This week, the Center for American Progress hosted Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change, in a session on the lessons of the Copenhagen UNFCCC Council of Parties (COP-15) held last December, the significance of the climate change accord that was negotiated, and the future of global climate change negotiations over the year.
Center for American Progress President John Podesta, former White House Chief of Staff under President Clinton, opened the discussions by saying there were two narratives: Copenhagen was a failure or Copenhagen was a last minute success. Those who believe the climate change negotiations in December were a failure point to a lack of a real deadlines or binding GHG emission reduction targets. National and international obstacles stymied an agreement. For those who argue that the meeting was a last minute success, there was little likelihood of any progress, and China and India “were never going to want this.” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s intervention saved the day. The foundation has been layed for a political agreement. As a result, the accord represents a ”credible international agreement.”
Podesta argued it was too soon to tell how this agreement will stack up in the history of climate change negotiations. Podesta added that we need to take a “cold, hard look at what occured,” and look at the commitments by nations so far. There are now commitments from countries that contribute more than 80 percent of global GHG emissions, and the commitments have been higher than the ones initially issued in Copenhagen. “We are only five gigatons shy of 2020 targets.” Podesta thinks that if we stop additional international deforestation and preserve additional sectoral reductions, the world can close the emissions gap by 2020.
Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change
“2009 was supposed to be a momentous year, but things didn’t turn out as planned. The positions of key parties were very far apart by the time we reached December. As a result, the negotiating text grew to more than 200 pages and included overlapping and contradictory ideas. The main ideas never joined up. It seemed like the UN process was on the rocks, and a full blown treaty would be out of reach. The actual meeting was a chaotic, aggravating, snarling event.”
Getting to an Accord: “In the beginning, someone threw a monkey wrench in the negotiations by leaking a Danish draft document, which effectively destroyed Denmark’s reputation as a fair, unbiased arbiter among the developing countries. By Wednesday, December 16, the conference appeared to be doomed.”
“With Secretary of State Clinton’s arrival on Thursday, December 17, there was hope again. Clinton offered $100 billion in financing a year by 2020 to developing countries to support climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. These funds would be available in the context of a global agreement, and only be available if developing countries agreed to external verifications of their emissions. With this, developing countries’ stakes in the agreement rose sharply.”
“A dinner hosted by the Danish Queen helped turn around the mood. It was a remarkable session with free form dialogue between heads of state. The chance of a successful outcome advanced because many leaders couldn’t deal with failure. Andrea Merkel of Germany and Nicholas Sarkozy of France showed real leadership. President Obama was effective in creating the argument for the need for transparency and accountability in international verification schemes.
“In a meeting with China, India, and South Africa, Obama said all countries must list their mitigation commitments, and these would have to be submitted to some sort of external review.”
The negotiated accord: “The negotiated accord was broadly supported by the 190 countries, with the exception of a few like Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. Because the UN process calls for total agreement among countries, the accord was ‘taken note of,” and not a politically-binding signed agreement. The accord is still a ’sketch, not a painting.’ It quantifies overall objectives — keeping climate temperature rise below 2 degrees celsius, lists actions, sets targets, provides for transparency in international verification, and outlines financing proposals by 2020. A new global fund will be examined by a new global panel, which will look into potential sources of revenue, including international fund transfers and avoided deforestation credits. There is now a foundation for a new regime in international climate diplomacy.”
“Countries needed to submit their commitments by January 31 of this year. Many have ’signed-on’ or associated themselves with the accord (in UN-speak). Some 90 countries will now ‘associate with the accord.’”
The legitimacy of the accord: “China and other countries initially wanted to limit the scope of the accord to negotiated texts (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol). Instead, the U.S. believes the accord should the operational document. It’s a negotiated document that elected heads of state have contributed to. It represents a fair balance and can’t be cherry-picked. The accord should influence future negotiations.”
The way to move forward: “Some countries want to keep the Kyoto paradigm, which keeps developing and developed countries in two separate categories. The U.S. believes all countries should effectively be in the same category and be held accountable for their emissions. Developed countries shouldn’t be the only ones held accountable (as they are now). This represents a breach in the firewall between developing and developed countries that upsets some. Kyoto represented a ‘common but differentiated approach to responsibilities.’ However, this phrase has been over-used for years and has been used to keep developing countries unaccountable. China shouldn’t be treated like Chad when it comes to capabilities — in many ways, China has the capabilities of any developed country.”
“It’s imperative to bring all major emitters (not countries) into an international regime. 52 percent of emissions now come from developing countries; 97 percent of the expected growth in GHG emissions by 2050 will come from these countries. They have to be included in an agreement.”
“The U.S. can continue to work with its partners to create a legally-binding agreement that is symetrical (that treats developed and developing countries the same). It can’t be tied up in ideological knots, but be a solution.”
Stern added that this year major discussions will take place during the Major Economies Forum, an initiative set up by President Bush, COP-16 in Mexico City in December, 2010, and additional UNFCCC meetings. He said President Bush had argued correctly that countries can’t rely on formal negotiating process alone, but must meet many places.
What needs to happen domestically: The lack of a domestic agreement didn’t hurt the U.S. in global negotiations. However, we “need leverage, and you can’t underestimate the value of the legitimacy a U.S. domestic climate change agreement will give us. The U.S. has historically been the largest emitter and is now the second largest emitter.”
“The U.S. Congress needs to pass climate change legislation soon so there’s no delay in finding a price for carbon. Otherwise, China will lead on the new green economy. We have to legislate to become competitive in this area.”
The climate change envoy added that recent news on mistakes in UNFCCC reports and the controversy surrounding American and UK scientists’ e-mails can’t disprove the “overwhelming body of evidence on climate change. They aren’t disturbed by these events. When dealing with the high levels of risk associated with climate change, anyone would get insurance.”
During discussions, Jennifer Haverkemp, Managing Director for International Policy and Negotiations, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), added that developing countries’ commitments were all contingent on receiving financing. “There’s a long way to get there.”
Haverkemp added that it’s important the U.S. Congress acts soon. “Congress can help write the rules and impact the global rules throughout this process. A carbon market needs to be in U.S. legislation, including definitions of what kinds of international credits are acceptable for off-sets. A global carbon market will be a significant source of financing for these projects.”
Haverkemp also said the world shouldn’t put its eggs in “even two baskets.” In the works is a reforestation credit agreement between Amazonian countries and U.S. states — state-level agreements and cooperative projects are important for reducing emissions. “There has also been discussion at the G8 on ending fossil fuel subsidies by 2050 and common renewable electricity standards worldwide.”
