Copenhagen in context ? and where next

Copenhagen in context ? and where next

by Cam Walker

The climate change negotiations held in Copenhagen in December 2009 has surpassed all previous interest and hype about this most pressing issue that humanity will face in the 21st century. This is because so much was at stake – it was the UN meeting where world leaders had to agree on the framework for a new structure to reduce global greenhouse emissions and avoid dangerous climate change.

USA finally has a president who understands the gravity of the issue and has a commitment to do something about it. Equally, Australia now had a believer rather than a sceptic in charge. The Chinese were clearly going to flex their muscles and many in the developing world – especially the small island nations – could see imminent disaster if we did not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in time. The EU – long the “heroes” in climate negotiations, relatively speaking – were clearly facing internal division over how far it member nations were prepared to go in terms of accept binding emissions.

cartoon

And public expectations were high. In spite of concerted campaigns – including by the Australian government – for the international community not to hope for too much, many hoped that the framework of a post Kyoto agreement world back from the brink of climate catastrophe. As many commentators noted, “it was our last, best chance” at getting it right.

A global agreement on climate change

The first implementation period for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, is due to expire in 2012. Two key points stand out when we consider the legacy of the Protocol. While the emissions reductions targets were far too low, at least it enshrined the process of agreeing on binding targets. As a global problem, climate change needs an agreed global response. There was always stubborn opposition from the rich world when it came to owning up to the historical debt they owed the developing world for their over-production of greenhouse gases. But, in spite of this selfish intransigence, the agreed-on framework was based on a very significant premise: that the rich nations must go first and accept emissions reductions targets. This process ends in 2012 and the world desperately needed global leaders to hammer out a new agreement: one based on the principles of caution and global justice through the sharing of burdens and emissions reductions.

What’s in the Copenhagen Accord, and what’s wrong with it
  • it has dangerous support for a two degrees Celsius target
  • there is no target to ensure a peak in emissions
  • it merely says emissions should “peak as soon as possible”
  • there are no specific 2020 or 2050 targets
  • it has a strong emphasis on using a variety of methods for pollution cuts, “including opportunities to use markets” when there are many widely available critiques of market based measures
  • on adaptation and deforestation there are general statements about need for adaptation, development and an end to deforestation. A key point in discussions at Copenhagen was the ability to include offsetting as an option to reduce emissions, however there was no agreement on inclusion of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation or REDD proposal, which is a heartening development as the direction was towards creating many loopholes to allow rich nations and companies to continue to pollute while also offsetting their emissions in other nations
  • there was substantial focus on the question of adaptation at the December talks, as nations increasingly grapple with the fact that some climate change is inevitable. While the commitment of money is welcome, it appears that recipient nations will effectively need to sign on to the Accord to be eligible. To paraphrase the McDonald’s quote “would you like Blackmail with that?”

What’s still needed
International negotiations will continue. Civil society organisations and developing nations will continue to argue for the need to work as a global community to ensure that global emissions peak in this decade, with the rich nations doing the bulk of the ‘heavy lifting’ in recognition of the historical carbon debt they have accrued.
A framework based on historical liability and global justice should include the following commitments:

  • Wealthy industrialised countries such as Australia to at least 40% cuts in emissions domestically by 2020, by using green energy, sustainable transport and farming and cutting energy demand.
  • Cuts must not be achieved by buying carbon credits from developing countries or by buying forest in developing countries to “offset” ongoing emissions in the industrialised world.
  • Rich countries must provide additional money for developing countries to grow in a clean way, and to cope with the floods, droughts and famines caused by climate change. The agreement should ensure this money is distributed fairly and transparently.

Apart from the difficulties of getting politicians to agree to deep emissions reduction targets at Copenhagen, there was the growing issue of the gap between the rich and the poor. The preparatory meetings held in Bonn in June 2009 and Bangkok in October 2009 – which laid the groundwork for the Copenhagen talks - showed the growing chasm between the global South and the rich North, and these fractures emerged as massive ruptures in the December talks.

Perhaps some of the strongest images from Copenhagen come from the many thousands of civil society organisations that rallied outside. Simultaneously, inside the talks there was growing unrest – ranging from storm-outs by delegates and sit-ins, as well as the usual back room deals. President Obama flew in for about eight hours and attempted to save the day with a “reasonable” deal that had been crafted with a small number of nations. Countries that had been excluded from this process, or who are most at risk from global warming, loudly decried the very modest aspirations of his statement. New players emerged, or became more dominant – especially some key Latin American countries, the African block and the various island nations most at risk from global warming. The delegation from Tuvalu starred as the most vocal and compelling of the nations at the very front line of climate change, with its demand for a 350 parts per million (ppm) target.

In spite of the desire for action, what was on offer in the negotiations – as defined by the Obama brokered deal – was far short of what climate science tells us is required. There was a major focus in the talks on achieving a 450 ppm carbon target – which many took as being a 2° Celsius warming target.

In the final marathon session of the full Assembly, going right through the night and into the next day, the best that could be salvaged was an aspirational agreement, whereby nations agreed to keep talking and, in the meantime, the UN General Assembly would note the creation of text called the Copenhagen Accord, which said very little that was tangible (see table below). Nations that signed on to the Agreement, like Australia, were asked to lodge their intended emissions reductions targets and planned actions that they will take to counter global warming by January 31, although the UN subsequently dropped even this requirement. So far only 20 nations out of 192 have even bothered to sign on.

As expected, the recriminations started even before the delegates had left the country. Many civil society groups blamed the rich nations, and the USA in particular, for refusing to show leadership by announcing unilateral and deep emissions reductions targets. Climate activist Mark Lynus got great media coverage with his “China wrecked the talks” piece, which was reprinted widely. This, of course, played well to a range of political interests, who much preferred China as the villain. Lynus’ article is certainly worth a read if you have not seen it, but should be balanced by other observations, like the one from climate commentator David Spratt in his assessment called the Long Road to Copenhagen (http://newmatilda.com/2009/11/26/long-road-to-copenhagen) where he said that “killing the Kyoto Protocol as the primary international climate policy instrument has been (the USA’s) intent for years”.

Back here in Australia, a surprising number of green groups and commentators were “disappointed and surprised” by the outcome. Those who had been tracking the debate were vindicated in their cynicism. The world was left without a clear and agreed path away from potential disaster.

The next stage in the process of trying to agree on a framework at the global level will be the UNFCCC meeting in mid 2010. Meanwhile, the federal ALP stays wedded to its doomed CPRS legislation and the Coalition under new leader Tony Abbott makes noises about new forms of action on climate change. All parties and many commentators agree that climate change will be a significant issue in the next election, so the struggle now returns to the national stage.

For further information and analysis of Copenhagen, and to track future negotiations, check:

For discussion on the problems of carbon offsetting, please see the Friends of the Earth paper Carbon offsets: a dangerous distraction. http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefing_notes/dangerous_distraction.pdf

Cam Walker is campaigns co-ordinator with Friends of the Earth in Melbourne.

Source: Australian Options, Issue 60, Autumn 2010, pp. 7-9.
About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2009 Australian Options