Tuesday, 22 December 2009

Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summit & Glossary


The Copenhagen climate conference COP15 resulted in a document called the Copenhagen Accord. It was hammered out by a small group of countries - including the world's two biggest greenhouse gas polluters, China and the US. The conference as a whole did not adopt the accord, but voted to "take note" of it.
Was the summit a success?
This depends on your point of view.


THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
On the positive side, the Copenhagen Accord, for the first time, unites the US, China and other major developing countries in an effort to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol did not achieve this - it imposed no obligations on developing countries to restrain the growth of their emissions, and the US never acceded to it. The accord also says developed countries will aim to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020, to address the needs of developing countries.
On the other hand, the summit did not result in a legally binding deal or any commitment to reach one in future. The accord calls on countries to state what they will do to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but these will not be legally binding commitments. Furthermore, there is no global target for emissions reductions by 2050 and the accord is vague as to how its goals - such as the $100bn of funds annually for developing countries - will be achieved.
What are the key points of the Copenhagen Accord?
• A commitment "to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2C" and to achieve "the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible"
• Developed countries must make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and developing countries must report their plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions to the UN by 31 January 2010
• New and additional resources "approaching $30bn" will be channelled to poorer nations over the period 2010-12, with an annual sum of $100bn envisaged by 2020
• A Copenhagen Green Climate Fund will be established under the UN convention on climate change, to direct some of this money to climate-related projects in developing countries
• Projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries will be subject to international monitoring if they are internationally funded
• Programmes to provide developing countries with financial incentives to preserve forests - REDD and REDD-plus - will be established immediately
• Implementation of the accord will be reviewed in 2015 and an assessment will be made of whether the goal of keeping global temperature rise within 2C needs to be strengthened to 1.5C
Which countries backed the accord?
The essential points of the deal were brokered by US President Barack Obama with representatives of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Mr Obama also consulted with the leaders of France, Germany and the UK. (Crabsallover says: But note, the EU agreed AFTER the Accord was agreed by these 5 countries - US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa). Most countries at the conference gave it their support, but some countries were resolutely opposed, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba.
Why did the Copenhagen summit take place at all?
The majority of the world's governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.

Climate "hockey stick

Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind's influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.
In 2007, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.
The Copenhagen talks marked the end of that two-year period.
Why is a new global agreement needed?
The Copenhagen talks sat within the framework of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.
In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.
But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.
In particular, the Kyoto Protocol's targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.
Negotiations therefore began on new treaty that was bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement, and the plan was that these would conclude in Copenhagen.
Why is climate change happening - and is it the same as global warming?
The Earth's climate has always changed naturally over time.
For example, variability in our planet's orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.
According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.
The principal cause is burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas.
This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which - added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth's atmosphere - acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun's energy and warming the Earth's surface.
Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.
Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world - "global warming" - this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.
This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label "climate change" - sometimes more accurately called "anthropogenic (human-made) climate change".
Will the Copenhagen deal solve climate change?
The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times.
In some parts of the world this is already having impacts - and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences.
Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable.
Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed.

CLIMATE CHANGE GLOSSARY

Select a term from the dropdown:
Adaptation - Action that helps cope with the effects of climate change - for example construction of barriers to protect against rising sea levels, or conversion to crops capable of surviving high temperatures and drought.
Tough action to reduce emissions might keep the temperature rise under 2C; but given uncertainties in how the atmosphere and oceans respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, it might not.
This is why developing countries put such an emphasis on adaptation, which they argue is necessary already.
IPCC figures suggest that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2C, global emissions would need to peak and start to decline within about 15-20 years.
Currently, the cuts pledged by industrialised nations are not enough to halt the overall global rise in emissions. Furthermore, countries that went in to the Copenhagen conference prepared to offer bigger cuts in emissions if other countries took tough action, appear to be sticking with pledges to cut emissions at the lower end of their range

Copenhagen deal: Key points


Page last updated at 12:43 GMT, Saturday, 19 December 2009
A US-led initiative called the Copenhagen Accord has formed the centre-piece of a deal at UN climate talks in Copenhagen, despite some countries' opposition.
Below is an explanation of the main points in the agreement.

LEGAL STATUS
The Accord, reached between the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, contains no reference to a legally binding agreement, as some developing countries and climate activists wanted.
Neither is there a deadline for transforming it into a binding deal, though UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said it needed to be turned into a legally binding treaty next year.
The accord was merely "recognised" by the 193 nations at the Copenhagen summit, rather than approved, which would have required unanimous support. It is not clear whether it is a formal UN deal.

