The Copenhagen Accord is a three-page, 12-paragraph, approximately 1,400 word document that basically lays out some foundations for future agreements. It's not binding, which means that it's not legally enforceable. Since the negotiations were led by President Obama, and not the UN (at a UN-led conference) there was some initial concern regarding how the UN would react to the Copenhagen Accord.
On top of that, the UN was limited in what they could do - they could not formally adopt the Copenhagen Accord because Sudan, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Cuba refused to sign the Copenhagen Accord. (Though significantly, Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed signed the agreement. He announced this in the wee hours of Saturday morning, December 19th.)
Instead, the UN announced that they support the Copenhagen Accord, but what the UN meant by their decision to "take note" of the Copenhagen Accord is subject to interpretation. (Though Robert C. Orr, the United Nations assistant secretary general for policy and planning, said that “take note” was shorthand for acceptance.)
What IS clear, is that COP15 was a means to an end, and not an end - there's still more work to do! (And with that, more opportunities for change.)
So what does the Copenhagen Accord actually say?
* Average global temperatures should not be allowed to rise by more than 2 degrees Celcius above pre-industrial levels.
* By signing the agreement, the 188 parties who signed it “commit to implement .... quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020.”
- The initial agreement did not "spell out" what each country's target would be, or how they would go about achieving it - those are literally "fill in the blank" sections on the agreement, that each country is to fill in for themselves. Each of the 188 parties must submit this information to the UN by the end of January 2010.
* The document lays down some guidelines for how progress made by developing countries will be measured and accounted for, or in COP15 lingo “measurable, reportable and verifiable” (MRV.)
- Many developing nations, particularly China, are wary of the prospect of intrusive international monitoring of industry. The accord allows for “domestic measurement, reporting and verification”, but requires that this be reported “through national communications, with international consultation and analysis.”
* "New and additional, predictable and adequate funding” will be provided to developing nations for emissions mitigation, reducing deforestation, technology development and transfer and adaptation.
- Up to $30 billion will be provided between 2010 and 2012. Developed countries also committed to find a more substantial $100 billion by 2020. A significant portion of financing will flow through a newly established Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.
photo: Karl Burkart, who was covering COP15 for theMother Nature Networkholding up a copy of the Copenhagen Accord.
What's NOT in there?
Lots of people have thoughts on this, but here's my own personal gripe - as New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin pointed out in his blog post The missing 'P' Word in Climate Talks, "If you scan the most recent drafts of the climate agreement that delegates here are trying to complete, you’ll have a hard time finding the word population. I’m quite sure it’s not there. (Please let me know if you find it.)" For an explanation of why this is problematic check out this New York Times blog post by John Collins Rudolf. He covers a recent report that found that condoms and birth control pills are more cost effective than windmills and solar panels as tools to curb global warming.
So what actually happened over there?
Well it depends on who you talk to - for starters our President or China’s Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. I stand firmly with President Obama - check out the Administration's account of how it all went down on the last day of the negotiations. Then check out the New York Times' account of the clash between the Chinese and President Obama.
Here's a nice summary from David Roberts at Grist:
If there’s a party to blame, it’s China. It’s China that was off meeting with India and Brazil, trying to avoid getting ensnared in any commitments at all, forcing Obama to track them down. It was China that refused to sign off on the target of 50% global reductions by 2050. It was China that forced rich countries not to commit to 80% reductions by 2050, lest it some day have to live up to that target. (Yes, China forced rich countries to trim their ambitions. “Ridiculous,” said Merkel.) It was China who, up until the very last minute, refused to agree to any international verification at all, and only upon the personal intervention of Premier Wen Jiabao agreed to accept a voluntary system of reporting.
As for Obama specifically, here's the speech that he gave during the much anticipated Friday morning plenary, attended by all of the Heads of State and their staff. If you'd rather read the transcript then you can find it here.
What's next?
So while I think the finger should be pointed at China, since so many people are blaming Obama for the non-binding agreement that came out of COP15, the fact is that what China finally agreed to is instrumental to progress here at home, which itself is instrumental to future progress internationally.
As Senator John Kerry said in his COP15 speech on the Wednesday before Obama arrived in Copenhagen, “To pass a bill, we must be able to assure a senator from Ohio that steelworkers in his state won’t lose their jobs to India and China because those countries are not participating in a way that is measurable, reportable and verifiable."
If you have been following the climate change fights that have been going down in the US Senate for the past few years then you'll be familiar with that refrain. Now that China and India have taken responsibility for their greenhouse gas emissions, and have agreed to permit outside monitoring, it opens the door for action in the US Senate, and therefore the US Congress.
Internationally, the next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, from May 31st - June 11th. Some nations hope that Mexico City will be an opportunity to turn this basic agreement into a full, legally-binding treaty. But as Yvo de Boer – the man in charge of the process – put it: “We have a lot of work to do on the road to Mexico.”
Stay optimistic.
According to Yvo de Boer “Never before have we seen so many world leaders gathered in the stride for the climate. Even though it appeared to be very difficult [to get an agreement] 115 heads of state or governments chose to come to Copenhagen and engage. This is what we need to build on.”
As an exhausted Obama said before leaving Copenhagen, "One of the things that I’ve felt very strongly about during the course of this year is that hard stuff requires not paralysis but it requires going ahead and making the best of the situation that you’re in at this point, and then continually trying to improve and make progress from there."
You'll have noticed from what I chose to cover on my blog during COP15 that the US and international youth delegations factored very prominently in the international agreements. The relationships developed between international youth at the conference, the experiences and skills gained at COP15, and the opportunities for the youth voices to be heard by international leaders were some of the biggest achievements of COP15. There is reason for hope.
Here at home the youth have also clearly impressed US Environment and Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and US Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu. For more insight on the collaborations between youth and the US Administration see HeadCount CEO Andy Bernstein's blog post from his attendance at the recent White House youth energy forum.
And for as what's next, after Mexico City?
The New York Times suggests that the UN model of large summits of world leaders coming together to hash out agreements is dead, so long as nations continue to fight over "environmental guilt, future costs and who should referee the results."
Andrew Revkin and John Broder of the New York Times suggest that the details will be ironed out by a much smaller group of nations, roughly 30 countries responsible for 90% of global warming emissions. It was these nations that Mr. Obama rallied in a series of dramatic encounters on Friday to finally ink a deal that starts a flow of financing for poor countries to adapt to climate change and sets up a system for major economies to monitor and report their greenhouse gas emissions. This smaller group of nations will meet periodically to tackle a narrower agenda of issues, like technology sharing or the merging of carbon trading markets, without the chaos and posturing of the United Nations process.
In the meantime, I can't resist - John Mayer said it best - "Fight on, fight on everyone."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.