Copenhagen Accord: What if it’s broken? What if the process to negotiate an international climate treaty is completely broken? That’s my question having just returned from Copenhagen and the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). COP15 fell far short of its goals. It did not establish emission reduction targets for developed countries, either short(2020) or long-term (2050); it did not set a deadline for a binding treaty; and it did not pass the policy most clearly supported by all 193 countries, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Of the three criteria for a final agreement: Fair, Ambitious, and Binding (FAB), the Copenhagen Accord failed on all three accounts. The poorest nations do not believe it is fair; the European Union (EU) and climate scientists would certainly not characterize it as ambitious; and the Copenhagen Accord that emerged is not binding. COP15 was badly organizedsit was too crazy to be an acceptable summit meeting and (ironically) too cold for a good party. There were 45,000 pre-registrants for only 15,000 places in the Bella Center convention hall. Many NGO delegates waited in lines in the cold (without toilets) for ten hours and never were admitted to the proceedings. Friends of the Earth was judged to be complicit in demonstrations at the site, and all of its credentials were withdrawn. Perhaps there were too many official voices inside, too, with 193 countries expected to come to consensus and sign the final treaty. It’s unclear why there was so little progress in the two year period between COP13 in Bali and COP15 in Copenhagen (COP 14 was in Poznan, Poland). Countries waited until the very last minute to make concessions and to offer text, and by then it was too late. Many feel a meeting of the top 30 nations representing 90% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be a much more sensible way to proceed. But that would risk ignoring the furtive pleas of the poorest nations and those most affected by climate change already, like Tuvalu which is sinking into the south Pacific Ocean. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Union, and certain disaffected countries like Sudan, Venezuela, and Cuba felt that COP15 did not represent their interests. I’m from Iowa but not so naı¨vesI realize these meetings are really about power, politics, and money, as much as they are about the environment. But “climate change” has emerged as an important human rights issue. Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, said last year, “Climate change is the greatest emerging humanitarian challenge of our time, causing suffering to hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The first hit and worst affected are the world’s poorest groups, and yet they have done least to cause the problem.” Many states feel that the U.S. isn’t listening. Otherwise, they would pledge a more serious cut-back in their emis852 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / February 1, 2010
sions than that offered by Barack Obama at COP15, a 17% GHG emission reduction from 2005 levels by 2020, which amounts to a reduction of only 3-4% from 1990 (the official baseline year of the climate convention). But Obama is simply trying to assure that whatever passes UNFCCC will also be able to pass a badly polarized U.S. Senate. He seeks to avoid the mistake of the Clinton Administration when they signed the Kyoto Accord but could not get it ratified through the Senate. In that sense, a few Senators can hold the entire world ransom for a climate agreement. According to Thomas L. Friedman at COP15, the U.S. Congress is “the sum of all lobbies” and capable of only “sub-optimal solutions”, but it also can trigger a chain reaction of impotency at the global scale. Compare the U.S. commitment to that of the EU which has legislated a 20% GHG reduction by 2020 from 1990 levels, and a 95% reduction by 2050. Surely the EU will find itself under immense pressure from business and industry to renege on their promise. EU governments represent the only people in the world who have a legally binding emission reduction schedule in place. European businesses will attack politicians for getting the EU too far ahead of the rest of the world and, thus, handicapping job creation and competitiveness. Negotiations on a binding treaty will need to move fast next year to avert a complete reversal of progress since the signing of the Climate Convention treaty in Rio in 1992. I don’t want to leave the impression that all was lost at Copenhagenssome forward progress was made. Perhaps most importantly, the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa stepped forward and brokered the final Copenhagen Accord. These nations represent about half of all GHG emissions, and they were missing from obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. They will presumably be party to emission reductions if a new treaty develops at COP16 in November 2010 at Mexico City. Progress was also made on financing as the U.S. supported a $100 billion per year Copenhagen Green Climate Fund with fast start funding of $10 billion per year in 2010-2012 to help the poorest and most affected nations adapt to climate change. It will immediately get dollars flowing from rich countries to poor ones, and it is a substantial amount of money. The UNFCCC process might be broken, at least bent, but it’s still the only one we have. Let’s hope that we can muddle through and get FAB action in Mexico City next year.
Jerald L. Schnoor Editor
[email protected]. 10.1021/es903867p
2010 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 12/31/2009
