This may be the last chapter of my Copenhagen Climate reports. It has been difficult to write, and not just because conference-induced sleep deprivation meant taking some welcome time off on Saturday afternoon. It was not due to the fact I was in England on Sunday night to see my son Baba Brinkman’s performance at the Hammersmith Apollo – a 3500 seat Art Deco theatre in central London. Baba performed a scene from his new show “The Rap Guide to Evolution” as part of a sold-out Science-Entertainment Christmas show with a 6 night run, filmed by the BBC. Congratulations Baba! And it also was not due to Monday being the long commute back with a 9 hours time change.
It’s been difficult because I have had to digest and accept Copenhagen’s outcome. The optimist, rationalist side of me says “COP15 was a qualified success.” The USA, China and India are now publically committed to working towards a new agreement. Given the prospect of a deadlocked conference with some countries on board and some offside, along with the prospect of an outright failure of the UN-led process to tackle this critical global challenge effectively, the Copenhagen Accord is at least minor forward movement. It would be a herculean task to get 190 national leaders to agree on the best route from the Copenhagen airport to the conference centre, never mind the roadmap to a deal as complex as addressing climate change. At Copenhagen this past week, world leaders representing the major emitting nations (present and future) were at least seized with the issue. But the pessimist, activist side of me, convinced of the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by my global warming research (published in 1992), strongly reinforced by climate science since then, is appalled.
The “Group of Two” major emitting nations (USA and China) clung to their original positions to the end and guaranteed the conference’s failure to achieve its objective of the binding agreement negotiators have worked toward since the UN’s Bali climate conference two years ago. Those positions virtually guarantee a +3 C tipping point to run-away climate warming. European nations, which came prepared to increase their commitment from 20% to 30% reductions from the 1990 baseline year (conditional on a deal), took their offer off the table. Important sub-agreements were sidelined – protecting rainforests from destruction, fostering clean technology transfer to developing countries, reducing emissions from agriculture – taking a backseat to a hastily prepared general statement of concern and principle. And the reality remains that reducing GHG emissions will only become more urgent, and more costly, the longer we wait. Oh, and last but not least, Canada was assessed by international environment groups to be the country that most obstructed progress – congratulations Stephen Harper.
The main product of President Obama’s 11th hour intervention at COP15 is The Copenhagen Accord. The Accord lays out the principles for a future agreement to include the US and developing nations that did not sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, and sets up a voluntary register of commitments: developed countries register their targets, and developing countries register their national mitigation actions.
Its stated purpose is to contain global warming below 2C by cutting global GHG emissions. It commits developed countries to $10 Billion a year in initial support to poor countries, rising by 2020 to $100 Billion. Inclusion of international oversight of emissions reductions, and the use of market-based approaches reflect key US requirements. The COP15 attending nations agreed to “take note” of The Copenhagen Accord, attach it to their conference proceedings, and continue working toward a binding legal agreement at COP16 a year from now.
Poorer and low-lying countries were extremely critical of this “back room deal”. They bemoaned its regression to relying on voluntary measures, and its absence of inclusiveness and transparency, hallmarks of the process laid out by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But United Nations Director-General Ban Ki-moon called the Copenhagen Accord significant, an unprecedented commitment by world leaders who went to the brink and pulled back. The gentleman representing Exxon/Mobile Oil in a business sector debriefing was remarkably cheerful, as the possibility of a COP15 breakthrough evaporated…
So Friday’s disappointing Plenary speeches by China and USA leaders described in my previous blog were not the end of the story. President Obama personally rallied the heads of state from China, Brazil, South Africa and India, and with the assistance of two dozen other leaders (not including Canada) produced the Copenhagen Accord.
Throughout Friday afternoon and evening delegates in meeting rooms, lounges, cafes, hallways, computer zones throughout the Convention Centre chatted, worked, napped and watched the omni-present television monitors waiting for the Plenary session to be recalled. Finally at 11:30 PM, screens large and small came alive with the sight of President Obama holding a press conference.
The excitement was palpable as Obama clearly and eloquently laid out the conflicting interests and agendas at stake in the process, the responsibilities of the developed world, the clarity of the science, the stakes for those countries already in peril. Everyone gathered around the monitor felt the same hope and relief: “finally, a US leader who gets it!” When Obama’s summary of the Copenhagen Accord was complete, it took a few minutes for the implications to sink in. We were still far from a solution; the Accord was only the barest agreement in principle, falling desperately short of even our lowest expectations in terms of binding targets and a legal framework. Obama remains “the great communicator”, but the horizon of a global climate change solution seems to have receded rather than drawn closer after Copenhagen.
The climate activist in me recognizes this as a failure on a massive scale, with vast implications for the quality of life for millions. But the political rationalist in me recognizes the significance of the major powers drafting an Accord, even a toothless one, and in the case of the earth’s atmosphere all parties must move in the same direction or none will. A small step united may end up being a greater achievement than a bold step divided.
So much for horizons from Copenhagen’s lens on the world, now back to the nitty gritty, the ideas and actions by committed individuals and communities. Those may have to be the source of the real solutions after all.
Joyce in Vancouver