Tag Archives: Copenhagen

The Copenhagen Agreement: What Went Down in Denmark

Posted on by
Reply

“We have a deal in Copenhagen.”  Those are the words of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, spoken after days of debate among the 193 nations that attended the COP15 conference.  Many people around the world saw Copenhagen as a symbol of hope that the world’s leaders could come together to make a pact that would stabilize climate change.  Hundreds of thousands rallied under the banner of “350.”  Just last week, tens of thousands of activists in Copenhagen demanded action against climate change.  On the other hand, many people predicted that a political agreement would likely take the place of a legally binding treaty.

So what went down in Denmark?  It all came down to the final day, when President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of India, Brazil, and South Africa.  They all made compromises and produced an agreement.  This in itself is important; as Andrew Light says,

“the Copenhagen Accord was not forged among our closest allies in the developed world; it was the product of cooperation between the US and a group of the largest carbon emitters in the developing world.”

But what about the agreement itself?  Well, it’s just that: an agreement, part of a two-step process that was actually proposed last month by the Danish prime minister.  According to the plan, the Accord will serve as a framework for the legally binding treaty, which will probably be formed in 2010.  This is disappointing for those who wanted a treaty this year, but it doesn’t make the conference a complete failure.

Here’s what you need to know about the Copenhagen Accord.

  • In general, the nations acknowledged a need to stabilize warming at 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, without making specific requirements for emissions reductions.  The major polluters did agree to voluntary reductions.  The big news: China is in the game now, pledging to reduce its carbon intensity — use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent.  India, Brazil, and South Africa followed suit.
  • Probably the most progress was made in humanitarian aid to poor countries.  Richer nations will finance a $30 billion, three-year program to help poorer nations deal with climate change and develop clean energy, with more funding possible in the future.
  • Several countries, including the U.S. promised a total of $3.5 billion to reduce deforestation.
  • And probably the biggest fault is the lack of an explicit deadline for a binding treaty in 2010.  There is also no specific peak date for carbon emissions.

That’s the basic info.  For more details, check the Guardian article, these two posts on Climate Progress, as well as Grist’s (rather negative) coverage, and the AP report.

Here’s my take:  The Copenhagen Accord could have been much better.  As it is, it definitely isn’t enough.  If the goal was to solve the climate crisis, then COP15 failed miserably, but if the goal was to make a step forward in solving our crisis, then it turned out all right, considering the political challenges.  Aside from the Accord itself, there’s another important thing that COP15 has shown us.  Of all the delegates and heads of state who worked on the Copenhagen deal, I don’t know of any that stood up and declared global warming a hoax (Well, Inhofe was there, but no one paid much attention to him).  Not every country agrees on how to deal with climate change, but the most powerful leaders on earth take the threat seriously.  That counts for something.

COP15 Update

Posted on by
Reply

What’s been going down in the first several days of the Copenhagen conferences?  Well, I promised I’d keep you guys informed, so here’s what I’m seeing from my online vantage point in the U.S.

First, tens of thousands of people are rallying in support of climate action.  That’s not an exaggeration.  A massive march took place on the thirteenth, with estimates ranging from 30,000 to 100,000 protestors (see the slideshow here).

From Grist's Flickr photostream.

A variety of smaller, but very creative, activist stunts took place in Copenhagen over the last few days.  A group of aliens from Avaaz asked people to take them to the “real climate leaders.”  ”Cut emissions, not trees,” said climate change activists in tree costumes.  ”We are not your climate loophole.”  Treehugger has a slideshow of these protests and several others.

A number of art exhibits are popping up, as well.  The CO2 cube, a multimedia installation by Alfio Bonanno and Christophe Cornubert, represents one ton of carbon dioxide — the amount emitted each month by the average person in an industrialized country, or in the case of the United States, every two weeks.  On monday, the cube outside the Copenhagen Planetarium started moving and talking.  It also screens video footage and live info (Read the whole story at Inhabitat).

Art and activism aside, there are some very important things happening in Copenhagen.  Tens of thousands of people around the world have called for bold steps to confront climate change.  But decisions have to be made by political leaders, and politicians do not always deliver.

Politically, the Copenhagen discussion centers around two main points: emissions targets and money.  Cutting emissions is what the whole thing is about, and the pledges offered by several nations vary widely.  The European Union has pledged a 20% cuts, 30% if other countries will follow suit.  And Japan has made similar commitments.  The U.S. has promised a pitiful 3% cut below 1990 levels, though we do have the EPA ruling as well.

The sticking point is (surprise!) money.  ”Developing” nations, such as China, India, and Brazil, want financial help from richer nations.  Meanwhile, nations that are most vulnerable to climate change are pushing for funding as part of legislation stronger than bigger countries would prefer.  The logic is that the nations most responsible for climate change are most responsible for solutions — and that means bigger commitments and bigger investments.  You can read more political details here.

