Reactions after the Copenhagen Conference (COP-15) By: Dr.

Gregor Wolbring 1* Seyyed Ghaderi February 2010

This after Copenhagen Literature Review was performed by Dr. Gregor Wolbring Assistant Professor at the University of Calgary and leader of the GE3LS team with the help of PhD student Seyyed Ghaderi. We would like to also thank Tom Jack a member of the GE3LS team and the other members of the grant. * Dr. Gregor Wolbring is the corresponding author email: gwolbrin [at] ucalgary.ca 1

Views of Experts Specialist Organizations ................................................................................................... 7 Among Bloggers ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Views of NGOs .......................................................................................................................................... 41 Governments ............................................................................................................................................ 61 In Media .................................................................................................................................................... 66 Specific to Canada/Alberta ....................................................................................................................... 82

Contents

Some webpages with constantly new, relevant material that also covered and covers the Copenhagen discourse..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Preface
Canada recognizes the necessity to transition global energy production towards renewable resources. But until the technologies exist to make it economically feasible to do so, Canadas oil, gas and coal must be extracted in the most environmentally friendly way possible. This project is designed to generate data that can be used to minimize the environmental impact of oil sands production, by decreasing its use of water and emission of greenhouse gases and by enhancing the extraction of clean burning gas from coal beds. Work performed in this Genome Canada grant Metagenomics for Greener Production and Extraction of Hydrocarbon Energy: Creating Opportunities for Enhanced Recovery with Reduced Environmental Impact will develop a database to describe and harness the genetic potential of the microorganisms, genes and biological processes that exist naturally in microbial communities in our oil sands and coal beds to improve our understanding of how methane in hydrocarbon resources is generated, to identify the enzymes involved in the natural cracking of hydrocarbons that produce methane and carbon dioxide, to extract hydrocarbons in the more environmentally friendly way, to decrease the water used and land lost in mining operations and manage better the methane emissions from tailings ponds. The GE3LS (ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues) team that is part of this grant has various tasks. One of them is to outline the existing energy discourse. The literature review of the reaction after the Copenhagen climate change conference is one deliverable in regards to the energy discourse section of the mandate of the GE3LS team. All the literature review generated in this project hopefully serve as a foundation to give people an idea as to the lay of the land and trigger research questions by students and others.

Some webpages with constantly new, relevant material that also covered and covers the Copenhagen discourse
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int Energy search engine http://www.reegle.info/index.php International Energy Agency http://www.iea.org/ The World Bank Group Energy Program http://www.worldbank.org/energy/ OECD Energy http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_37459_1_1_1_1_37459,00.html United Nations Development Program Energy http://www.undp.org/energy/ World Energy Council http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/324.asp Climate-I.org funded by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. http://climate-l.org/ The International Institute for Sustainable Development Reporting Services Division http://www.iisd.ca/ The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) http://www.iisd.ca/voltoc.html Global Climate Law Blog http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/ Climatechangecentral http://www.climatechangecentral.com Third World Network http://www.twnside.org.sg/climate.htm Stockholm Environmental Institute http://www.sei-international.org/index.php UN Department of economic and social affairs Division for Sustainable Development (DSD) http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/index.shtml Copenhagen Climate Change Conference http://en.cop15.dk/ European Commission Climate Change section

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm

United Nations Development Programme Climate Change http://www.undp.org/climatechange/ OECD Climate Change http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_34361_1_1_1_1_37465,00.html Allianze Insurance http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/ World Bank Climate Change http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/ World Health Organization Climate Change

http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/ Canadian Government http://canada.gc.ca/azind/eindex-eng.html#env Alberta Government Climate Change http://environment.alberta.ca/1319.html

Views of Experts Specialist Organizations

Copenhagen COP15 Analysis and Press Releases Press releases and analysis notes for work completed during the December 2009 COP15 UNFCCC event. Copenhagen Accord Submissions Press Release 4 February 2010 - PDF The Copenhagen Accord reaffirms the goal of limiting temperature increase to 2.0C but pledges submitted to the UNFCCC for inclusion in the Accord would allow mean global temperature to increase 3.9C (7.0F) by 2100. Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 - PDF The final Copenhagen Accord reaffirms the importance of limiting global warming to 2 C, but current national commitments would lead to approximately 3.9 C (7.0 F) warming by 2100. Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 - Expanded Version Expanded version of final press release, including graphs and technical backup Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 - Spreadsheet Spreadsheet documenting all the results in the press release and technical backup UNFCCC "Mitigation Gap" Press Release 12 December 09 - PDF Mitigation Gap: National Emissions Reductions Proposals Currently Fall Short of the Targets Defined in Draft Text from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action UNFCCC "Mitigation Gap" Press Release 12 December 09 - Summary and Notes Group Press Release on State of Global Deal 9 December 09 "Copenhagen must deliver emissions cuts beyond the high end of current proposals or risk missing the opportunity for a reasonable chance of keeping below 2C." -- Joint Statement from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, the United Nations Environment Program, Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute, the European Climate Foundation and ClimateWorks Document Actions http://climateinteractive.org/resolveuid/88533d603c731ee69b9cf0f0e0899cb3

Centre for Policy Research India Climate Initiative 1. Navroz K. Dubash, "Copenhagen: Climate of Mistrust," Economic and Political Weekly, December 26, 2009. Two weeks of wrangling and grandstanding at the United Nations climate change conference ended with the Copenhagen Accord, which was a paper-thin cover-up of what was a near complete failure, though it does enable the process to move forward. These reflections on the climate negotiations first provide a brief encapsulation of events, followed by a discussion of the key negotiation issues that took centre stage. It then provides a political interpretation of the Copenhagen Accord and its future prospects. The reflections locate the process in the context of the larger, and unresolved tensions between the North and the South. The article concludes with an outline of what the Copenhagen experience suggests is needed in the Indian climate debate. 2. Lavanya Rajamani, "Neither Fish nor Fowl," Seminar, February, 2010. The Copenhagen Accord reached among 29 states in December 2009 is a hybrid creature with an uncertain future. It is neither a CoP decision that can be operationalized through the FCCC institutional architecture and draw on the existing normative corpus, nor is it an independent plurilateral agreement with its own operational architecture and normative core. This situation will likely present significant legal and procedural challenges to the operationalization of the Accord. The enclosed article identifies and explores a few of these challenges. http://www.cprindia.org/

Copenhagen's climate finance promise: six key questions J. Timmons Roberts, Martin Stadelmann and Saleemul Huq

One of the promises emerging from the confusion of the Copenhagen climate talks focused on climate finance. Ramping up to US$100 billion a year starting in 2020, the promised finance would support developing countries in adapting to climate impacts and adopting low-carbon pathways. This briefing explores the wording in the Copenhagen Accord to unearth six big questions about the promise any one of which could seriously challenge the trust these funds were designed to build. http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17071IIED

10

The Real Tragedy of Copenhagen By: Martin Khor Year: 2009 The Copenhagen Accord drawn up after the UN climate conference in December is only three pages long. What is left out is probably more important than what it contains. The so-called deal, which the governments only took note of and was not adopted, does not mention any figures for emission reduction that the developed countries are to undertake after 2012. However, the larger failure was that while Copenhagen should have been designed as a stepping stone, and not as a final conclusion, western political leaders tried to hijack the legitimate multilateral process of negotiations that had been taking place before Copenhagen and at Copenhagen itself. What the world ended up with was a disaster of a meeting and a document. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2010/20100101/EPW.14305.pdf

11

Summary of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: Year: 2009 The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark took place from 7-19 December 2009. It included the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fifth Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5). COP 15 and COP/MOP 5 were held in conjunction with the thirty-first sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 31) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 31), the tenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 10) and the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC (AWG-LCA 8). The Copenhagen Conference marked the culmination of a two-year negotiating process to enhance international climate change cooperation under the Bali Roadmap, launched by COP 13 in December 2007. Close to 115 world leaders attended the joint COP and COP/MOP high-level segment from 16-18 December, marking one of the largest gatherings of world leaders outside of New York. The conference was subject to unprecedented public and media attention, and more than 40,000 people, representing governments, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, faith-based organizations, media and UN agencies applied for accreditation at the conference. Many hoped that the Copenhagen Climate Conference would be able to seal the deal and result in a fair, ambitious and equitable agreement, setting the world towards a path to avoid dangerous climate change. To this end, what many characterized as intense negotiations took place over the two weeks at the level of experts, Ministers and Heads of State. But it was not without controversy. Questions concerning transparency and process played out during the meeting. Differences emerged, inter alia, on whether work should be carried out in a smaller friends of the chair format as well as on a proposal by the Danish COP Presidency to table two texts reflecting the work done by the AWGs. Many parties rejected this idea, urging that only texts developed in the AWGs by parties should be used. During the high-level segment, informal negotiations took place in a group consisting of major economies and representatives of regional groups. Late on Friday evening, these talks resulted in political agreement entitled the Copenhagen Accord, which was not based on the texts developed by either of the AWGs. Details of the agreement were widely reported by the media before the COP closing plenary. While most reports highlighted that Heads of State had been able to seal the deal, almost everyone participating in the negotiations openly admitted that it was far from a perfect agreement. During the closing COP plenary, which lasted nearly 13 hours, long and what many characterized as acrimonious discussions ensued on the transparency of the process that had led to the conclusion of the Copenhagen Accord and on whether the COP should adopt it. Most negotiating groups supported its adoption as a COP decision in order to operationalize it as a step towards a better future agreement. Some developing countries, however, opposed the Accord reached during what they characterized as an untransparent and undemocratic negotiating process. During informal negotiations facilitated by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon during the night and early morning, parties agreed to adopt a COP decision whereby the COP takes note of the Copenhagen Accord, which was attached to the decision as an unofficial document. Parties also agreed to establish a procedure whereby countries supporting the Copenhagen Accord can accede to it. Many recognized the historical significance of the Copenhagen Conference, highlighting its unprecedented success in bringing together the majority of the worlds leaders to consider climate change and listing mitigation actions pledged by developed and developing countries, as well as provisions on finance and technology. Most delegates, however, left Copenhagen disappointed at what 12

they saw as a weak agreement, and questioning its practical implications given that the Copenhagen Accord had not been formally adopted as the outcome of the negotiations. http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12459e.pdf

