The Hagen Farce

The two-week chaotic UN climate change summit at Copenhagen, Denmark, ended
on Dec 18, 2009, with a broad, non-binding accord that fell short on numerous
fronts. The only effective message that came through was that nations would
agree at keeping average increases in global temperatures below 2 C, but did
not set out the emission cuts which each country will undertake. Much of the
developing world is outraged with the outcome and the summit has left the world
more divided in its stand than before.

The climate change summit had three big tickets on its agenda: emissions,
financial assistance, and the process going ahead. And on each of these counts,
the accord fell woefully short. And most alarmingly of all, there was no clear
procedural roadmap to deliver the world from the impasse that this summit has
landed it in. At the end of the 193-nation summit there was no binding deal for
combating global warming, a move led by the United States and China, the worlds
top two emitters of greenhouse gases.

The agreement signed is not legally binding, and does not include any
proposals for greenhouse gas emission reduction. The accord only promises to
deliver $30 bn of aid for developing nations over the next three years outlining
a goal of providing $100 bn a year by 2020 to help poor countries cope with the
impact of climate change. The Copenhagen accord only recognises the scientific
case for keeping temperature rises to not more than 2 C, but does not contain
any commitment to emission reductions to achieve that goal. This agreement has
been strongly criticized by the developing and Third World countries, because
the deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil, and the US
only. Even campaigners and environmentalists were left stunned at what they
viewed as a total disappointment.

What has become clear from this mess is that first, climate change is a
multidimensional, rolling problem, and dealing with it requires a
multidimensional, rolling approach. The Copenhagen decisions will be followed up
at an interim meeting in Bonn in June 2010, and next years conference in
Mexico, but deliberations on climate change should not be separate from
deliberations on other aspects of global diplomacy. It makes little sense that
it should take such an enormous, two-week drama for any progress to be made at
all.

As world leaders promised significant action next year, the summit has ended
in angry exchanges and failure to secure unanimous support for final accord.
There was far from support for the deal, with many poorer nations furious at the
manner in which it had been negotiated in private, the absence of emission
targets, the vagueness of funding commitments, and the goal of limiting
temperature rises to 2 C rather than the 1.5 C they had been campaigning for.
Surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was
also dropped Eventually, the African Union and the Alliance of Small Island
States joined with industrialized nations and the large emerging economies of
China, India, Brazil, and South Africa in urging delegates to accept the accord.
But a number of countries, led by Venezuela, Sudan and Nicaragua, continued to
express vehement opposition to the proposals.

The Danish Government had been hoping for a positive outcome, but the Danes
themselves expressed their frustration after being left with no binding deal.
Though India has signed the Copenhagen accord, it has called the climate talks a
complete failure, and said that there were no legally binding targets that the
developed countries would have to meet. "We have failed to agree at a sort of
solution which will lead us to a viable action plan towards controlling climate
change," says Suparno Banerjee, spokesperson of the New Delhi based Center for
Science and Environment.

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing
countries, was scathing, "This deal will definitely result in massive
devastation in Africa and small island states. It has the lowest level of
ambition you can imagine. Its nothing short of climate change scepticism in
action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever."

Speaking at a news conference in Havana, Cuban Foreign Minister, Bruno
Rodriguez Parrilla said, "No true agreement was reached at Copenhagen", and
called the deal that was reached at the summit a step backward on
climate-change. Calling the conference a fallacy, a farce, Rodriguez was also
critical of the American role in the talks in conspiring to impose on the
world a suicidal and non-binding agreement on climate, which fell short of
obliging main polluter (rich) economies to make concessions on CO2 emissions.

Political Spoilsport

There are some very prominent aspects of the accord that make it evident
that it is a failure from the word go. First, the plan does not specify
greenhouse gas cuts needed to achieve the 2 C goal that is seen as a threshold
for dangerous changes, such as more floods, droughts, mudslides, sandstorms, and
rising seas. Second, instead of building upon the foundation of the
already-insufficient Kyoto Protocol, the Obama administration demanded a whole
new structure, something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto framework
was abandoned, because it included legally binding agreements, and was based on
multi-lateral, agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses (however
insufficient).

Obamas lack of commitment towards Copenhagen was correctly assessed by
Canadian writer Naomi Klein, who said that Obama, like Bush, is "using multi-lateralism
to destroy multi-lateralism." This, according to the writer, means that Obama is
participating in international organizations like the UN Copenhagen conference,
with no intention of reaching agreements.

While the global blame game ensues, political strategists have evoked
concerns that China, India, Brazil, and Russia are the emerging threats, and the
issue of climate change is being used as yet another tactic to contain their
growth.

An effort to find that silver lining in the entire exercise is that a deal
looks in place to prevent deforestation, and there has been a recognition of the
problem of acidification in the oceans. Another cause to feel upbeat about was
the emerging consensus that the developed world should help to compensate for
the limiting of emissions of the developing world, provided it comes with
effective checks so that the right money goes to the right places.

Despite the failure of the summit, the business community worldwide has
welcomed the fact that the worlds major economies have, for the first time,
made commitments to curb emissions and this provides a clear signal that the
sensible money is in low carbon. "We look forward to countries coming up with
economy wide targets and mitigation actions before the end of January that are
as ambitious as possible," says Craig Bennett, co-director, Corporate Leaders
Group on Climate Change. He also added that the position of the Corporate
Leaders Group and the 950 companies from over sixty countries that signed the
Copenhagen Communiqu is that a legally binding deal is needed as a matter of
urgency to provide business with the confidence it needs to invest in specific
low-carbon technologies and infrastructure.

But it is a clear statement of political commitment which will underpin
policy and regulation in the major economies which are central to climate
action. Major capital investments in low carbon infrastructure require long and
loud regulatory signals and long term carbon price visibility. As regulations
and legally binding contractual agreements are not in place yet, businesses are
not going to see the scale or speed of investment required to accelerate the
transition to a low carbon economy.

Priya Kekre

priyak@cybermedia.co.in