Copenhagen Accord

Lessons From the Copenhagen Climate Talks

By BRYAN WALSH Monday, Dec. 21, 2009

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1949054,00.html#ixzz0bLLdptfJ
 

It was during the wee hours of Saturday morning when a delegate from Saudi Arabia, of all places, expressed what may have been the consensus view of the contentious final plenary session at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. "I am working without break for 48 hours now," he said. "I do not see, in the future, a situation where we can adopt a legally binding, given these [reactions to a compromise plan hammered out between President Obama and the leaders of the key developing nations]. This is without exception the worst plenary I have ever attended, including the management of the process, the timing, everything."

But although many will remember the Copenhagen climate summit as an unmitigated disaster, that's too simple an assessment. The event was nothing if not contentious. Outside the venue, stressed out Danish riot cops clashed with thousands of protestors demanding action by the world's governments. Inside, some of the poorer developing countries kept the proceedings frozen with procedural objection after procedural objection, while major economies like the U.S. and China brought little new to the summit and barely budged from their negotiation positions. In the end, all that was produced was an interim accord barely worth the name. It was bitterly attacked by many environmentalists, and even its chief architect, President Barack Obama, admitted the pact was "not enough" and that "we have a long way to go." (See the top 10 green ideas of 2009.)

For all its limitations, however, the Copenhagen Accord is the first real step to fighting climate change in the 21st century. The real value of Copenhagen of the summit may lie in what it teaches us about dealing with climate change — and much more. Here are five lessons of the summit: 

1. George W. Bush was right, sort of. After ignoring climate change for much of his tenure, Bush in late 2007 called a Washington meeting of the major economies — hoping to make headway on combatting global warming by focusing on the handful of countries, developed and developing, that produce the vast majority of carbon emissions. Environmentalists, unsurprisingly, lambasted the idea, assuming it was a ploy to undercut the U.N. system. The meeting came and went with little impact. 

But last Friday morning, after two weeks of fruitless negotiations among most of U.N. member states, President Obama arrived in Copenhagen to find the summit on the verge of collapse. So, he plunged into seven hours of hard, direct bargaining with a select group of world leaders, eventually cutting a deal with those from China, India, Brazil and South Africa — the world's largest and most important emerging economies, and the leading country in Africa, the continent that will suffer most from climate change. Their agreement was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis to the other 180 plus nations. While Copenhagen won't end the U.N. process for addressing climate change, but it marks a shift to decision making by smaller groups of powerful nations working in more manageable numbers. As undemocratic as that may be, Copenhagen showed that it may also be the only way to get something done. (Read Obama's remarks in full.)

2.China will be decisive. When Obama landed in Copenhagen, to key leader with whom he needed to huddle was China's Premier Wen Jiaobao. But Wen played hard to get, twice sending a lower-level official to meet with Obama and other world leaders. Washington and Beijing clashed throughout the summit over the issue of transparency: whether developing countries would expose their domestic climate actions to international review. 

But the real battle was to persuade China, now the world's largest emitter of carbon gases, to relinquish its outdated developing-nation status under the Kyoto Protocol, and commit to targets more in line with its status as a leading industrial power. China is investing hundreds of billions in clean energy, and brought to Copenhagen pledges to improve energy efficiency. Yet, Beijing remained largely passive at Copenhagen, resistant to throwing in its lot with an international system and reluctant to use its growing power to influence the talks in a positive way. Although it looks set to become the world's second largest economy by the end of the year, it is also home to hundreds of millions of poor people — hence the developing-nation mindset. But unless China can be coaxed to play a leadership role in any future concerted global action on climate change, there simply won't be any. (See pictures of the world's most polluted places.)

3. We can agree to save the forests. Although no smart observer expected a Copenhagen accord to include legally binding emission-reduction targets, the final accord omitted even the long-term emissions goals included in earlier drafts. Expect a renewal of the same debates a year from now at the next U.N. climate summit in Mexico City. But Copenhagen's bright spot was progress on slowing deforestation. The logging and burning of tropical rainforests accounts for around 15% of global carbon emissions, and eliminates important carbon sinks such as the Amazon. A plan excluded from Kyoto — titled Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) — under which wealthier nations pay rainforest countries for preserving their trees made a comeback at Copenhagen. Stopping deforestation is a cheap way to slow carbon emissions and protects the most important wildlife habitat on the planet. 

The Copenhagen negotiations on REDD made real progress, signaling that both the developed and developing nations want it to succeed. Although the lack of a more ambitious wider agreement limited the progress that could be made on REDD, the Copenhagen Accord does include a mention of it — which raises the hope that forests are at least one thing that governments may find a way to save. 

4.Green schism. The Environmental Defense Fund — a U.S. green group that often works with business — praised the Copenhagen Accord as an "important step," and other mainstream environmental groups had a similarly measured response. But the new group 350.org — which demands extremely sharp and immediate carbon reductions — denounced the deal and protests outside the venue began almost immediately. 

The differing response among environmentalists suggests that Copenhagen may produce splits similar to those among liberal Democrats over how to respond to compromises over health-care reform in the U.S. While most greens remain firmly in Obama's corner even if they're far from satisfied, we can expect an escalation of civil skirmishes within a movement that's generally been a happy family. 

5. It's going to get harder, and that's a good thing. In the weeks preceding the summit, world leaders had downgraded expectations for a binding agreement, aiming instead for a broad political agreement while kicking tough decisions such as emission targets down the road. Logically, that should have made the talks at Copenhagen easier. Obviously that's not what happened, as the summit's final 48 hours were passed on the brink of collapse. But if Copenhagen was tough, Mexico City will be a lot more so, because there, countries will be tasked with filling in details sketched in the Copenhagen Accord. 