13

UNFCCC Press Briefing on the Outcome of Copenhagen and the Way Forward In 2010 Addressing the media for the first time since last month's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Yvo de Boer said the fact that Copenhagen did not deliver the full agreement the world needs to address climate change just makes the task more urgent. Three key things that Copenhagen produced are: 1) It raised climate change to the highest level of government; 2) The Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the long-term, global response to climate change; 3) The negotiations brought an almost full set of decisions to implement rapid climate action near to completion. Mr. de Boer said that were now in a cooling off period that gives countries useful and needed time to resume their discussions with each other. If countries follow up the outcomes of Copenhagen calmly, with eyes firmly on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job, he said. http://unfccc.int/2860.php

14

COP15Copenhagen Climate Conference By: Anup Shah Year: 2009 December 7 December 18, 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark was the venue for the 15th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the 15th Conference of the Parties or COP 15. As with previous conferences, thousands of politicians (including head of states), diplomats, journalists, lobbyists and NGOs attended hoping the summit would finalize a post-Kyoto international agreement on climate change to take effect in 2013. The build-up to the meeting was full of optimism and hope, as the US was, for the first time in a long time, going to be seen as a positive contributor, and their involvement is always recognized as key. There was also increasing focus on emerging economies such as China and India. Instead of a positive outcome, most commentators saw it as a failure, though for different reasons http://www.globalissues.org/article/784/cop15-copenhagen-climateconference#Loweredexpectationsandoutcomes

15

Copenhagen Climate Conference Collapses Ronald Bailey's Fifth and Final Dispatch from the Copenhagen Climate Conference By: Ronald Bailey Year: 2009 World leaders are abandoning the Bella Center like rats off a sinking ship after declaring that a deal has been reached at the Copenhagen climate change conference. Two years ago at the Bali climate conference, it was agreed that the signatories to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol would finalize a binding global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the Copenhagen meeting. That goal was put aside even before the meeting here got started. In turn, the Copenhagen conference was supposed to resolve major issues like the mid-term reduction commitments by developed countries, how to monitor those commitments, and how to fund adaptation and mitigation in poor countries. Now those goals have been put off to the indefinite future. Although the detailed language is not yet available, the broad outlines are apparently these: (1) The agreement sets a target of no more than two degrees Celsius for the increase in global temperatures. (2) The agreement sets the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 with the developed countries cutting their emissions by 80 percent. (3) Going into the Copenhagen conference, the goal was to adopt a binding treaty by next meeting in Mexico City in 2010. That goal has been dropped and no date set for a future deal. (4) With regard to transparencythe big sticking point between China and the U.S.countries are supposed to provide information tracking their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the guidelines for monitoring those activities are to be negotiated later. Ignore the spin that the politicians try to put on it: In any meaningful sense, the Copenhagen climate conference collapsed. http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/18/copenhagen-climate-conference

16

Industrial Policy and Environmental Sustainability: The Challenge after COP15 By: Wim Naud and Ludovico Alcorta Industrial policy is being reassessed in the light of the global financial crisis as well as the negotiations on a global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gases the fifteenth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) which took place in December 2009 in Copenhagen. This conference took place against the concern (as the UNs climate panels recent fourth report indicates) that human society is contributing significantly, through emission of greenhouse gases, to global warming, and that this will have an overall negative impact on global development. Kemal Dervi, in his WIDER Annual Lecture presented in Helsinki in March 2008, pointed out. Climate change will have a larger and more immediate negative impact on many of the worlds poor. Our concern for development and poverty reduction, as captured in the Millennium Development Goals, dictates that we mitigate climate change urgently to reduce the threats to the development prospects of the most vulnerable, as well as take action to help those already affected to adapt. Human-induced climate change and its effects on global development is part of the more general challenge of achieving environmental sustainability. It requires a rethink of the process and outputs of production and of distribution and consumption. As recently put by Jeff Sachs[i] The global economy is literally unsustainable now and cannot absorb further economic and population growth without serious risks of global destabilization even collapse. In addition to rising greenhouse gas emissions and its consequences, areas of concern include rising commodity prices, peak oil, pollution from agriculture, and increasing water scarcity to name but a few. Reassessing industrial policy is now necessary as (i) industrialization and industrial catch-up by industrially lagging countries will increasingly run into resource constraints and climate change impacts, and (ii) without appropriate forms of industrialization in both advanced economies and in developing countries, little progress will be made towards any agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol. The Gordian Knot to be untied is how to achieve these changes in a manner that does not limit the development and industrial catch-up of the poorest countries, and which does not result in politically unacceptable job losses in advanced economies. Industrial policies whether explicitly termed as such or referred to as competitiveness policies will increasingly take centre stage in governments responses as they grapple with rising commodity prices, growing inequality and sluggish growth. But given the dangers and failings inherent in industrial policy, extreme caution is required. Hence a new debate on industrial policy, supported by new research and new paradigms, is required to move forward. In recognition of this challenge, UNU-WIDER, UNU-MERIT and UNIDO held a successful workshop on the topic in Maastricht, The Netherlands on 22-23 October. Following this workshop, we outline a number of considerations for environmentally sustainable industrial policies in this article http://www.wider.unu.edu/home/news/en_GB/Highlights-january/

17

Should Coal Company Investors Breathe Easy After Copenhagen? Green Energy Investing For Experts, Part V By: Tom Konrad A global climate deal in Copenhagen would have been bad for coal miners, and coal companies have been rallying as the economy recovers, but it may not be clear skies for the black rock. In the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coal is enemy number one. The global disarray in Copenhagen can only be good for coal mining companies, and they duly rallied when the climate talks ended with little to show for it. Yet carbon emissions are not the only black mark on the coal industry's record, and investor relief may be premature. * The EPA's endangerment finding means that the administration may tackle greenhouse gas emissions with regulation rather than cap and trade. * Economic coal reserves may fall far short of widely accepted estimates. * While "Climategate" may not make some scientists look good, it's mostly hot air. * The risks of coal fired power are not limited to climate. A repeat of 2008's Tennessee coal ash flood or other coal related environmental disaster could quickly knock the wind out of the industry. * Opposition continues to mount against the destructive mining practices such as mountain top removal. * Carbon Capture and Storage ("Clean Coal") is likely to be uneconomic, even if the technical challenges are overcome. * Climate change is real, and plans to reduce carbon emissions have to address coal to be effective. The longer we delay, the more drastic the action will have to be. None of this is to say that coal mining stocks have to fall anytime soon. Rather, I'm pointing out that there are large and significant risks that coal investors ignore at their peril. The polarization of climate debate is such that many conservatives seem unable to see these risks because of their preconceived notions. Climate deniers may crow in anticipation about their impending victory in the climate change debate, but this is a debate they cannot win because the facts simply do not support their case, no matter how many careless emails they are able to dredge up. Investors usually have to operate in a realm of uncertainty. We don't know what next years earnings of any company will be, we only hope that our estimate is better than the rest of the crowd. The climate debate, on the other hand, is a rare opportunity where we know the outcome with near certainty, and yet there is a large contingent of climate deniers willing to put their money down on the other side of the bet. Today, with recent polls showing fewer Americans supporting action on climate change than last year, it's easy to become discouraged about the chances of real action to confront climate change. As an investor, it is dark moments like these when courageous investors put their money down and are rewarded when the pendulum swings back, as it always does. Betting Against Coal: A Green Lottery Ticket I'm not one of those courageous investors. I prefer to take small risks that still have the potential for large rewards. Since I don't know if the pendulum of public opinion on climate change will begin to swing back today or ten years from now, I'm not ready to start shorting coal companies. However, I am ready to make a few small bets that change might be sudden and soon. I've bought a couple cheap, long-dated puts on coal companies. http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/01/should_coal_company_investors_breathe_easy_aft er_copenhagen.html 18

A Brief Analysis of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Year: 2009 The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was, in many ways, an historic event. It marked the culmination of two years of intensive negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Bali Roadmap, which was agreed by the thirteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 13) in December 2007. Millions of people around the world hoped that Hopenhagen would be a turning point in the battle against climate change. The high-level segment brought together 115 Heads of State and Government, and was widely reported as one of the largest high-level gathering outside New York. More than 40,000 people applied for accreditation for the Conference, far exceeding the 15,000 capacity of the Conference venue. Large, and at times violent, demonstrations took place in Copenhagen during the Conference as people urged the worlds leaders to reach a meaningful agreement. There is little doubt that the Copenhagen Conference left its mark in history never before has climate change featured so prominently on the international agenda. However, feelings about the outcome are, at best, mixed and some even consider the Conference to be a failure. This brief analysis focuses on the Copenhagen outcome, both in terms of substance and process, examining what the outcome might mean for the UNFCCC process, and most importantly, for the battle against climate change. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/enb_copenhagen_commentary.pdf

