Race to save Copenhagen
The announcements on climate targets by the US
and Chinese presidents in November are part of the moves by world
leaders to save the Copenhagen conference on climate change from failure
Martin KHOR
The recent saw a flurry of activities by some world leaders to give
impetus to the Copenhagen conference on climate change, after gloom cast
on it when it was made known that there would be no legally binding
agreement to be expected from it.
President Barack Obama of the United States and President Hu Jintao
of China on 26 November announced 2020 targets for their countries. For
the US this would be cuts to Greenhouse Gas emissions. For China, it
would be reducing the emission intensity of GNP.
No force can control the climate changes commanded by the nature |
These announcements by the two most important countries in terms of
total emissions gave a boost to the mood in climate politics just a week
before delegates arrive for the Copenhagen meeting.
In reality, the chances of success of Copenhagen is in the balance.
The definition of what would constitute success has changed, in fact
downgraded. No longer is there any possibility of a final set of
agreements. There are deep divisions on key issues that cannot be
resolved in time.
At best, Copenhagen will come up with a framework intended to lead to
a final deal. But many leaders hope that this framework can at least
have some key details.
For example, Britain’s climate minister Ed Miliband says that there
have to be figures on the emission reduction targets of developed
countries, and on adequate finances for developing countries, otherwise
Copenhagen will be a failure.
At the APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) Summit in Singapore,
a breakfast meeting of leaders that included Obama concluded that there
would not be a legally-binding agreement, but some kind of “political
declaration” that would somehow be “binding.”
To many analysts, this constitutes a climb-down from the “seal the
deal” goal that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has campaigned for. No
one is sure what a “political declaration” would look like and how this
can be “binding” or have legal effect.
The UN General Assembly convened a meeting on Nov 19 to discuss the
status of the climate talks. At that meeting, the developing countries
strongly attacked the lack of commitment by the developed countries
either to cut their emissions or to provide financing to developing
countries, or even to retain the legally-binding Kyoto Protocol. This,
they said, is what has caused the downgrading of expectations for
Copenhagen.
Ban tried to reassure the General Assembly that Copenhagen is still
on track. He said that news reports had recently portrayed that
Copenhagen is destined to be a “disappointment”, but this was wrong. He
countered this perception with examples of individual countries’ pledges
on emissions reduction.
However, the Chair of the G77 and China, Ambassador Abdalmahmood
Mohamad of Sudan, said the developing countries were extremely
disappointed that the Copenhagen Conference did not seem to be able to
result in the final outcomes needed and this was a major setback. It
said parties should not pretend otherwise by using words such as a
“legally binding political declaration”.
For the G77 and China, Copenhagen’s most important outcome should be
adopting the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty
that implements the legal commitment of industrialised countries to
reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
Instead the developed countries are moving to exit from this
protocol, and this is the main cause of the present impasse. Without a
Kyoto Protocol decision, Copenhagen cannot succeed, said the group.
Grenada, speaking for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)
said the group was concerned over attempts to water down results of
Copenhagen. It insisted that an internationally legally binding outcome
at Copenhagen is both technically and legally feasible.
At the end of the two-hour session, Ban acknowledged the deep
concerns of the developing countries about there being a major setback
or deep disappointment as there would be no treaty agreed upon in
Copenhagen.
But this should not be seen as a failure as Copenhagen will lay the
foundation for a legally-binding agreement, he said.
However, as the meeting ended, the mood among many delegates, at
least those from developing countries, was that there would be a setback
in Copenhagen.
Several delegates said they had the impression after listening to the
speakers that the conference would not result in a final legally binding
outcome, and they were uncertain whether there would be a clear decision
on the emission reduction commitments of developed countries, which is
the foundation of many other decisions.
The G77 and China highlighted their most serious concern, that many
developed country members of the Kyoto Protocol want to move away from
this Protocol and move towards another agreement whose nature is not
understood.
“There is a danger of a downgrading of the commitments of developed
countries from an internationally legally binding commitment in the
Kyoto Protocol to an inferior agreement involving each country pledging
its national programme, with no aggregate figure for developed countries
overall, and which is not legally binding,” said the Sudanese
ambassador.
The group was also very disappointed with the very low overall
reduction figure arising from the national announcements from developed
countries so far, which is only 11% to 18% (including the US).
“The main impasse that has led to downgrading of expectations in
Copenhagen is the uncertainty caused by the actions of the developed
countries on whether they are willing to commit to a second period for
Kyoto Protocol, and whether their emission reduction targets are good
enough,” said the G77 chair.
He asked if the Secretary-General and the Denmark representative
could assure the group that the developed country members of the Kyoto
Protocol will remain and will make adequate commitments of at least 40%
cut by 2020 (from 1990 levels), and will finish the negotiations in the
Kyoto Protocol track by the time Copenhagen is concluded. Without such
an assurance, it will be hard to see how Copenhagen will be a success,
he said.
The Copenhagen Conference must not end only with mere rhetorical
political statements. There must be concrete commitments from the
developed countries on their emission reduction figures, and commitments
on finance, as well as decisions to establish a finance mechanism and a
technology mechanism. Earlier, Ban said he believed that Parties would
reach a deal in Copenhagen that sets the stage for a binding treaty as
soon as possible in 2010.
He said that political momentum was building almost daily. He urged
parties to stay positive, come to Copenhagen and seal a deal. Despite
the latest announcements by the US and Chinese presidents, the prospects
are not so bright that Copenhagen will “seal the final deal”. Hopefully
the conference can agree to a framework and basis of an eventual deal in
2010 that is both fair and effective.
- Third World Network Features
(The writer is the Executive Director of the South Center in
Switzerland) |