Photo: Jakub Pavlinec / iStockphoto
So a declaration was forthcoming from Copenhagen. It called for, amongst other things:
- A complete abandonment of fossil fuels within the next 30 years.
- Recognition, payment and compensation of climate debt for the overconsumption of atmospheric space and adverse effects of climate change.
- A rejection of purely market-oriented and technology centred solutions.
- Real solutions to the climate crisis based on safe, clean, renewable and sustainable use of natural resources as well as food, energy, land and water sovereignty.
If this doesn’t look like what has been reported as agreed at the COP-15 talks in Copenhagen, that is because it is not – this is the declaration from Klimaforum, the People’s Climate Summit also held in Copenhagen over the last couple of weeks. Of course the formal negotiations were never expected to deliver as radical an outcome, but they failed to deliver anything like the progress that many political and civic leaders had hoped for, and that the climate change science demands. Before looking at what did come out of COP-15 it is worth reflecting on what was not agreed:
- There is no binding legal global deal on reducing emissions, nor is there an agreed timetable in place for achieving such a deal
- There is no structure in place for following on from the Kyoto Protocol, the delivery period for which ends in 2012.
Either of these outcomes would probably have seen Copenhagen lauded as a real success. Instead the price of carbon on the open market has actually dropped as a result of disappointment about the results of the talks, and business leaders are reported as saying the talks lead to a confused and unclear position which does not encourage investment in sustainable climate solutions.
Questions are being asked as to whether this type of UN led process is the best way to deal with the issue of climate change. The Danish organisation of the conference is not getting great press either, though Connie Hedegaard, who resigned as President of COP-15 during the two week process, is the Danish nominee to become the European Union’s first climate commissioner.
The Copenhagen Accord is the main document (but not the only one, other technical ones here) to emerge from the talks. It has been widely reported that the Accord was drawn up by only 5 of the 192 countries in attendance at the talks, however documents coming to light indicate that other countries (up to 30, with a majority from developing countries) took part, including representation from the Alliance of Small Island States and that the European Commission President Barroso was also involved. It is clear that the driving countries were the USA, together with India, China, South Africa and Brazil.
Whoever was involved, the Accord was drawn up outside the formal COP-15 procedures, so it is not surprising that many countries feel they were left out until they were asked to sign up to a document they hadn’t seen before. It remains to be seen how many will take this step. The only COP-15 Conference wide view, taken at a final plenary session on Saturday was that Conference would “take note” of the Accord.
Barrack Obama had said he was at the talks to act, not to talk, and so it was inconceivable that he would go home without some form of outcome, though he conceded that the Accord was “not enough”, and the US and Europe seem to be blaming China as being responsible for some of the vague language it contains.
Obama does have his hands tied by the fact that US legislation on climate change remains under consideration in the US Congress and so he couldn’t make too many grand proclamations on what the stance of the USA might be on reducing emissions (maybe he’ll be able to next year, he seems to be making progress on another big issue, healthcare at the moment and having China and India on board with the Accord will help in Congress).
Obama clearly used the COP-15 stage to speak to his domestic audience – it appears that he chose to brief the White House Press Corps on the development of the Accord before other media, and more fundamentally, country delegations knew of its existence.
The Accord itself is full of some tortuous language. Given that it has not been formally adopted, it has no legal status, but the headlines are that it:
- Reiterates that “climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”.
- Recognises the imperative to keep global average temperature rise to a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius (but does not say which emissions levels should be allowed relating to this, nor does it give a timeline).
- Requires developed countries to outline what their emissions targets for 2020 will be, information which needs submitted to the UN by the end of January 2010. There is no requirement for information on longer term targets.
- Requires developing countries to submit mitigation actions they will take, and for this information to be submitted to the UN by the end of January 2010. Information on these, and reporting, will be through “National Communications” – this is short of the formal verification and reporting process the USA wanted to see in return for money being made available to developing countries – this was a key area of disagreement between USA and China.
- Recognises that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation is fundamental and that a mechanism should be established to reduce this problem.
- Decides to pursue opportunities to use markets to enhance the cost effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions, and also to provide incentives to low emitting countries to continue on such a track.
- Recognises that enhanced action and international co-operation is required on climate change adaptation.
- Makes $30 billion funding available for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries between 2010 and 2012, with a goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020.
- Establishes a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund for this money to flow through, and to support mitigation activities in developing countries. A Technology Mechanism also to be established to accelerate technology development and technology transfer, and a high level panel to be established to consider further sources of revenue.
- Requires an assessment of the implementation of the Accord to take place in 2015, including consideration of a 1.5 degrees Celsius figure rather than the 2 degrees Celsius figure.
The references to funding are interesting, but without global agreement on the Accord they, as well as other aspects of the Accord, could be derailed at any time. If countries do not sign up to the Accord and do not deliver the information it calls for by the end of January, it is difficult to see how the Accord could be the platform to be built on that some say it is. Reports on the Accord have varied, but no-one is reporting that it is anything more than a stepping stone at best, and a disaster at worst.
What happens next? The UN system is the only one in town at the moment, and that bandwagon rolls onto a technical meeting in May/June 2010, followed by COP-16 in Mexico later in the year (they have a COP-16 website, but it is a little devoid of UN relevant information at the moment).
The final interesting website for this blog is India Climate Solutions: Be the Change – this gives a selection of practical examples of low carbon solutions in India.
Finally, this is my last blog on Copenhagen 2009, so if you have any feedback, feel free to send it in to graeme.cook@scottish.parliament.uk