19

PricewaterhouseCoopers Sustainability & Climate Change Services Post-Copenhagen Analysis: Implications for Business Year: 2010 So much has been written about the disappointment or failure of the Climate Summit in Copenhagen last month that rehashing the final eventful days and hours of COP-15 here would add little. But there has been much less analysis of the implications of the Copenhagen Accord for business. This is the focus of this paper. Political commitment, but little clarity Business had been pressing governments to send clear, long term signals about the pace and direction of climate policy. On any credible measure, the Accord does not do this. It reflects a broader coalition behind the intent to stay within 2 degrees Celsius of warming, but failed to deliver any specifics on national emissions targets or mitigation plans for either 2020 or 2050. Even on issues where progress appears to have been made, such as technology transfer or adaptation, the Accord lacks the detail required to prompt action. Developed countries are expected to submit targets for 2020 to the UN by the end of January this year, whilst developing nations are encouraged to log mitigation actions by that date. These targets and plans would provide some granularity to the policy agenda. But it remains to be seen how many countries meet the deadline and whether the submissions reflect any greater ambition than the pledges made by politicians in the run up to Copenhagen. Even then, businesses looking for clarity will continue to face a period of uncertainty which will remain until those targets are enshrined in national legislation http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/pwc_copenhagen_analysis_implications_for_busines.pdf

20

UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) Year: 2010 The Copenhagen climate conference ended on 19 December by taking note of the 'Copenhagen Accord', which was supported by a large majority of Parties, including the European Union, but opposed by a small number. The conference also mandated the two ad hoc working groups on long-term cooperative action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and on further commitments for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol to complete their work at the next annual climate conference, to be held in Mexico City in November 2010. These results fall well short of the European Union's goal of achieving maximum progress in Copenhagen towards the finalisation of an ambitious and legally binding global climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2013. Though disappointing, the Copenhagen outcome is however a step in the right direction. The EU secured key elements of the Copenhagen Accord, which was negotiated among some 30 parties many of them represented by their heads of state or government from all UN regional groups during the course of 18 December and into the early hours of 19 December. These parties collectively represent more than 80% of global emissions. The Accord received support from the vast majority of Parties to the UNFCCC, but due to opposition from a handful of countries the closing plenary session of the conference merely took note of the Accord without formally endorsing it. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who as Council Presidency negotiated on behalf of the EU together with European Commission President Jos Manuel Barroso, said of the Accord: This will not solve the threat of climate change. But it is a first step, an important step. President Barroso commented: This accord is better than no accord. He expressed disappointment over the absence of any reference to a future agreement being legally binding. At the same time, it also fair to say that this was the first time we could put, in an agreement at this level, the actions that have now been pledged by many other Parties, he said. Following a discussion of the Accord by EU Environment Ministers on 22 December 2009, the Commission joined the Swedish Presidency in concluding that the Accord marks a first step towards a legally binding global agreement. The Accord endorses for the first time at global level the objective of keeping warming to less than 2C above the pre-industrial temperature. Another positive element is that it requires developed countries to submit economy-wide emission reduction targets, and developing countries to submit their mitigation actions, by 31 January 2010 so that they can be listed as part of the document. The Accord also lays the basis for a substantial fast start finance package for developing countries approaching $30 billion for the period 2010-12, and medium-term financing of $100 billion annually by 2020. However, the Accord does not refer to the conclusion of a legally binding agreement, a key objective for the EU, or set the goal of at least halving global emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels in order to keep warming below 2C. The EU will continue to push for these. The Accord also leaves many important details to be worked out. Much work will now be needed to make the Accord operational. If this can be achieved it could, together with the outcomes of the two working groups, provide the basis of a new global climate treaty. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/copenhagen_09.htm 21

How to Cure the Post-Copenhagen Hangover By: Patrick Bond Year: 2009 In Copenhagen, the worlds richest leaders continued their fiery fossil fuel party last Friday night, December 18, ignoring requests of global village neighbours to please chill out. Instead of halting the hedonism, US President Barack Obama and the Euro elites cracked open the mansion door to add a few nouveau riche guests: South Africas Jacob Zuma, Chinas Jiabao Wen (reportedly the most obnoxious of the lot), Brazils Lula Inacio da Silva and Indias Manmohan Singh. By Saturday morning, still drunk with their power over the planet, these wild and crazy party animals had stumbled back onto their jets and headed home. The rest of us now have a killer hangover, because on behalf mainly of white capitalists (who are having the most fun of all), the worlds rulers stuck the poor and future generations with the vast clean-up charges and worse: certain death for millions. The 770 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere envisaged in the "Copenhagen Accord" signatories promised 15% emissions cuts from 1990 levels to 2020 which in reality could be a 10% increase once carbon trading and offset loopholes are factored in will cook the planet, say scientists, with nine out of 10 African peasants losing their livelihood. The most reckless man at the party, of course, was the normally urbane, Ivy League-educated lawyer who, a year ago, we hoped might behave with the dignity and compassion behooving the son of a leading Kenyan intellectual. But in Obamas refusal to lead the global North to make the required 45% emissions cuts and offer payment of the US$400 billion annual climate debt owed to Third World victims by 2020, Obama trashed not only Africa but also the host institution, according to 350.org leader Bill McKibben: "he blew up the United Nations." Economist Jeffrey Sachs charged Obama with abandoning "the UN framework, because it was proving nettlesome to US power and domestic politics. Obamas decision to declare a phony negotiating victory undermines the UN process by signaling that rich countries will do what they want and must no longer listen to the `pesky' concerns of many smaller and poorer countries." The accord is "insincere, inconsistent, and unconvincing", Sachs continued, "unlikely to accomplish anything real. It is non-binding and will probably strengthen the forces of opposition to emissions reductions". Moreover, US secretary of state Hillary Clintons "announcements about money a decade from now are mostly empty words. They do not bind the rich countries at all." As Naomi Klein summed up, the accord is "nothing more than a grubby pact between the worlds biggest emitters: Ill pretend that you are doing something about climate change if you pretend that I am too. Deal? Deal." http://links.org.au/node/1426

22

COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 Year: 2009 The United Nations Climate Change Conference will take place at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7 and December 18, 2009. The conference includes the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 15) and the 5th Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5). According to the Bali roadmap, a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 is to be agreed there. WHO Side Event - Protecting health from climate change 17 December 2009, 1 - 2.30pm, Victor Borg, Bella Centre, Copenhagen The WHO side event at COP15 will involve the public health community under WHO leadership and aims to facilitate the inclusion of health concerns in the new agreement, decision-making, resource allocation and outreach activities. It also aims to facilitate information exchange and mutually beneficial interactions amongst the stakeholders for raising awareness and actively involving the health sector in responding to the climate change challenge. During the workshop the significant impacts on human health of climate change as well as the strategies and experiences to enhance adaptation will be reviewed. The opportunities for health protection and promotion arising from "healthy" mitigation policies in areas such as transport and energy production and the mutual benefits of a more coordinated agenda between the health and climate communities will be stressed. The health sector, being an energy intensive sector, can also give a significant contribution to the mitigation efforts at international, national and local levels. In addition, UNAIDS will participate in the side event, using the opportunity as a first step in addressing the wider implications of the climate change and AIDS nexus. To this end, an issues paper will be presented, communicating 4-5 key messages around the security and humanitarian exigencies that may arise between climate change and AIDS, with the aim to open a space for a future and more substantive debate on the AIDS and climate change connection. A key speaker will be invited to join the round table discussion, to address these linkages WHO will involve representatives of the scientific, public health and policy communities which will participate in a roundtable discussion about the experiences and actions required to protect health from climate change.

http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/2009/climatechange_conference_7122009/en/index.html

23

Monitoring and Reporting On Financial Flows Related To Climate Change By: The World Bank Year: 2009 Mitigating and adapting to climate change increases the cost of development. Considerable resources are needed in addition to the present levels of official development assistance (ODA) to complement rather than undermine the efforts and progress towards the achievement of development objectives including Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The panoply of types and sources of financial flows is extremely broad and includes both new instruments established to address climate change as well as core development and investment finance shifting towards low carbon solutions and adaptation. In this complex landscape, keeping track of financial support to adaptation and mitigation will be a challenge. Following the mandate provided in the Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group (WBG) on Development and Climate Change, an internal discussion paper on the challenges related to monitoring such flows has been prepared by World Bank staff in consultation with UNFCCC and OECD. The first part focuses on tracking, monitoring and reporting various types of flows, primarily from ODA and other public sources, but also briefly reflecting on flows from private sources. It briefly reviews available information on the various (current and upcoming) financial and investment flows to support climate action in developing countries as a first step in assessing the challenges associated with monitoring of such flows. It considers both climate finance (i.e., the amount of additional resources required to catalyze the shift of a much larger volume of public and private development investments to climate-friendlier options) and underlying finance (i.e., the almost 10 to 20 times larger amount of financial and investment flows in developing countries that must be increasingly put to climate action). The second part on focuses on possible ways of tracking additionality in ODA flows only, with the aim to stimulating the discussion within the World Bank Group and its partners on this issue. It describes the various perceptions of different groups of countries as well as possible baselines, benchmarks and tools for tracking progress. It concludes that the future technical solutions for monitoring official (ODA and non-ODA) financial flows towards climate action will most likely be a combination of the application of (current and improved) OECD DAC Rio Markers, more consistent reporting by MDBs, and reporting by UNFCCC on new funding through levies, and increased capacity by recipient countries in tracking incoming flows, etc. Increasingly reliable, comprehensive and transparent reporting is needed to demonstrate that new climate finance instruments are not introduced at the expense of those targeting other objectives. The thirds part provides proposals for further action by developed and developing countries, the UN system and MDBs. http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/sites/default/files/documents/ClimateFin-Monitoring122909.pdf