TEMPERATURE RISE
The text recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels.
The language in the text shows that 2C is not a formal target, just that the group "recognises the scientific view that" the temperature increase should be held below this figure.
However, the accord does not identify a year by which carbon emissions should peak, a position resisted by some richer developing nations.
Countries are asked to spell out by 1 February next year their pledges for curbing carbon emissions by 2020. The deal does not spell out penalties for any country that fails to meet its promise.

FINANCIAL AID
The deal promises to deliver $30bn (£18.5bn) of aid for developing nations over the next three years. It outlines a goal of providing $100bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the impacts of climate change.
The accord says the rich countries will jointly mobilise the $100bn, drawing on a variety of sources: "public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance."
A green climate fund will also be established under the deal. It will support projects in developing countries related to mitigation, adaptation, "capacity building" and technology transfer.

EMISSIONS TRANSPARENCY
The pledges of rich countries will come under "rigorous, robust and transparent" scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
In the accord, developing countries will submit national reports on their emissions pledges under a method "that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected."
Pledges on climate mitigation measures seeking international support will be recorded in a registry.

REVIEW OF PROGRESS
The implementation of the Copenhagen Accord will be reviewed by 2015. This will take place about a year-and-a-half after the next scientific assessment of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
However, if, in 2015, delegates wanted to adopt a new, lower target on global average temperature, such as 1.5C rather than 2C, it would be too late.

Climate summit: Where's the beef?


By Paul Reynolds 
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

Delegates at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen. Photo: 19 December 2009
Mega-conferences like Copenhagen have proved to be very difficult to handle

He came. He did a quick deal. He left.
That was how US President Barack Obama intervened in the global warming conference in Copenhagen and whether he saved it from total deadlock or condemned it to issuing a powerless piece of paper depends on your point of view.
The result was a political commitment not a treaty.
And it was worked out by the United States with China and a handful of others. The rest of the conference simply "took note of it", most with resignation, many with anger,
The words sound fine enough. "We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change."
And: "We shall, recognising the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2C, on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, enhance our long-term co-operative action to combat climate change."
But where's the beef? That apparently has to be added to this sandwich later.
'Salami-style'
The deal - done between President Obama and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, along with India, Brazil and South Africa - tells you a lot about how diplomacy will happen in future.

US-LED COPENHAGEN DEAL

  • No reference to legally binding agreement
  • Recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2C above pre-industrial levels
  • Developed countries to "set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries"
  • On transparency: Emerging nations monitor own efforts and report to UN every two years. Some international checks
  • No detailed framework on carbon markets - "various approaches" will be pursued
Updated: 13:47 GMT, 19 December
The US and China had to work with each other on this. They will have to deal with each other on other issues. It is at least encouraging that they are talking.
New players are coming onto the stage. Russia was absent. The EU was nowhere. It has already made its commitments and did not need to be brought on board.
The rest had to go along.
A difficult period lies ahead as governments have to sign up to making cuts and everyone will be watching to see who does something and who does nothing.
Perhaps there was just too much to bite off. It is often the case in international diplomacy that tackling problems salami-style is more effective than trying to digest them all at once.
Unmanageable forum?
It is also true that mega-conferences are very difficult to handle. Even European summits, still small by Copenhagen standards, almost always come down to what happened there - a small number of countries take control and impose their will.

THE COPENHAGEN ACCORD

Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
It is a toss-up however as to why Copenhagen did not get further - was it the format or the decisions? Were too many governments trying to negotiate at too late a stage or was the reality that they simply did not want to compromise or commit, with some of them not even believing that the world needs saving?
It's probably a mixture of the two.
And perhaps more time would have helped. But time is not available to statesmen and women these days. They have to be on the move all the time.
President Obama even had to rush back to Washington to avoid the worst of a snow storm.
The pace used to be more leisurely.
The Congress of Vienna, which divided Europe up after the Napoleonic wars, lasted from November 1814 to June 1815. All the deals were done informally. And there was no 24-hour television to ask why progress had not been made.
The Congress of Berlin, which tried to sort out the Balkans, lasted a month in the summer of 1878.
The Versailles Treaty followed negotiations that lasted from January to June 1919.
Better formula?
It is proper to compare Copenhagen with these meetings if only because the agenda was even more momentous in the eyes of many - the saving not of continents but of the planet.
In the absence of such a timeframe, there were pre-negotiations, such as they were, and these were left to lower level ministers and delegations.
But it is always the same - nobody wants to back down until the very last minute and the decisions had to come from the very top.
A similar process has been going on in world trade talks, in the so-called Doha Round, which seeks to lower tariffs and other barriers to trade. Admittedly time has not been a problem there. The talks started in 2001 and are still staggering on.
Maybe a better formula might be to have a series of meetings at the top level - so governments could make progress bit-by-bit.
A salami might be the solution.

