A History, Of Sorts, Is Made

President Barack Obama who had flown into Copenhagen for the final rounds of negotiation, left the conference early because of the predicted snow storm back home – leaving “sherpas” to attend to the conference clean-up.

The “clean up” consisted of seeking endorsement of the “Copenhagen Accord” (Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/L.7 of Dec. 18), a statement of intent crafted by Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the U.S. The accord was reached after several strenuous and sometimes contentious negotiating sessions in which Obama held his ground against a push back by China’s Premier Wen Jiabao on issues including verification and transparency.

The agreement was not endorsed. The official decision on the Copenhagen Accord Decision-/CP.15) reads only as follows: “The Conference of the Parties, Takes note of the Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009.” A cascade of reactions from America’s right, left and center followed.

RECOGNITION

They were reacting to what was not a formal agreement, but a basis for possible future action. For the present, what exists, as described by the UN, is an accord that “recognizes the scientific view that an increase in global temperatures below 2 degrees is required to stave off the worst effects of climate change”.

Information on actions taken by the countries concerned will be shared every two years, and “nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support are to be recorded in a registry with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support from industrialized nations”.

These countries are expected to “support a goal of jointly mobilizing 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries”. Pledges of up to $30 billion have already been received from the European Community, Japan, and the U.S.

The Copenhagen Accord is to be reviewed in 2015.

REACTIONS

Climate change nay-sayers had dismissed the Copenhagen Conference long before it held its first session. The science of climate change was, they implied, a lot of hocus pocus, and anybody who refused to go along was professionally discredited and not allowed to make the “truth” known.

The nay-sayers not only deride the idea of man-made climate change but, in many cases, simply reject the notion of resource management, whether they are talking about energy, flora or fauna. “There is plenty of room for moose -- next to the mashed potatoes,” reflects their approach. They will no doubt launch the good fight against the Copenhagen Accord when they have read it.

Meanwhile, a riposte from the Republican Party is already on record. Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Arizona) did the talking on a Sunday television program where he predicted that Obama would not be able to muster a majority from his own party to support the proposed assistance to developing countries. Obama, in this assessment, has over-reached.

Taking a different approach, the unpredictable Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina) who is working with colleagues to craft a bipartisan climate change Bill, also told “talking heads” on television that some of his colleagues will consider the Copenhagen Accord “ineffective,” although it adds “some transparency that we don’t have today”.

INCENSED

The angriest, most disappointed comments were from civil society representatives, who were incensed. They have been at the heart of the environmental movement and had assumed that Copenhagen was going be truly wonderful in producing binding arrangements to counter climate change obligations. They derided the accord as a “sham.”

Environmentalist Bill McKibben dismissed the accord as “a declaration that small and poor countries don’t matter, that international civil society doesn’t matter, and that serious limits on carbon don’t matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he’s wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it’s at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight”.

Rickey Patel, Executive Director of Avaaz.org, described the “so-called Copenhagen Accord” as a “historic failure, representing the collapse of international efforts to sign a binding global treaty that can stop catastrophic climate change. Perhaps most telling, while leaders themselves recognize that this agreement is insufficient, they have set no deadline or even date to complete it”.

Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S. said: “The failure to produce anything meaningful in Copenhagen must serve as a wake up call to all who care about the future. It is a call to action. Corporate polluters and other special interests have such overwhelming influence that rich country governments are willing to agree only to fig leaf solutions. This is unacceptable, and it must change.

“Fortunately, while the cost of solving the climate crisis rises each day we fail to act, the crisis remains one that can largely be averted. It is up to the citizens of the world -- especially citizens of the U.S., which has so impeded progress -- to mobilize and ensure that true solutions carry the day. I firmly believe that together, we can still achieve a politics in which climate justice prevails.”