24

A Convention for persons displaced by Climate Change The effects of climate change will cause large-scale human displacement. We are engaged in a research project which seeks to address the problem of climate change displacement. The focus of our project is a proposal for a draft convention for persons displaced by climate change. The convention would establish an international regime for the status and treatment of such persons.

http://www.ccdpconvention.com/

25

Among Bloggers

26

The Copenhagen Accord: What Happened? Is It A Good Deal? Who Wins And Who Loses? What Is Next? By: Emmanuel Gurin, and Matthieu Wemaere Year: 2009 The two weeks of negotiations in Copenhagen (7-18 December 2009) have been full of twists and turns. The outcome of the first phase, when heads of delegations and Ministers had the leadership, is a set of draft decisions, heavily bracketed, and not recognized by all Parties especially the US as a basis for negotiations. It proves the difficulty if not the impossibility of making progress towards an agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol (KP) process. The lack of clarity of the Bali Roadmap setting a two-track process, one under the UNFCCC and one under the KP, but leaving open the form and legal nature of the final outcome and the lack of skill of the Danish Presidency, did not help. The outcome of the second phase, when a small group around 30 heads of State took the lead, is a minimalist agreement, disappointing in substance, and hectic in process. It proves that the pileup of countries redlines did not leave room for an ambitious agreement: the agreement found is somehow the lowest common denominator. This is not the deal we hoped, but given the context, and especially given the perception that States had of their own national interests, this was probably the best possible deal. http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Idees-pour-le-debat/The-Copenhagen-Accord-Whathappened-Is-it-a-good-deal-Who-wins-and-who-loses-What-is-next

27

The issues of adaptation in Copenhagen By: Benjamin Garnaud Year: 2009 Adaptation to climate change has rapidly grown in importance in climate negotiations and will probably be one of the achievable points of agreement in Copenhagen in December. But progressing from an agreement on adaptation to genuine implementation will take a long time and will require dealing with new theoretical issues, from which a new conception of international cooperation shall inevitably arise. With this in mind we will set current discussions in their true context, then explain the various objects negotiated within the pillar of adaptation. We will then present the positions and negotiating strategies of the various protagonists, before summarizing what can be expected from Copenhagen.

http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/sy_0904_Garnaud_AdaptCop15_EN.pdf

28

Closing Thoughts on Copenhagen The airport line ups were long this morning in Copenhagen as folks left for home. Many had not slept the night before, waiting around the clock at the Bella Centre for the response of the EU, Japan, the G77 and the Least Developed Countries to the Obama-negotiated Copenhagen Accord. Once thing is for certain. The re-entry of the U.S. into the global climate talks was not the panacea that environmentalists and others had hoped for. President Obama swept into town at the tail-end of the negotiations, tried to broker a backroom deal with China, Brazil, India and South Africa, and left. The world climate negotiations are now in disarray with no one really sure about what happened, what it all means and what will happen next. The second lesson of Copenhagen is that what China wants, China is willing to pay hardball for. One can only imagine the consternation of American representatives as they sat waiting in vain for President Hu Jintao to show up for their meetings twice. Some media outlets have reported that President Obama and Secretary of State had to barge, uninvited, into a meeting between China, India and Brazil to get Jintao to talk to them. Given this, it leads one to wonder who really brokered the final deal announced by Obama some hours later. What does it all mean for Canada? The Canadian-centric reportage over the past week would have us believe that we are global pariahs that obstructed progress at every turn. In truth, we were pretty much a bystander and peripheral to the entire discussion both inside the plenary and out. Sure there were loud voices as near as I can tell, almost if not, all Canadian denouncing the oil sands and Canadas climate policies in Copenhagen. But this was mostly a show for all the folks at home. In truth, the reaction of international media and delegates was perhaps worse than censure it doesnt even cross their minds to ask us if we have anything to say. Something to sleep on during the long ride home. http://leahlawrence.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/closing-thoughts-on-copenhagen/

29

After Copenhagen: Hot Air in China By: Shai Oster Year: 2009 Copenhagen may be over, but the finger-pointing for the meetings failure to reach a binding accord on climate change lives on. President Obama and the U.S. have taken plenty of blame, but so has China, accused by some of obstructing the talks to reach an accord on global warming over technicalities. Even Gordon Brown has pointed the finger at China (and the U.S., who together account for 40% of the worlds carbon emissions). But China isnt taking this all sitting down. In an unusual indication of the growing media savvy of the Chinese regime, Chinas consular officials in the U.S. have been forwarding the Chinese versions of events to American journalists. Accompanying the special report written by the official Xinhua news agency about Premier Wen Jiabaos efforts, is a note saying: I strongly recommend this story to the U.S. Public, for a better understanding of the importance of Sino-U.S. co-operations on the Climate issue and a clearer view of the Chinese stand upon this issue. The Xinhua story about Wens trip to Copenhagen portrays him as a selfless hero, struggling to protect the interests of Poor Nations and shocked by the rudeness of others toward China as he struggled to reach a last-minute consensus. China had portrayed the Copenhagen talks as a make-or-break moment for fighting global warming. Many critics say Chinas insistence on leaving out absolute limits is what gutted the final agreement, which ended up disappointing hopes for a political statement out of the talks. Now that Copenhagen is widely seen as a failure and China as the main culprit, Chinas propaganda workers are in overdrive trying to spin the story in Chinas favor. Considering that climate talks are likely to drag on, therell be plenty of chances to fine tune the message if not the matter. http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/12/25/after-copenhagen-hot-air-in-china/?mod=blogmod

30

My after COP15 Well, the COP15 is over. It was a major source of hope and also a major disappointment for many people, and a major event to watch closely and report on for lots of journalists and bloggers. I, as a TH!NK2 blogger, would surely be supposed to have devoted all the time possible to the conference and know everything about it. Honestly, I did intent to follow it and report on it a bit but sometimes you just cant see what might happen. Sometimes just ten days before the start of an important event, such as the conference, you get struck with a torturing 5-day toothache followed immediately by an unrelated nasty infection lasting (hopefully only) for a month. So while you should watch preparations of the event, you can only think of painkillers and later of paper handkerchiefs and hot tea; during the event, you divide your time between taking antibiotics and diverse medicine, undergoing various medical examinations, studying for exams, and taking them; and after the event, you have to prepare gingerbread biscuits and buy Christmas presents feverishly (and I mean it literally) and take other antibiotics and medicine. Yes, these and other things happen. And thats why all I know about the conference right now is that it was, some people protested, it had to be extended, and the final product has made lots of people sad or angry. Thats all. So, to sum up COP15, the grand climate change conference, virtually didnt exist for me. (Which doesnt mean I dont care about climate change or environment.) And how will my after COP15 look like? Pretty much the same as before COP15. For you cant rely on politicians. (Gods truth ) You cant rely on a single event to change everything either. You cant rely that it will all be dealt with somewhere, somehow. And, above all, you cant lose your faith, enthusiasm and energy after one failure. So they didnt sign a deal binding them to do as much as hoped. But even if they did would it be a final solution to all the problems? Would all the countries obey? (I mean, even a wedding vow contains the nice I will be faithful part, and yet ) Isnt there a chance that the consequences of the disappointing deal would still be quite positive? That the changes made due to the deal will perhaps help us? Or that the conference and its media coverage have drawn attention to the problem and will make governments, great polluters or general public more caring and respectful and less ignorant and indifferent? Or that it would activate a wave of actions from the side of green movement or youth groups? I believe the number of people doing small eco-friendly things like separating rubbish or walking instead of driving a car will not go down and even these small participations count, as their number might be pretty impressive. So lets believe in power of common people rather than politicians. Lets spread the idea of caring for the environment. Lets continue with our smaller or bigger efforts. Lets work on gradual improvement rather than a quick success. Lets just go on. I will. http://www.climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/my_after_cop15/

31

Copenhagen Conference Report By: Henrietta Davis Year: 2010 Cambridge was fortunate to have City Councilor Henrietta Davis attend the recent United Nations conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Here is a report of her experiences: Some have called the COP 15 meeting last month in Copenhagen the environmental Woodstock of this generation. It brought together people from far and wide with high hopes and aspirations, representatives of large countries and small, some like the Maldives, fighting for their survival. The excitement of COP 15 was evident not only at the formal conference center, but also throughout the city of Copenhagen where green messages and holiday greetings combined in (energy efficient) lights and billboards. I was honored to attend the meeting as one member of the five-person National League of Cities delegation. While the largevery largeinternational meeting focused on nations setting targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions and determining how the developed world would assist the developing nations (goals that were advanced but not quite accomplished), our NLC delegation focused on mobilizing the unique and powerful role of local governments. To that end we got together with leaders of cities and local communities from all around the globe. We met formally and informally with leaders of American, Canadian, Australian, Eastern and Western European cities. We were introduced to the European Unions Municipal and Regional Commission. We spoke with city leaders from Dubrovnik and Paris and from small towns in England who all spoke passionately of how much work there is for cities to do and the help we need to do it. At informational briefings we confirmed that we cities, towns and counties are a big part of the greenhouse gas emission problem: home to the bulk of the worlds population, we are users of a significant amount of the worlds energy. We also confirmed that we are an essential part of the solution and that were already doing so much. As a Cambridge City Councilor and recent chair of the Health and Environment Committee, I am well aware of our citys efforts and desire for U.S. and world leaders to partner with us to do even more. Local governments like Cambridge are the organizers of significant mitigation efforts, retrofitting our local government buildings to use less energy, enacting stringent local building energy codes, planting and maintaining trees in urban forests and reducing mountains of trash through local recycling efforts. We are the first responders when there are emergencies arising from severe weather events like heat waves, hurricanes and droughts. And it will be up to us to adapt our cities to climate change effects such as the rise in sea level and insect pest infestations. While the U.N badges we were issued indicated that our delegation represented a non-governmental organization (NGO), its important to point out that the thousands of municipalities represented through the NLC are indeed governmental. Unlike many NGOs, we have a broad perspective that must go beyond the interests of narrow, particular solutions. I suggest that we are local government organizations (LGOs) and that we are already playing a unique and critical role in solving the worldwide problem of climate change. As government organizations, we will seek every appropriate remedy, using our authority and powers. Indeed, like Cambridge, many U.S. local governments have already written climate action plans and have begun implementing those plans as weve waited for the federal government to play its part with major policies and programs such as increased CAFE standards, a national energy policy and most recently funding for Energy Efficiency Block Grants. At the COP 15 meeting our delegation met with the U.S. State department to negotiate the critical role of cities and the need for partnerships at all levels of government: local, state, county and federal. On 32