All things considered, I think COP15 is more likely to produce a “political agreement” than a “legally binding treaty.”  Still, I can’t predict exactly what will happen in the next few days.  Even people that know way more about the politics than I do are unsure.

To close, here’s a statement from Greenpeace spokeswoman Tove Riding.  This is something that all political leaders should listen to.

“Cancel the speeches, cancel the fancy dinners, skip the photo opportunities and spend the time working,” she said. Doing otherwise, she added, “would be like dining on the Titanic.”

Obama is going to Copenhagen

Posted on by
1

President Obama has announced that he will personally attend the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen. Arriving at the beginning of the conference, he is going to pledge for the United States to cut emissions 20% below 2005 levels by 2020.  That’s only about 3% below the 1990 benchmark — not as ambitious as many scientists recommend.  By comparison, the European Union has pledged at least a 20% cut below 1990 levels.  Then again, the EU always moves faster than we do with progressive changes.

It will actually pretty bold for Obama to pledge any carbon cuts before the Senate has passed cap-and-trade.  He would essentially be ignoring the angry voices in the Senate who will certainly not give up on shouting down the Kerry-Boxer.  Of course, those voices would still have a chance to shout down the international treaty.

Speaking of the international treaty, don’t count on one being signed this year.  It’s possible, but the Danish are proposing to defer a final agreement until 2010, and I wouldn’t be surprised if other countries agree to some extra breathing room.  There are a wide range of opinions on delaying the treaty, so I guess you can choose the one you like best.  The important thing is that the treaty is effective.  It could have a huge impact, so they need to get it right on the first try.

Now back to Obama.  I said earlier that he is attending the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, but he is planning to leave before the other world leaders show up for the major discussions.  (Interestingly, he’s flying from Copenhagen to Oslo, where he’ll receive the Nobel Peace Prize.)  He will be virtually saying “Forget you” to GOP Senators and putting his credibility on the line by promising an emissions cut, but a lot of people would’ve liked to see him take part in actual discussions.

The “Last Flat-Earther” is Going to Copenhagen

Posted on by
Reply

Senator James Inhofe (R-OIL), who the Washington Post called “the last flat-earther,” has announced that he plans to attend the Copenhagen climate talks next month.  Why?  According to Ada Evening News,

Inhofe said he still intends to attend the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference.

“I’m always the spoiler at this thing. Last night I was on the Larry Kudlow show. He said, ‘Inhofe is the one-man truth squad going to Copenhagen.’ So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, ‘Yes. We’re going to pass a global warming bill,’ I will be able to stand up and say, ‘No, it’s over. Get a life. You lost. I won,’ ” Inhofe said.

Recently, Inhofe led the GOP boycott of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s markup of the climate bill.  They said they were waiting for an extensive EPA analysis, which the EPA itself has called unnecessary.  Computer models like the ones run for the House bill are, according to the EPA’s David McIntosh, “not designed to detect fine-grain details.”  Another analysis right now would result in “vanishingly small” differences.  BTW, it costs at least $135,000 each times the models are re-run.  How’s that for fiscal responsibility?

Of course, the real reason for boycotting the markup was to delay the bill’s progress.  As Senator Inhofe explained, “What we did was I told all of the Republicans not to go so they couldn’t have an official mark-up.”

Ironically, he secured more than a million dollars in water-related projects for Ada, Oklahoma, a city that could easily be caught in a drought if climate change continues unchecked.

Not all Republicans are as outspoken against a livable climate.  Most notable is Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who actually supports the climate bill, but other GOP members are cool with clean energy even if a carbon market makes them uncomfortable.

So what’s with the EPW folks?

Perhaps it has something to do with the $3,507,321the seven minority members of the EPW Committee have received from Big Oil, along with millions more from utilities, mining and the national resource sector. This is in addition to the billions Big Oil has spent on lobbying, astroturfing and smear campaigns. Exxon Mobil alone spent $7.2 million on lobbying in the last quarter – more than the total of the entire alternative energy sector.

oil/gas utilities mining nat resources sector
Inhofe $     1,223,723 $     437,967 $        197,850 $            2,045,140
Alexander $        400,375 - - $               663,000
Voinovich $        360,329 $     570,726 $        260,799 $            1,000,000
Vitter $        659,635 $     165,665 - $               974,000
Barrasso $        169,250 - $         63,650 $               391,700
Crapo $        247,699 $     278,441 - $               784,136
Bond $        446,310 $     313,165 - $            1,013,063
GOP total $    3,507,321 $ 1,765,964 $       522,299 $           6,871,039

(Climate Progress)

Most of those guys voiced their intents to kill the climate bill before it had even been introduced.

Now let me make on thing clear: I’m not attacking Republicans in general.  There’s nothing wrong with being cautious about major changes, but our current path is obviously not working, and to constantly say “NO” without giving a viable alternative doesn’t help anything.

Regardless of political stances, the public needs to know that politicians who oppose clean energy are on the payrolls of dirty energy companies.

Or maybe I should quit blogging and become a lobbyist.  They seem to have more impact.