A different and perhaps more “centrist” response came from Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, who said that the accord “has all the ingredients necessary to construct a final treaty. President Obama has made much progress in the past 11 months and it now appears that the U.S. -- and the world -- is ready to do the hard work necessary to finish what was started here in Copenhagen.

“A chilly two weeks in Copenhagen have given humanity its best chance of preventing the ravages of a warming world. Today’s deal is neither perfect nor complete, but we must not let this chance slip away.”

WEAKNESS

The great imperfection of the Copenhagen Accord is that it is what it is: an informal document without the legal mechanisms required to transform its intentions into verifiable obligations. While this is true, it is also a fact that the Kyoto targets have not been met, either. There is nothing in an accord, agreement, treaty, or convention that automatically makes it work. That has to come from true commitment, as well as from actionable measures against non-compliance.

Obama told his final press briefing in Copenhagen that “three components -- transparency, mitigation and finance -- form the basis of the common approach that the U.S. and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen. Throughout the day we worked with many countries to establish a new consensus around these three points, a consensus that will serve as a foundation for global action to confront the threat of climate change for years to come”.

He outlined some ideas as to how these three components would work and be tested, pointing out that a basis had already been laid for mutual trust and understanding. But, he added, “it is still going to require more work and more confidence-building and greater trust between emerging countries, the least developed countries, and the developed countries before I think you are going to see another legally binding treaty signed.

“I actually think that it's necessary for us ultimately to get to such a treaty, and I am supportive of such efforts. But this is a classic example of a situation where if we just waited for that, then we would not make any progress. And in fact I think there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking one step forward, we ended up taking two steps back.”

UNPREPARED

In Copenhagen, Obama had several advantages on his side. First, he had shown by his domestic energy goals as well as by his engagement in the COP15 process that after eight years of dubious sulking, the U.S. had decided to rejoin the world.

Second, his engagement was not on the basis of politics but of policy.

Third, his personal involvement even before the conference itself paved the way for momentum in negotiations that might otherwise have been intractable.

Fourth, based on his constant exhortation that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, he was able to push back on issues that divided him and his colleagues without staging a “Gunfight at the OK Corral.”

On one occasion, say official U.S. sources, Obama barged into a room where Wen was engaged in a private, unannounced negotiation with the other principals when actually the American and Chinese leaders were scheduled to meet. He insisted that Wen and he should have their scheduled meeting, where they would iron out some of the wrinkles that had hindered momentum towards a five-nation accord.

Obama’s willingness to deal directly with his four partners (Brazil, China, India, and South Africa) reaffirmed his commitment to political realities, and not just to accepted practice. All four are “emerging economies” who have more heft than many others with longer international political backgrounds. Without their agreement and active support it will be almost impossible to take the next steps required.

This same willingness enabled him to seek the collaboration, directly and through intermediaries, of the African Union whose opposition to the accord would have brought about its collapse and demise.

Why then was he not able to produce more out of the Copenhagen conference than he did? The main reason is that on both sides of the North-South divide there are fears that anti-climate-change measures will constrain growth. This is a myth, however, as the mass of evidence tabled by hard-headed business representatives at the Rio Earth Summit demonstrated.

Besides, given the agenda of unresolved problems Obama has inherited, plus his need to push ahead with the domestic agenda on which he campaigned, he might well have concluded that at present he needs to reserve most of political capital for health care and urgently needed job generation.

END OR BEGINNING?

UN spokesmen have been quick to argue that the process and outcome of the Copenhagen Conference amount to a new beginning. Are they? Or do they suggest, to “borrow” Churchill’s famous World War II words, that “this is the end of the beginning?”

Has the mega-conference approach to climate change negotiations – the beginning – reached its end, and does it now need to be replaced by other mechanisms that are likely to produce more action and less posturing? 

[Source: IDN-InDepthNews | Analysis That Matters]   - Read More Articles

_____________ 

The writer has served as Sri Lanka's ambassador to Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and the USA. He was Chairman of the Commonwealth's Select Committee on the media and development.