Tuesday, I testified along with others from U.S. cities, from ICLEI (Cities for Sustainability), from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and from NACO (National Association of Counties) to say that we want local government to be specifically mentioned in any written U.N. agreement. We are already working to prevent climate change. In closing, the most important thing I learned in Copenhagen is that local governments and their representative organizations, such as the NLC, can and must work together within our own countries and across national boundaries to share our best practices with each other, including reaching out to cities in developing nations. No matter what happens with the U.N.s climate accord, cities, towns and counties will continue to protect the worlds climate and its people. Theres much more we local government organizations (LGOs) can do together. We have just begun to harness the power of LGOscities, towns and countiesworking together.

http://energytwodotzero.org/2010/01/08/copenhagen-conference-report/

33

Frustrated after COP15? By: Georg Guensberg Year: 2010 Don't be. Cities will be the driving force of real change. There is no doubt that COP 15 was a disappointment. A lot of reflection has been made in the last few weeks on what the outcome means for international climate policy. Will there be another chance for saving the climate on UN-level? Maybe that is the wrong question. The interview with Antony Giddens underlines the complexity of climate policy. Climate change is very, very different from any other political issue we have had to deal with, he says. To be honest: My expectations for COP 15 were low. I have been part of the Austrian governmental delegation at COP 1 (Berlin) and COP 3 (Kyoto). I had to understand what it means for negotiators to find a compromise between more than 190 countries. These countries have different interests and positions. They have even different political systems and cultures. The formal UN procedures including the well known part of informal negotiations are by now not capable to get the enormous challenge of a global agreement on a CO2 reduction on track. So does that sound too pessimistic? Well, actually Im not. COP 15 brought something else. It showed the enormous potential of other players on the field: Individuals, organisations, companies, regions and mainly cities. Cities can be the driving force of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Around COP 15 there were different conferences on the role of cities in climate protection. Fredrik posted on the Mayors Climate Summit in Copenhagen spotlighting different initiatives on a local level. In Mid December the Ecocity Conference took place in Istanbul. I had the opportunity to participate at the Global Urban Summit Conference in Rotterdam right before COP 15. World-famous Jeremy Rifkin is right when addressing city representative being at the fore-front of a real change in climate and energy politics. Today, already half of the worlds population lives in urban areas. They consume two-thirds of total primary energy and produce over 70% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. It is a good sign that the rather conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) now gives a focus on the role of cities. A rather new study projects that by 2030, as a result of increased urbanisation, cities and towns will be responsible for 76% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. It is the density of cities that offers a lot of opportunities to us. Density not only in a spatial dimension, but politically. Short distance and closer networks are important in decision making and implementation, too. There are a lot of examples showing that change is possible. It was again Vancouver impressing in Rotterdam and Istanbul with ambitious targets and a so far successful program in significantly reducing the carbon footprint of its population. The action plan called Vancouver 2020 is inspiring and motivating. Brent Toderian , Vancouvers Director of City Planning, says: We are far ahead of other North American cities. Nevertheless we are still not sustainable. We still need more action to reduce our carbon footprint. Thats the kick we need. Thats the spirit of real change. http://sustainablecities.dk/en/blog/2010/01/frustrated-after-cop15

34

After COP15: Boycott China By: Chris Vernon Year: 2009 Now that life has returned to normal on the streets of Copenhagen and we have had time to consider the Copenhagen Accord its time to work out what to do next. Heres my take on it. Mark Lynas wrote an interesting piece for the Guardian from an almost unique position he found himself in last week. He was one of only ~60 people in the closed doors heads of state meeting at the end of COP15. Media were not allowed, Lynas was there as part of the Maldives delegation. There wont be many reports from this meeting. It has emerged that China (with a degree of backing from India and Saudi Arabia) were chiefly responsible for the failure at COP15. The majority of the rich nations, including America wanted a much tougher deal but China vetoed it. To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was Chinas representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. Why cant we even mention our own targets? demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australias prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazils representative too pointed out the illogicality of Chinas position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accords lack of ambition. China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak as soon as possible. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world. So we have a situation where a large proportion of the world does want a tough and legally binding deal on climate, but the unanimous nature of the UNs COP15 process does not allow that to be recognised. This need not be a cause for despair though as its not a unique situation. There are many situations in the world where unanimous agreement cannot be reached. Rogue states exist. Two relevant examples are the current situation with Irans apparent nuclear ambitions and historically South Africas apartheid regime. In each of these cases we have one state doing something that the majority of the world has agreed not to do. Theres the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which although Iran is a signatory is also in non-compliance with the safeguards. The US maintains sanctions with wider adoption under discussion. The first UN resolutions addressing apartheid were passed in the early 1960s and by the early 80s many countries had placed various trade sanctions on South Africa. The situation with China and climate change is similar. Its one rogue state going against the global consensus. A unanimous agreement is currently impossible (as it also seems to be regarding Irans nuclear ambitions and was with the apartheid regime in the 60s). I believe the solution is for a coalition of the willing to form (comprising of the EU, US, Australia, most of the developing world), for it to construct a legal framework delivering emission cuts of ~20-30% by 2020 and ~50-80% by 2050. These kinds of numbers do seem politically feasible when China and friends are excluded.

35

Part of the coalitions approach to meeting the targets might be carbon intensity import tariffs, to penalise Chinas exports. The role of civil society, environmental groups etc. is to lobby for such legislation and to campaign for a boycott of Chinese goods. The two approaches cover the top-down and bottom-up angles, they penalise the Chinese high carbon economy and promote lower carbon, locally produced products. Win-win? Is there evidence of boycotts actually achieving things in the past? Nestl is widely boycotted but seems to be doing okay. http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2009/12/after-cop15-boycott-china/

36

A Climate Con: Analysis of the "Copenhagen Accord" By: David Spratt and Damien Lawson Year: 2009 ''In biblical terms it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our future and our people our future is not for sale.'' Ian Fry, Tuvalu negotiator "This is a declaration that small and poor countries don't matter, that international civil society doesn't matter, and that serious limits on carbon don't matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight." Bill McKibben, 350.org "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty. It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen." John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK "So that's it. The world's worst polluters the people who are drastically altering the climate gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings. They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives. Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't surprised. Every day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and protesters and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of North America and Europe." Johann Hari, The Independent, 19 December 2009 "I think that our prime minister has played an outstanding role ... He's been working very hard for the last few months... and he's just been fantastic all the way, he just shines at it... he's been really important through these meetings". Tim Flannery, ABC News, 19 December 2009 http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-con-analysis-of-copenhagen.html

37

Copenhagen De-briefing An Analysis of COP15 for Long-term Cooperation Year: 2010 The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) and the 5th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP5) in Copenhagen marked the culmination of two years of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Bali Roadmap. The purpose of the negotiations was to ultimately create a comprehensive, legally-binding international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012. However, it has been clear for some time that such an agreement would not materialise in Copenhagen as a result of the ongoing contention associated with many of the issues on the negotiating table. Widely disputed aspects of a deal: Levels of climate finance and its long-term governance Discussions around targets for emissions reduction The threshold at which to limit average global temperature increase The introduction of a brand new treaty, or upgrade of the existing Kyoto Protocol Early negotiations in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference highlighted the lack of progress in reaching a unanimous agreement on how to tackle climate change, suggesting that the negotiations in Copenhagen may instead provide us with a strong political agreement or framework, which could then be turned into a legal treaty by mid-2010. With the expectations for a legally-binding agreement lowered, Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, outlined five essentials for success in Copenhagen. 5 essentials for success: Enhanced adaptation assistance to the most vulnerable and poorest nations Major industrial countries must propose substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions Emerging economies such as China and India must limit the growth of their emissions The mechanisms in place to help developing countries engage in mitigation and adaptation activities must be financed (through both short-term and long-term funds) An equitable governance structure for the management and deployment of financial resources Utilizing Mr. de Boers criteria for success in Copenhagen, there arise several issues to analyze beyond the conferences resultant document, the Copenhagen Accord. Report Structure In this report, we begin with a discussion of the dynamics between developing and developed countries that have influenced the debates. This is then followed with a description of the financial mechanisms, requirement for short and long-term funds, and problems with the current institutional arrangements. We then highlight some of the mechanisms in place to help countries mitigate climate change that were under discussion in Copenhagen. In particular, we focus on: technology transfer; Reducing Emissions for Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD); the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the Copenhagen Accord and an analysis of the Accords potential effect on future negotiations. http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/climatico-cop15-analysis1.pdf