COP15: (No) Hopenhagen?


Richard Black | 15:55 UK time, Saturday, 19 December 2009

afp_kids_595x330.jpg
Everywhere you go in Copenhagen, you're met with two kinds of advertising poster.
One sells lingerie, the morning walk to the railway station bringing a sequence of scarcely clad models smiling unfeasibly in the freezing morning air.
The other sells hope. "Hopenhagen" has been the city's alternative name for the past fortnight, a campaigning city promoting its dream on banners, along with periodic exhortations to "seal the deal" and "bend the trend" (the trend of rising emissions, that is).
As the UN climate summit ends, the question is whether it brought the beginning of hope, or the end.
Depends on your point of view on climate change, of course. But for the thousands of campaigners here, the climate scientists, the delegations from small island states, what "hope" meant was clear; to secure a deal that would put our global society on course to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".
Not my phrase, that, but the key clause in the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) - agreed, lest we forget, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro way back in 1992.
The mandate to reach a new agreement here was agreed in Bali two years ago, after the last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appeared to convince governments that dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system was not being prevented.
"A shared vision for long-term co-operative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions."
Did they get it? No. Reading behind national positions, disagreement about even the most basic measure - the size of temperature increase that countries would like to see - ranges from 1C to 3/4C
"Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions... by all developed country parties."
Did they get it? Yes, except for the US, where MRV is not yet flying - no change there.
"Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country parties... in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner."
No; unless "verifying" means "believing what a country tells you it is doing".
"Improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources... and the provision of new and additional resources."
Yes - kind of. There is money pledged, for sure, and a fund to run it.
Whether it's "predictable and sustainable" is another matter. The short-term "fast-start" finance should be, as it's mainly from the pockets of Japan, the EU and US; the longer-term stuff depends on mechanisms that don't yet exist and might encounter political obstacles.
As you'd expect, leaders from EU countries and the developing world states that really don't like this deal at all have been assuming rictus grins and telling us it's a "good first step".
Problem is, Bali was the "first step"; come to that, Rio was the "first step".
Where we go from here isn't clear at the moment; and even people who have followed this issue for years don't have ready answers.
What appears to have happened is that the UN process was effectively ambushed by countries that perhaps don't want there to be a UN process.
Which countries they might be doesn't take a detective of Sherlock Holmes' prowess to work out; look for ones that haven't signed up to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or ratified the UN biodiversity convention, and another that does not on principle allow international oversight of anything.
Intriguingly, the morning after the deal was announced by White House press release, it wasn't clear whether it counts as an agreement within the UN system or whether it lies outside.
If parties had adopted the deal, it would be a UN issue. But they didn't, because there was no consensus; instead governments only decided to "take note" of the accord.
During their discussions afterwards, several delegations suggested this means it isn't a UN agreement - and various UN officials gave different interpretations.
If it turns out not to be a UN agreement, then - at the extreme end of things - the UN climate convention could effectively be dead as the powerful world's favoured instrument for controlling emissions.
A deal made at a UN summit would move outside, being a free-standing arrangement effectively decided by the 26 countries involved in the drafting.
It will mean that a select group of countries - the G20, or thereabouts - will basically decide what they want to do, and then do it.
That might sound like an extreme analysis, and perhaps it is; but in the last few years, climate pledges have been made in the G8, the Major Economies Forum and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (Apec) - all places where countries can say what they want with no pesky small states around to demand that they do more.
Don't forget that there has been no real negotiation here on targets for developed nations. Sessions have been held, yes; but all developed countries set their own targets before they arrived, and stuck to them.
In principle, poor countries would lose from a transition away from the UNFCCC, because its mechanisms are supposed to bring them access to clean technology and money for forests and climate protection.
It's hard to overstate the size of the mood change that's occurred over the last few months - even over the last two days.
Approaching the summit, it appeared that pretty much all the countries wanted a new global climate deal under the UNFCCC umbrella. Politicians from many countries invested significant diplomatic effort to make it happen - apparently.
The concluding sequence of this much-hyped summit has left many observers and national delegations stunned.
Ministers and officials and scientists and campaigners and lobbyists who have dedicated huge swathes of the last year to making a tough deal happen watched aghast as Chinese and US leaders and their entourages flew in, took over the agenda and emerged with what was basically their own private deal, with leaders announcing it live on television before others realised it had happened.
Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance?
Is it the end for the idea of global, negotiated governance on other environmental issues?
These are big questions that many never saw themselves having to ask in the Obama era.
In cafes and bars around (No) Hopenhagen, they're being asked now.