in a television studio. I am sandwiched between Tajikistan and the U.S. Some of the observers have beer bottles, and there is a certain Benetton beauty to the mosaic of people, languages, and accents floating around.
The U.S. desk spots are well stocked with jujubes: the climate negotiator’s rocket fuel to survive all-night bargaining sessions.
A delegate from another country has come to chat with his U.S. colleague. The U.S negotiator says, “We are not happy. There is too much text to fix within 48 hours. Everything has to be dramatically shortened.”
Shining some insight into the difference a presentation can make, the U.S. delegate notes that he is happy to have the blue-line version of the text, as opposed to the red-line version. “The blue-line version is easier on the eyes,” he says. “It makes me feel more relaxed. It’s less stressful than the red-line version. I feel all my problems melting away.”
Both delegates agree that they are feeling the pressure of the impending arrivals of their boss. “Just saying your president is coming kind of focuses the mind,” says one.
All of a sudden, an announcement is made: G-77 [most developing countries] and China call a huddle at the front of the room. A little over 100 Africans, Asians, and South Americans converge at the front left of the room. I join the wave, but stand out a little with my Caucasian features.
At issue is whether to call it quits (on this session or the conference is not clear, as I cannot hear that well). A female G-77 delegate says: are we sure we want to do this. For the G-77 to be the reason for failure in Copenhagen. If that is that is what the group supports, I will support it. And we should go to the press right now. It is 8 o’clock in my country—we still have time to make the news.
I can’t believe it. Is this how international diplomacy is meant to work?
Then there's Michael Zammit Cutajar from Malta, the chair of the session, one of the main brains on which nations are depending on to piece together the most complex jigsaw puzzle ever imagined: a climate deal that can be agreed upon by the rich and poor world. Cutajar is a veteran climate negotiator and previously held Yvo de Boer’s job as executive secretary of the UNFCCC, and he's likely to chair the summit's final session.
Even more people are gathered around. Some stand up on the stage. There is a giant scrum.
The problem is Cutajar speaks so softly that almost no one can hear him as he goes through the negotiating text clause by clause. Everyone is straining their ears, and many delegates are snapping photos with the cellphones. Finally Cutajar decides to take the G-77 plus China crowd of negotiators to a more private place -- an enclosed room across from the plenary hall.
It’s now almost 3 a.m., and a group of delegates still left in the Plenary Hall start singing in a melodious tone: “Save the climate.”
I walk outside. Most of the couple dozen couches are occupied by snoring negotiators. While I snap a picture of this scene (which resembles a slumber party), I overhear a delegate walking and talking with a colleague: “Man. I don’t think we are going to sleep tonight and I only slept three hours last night.”
The problem is that the U.S. is quite unhappy with a large part of the text. In the fighting words of John Pershing, Deputy US Special Envoy for Climate Change, “We think it needs a fundamental revision. This does not reflect consensus.”
Pershing outlined several objections, and is incredulous that the U.S. had been snubbed on its top two priorities:
- That it not be brow-beaten by the international community to accept a greenhouse gas reduction target in excess of what it had already pledged and current U.S. legislation moving through Senate backs up (17 per cent reductions from base year 2005 by 2020)
- That major emerging countries are part of accountable for their more modest emissions commitments through a “binding” international agreement.
The revised text upped the ante on one, saying developed countries had to reduce emissions by 25-40 per cent from base year 1990, and included no similar tightening of language on two for developing countries, omitting the “binding” language so coveted by the U.S.
As chair of the meeting, Cutajar took pains to say that all the text is a package, “so it is goes by usual rule that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.”
As the Cutajar was looking pained in his remarks, a young blond civil society representative runs up the middle of the plenary holding a sign reading: “Smile, please.”
The chair admitted that the text was back to square one with everything bracketed, and asked to be allowed to transmit this text to the big meeting Wednesday morning (in several hours) to heads of the delegates.
But things were just getting going.