38

Copenhagen Climate Accord Avoids Legally-Binding Goals By: Andrew Bates Year: 2010 While the Copenhagen Accord, released to the world in December, recognized the problem of climate change, it contained no legally binding emission reduction goals and was not formally adopted by participating countries. The Copenhagen Accord was the result of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. COP15 represented the result of two years of planning and pre-negotiations, and took place Dec. 7 to 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The agreement aims to reduce and limit carbon emissions worldwide so as to limit the rise in global temperature to only two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. It also aims to establish a global fund to aid the efforts of poor nations dealing with climate change. The completion of any sort of deal whatsoever looked almost impossible heading into the conferences final day, news outlets reported at the time. A negotiation deadlock meant there was no significant document for leaders to sign, as many of them arrived only the day before. This forced world leaders to negotiate directly; an unusual occurrence, said Robert Orr, the UN assistant secretary-general at a press conference after the meeting. The text of the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated mainly between the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa, and presented to the plenary, where delegates voted to take note of it. The UNFCCC cannot formally adopt an accord without unanimous support from its members, which some developing countries refused to give. The accord is therefore not legally binding and does not make any official commitments to reduce emissions. It is expected, according to TIME magazine, that next years COP meeting in Mexico City will largely be concerned with adding details and structure to the document. Canadas chief negotiator, Environment Minister Jim Prentice, told the Canadian Press that the accord was a success. It sits within the principles we put forward as a Canadian government and it essentially achieved all our negotiating objectives, he said. In a statement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed Canada played a key part in the negotiation of the accord. But Canada and the Conservative government have faced criticism on this issue. Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff attacked Harpers importance on the international stage after the prime minister wasnt invited to a 20-nation emergency meeting of world leaders. For decades, he said in a press release, the world has looked to Canada as a broker on progressive matters of international importance regardless of the party in power. Now we are no longer even at the table. The standard measure of emissions reductions being used is the difference between annual emissions in the year 1990 versus the year 2020. Unlike many other nations who support the 1990 benchmark, Canada wants to establish 2006 as the year for comparison. That would wipe out any obligation to deal with the countrys 26 per cent rise in . . . emissions since 1990, according to an article by Jonathon Gatehouse in Macleans Magazine. Canadas current emissions reduction targets are equivalent to three per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020, which is much less than targets of 25 per cent set by Russia and Japan. Many provinces have targeted their own emissions cuts, according to the McGill Tribune, including a 20 per cent cut from 1990 levels in Quebec, 15 per cent in Ontario, 11 per cent in British Columbia and 10 per cent in New Brunswick. However, oil giant Albertas climate goals are simply to stabilize emissions by 2020, according to Macleans. 39

Canada was presented the Fossil of the Year award by the global Climate Action Network after COP15. Canadas performance here in Copenhagen builds on two years of delay, obstruction, and total inaction, Ben Wikler, the U.S. campaign director of the global action movement Avaaz, said during the announcement. This government thinks theres a choice between environment and economy, and for them, tar sands beats climate every time. http://www.theconcordian.com/copenhagen-climate-accord-avoids-legally-binding-goals-1.1006354

40

Views of NGOs

41

Copenhagen 'A Tragedy' For Millions of People in Poor Countries Following the failure today of the crucial UN climate summit in Copenhagen to agree a fair, ambitious and effective outcome, Christian Aids senior climate change advocacy officer Nelson Muffuh said: This is a tragedy that will harm the many millions of people in developing countries who are already suffering the effects of climate change. We hoped that sanity would prevail but powerful nations didnt come to negotiate. They came to play hardball. Lives will be lost as a result. Already more than 300,000 people a year die as a result of climate change. That number will go up. The failure was the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility for global warming, he added. The emission cuts they offered were inadequate. The US, the worlds second greatest emitter, put a mere 4% on the table when measured against the 1990 baseline used by other industrialised countries. In addition, the money rich countries indicate they will provide to poor countries to help them counter global warming fell far short of the $150bn a year that Christian Aid says is needed. We hope all countries will look hard at themselves and think about how to reinvigorate this international process, said Mr Muffuh. In particular, rich countries must increase the level of their ambition when they return to the negotiating table. What was on offer in Copenhagen was nothing like a fair and ambitious deal, so it is little wonder that some developing countries refused to sign. http://www.christianaid.org.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/december2009/copenhagen-tragedy-formillions-in-poor-countries.aspx

42

Climate Change: Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is By: Ranjit Devraj Year: 2010 While the BASIC bloc countries - Brazil, South Africa, India and China - will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord, they have taken care to emphasise that the agreement, reached at the end of the December climate change summit in the Danish capital, has no legal basis. Addressing a joint press conference after a meeting of concerned BASIC ministers on Sunday, Indias environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: "We support the Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were unanimously of the view that its value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the twotrack negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)." Ramesh explained that the Accord was not a legal document and that the "understanding reached at Copenhagen was that the accord will facilitate the two-track negotiating process which is the only legitimate process to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico. The two-track negotiation process was agreed upon at the December 2007 Bali conference, pertaining to Long-Term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The BASIC meeting and the press conference were attended by Carlos Minc, the Brazilian environment minister, his counterpart from South Africa, Buyelwa Sonjica, and the vice-chairman of China's National Development and Reform Commission, Xie Zhenhua. At the press conference, Xie said that the BASIC groups objectives were consistent with the interests of the developing countries. "BASIC will take the lead in large-scale emission reduction and also stick to the policy of common but differentiated principle." Sonjica said BASIC would not make any decision outside the Group of 77 (G-77) countries. "We see ourselves as adding value to the proposals of G-77," she said. Siddharth Pathak, a member of the international environmental group Greenpeaces policy division, told IPS that the willingness of the BASIC group to support vulnerable countries by ensuring their participation in open and transparent negotiations and plans to provide technological and financial support was commendable. "We hope that this support will become tangible by the groups next meeting in April." Pathak said that while BASIC appeared keen to consolidate itself as a group and also take along the G-77 countries, it needed to "demonstrate leadership, both in furthering negotiations on a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement, and in terms of pushing industrialised counties to urgently reduce GhG (greenhouse gas) emissions and make their own appropriate contributions. Other analysts said the BASIC meeting had the potential of cementing differences both within and outside the bloc. "What is crucial now is to see whether China and India will stick to carbon intensity figures in their action plans, as they announced before the Copenhagen meet," said Siddharth Mishra, director at CUTS International, a leading economic policy and advocacy group. Carbon intensity is a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of production. "This will suit China well because it is already on a trajectory of lowering its energy intensity and it has voluntarily announced cuts of 40-45 percent before Copenhagen," said Mitra. "India, too, can reduce the trend of the growth of its emissions and specify domestic regulations to ensure reductions in emissions from its dirty industries," Mitra told IPS. Mitra added: "We dont know what the back-of-the-envelope calculations are, but both China and India may benefit from the pledge of 100 billion U.S. dollars by the end of the decade for developing countries to adapt to climate change and limit the global rise in temperatures, since industrialisation began, from exceeding two degrees Celsius." 43

Denmark, as president of the Conference of Parties (CoP), has been asked by the BASIC ministers to convene immediately meetings of the two negotiation groups for the Kyoto Protocol and the Long-Term Cooperative Action in March and ensure that they meet on at least five more occasions before the 16th CoP in December. After the BASIC countries joined hands with the United States in negotiating the Copenhagen Accord, at the end of the summit in the Danish capital, several developing countries expressed fears that the document would become legal and dilute the Bali two-track process. BASIC ministers have also asked the rich nations to speedily distribute the 10 billion dollars they had pledged to the least developed countries and the islands to address climate change this year. Brazils Minc said at the press conference that BASIC had decided to create its own fund to help small island states and the least developed countries. "The actual contributions will be decided at the next meeting of the BASIC in South Africa," he said. A day before the BASIC meet, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh let it be known that he had reservations over pressure from Danish Prime Minister Lars Lkke Rasmussen and United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for follow-up action on the Copenhagen Accord and get results by the Jan. 31 deadline. While the Accord had called for "economy-wide emission targets" by 2020 by the Annex-1 (rich countries) and the other countries to submit "mitigation actions," Rasmussen and Ban had written separately to all heads of state and governments on Dec. 30, urging them to submit their commitments by Jan. 31. Their joint letter was silent on the Kyoto Protocol, raising suspicions. Mitra said that such suspicions first surfaced after the UNFCCC executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, failed to mention the Kyoto Protocol at a press conference held soon after the Copenhagen Accord. "The impression that there is a plan afoot to bury Kyoto is not helped by the fact that the European Union is pushing it as a first step to new negotiations. The Kyoto Protocol, the worlds only legally binding agreement, required 37 wealthy nations to cut GhG emissions by 2012, but asked for no commitments from developing countries. In contrast, the Copenhagen Accord does not talk of mitigation goals for the developed countries and is seen to be acting to lower the bar in climate negotiations when scientists warn that the climate is changing more rapidly than estimated earlier. The Accord was opposed by Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Sudan on both substantive and procedural grounds. For that reason, it could not be accepted or endorsed by the CoP, which only "took note" of it, denying the document status at the U.N. In an editorial on Tuesday, the respected The Hindu newspaper commented that the response of BASIC "underscores the view of the developing world that the Copenhagen Accord chose to give insufficient importance to the central tenet of "common but differentiated responsibilities" outlined in the UNFCCC. The Hindu editorial said one positive outcome of the "common strategy" adopted by BASIC countries was the fostering of "active South-South cooperation" to advance science. "Given that intellectual property rights on technology remain a major barrier to achieving higher energy efficiencies, such joint efforts involving India and China hold great promise." http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50104

