Copenhagen accord: “breathtakingly unambitious”
December 20th, 2009 by Jim JustA deal was reached at the last minute in “Nopenhagen” among the U.S. China, India, Brazil and South Africa. About 25 other nations signed on, but other countries instead agreed only to “take note” of the document – that is, to simply recognize that it exists.
Obama called “Copenhagen Accord” a “meaningful and unprecedented” step to slow global warming. Bill McKibben described it as “non-binding, unfair, and breathtakingly unambitious.”
Lars-Erik Liljelund, the director general of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s office, had a different take:
The meeting was a disaster. The process needs to be changed because if we continue like this, we won’t be any further a year from now.
The deal reached calls for voluntary steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obama admitted the agreement is just empty talk:
It will not be legally binding, but what it will do is allow for each country to show to the world what they are doing.
The Copenhagen accord “recognizes” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2° C above pre-industrial levels. But the accord calls for only a 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050 (80% in developed countries), and does not contain any actual commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal. As a U.N. secretariat memo that was leaked at conference shows, the “voluntary” cuts on offer would produce a rise of at least three degrees and a CO2 concentration of at least 550 ppm, not the 450 ppm that supposedly is necessary to hit the 2° C target. The best guess from the modelers at Climate Interactive was that the proposals various countries were making might yield a world about 3.52° C warmer, with a carbon concentration of 770 ppm. That’s far from the 350 ppm scientists now believe is necessary to avoid climate catastrophe.
A decision on targets for reducing carbon emissions by 2020 was put off until next month.
The accord also establishes a goal of developed countries “mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries,” predicated on developed countries judging the mitigation actions to be “meaningful” and “transparent.” Trillions shoveled to the bankers, no questions asked. A pittance to save the planet, someday – and that “goal” hedged to the hilt.
The developing countries also pledged $30 billion for the period 2010 – 2012, with priority to be given to the most vulnerable developing countries. The money would be split between adaptation and mitigation, including forestry. Ian Fry of the drowning island-nation Tuvalu compared it to “being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future”.
The accord ends with a promise to take another look in 2016 – and perhaps to consider a 1.5° C target at that time.
In what is becoming a familiar refrain, Obama told delegates to quit bitching – an “imperfect framework” is better than nothing.
Obama should take lessons on negotiating from the Chinese. China won, in the sense they achieved their objective of stonewalling any meaningful agreement.
The Chinese should take note, as should we all: sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.