Dozens of countries felt compelled to offer brackets on top of brackets, essentially just repeating long-held provincial interests that will have to be rehashed today and the next two days, as the entire text is bracketed anyway.
Sudan said it was upset with the financing provisions of the document because not enough money from rich to poor countries kicked in fast enough.
The chair, looking weary, strongly suggested things wrap up: “I have my eye on the clock and hope that these indications will be quite brief,” but it was to no avail.
Algeria intervened many times, but Bolivia, who was sitting in Bhutan’s seat, took the cake for most interventions. Bangladesh wanted additional insertions, giving special mention to the least developed countries affected by drought and for the establishment of international adaptation centres.
The chair enjoined for closure, noting, “The list is getting quite long. I can see that you might have an appetite, but it does not appear to be for breakfast. Please keep interventions brief.”
Saudi Arabia and then Bahamas intervened, seemingly oblivious to the clock.
Norway and Mexico both asked that the work they had led for a shared deal between rich and poor countries be better reflected.
Tanzania noted its disappointment that “there has been no movement on key issues to reach an agreement we have been working on for two years.”
Sweden drew a line in the sand and said the developed countries could not be treated differently and that they must be subject to “rock-solid legally binding commitments.”
India chimed in with its well-worn per-capita argument (Indians are entitled to emit the same as rich countries), which sounds fair enough, but if adopted could put the world on path to be a great ball of fire. India wanted all emissions commitments to be within a “paradigm of equal access to atmospheric reserves.”
And so it went with countries repeating their well-worn parochial positions until about 7 a.m.
The chair at one point threatened to just get up and walk out, but the talks kept going.
The Chinese wanted the word applying to developing country action to be changed from “undertaken” to just “taken”. In the only showing of statesmanship of the marathon session, the Chinese delegate called out the agreement they had been working on as something that would lead to a “groundbreaking decision” for making progress on climate change.
Finally, a little after 6 a.m., countries stopped making suggestions to what is almost a meaningless document because it is entirely bracketed, and instead turned to praising the chair, who had demonstrated heroic proportions of patience and endurance.
As country after country heaped praise on the chair, I felt like the best way to thank him, would be to shut up, and let him get a couple hours sleep before today’s activities kick-off.
After the lengthy round of countries had taken the opportunity to thank the chair, which I guess is part of the anthropology of international summitry, he gracefully thanked everyone and closed the meeting with the words: “Thank you for accepting my grandchildren as part of your sea.”
Top 10 Reasons You Know the Climate Negotiations Have Been Going too Long:
- The lady manning the camera has not had a break in 23 hours.
- Diplomats are sleeping on their desks in the plenary hall.
- Delegates are sitting in the other country’s chairs.
- All the couches in the hall outside the plenary are occupied by snoring delegates.
- Blackberry alarm clocks chime off in regular unison.
- Women run down the plenary throughway carrying signs that read: smile please.
- Delegates are not sure whether to say good evening or good morning.
- Delegates continually catch themselves saying “tomorrow,” and correct themselves “this morning.”
- Delegates start getting silly addressing the Plenary on random unrelated topics, circa Muammar Qaddafi at one his far ranging UN speeches.
- The jujubes are all gone.
Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice just finished his press conference and he dismissed the hoax press releases, saying, "I am here to negotiate." The Minister's press people distributed a release for a photo-op of US Energy Secretary Chu and Minister Prentice to occur shortly after the press conference, outside of the offices of the US delegation.
I showed up there and noticed Steve Kelly, Prentice's chief of staff, having a raised-voice exchange with a member from the US delegation. The problem was the US delegation hadn't given the greenlight for a photo-op, just for closed bilateral meeting between the two.
Over the course of ten minutes, Kelly repeatedly asked the US delegation official to reconsider, to which the US delegation official replied in the negative. When Kelly asked for this to be taken up the chain of command, the US delegation official replied, "It came from pretty high up. The answer will not change."
The US official said he didn't understand why the photograph was so important, to which Kelly replied, "We were carpetbagged this morning by ENGOs with a false press release; I gotta change the story."
