I recently attended three different lectures that reflected back on the Cophenhagen process and outcome. The first was a lecture by UC Berkeley professor Dan Kammen, who gave a first look back at Cophenhagen. Professor Kammen gave his personal account of the conference, which was greatly more valuable to me than the muddled account provided by the media. The second event I went to was a panel led by the organization 350.org, with representatives from three non-profits: Eco-Equity, International Rivers, and the Rainforest Action Network. The third and final event that I attended recently was a conference at UC Berkeley entitled, “Beyond Copenhagen”. Through attending these events I gained a better understanding of COP-15, and where we need to go from this point. Albeit a little overdue, I think it is still valuable to look at what happened at Cophenhagen, so we can be better prepare ourselves for the next COP meeting.
So what actually came out of the UN talks? The result of the fairly chaotic process was a non-binding treaty, ratified by 190 countries, but absent of any quantitative emissions reduction targets. After long-winded discussion between all the UN country representatives, the talks came down to an 11th hour meeting between the heads of state of China, U.S., South Africa, Brazil and India. Much to their dismay, the European Union was not included in this final meeting. These heads of state drafted the Copenhagen Accord, a document establishing a long-term goal of limiting temperature rise to 2° F. Countries were to submit emissions reduction targets by Jan 31, 2010, yet countries are not legally bound under the accord to commit to their reduction targets. So basically the Copenhagen Accord is a virtually spineless document with some stated concern over global temperature rise.
The Conference and Accord were labeled a disaster by many countries, climate activists, and other environmental groups who were pushing for an ambitious and binding treaty to come out of the conference. The reality is that by the G-20 summit, in September 2009, the major world leaders had virtually already declared that nothing binding would come out of Copenhagen. This simply comes down to the fact that neither China nor the U.S. want to set quantitative emissions reduction targets, or not “just yet”.
Following Copenhagen, the U.S. media seemed to place all the blame on China for making the conference a “failure”. In truth, the outcome was a “polluters pact” between the U.S. and China. Both countries got what they wanted out of the accord. U.S. representatives to the conference claimed that they couldn’t guarantee any emissions reductions because it would have to go through the legislation process in Congress. And we can surmise that it would be a near impossible feat in this current congressional climate to quickly pass any substantial climate legislation. China objects to emissions reduction targets, as they believe it will slow down their prized economic growth. Yes, China presents a major obstacle to climate agreements, but the U.S. is certainly not acting like a responsible world leader either.
So, the Copenhagen accord was an overall failure as a piece of legislation, but there were some positive ideas that presented themselves at the COP-15. With a growing recognition of indigenous rights, there was progress made on reducing deforestation in Brazil and Indonesia, yet no agreement on targets and goals. In addition, Hilary Clinton introduced the Clinton Adaptation Fund, with a proposed budget of $100 billion per year to help developing countries transition to cleaner industry. While good-natured, the fund is not binding, and it was not made clear where the money would actually come from. Also, keep in mind that the money that was given to the surge in Afghanistan dwarfed that which will be given for the entire planet!
It is generally known that the poorest countries will suffer the worst impact of climate change, while for the most part Western countries have created the problem. This idea of “Climate Justice” is what really stole the show at the conference. What people will remember from the talks is the representatives of vulnerable island states of the Pacific and African nations making clear the devastating impact climate change will have on their nations. Making their voices heard in this debate is a huge accomplishment. All developing countries worked as a bloc, called the G-77, and until the 11th hour meeting all states had an equal say in the discussion. Old categories like “developed” and “developing” seemed less relevant. It was made clear that power relationships between countries are shifting, and poorer nations are coming out to declare a stake and voice in the future, a remarkable shift in global relations.
Another phenomenon worth noting from Copenhagen is the influence of activists on the conference. The organizers and city authorities were clearly not prepared for the mass amount of people demonstrating outside the conference. It is evident that people have finally “woken up” to the cause, and were asking for an ambitious climate treaty to come out of the conference. 2009 was an incredible year for climate activists, especially for mobilizing youth and collaborating between groups. The amount of twittering and blogging taking place both inside and outside of the conference virtually broke down the Bella Center walls. This amount of transparency is healthy for the climate negotiations, as activists can hold representatives accountable for actions.
In summary, the COP-15 conference produced a weak non-binding Copenhagen Accord, due in large part to China and the U.S. refusing to adhere to quantitative emissions reductions. Despite the weak agreement, progress was made with the Clinton Adaptation Fund as well as progress in deforestation reduction. The realms of climate justice and activism took big leaps forward, advocating that even the poorest countries have a voice in the future.
In my next post I will be discussing where the movement is heading from here, the challenges we face in reaching a binding treaty, and what work should be done before the next meeting, the COP-16 in Mexico.
Posts