Yet the very struggle to reach agreement at Copenhagen, and the tougher talks to come, demonstrate that climate diplomacy has finally come of age. The negotiations at Copenhagen were so contentious because of the very real impact the proposals on the table will have, not only on the environment, but also on national economies. China and the U.S. played hardball — and sent heads of government to do the talking — precisely because they had something to lose. The onset of a kind of climate realpolitik, which eschews hot air for real action, signals is a sign that global climate talks have moved beyond symbolic rhetoric. 

Copenhagen also signaled a profound change in the U.S. role. During the plenary of the previous U.N. climate summit in Bali two years ago, Kevin Conrad, the delegate from the small rainforest nation of Papua New Guinea, electrified the room when he told the recalcitrant U.S. delegation: "We seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please get out of the way." At the very least, Copenhagen shows the U.S. is willing to lead. The question is for how long, and who will follow.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1929071_1929070_1949054,00.html#ixzz0bLLXjLOt

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
「哥本哈根協定」 爭議聲中誕生 未提減排目標 G77﹕史上最差氣候協議 

(明報)2009年12月20日 星期日 05:10

【明報專訊】經過兩周多的會談和激烈爭論後，聯合國氣候峰會昨日下午閉幕，並在爭議聲中產生《哥本哈根協定》（Copenhagen Accord）。這份協議由中美等5國達成的共識為基礎，內容包括對窮國的確實資金援助，以及認知到科學界認為全球氣溫不應上升超過2℃，但協議沒有提到 對付暖化的確切行動，更完全沒有提及減排目標。多個小國都對此感到極度不滿，代表發展中國家利益的77國組織（G77）形容這是「史上最差」的氣候協議。><"

這份協議的文本由中國和美國牽頭，加上巴西、印度和南非3國在最後關頭進行「加時會議」所得的成果，由28國提出。中國總理溫家寶和奧巴馬周五峰會最後一天「攤牌」，盡最後努力達成共識，並在歐盟支持下推出。

中美巴西印度南非達共識

根據協議，各國承認科學界有「應將氣溫升幅控制在2℃以內」的觀點，但未有行動確保達至目標。另外，發達國家未來3年將向發展中國家提供300億美元對抗全球氣候暖化的援助，到2020年前增至每年1000億美元。不過，有關減排目標上，協議文本隻字不提。對於協議有很多細節未有提及，峰會同意目標在2010年底前達成新的環球協議。

沒提實質行動 小國不滿

在5國協議出爐後，部分代表因不滿未參與討論和協議減排力度不足而一度離場抗議，數小時後復會後，法新社指峰會主席利用「特別程序手段」將所有反對 協議的障礙全部掃除，讓這份具爭議性的《哥本哈根協定》得以誕生。大會以「認知」（take note of）來形容大家對協議的處理方法，有別於通過或確認，但究竟「認知」代表什麼、接下來要怎麼辦，大會並沒有詳加解釋。根據聯合國規則，峰會達成的協議必 須經由全部194個與會國投票通過，今次可謂是在繞過全部代表通過的情况下強行通過協議。

美國總統奧巴馬早形容協議「有意義」，是「史無前例的突破」。中國代表團團長謝振華說，會議取得了積極成果，每人都應當高興。歐盟委員會主席巴羅佐則指協議成果遠低於預期，但這是唯一可選擇的協議，歐盟無奈接受。聯合國秘書長潘基文承認，協議未能贏得全球共識，令許多要求採取大規模行動對抗氣候問題的人士感到失望，但同時指協議「只是一個重要的開始」，大家必須在明年將之變為一條具法律約束力的協議。

協議受到多個小國猛烈抨擊，代表G77的蘇丹談判專員迪亞平批評這是史上最差的氣候協議，指美國在踐踏窮國權利，有如要求「非洲簽定自殺條約」。

英國廣播公司/法新社/衛報/美聯社
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

哥本哈根救氣候　協定要點一覽表 

(法新社)2009年12月19日 星期六 12:05 

（法新社哥本哈根19日電） 逾20國領袖在哥本哈根聯合國氣候會議協商，以下是達成的共識要點。

這份稱為「哥本哈根協定」（Copenhagen Accord）的文稿，旨在成為未來對抗全球氣候變遷的基礎 。

全球暖化：草案指出，「全球暖化應控制在攝氏2度以內」。

然而，草案並未明確指出，各國的碳排量須在哪一年開始遞減。
各國須在明年2月1日前闡明2020年以前減排目標，至於若有國家未信守承諾，這份協定並未訂出懲罰措施。

資金：富裕國家承諾，2010年至2012年的三年期間，出資約300億美元協助貧國打擊氣候變遷。它們也制定目標，在2020年以前，自「政府和民間、雙邊和多邊，包括替代財務資源等廣泛財源」，每年「聯合動員」1000億美元。

驗證：富裕國家做出的承諾，將受到「聯合國氣候變化綱要公約」（UNFCCC）「嚴謹、健全且透明」的檢視。

開發中國家將根據一個「確保國家主權獲得尊重」的方式，提出全國減排承諾報告。需要國際社會支持的這份減排措施承諾，將登記在註冊表。

2050年目標：全球碳污染排放量在2050年前減至1990年排量一半的目標，沒有獲得協定背書。許多富裕國家均支持這個減碳目標。

中國和印度為首的新興大國已表明，它們不願意支持這項目標。><"

具法律約束力條約：至於協定目標需何時轉換成具有法律約束力的條約，內文並未訂出最後期限。（譯者：中央社蔡佳敏)