The banners around Copenhagen were emblazoned ‘Hopenhagen’, with promises of definite international action to curb worsening climate change during the COP15 of the UNFCCC that the Danish capital hosted from 7 to 19 Dec 2009.
But by the morning of the 19th, all we got was a wishy-washy Copenhagen Accord without any legally binding commitments for emission reductions by the global community either in 2020 or 2050.
What a let-down after all the hype and expectations built up by the UN, Denmark, the 192 members of the UNFCCC, environmentalists, and even the mass media!
Perhaps the outcome should not have been so surprising as the signs in the weeks leading to the COP began showing from the APEC meeting in Singapore. Even the UN secretary-general had changed his deal into a political undertaking from the heads of state who were going to the COP.
There was a blatant disinformation campaign even from the days of the Bali COP by the developed countries and their mass media about the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012 (when its first commitment period only would end).
This was perhaps to wiggle out of the legal commitments under Kyoto and to entice the USA into a new protocol that would also include large developing countries. This process was cleverly named Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA).
USA stymies climate change
A little history and explanation of the forces at play from one who has been observing the international negotiations since 1990 would help the reader understand the current situation. When the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was being considered in 1992, scientists had already stated that global emissions would need to be brought 80 percent below 1990 levels in order to avoid greenhouse gas emission concentrations in the atmosphere exceeding 350ppm.
At the final meeting of the negotiators in New York, the USA threw away a negotiated text and insisted that its own text become the UNFCCC. Since everyone, especially the EU, wanted the US to be a party, their demand became the UNFCCC.
It clearly included the precautionary principle, common but differentiated responsibilities (among countries), and the need to provide finance and technology to developing countries to cope with climate change.
But since there were no legally binding targets and timetables for emission reductions in the UNFCCC, these were subsequently set under the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
But the US Senate refused to ratify the Protocol, despite being its principal architect, on the excuse that it did not bind the developing countries among other reasons. Yet it has failed over the years to act over the finance and technology commitments of the UNFCCC, from which it is not exempt.
In the meantime, even among the developing countries there have been major splits. The OPEC nations do not want to see any cutbacks in their oil revenues especially if developed countries reduce their oil consumption while members of the Alliance of Small Island States (Aosis) are alarmed at rising sea levels that could wipe them out. And China has overtaken USA as the world’s largest emitter!
Even under the Kyoto Protocol, most of the developed countries have not met their agreed emission reductions for the first commitment period while the only money that has flowed to developing countries has been that for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects.
The bulk has gone to China and India with Malaysia leading among Asean nations. Aside from this, no money has been given to a number of Funds agreed to by the parties.
Leaders’ weak resolve
With Obama accepting the scientific consensus about global warming, much expectation was raised that finally the USA would come on board in a significant way.
The fact that about 120 heads of state, including Obama, were coming to COP15 raised expectations that the logjams that arose in the first week of negotiations would be swept aside. The unprecedented 100,000 person march on 12 Dec from the city centre to the Conference site was seen as a tangible sign of civil society expectation of strong action.
This COP had the largest ever number of accredited NGO representatives at over 25,000 with daily actions by some of them, especially youth both inside and outside the COP venue.
But their access was cut to 7,000 and then 300 during the last 4 days – on the excuse of security as well as to cope with additional officials accompanying the Heads of States
Some speeches of the political leaders raised hopes of political push but Obama’s was a letdown, making action on the part of the USA conditional to verifiable corresponding action by developing countries -totally inconsistent with the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. And the final Copenhagen Accord was struck in the late hours of Friday among a small group of countries from the EU, USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
So disgusted were the rest of the parties with the worthless Accord, that they refused to officially accept it, merely “taking note” of it. All the work on the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period and the nature of any Protocol arising from the LCA discussions has been pushed to the next COP in Mexico.
In the meantime, USA and the other parties will submit their plans to the Secretariat by 31 Jan. 2010 for compilation. It is anybody’s guess when the few billions promised under the Accord will become available to the most needy countries.
The Malaysian prime minister (right) pledged during his speech that the country would reduce its energy intensity per GDP by 40% below 2005 levels by 2020 (wrongly reported by the Malaysian media as 40% emission reductions). But the caveat is that developed countries will have to provide money and technology.
Obama himself has since admitted that Copenhagen was a failure and accusations have been exchanged between British and Chinese officials.
The emission concentrations in the atmosphere have almost reached 400ppm and we are staring at a 3.5 degree temperature rise this century. With the huge expenditure of human resources and vast media focus almost gone down the drain, can we absolve our leaders of failing this historic test?
My observation over the years has been that climate change really challenges the willingness of the rich and powerful, both internationally and within nations, to make some reductions in their resources, especially energy consumption while helping the poor to have access to better services.
My sad conclusion is that very few are willing to cut back on their extravagant consumption, even for the sake of sustainable development. When will we change and climate change be on the mend?