44

From Copenhagen to Flopenhagen through Hopenhagen By: Olivia Sage Year: 2010 The Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP15) held from 7 to 19 December 2009 marked (or was supposed to) the culmination of a two-year negotiating process launched in Bali at COP 13 in December 2007, to enhance international climate change cooperation and extend the Kyoto Protocol commitment period. The Conference's high level segment held from 16 to 18 December and attended by close to 115 world leaders represented one of the largest gatherings of world leaders outside of New York. The conference was subject to unprecedented public and media attention, and more than 40,000 people, representing governments, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, media and UN agencies applied for accreditation at the conference. Those who had hoped that the Copenhagen Climate Conference would be able to seal the deal and result in a fair, ambitious and equitable agreement, setting the world towards a path to avoid dangerous climate change are extremely disappointed. Negotiations took place over the two weeks at the level of experts, Ministers and Heads of State, but saw hostility to compromise, ill will and many controversies. Leaked documents, a lack of transparency, a disorganised, unclear and undemocratic process, an unwillingness to move out of a conditional mode to converge on an agreement, and a lack of regard for the work achieved since 2007 by the two ad hoc working groups launched in Bali - all these characterised the fortnight-long negotiations. A lot of precious conference time was wasted discussing process, how to conduct consultations, what text(s) should be used as a basis for final negotiations; even old unresolved matters in the climate negotiations were revived such as the adoption of rules of procedures; the insistence of Tuvalu to formally consider proposals of protocols under the Convention also delayed the proceedings. The Conference ended in complete disarray when the results of a political agreement entitled the 'Copenhagen Accord' - not recognisably based on the outcome of the international negotiating process went out all over the world, backed by press conferences from some Heads of State including Presidents Obama and Sarkozy, before the formal closing plenary meeting. When the media reported that Heads of State had been able to seal the deal some negotiators were outraged as they felt they had been hijacked by a parallel process. However, almost everyone participating in the negotiations openly admitted that the celebrated Accord was far from a perfect agreement. The exceptional procedure under which the Accord came out (described below) led to a reluctance to analyse its legal and operational implications. The closing COP plenary lasted nearly 13 hours, and witnessed acrimonious statements, including references to suicide for Africa and analogies to the Holocaust. Even though most negotiating groups supported the adoption of the Accord as a COP decision in order to operationalize it as a step towards a better future agreement, some hardliners including Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba opposed the Accord, reached during what they characterized as an untransparent and undemocratic negotiating process. With the help of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the Parties agreed to adopt a COP decision whereby the COP takes note of the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord itself therefore has no official status. A procedure to indicate support to the Accord has been established. How can the Conference be characterised? Its historical significance lies in the fact that it brought together the majority of the worlds leaders to consider climate change; that mitigation actions were pledged by developed and developing countries, as well as provisions on finance and technology made; and that a temperature limit of 2 degrees Celsius was mentioned. Something might come of the fact that Heads of States actually worked on texts, negotiating down to the level of commas. However no quantum leap in international governance was made. Most delegates felt that only a weak agreement, had come out of an event which had raised high expectations given its size, the money spent, the people 45

in attendance, and its coverage in the media. It was the first time in the history of a COP that movement in the conference premises was so difficult, because of the many activities organised by all kinds of youth and civil society movements. The crucial failure of Copenhagen lies in the lack of practical implications given that the Copenhagen Accord has not been formally adopted as the outcome of the negotiations. Another very unfortunate and unprecedented fact about Copenhagen was linked to the host government's level of ambition. Organizing and orchestrating an event of COP15's size led to restrictions that impinged on the conduct of business and either made life difficult for all participants or simply left them out. A lack of knowledge or deep comprehension of the functioning of international UN Conferences, an inability to manage cultural differences, and differences in starting points led to mistrust and lack of confidence that could not be overcome, as did the unfortunate decision to change presidents during the Conference. A certain Viking way of conducting business led to a rejection of proposals by the presidency and did not comply with UN ways. This time those invited to the table also went beyond the classical North-South divide, including small island states, emerging countries, and some of the most vulnerable countries. Africa was more vocal and less sensitive to blackmailing. The same argument went round and round: if you start first, well follow. Also highly damaging to the prospects for an acceptable result was the immobility brought about by the two-track negotiation and the chicken-and-egg argument of whether to negotiate details before seeing the full picture. One ad-hoc working group took the fact that it needed to know what was going on in another group as an excuse for not making progress. Another somewhat similar excuse was to wait for Presidents to play the role of super-heroes who would solve the remaining issues. However, at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit heads of state had given their blessing to an instrument that had been adopted a few months earlier and that had worked. The UN climate negotiating process has been heavily criticised for its lack of vision and functionality, requiring unanimity to take decisions. Is this at all achievable among 192 countries? Copenhagen has been described as a festival of diplomatic powerlessness and sovereigntist blindness. It is easy to use the UN as a scapegoat in order to escape ones own responsibility. For what is the UN but the assembly of States? To end on a positive note, the progress achieved in the past five years cannot be overlooked. In other words, long-term discussions have evolved from the Convention Dialogue and the Bali Roadmap to the Copenhagen Conference, where, for the very first time, the majority of the worlds leaders gathered to frankly and seriously discuss climate change now commonly recognised as a serious threat to humanity. Adaptation and mitigation by developing countries is no longer unmentionable. Agreement was reached on mitigation actions by both developed and major developing countries, and billions of US dollars were pledged for short- and long-term finance. It is obvious that the Copenhagen outcome highlights that an enormous amount of work remains to be done before people can safely believe that the world has seen a turning point in the fight against climate change. The future will tell us whether the political and public profile created in Copenhagen can be translated into a binding and ambitious international agreement on climate change. http://www.opendemocracy.net/olivia-sage/from-copenhagen-to-flopenhagen-through-hopenhagen

46

The Copenhagen Conference: A Setback for Bad Climate Policy in 2010 By: Ben Lieberman Year: 2010 The December 2009 United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen capped off what must have been a very disappointing year for global warming activists and their allies in Washington. The year began with high hopes that the new Congress and Administration would enact global warming legislation and sign up the U.S. to a new global warming treaty. It ended with that legislation stalled in the Senate and with the Copenhagen conference concluding with an agreement so weak that it represents a step backward for the U.N. treaty process. The reality is that restrictions on energy use in the name of fighting global warming are a costly and ineffective solution to an overstated threat. That reality emerged in Copenhagen and will remain a major obstacle to an ill-advised climate treaty or legislation in 2010. http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/sr0075.cfm

47

OECD Secretary-General Looks Beyond Copenhagen Though far from perfect, the Copenhagen Accord is a hard-fought political agreement. With most countries likely to sign, it is a breakthrough towards collective international action to limit global emissions and help build cleaner, more resilient economies, said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurra. The Accords package of measures, which includes new financing for developing countries, was agreed by leaders of both the largest emitting countries and small vulnerable states. It was also noted by the fifteenth Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We look forward to working with Mexico and the broader international community, ideally to establish a legally-binding agreement for post-2012 action under the UNFCCC by the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) in Mexico City in 2010. To achieve this agreement, international organisations have a major role to play by informing the discussions and helping negotiating parties reach a common understanding of the issues at stake. In the coming year, the OECD will contribute to international efforts by engaging in discussions with governments, advising on the design, and encouraging the implementation of cost-effective policies to adapt to and mitigate climate change. Countries declared emissions reduction targets are not yet enough. OECD analysis suggests that developed countries would reduce emissions by only 18% in 2020 compared with 1990 levels, still below the 25-40% reduction needed to stay within a 2C temperature increase. Developing countries also need to go further. OECD will support efforts to help both developed and developing countries identify where they can step-up reductions, while still growing the economy. Given the climate change that is already likely to take place, we will also step-up analysis of how to integrate adaptation to climate change into all aspects of economic development. Much of the focus will be on ways to assist developing countries to best manage the risks and make their development resilient to the impacts of climate change. On the issue of financing, OECD is investigating mechanisms for innovative international finance. It is looking at ways governments can ensure that their domestic policy frameworks set the right price for carbon and send the right signal to encourage private investment to support a low-carbon society. For example, recent OECD analysis found that, if the proper mix of policies and instruments to price carbon is put in place to reduce emissions by 20% in developed countries by 2020, this could raise the equivalent of 2.5% of their GDP. While there will be many competing demands for using these revenues, a fraction of that amount would be enough to supply the public money developed countries agreed to provide in the Copenhagen Accord. In addition, OECD is advancing policy options to stimulate innovation, from the early stages of technology development through to diffusion and transfer. Easy and rapid access to low-carbon technologies and technologies that can support adaptation will be critical to ensuring timely and effective action in developing countries. OECD is also looking at ways to better inform consumer and industry choices and working with sub-national governments to identify and disseminate good locallevel policy practices to reduce emissions. Last but not least, to help advance the Accord, OECD will build on existing work to propose ways to measure, report and verify (MRV) timely progress on national emissions reduction targets, mitigation efforts and finance. This will be critical to ensure the transparent accountability of actions by all countries. http://www.oecd.org/document/52/0,3343,en_2649_37465_44324980_1_1_1_1,00.html 48