A second US official showed up and was able to get permissions for a compromise, which was no public photo-op, but an official Canadian photographer could enter the meeting to take a shot.
It makes you wonder when the US Secretary of Energy is embarrassed to have a public photograph taken with the Canadian Minister of the Environment.
I just confirmed the source of this morning's spoof press release, which has allowed fiction to stir up non-fiction (www.enviro-canada.ca/agenda2020). The project is trademark Yes Men.
It also turns out that the Wall Street Journal Europe article was also a spoof, complete with non-related links that checked out as well. The url was http://online.europe-wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704201404574590453176996032.html whereas the real WSJ Europe page is http://europe.wsj.com/.
It turns out that there were several other spoof pages including the UN Cop page and the Uganda press release.
The Yes Men are a sophisticated group of culture jamming activists, who Wikipedia describes as practicing “identity correction” by pretending to be powerful people and spokespersons for prominent organizations. From their offices in Milwaukee, they create and maintain fake websites similar to ones they want to spoof, and then they accept invitations received on their websites to appear at conferences, symposia, and TV shows.
I am sitting in the press briefing room where Canadian Minister of the Environment, Jim Prentice, is meant to be showing up for a press conference. Outside Equiterre Head Steven Guilbeault and PMO spokesperson Dimitri Soudas are having a heated conversation.
The big news at the moment emanates from press release that was circulated this morning, ostensibly from Environment Canada. The release titled "CANADA ANNOUNCES NEW AGENDA FOR CLIMATE AND WORLD DEVELOPMENT," broke with current policy to announce two bold new commitments: cutting emissions by 40% below 1990 by 2020, and "committing Canada to much-needed funding to those developing countries facing the most dire consequences of climate change. [These] payments will begin with 1% and rise to the equivalent of 5% of Canada's GDP annually by 2030."
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Europe filed a story based on the release titled, "Canada Announces Major Shift at COP15 Climate Summit. Declares new emissions reduction targets, outlines pilot program on adaptation financing for Africa." The story quoted the Ugandan spokesperson, who praised Canada's bold leadership. Quoted from the WSJ: “The big powers have had a very clear agenda of their own here in Copenhagen, and so far this has seemed to be more a meeting of a few rather than a global initiative," said Margaret Matembe, a spokesperson for the Climate Committee of Uganda, the environmental caucus in the Ugandan Parliament. "Canada’s new plan is a game changer.”
The problem is the press release is not real. Five per cent of GDP would be $65 billion per year that Canada would be sending over to developing countries.
The Uganda touch was nice though.
Dimitri Soudas reacted bitterly to the press release and angerily fingered Equiterre Head, Steven Guilbeault as the source.
On my way in to the press conference, Guilbeault ran over to me to explain what had happened, and for the record denied being the source of the spoof release and expressed disappointment that the government would finger him so publicly without even calling or e-mailing him. Guilbeault is demanding an apology from the Harper Government.
Why is climate change dominating the headlines like no other issue? Mid-way through the first week of the climate talks, my mind wandered back to last week’s climate change instalment of the Munk Debates, and I came upon the answer. Although science is foundation, it has escalated far beyond that.
The Munk Debates brought together an interesting cast of characters to answer the question: “is climate change the defining challenge of our time and does it demand a commensurate response?”
On the Pro side were Elizabeth May, introduced as the Green Party Leader, and George Monbiot, the award-winning Guardian newspaper journalist, welcomed as the “Climate Change Activist.” On the Con side were Bjorn Lomborg, labelled the “Climate Change Expert,” (a bit of a stretch, considering he is a statistician who seems to make a living by taking the side of Big Oil and other dinosaurs), and Nigel Lawson, identified as “Best Selling Author,” (although of the four people on stage, he had sold the least books).
Dissatisfied by their titles, I came up with my own names for the four during the course of the debate:
Elizabeth the Evangelist
George for the Good-Fight
Nigel the Naysayer
Bjorn the Big-Coal Court Jester
Elizabeth made the point that none of them were qualified to actually debate the merit of the question as none of them were climate scientists. But that never seems to matter much. While the climate change discourse may at times seem bogged down in science, the forces lining up for and against have more existential axes to grind.
That’s because climate change is a unique conundrum for human civilization. Never before has there been a problem where our common fates were so intertwined on cause and effect. Climate change is the first global manifestation of the maxim made famous by Alexandre Dumas’ novel Three Musketeers: all for one, one for all. A destabilized climate will affect us all (cutting the human population down by 80 per cent if you believe James Lovelock), and it can only be avoided if we all join in the solution (if the rich world moves, and the poor world doesn’t, we are still pooched).
The stakes are so high and the solution so precariously dependent on collective action, that climate change arouses our animal spirits like nothing else. This goes to the heart of the public’s climate preoccupation, and is what inspires the passions of activists like Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, while scaring the jeepers out of conventional folks like Nigel Lawson and Bjorn Lomborg.
Bubbling below all the scientific charts and Al Gore PowerPoints, this planetary awakening foretells the uncorking of our collective moral consciousness. The prospect of which is highly destabilizing, and terrifies defenders of the status quo. And that’s the real reason why climate change is making the temperatures go up in more ways than one.
The nations of the world have convened the much anticipated Copenhagen climate talks, billed as the most important meeting since WWII.
Two days in to the twelve day negotiating marathon, how do things look?
That depends on who you talk to. On the “Nopenhagen” side (those who don’t think Copenhagen will deliver an effective compact), esteemed climate scientist James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is hoping the talks collapse in failure. The present Swiss-cheese cap-and-trade negotiating positions do not add up to what the atmosphere can safely handle. Better to start from scratch with a carbon tax, he says.
The respected US environmentalist, Bill McKibben, is of a similar view (see Why Copenhagen May Be a Disaster). He argues that climate change is not like other political problems where compromise can move things forward, because unlike racism, or inequality, which can be whittled down over time, climate change is about physics, which imposes a bottom line and time limit.
The Climate Action Tracker released this past Thursday by a group of European think-tanks, shows that all of the recent ‘bold’ climate commitments aren’t going to get us where we need to be. Emissions will continue rising to 2040, rather than peaking in the next ten years. On this path, scientific opinion suggests that we will pass the 2 degrees Celsius mark, generally considered to be the crucial threshold for staving off the more catastrophic impacts of a wild climate.
On the “Hopenhagen” side (those who think Copenhagen can deliver an effective climate compact), Lord Nicholas Stern, author of perhaps the most widely referenced economic paper of the past decade (The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change), sounded a more optimistic note. He suggests that the major nations of the world are within stretching distance (72 per cent of the way) of bridging a deal that keeps temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius, provided that rich nations follow through on financing for things such as forest protection.
On a pecuniary note, the Global Climate Prosperity Scoreboard® showed while diplomats talk, money is walking—right into the green economy. Partly in anticipation of the ripples from Copenhagen, over US$1.2 trillion has been invested in greening the economy since 2007. Their modelling shows that if this trend continues for the next ten years at the present clip, it may be enough to lay the foundations for climate-safe low-carbon prosperity.
We won’t get a clearer idea as to whether Copenhagen will be remembered as Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen until the world leaders begin to pour in on December 15th. On the bright side, President Obama has opted to join the final pressure cooker part of the negotiations, and at least 111 other leaders have also confirmed their attendance—even, belatedly, our own Stephen Harper. Leaders are not likely to come home from such gatherings empty-handed. At a minimum, there will be a compendium of commitments. The litmus test for whether these commitments are exercises in saving face or a legitimate pretext for redefining the DNA of our global economy will depend on the presence of credible mechanisms to back-up the lofty commitments.
For the climate’s sake, here’s to Copenhagen shaping up as Hopenhagen.
Toby Heaps
P.S. For anyone looking for a reliable summary debunking resurgent climate sceptics’ myths in the wake of some sloppy stolen e-mails from a UK University, check out this link.
|