How Copenhagen Could Give You a Job One idea for settling the rift behind China and the U.S. over carbon dioxide emissions: Build more stuff here, to send there. By: Jim DiPeso Year:2009 The diplomats, politicians, entourages, activists, reporters, and hangers-on are heading home from Denmark - leaving behind trash for Copenhagen and a throbbing headache for the rest of the world. It was probably unrealistic to expect representatives of 192 countries - each of which have different interests and politics - to come to terms on a treaty settling all of the details involved with reworking the world's energy economy in time to keep the global climate out of the red zone. Disappointment at the dishwatery deal that came out of Copenhagen is understandable. Still, the tortuous history of nuclear arms control negotiations shows that there might be a productive roads towards progress. Back in the day, the Big Two were the United States and the Soviet Union. Both maintained nuclear arsenals that posed existential risks to civilization. None but the Big Two could dial back the risks. Haltingly, through many high-level summit meetings, some friendlier than others, and many sets of highly complicated, difficult negotiations, the Big Two found ways to shrink their arsenals. Success took longer than was optimal, but the result was a safer world. Today, the Big Two are the United States and China. Both emit enough greenhouse gases - 40 percent of the global total - to risk pushing the global climate system into dangerous territory. If the Big Two don't reduce their emissions substantially, there is little chance of stabilizing the atmosphere's concentration of CO2. (Message to the climate denial illiterates. CO2 traps radiant heat energy. That's been a documented fact since the Buchanan administration. Catch a clue.) Post-Copenhagen, the U.S. and China should embark on negotiating climate deals covering a gamut of issues - joint efforts to carry out demonstrate and deploy low-carbon technologies, financing mitigation, and coming to terms on verification, one of the bugaboos that roiled the Copenhagen talks and, incidentally, one of the more vexing issues between the previous Big Two. Here's a small example of what could be done. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican who is one of the few working scientists in Congress, and three other Republicans suggested working out a deal with China to spend stimulus funds buying and installing U.S.-manufactured pollution control technology for Chinese coal plants in exchange for retiring a proportional amount of U.S. debt held by China. Such an agreement wouldn't amount to much as far as reducing greenhouse gas emissions goes, but it would build confidence and serve as a foundation for future cooperative projects in the energy realm that would cut carbon pollution. There's an old saying in diplomacy. There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. The U.S. and Soviets negotiated a series of arms deals because it was in the interest of both countries to tamp down the arms race and reduce the risks of a global conflagration. Likewise, rational actors in both the U.S. and China know that it is in both countries' interest to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and stop the highly imprudent chemistry experiment that humanity is performing on the global climate system. There is plenty that both countries can do together to tamp down emissions and reduce the risks of dangerous climate change. Let the thin gruel of an agreement that came out of Copenhagen serve as the first of many climate deals between the U.S. and China that push the emissions reduction ball forward and leave the world better off. http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/climate-politics-47122002 49

Analysis: The Copenhagen Accord - Worth the Paper It Came On? Copenhagen - It was the agreement for which the world had been waiting for years: an ambitious United Nations deal on fighting catastrophic global warming. "Today we have made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough," US President Barack Obama told the press as the ink was still drying on the so-called Copenhagen Accord. "For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change," Obama said. But as world leaders began to drain away from the snow-covered conference centre, a chorus of voices protested that the long-awaited accord was less a breakthrough on policy than a breakdown in ambition. "What could be agreed today falls far below our expectations, but ... it was the only deal available," the head of the European Union's executive, Jose Manuel Barroso, said resignedly. Environmental groups were even more critical of the agreement, cooked up at the eleventh hour between the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. "Copenhagen has been an abject failure: justice has not been done," said Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International. Greenpeace and WWF were similarly scathing. Defending his deal, Obama pointed out that the proposal endorsed scientific calls for global warming to be kept to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. "We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees ... and importantly, to take action to meet this objective consistent with science," he said. US officials also stressed that the deal offered poor states around 30 billion dollars in climate aid by 2012, with up to 100 billion dollars per year expected by 2020. And they said that, crucially, it maintained the momentum of international talks on fighting climate change, leading up to another summit in Mexico next year. "Going forward, we are going to have to build on the momentum that we have established here in Copenhagen," Obama said. But those arguments missed key points. The agreement on the 2-degree target, for example, simply echoed a call from the world's most powerful leaders at a summit in the Italian city of L'Aquila in July. "This sounds just like L'Aquila all over again," Tom Brookes, head of communications at the European Climate Foundation think tank in Brussels, told the German Press Agency dpa. The offer of 100 billion dollars, meanwhile, repeated earlier calls from European and African nations, while the 30-billion-dollar offer consisted of existing offers from Japan and the EU, topped up with a new pledge of a meagre 3.6 billion dollars from the US. And the draft accord dropped earlier calls for developed states as a group to sign up to binding emissions cuts by 2020 and deeper ones by 2050 - leaving it to each state to set its own targets. "Instead of committing to deep cuts in emissions and putting new, public money on the table to help solve the climate crisis, rich countries have bullied developing nations to accept far less," Bassey said. That left the main innovation of the Copenhagen Accord - its key "breakthrough" - an agreement between China and the US that developed states would not be able to pry too deeply into developing states' own claims of their greenhouse-gas emissions. "In the end, they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through," said Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace. Obama admitted that the progress embodied in the Copenhagen Accord "is not enough" to tame climate change on its own.

50

But as the US president left Copenhagen, analysts said that the real decision taken in Denmark was to put off dealing with the really difficult issues until the next meeting in Mexico. "Copenhagen produced a snapshot of what leaders already promised before they got here. The biggest challenge, turning the political will into a legally binding agreement, has moved to Mexico," said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF's global climate campaign.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/300089,analysis-the-copenhagen-accord--worth-the-paper-itcame-on.html

51

Copenhagen Accord Submissions Press Release 4 February 2010 Year: 2010 Copenhagen Accord Pledges Do Not Meet Climate Goals Emissions reduction pledges submitted to the UNFCCC as part of the Copenhagen Accord process fall short of the level of greenhouse gas emissions reductions required to limit temperature increase to 2C (3.6F) relative to preindustrial temperatures. Instead, the proposals, if fully implemented, would allow global mean temperature to increase approximately 3.9C (7.0F). To reach the Copenhagen Accord goal, global emissions must peak within the next decade and fall to at least 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Climate Interactive team of researchers from Sustainability Institute, the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Ventana Systems have analyzed the emissions reductions goals expressed by various nations in their submissions to UNFCCC as part of process laid out in the Copenhagen Accord. The researchers analyzed proposals through February 2, 2010. The analysis, based -ROADS C on the computer simulation of climate change, assumes that the goals for emissions reductions pledged by nations in their submissions are fully achieved and that loopholes (such as double counting of offsets or the selling of surplus emissions quotas) do not occur. Simulation of the emissions reductions pledges contained within letters submitted to the UNFCCC show a large gap between the 2 degree target and current pledges. Using the C simulation, the -ROADS researchers estimate that current pledges would allow global mean temperature to increase by 3.9C (7.0F) by 2100. Full details and assumptions are at http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/scoreboard-science-and-data. The team of researchers conducted a similar analysis during the COP negotiation in Copenhagen (December 7-18, 2009), -15 which showed an expected temperature increase of 3.9C (7.0F) by 2100. Thus, in the month following the creation of the Accord, the gap between current pledges and the level of collective reductions needed to meet climate goals has not been closed. The Copenhagen Accord calls for deep cuts in global emissions ... with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius. Our analysis shows that doing so would require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2020 and then fall at least 60% below current emissions. Under the current proposals submitted to the UNFCCC, global emissions of greenhouse gasses would increase on average 0.8% per year between now and 2020. After 2020, emissions would need to fall at a rate of approximately 3.3% per year to achieve the goal of reducing emissions 60% below current levels by 2050. The Copenhagen Accord does not include commitments or means to achieve these reductions. According to Dr. Elizabeth Sawin of Sustainability Institute, Without deeper near term emissions reductions and an explicit commitment to longer term global emissions reductions, the Copenhagen Accord leaves the task of creating a global framework to prevent dangerous interference with the Earths climate unfinished. A new degree of collective ambition and cooperation will be required before the world sees a climate agreement consistent with limiting warming to even 2C, let alone the 1.5C goal named by a growing number of governments and civil society groups. http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-pressreleases/Copenhagen%20Accord%20Submissions%20Press%20Release%204%20February%202010.pdf/ view

52

Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 Year: 2009 The final Copenhagen Accord reaffirms the importance of limiting global warming to 2 C, but current national commitments would lead to approximately 3.9 C (7.0 F) warming by 2100. To close that gap global emissions must peak within the next decade and fall approximately 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (a cut of approximately 60% below current emissions). The sooner the nations of the world begin to close this gap the cheaper and easier it will be. The Climate Interactive research team from Sustainability Institute, the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Ventana Systems have analyzed the greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets stated in the final Copenhagen Accord and compared these with the emissions reduction commitments made by individual nations. The analysis, based on the C-ROADS climate policy simulation model (http://climateinteractive.org), assumes that all national commitments offered prior to and during the Copenhagen meeting remain in force, are verifiable and will be fully implemented. The Accord adopted in Copenhagen (accessed 19 December 2009) calls for deep cuts in global emissionsso as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius compared to preindustrial levels. Simulations of the C-ROADS model show that doing so requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2020 and then fall 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (a cut of approximately 60% below current emissions). However, simulations of the CROADS model show a large gap between the targets in the final Copenhagen agreement and the commitments offered by individual nations. Using the C -ROADS model, the researchers estimate that current confirmed proposals (that is, submissions to the UNFCCC or official government positions) would raise expected global mean temperature by 3.9 C (7.0 F) by 2100. Including conditional proposals, legislation under debate and unofficial government statements would lower expected warming to an increase of approximately 2.9C (5.2F) over preindustrial levels. Full details and assumptions are at http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases. Climate Interactive researcher and MIT Professor John Sterman comments If you pour water into your bathtub faster that it drains out, the level of water in the tub will rise. In exactly the same way, the world currently pours about twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere each year than nature can remove, increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases that drive continued warming, sea level rise, and other climate changes that pose grave risks to our economy and welfare (see http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbonbath). The longer we delay the emissions reductions required to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the more costly it will be to cut emissions, the worse warming will be and the more the people of the world, rich and poor, will suffer. The longer we delay, the greater the risk that warming will trigger positive feedback loops in the climate system that can limit the ability of the land and oceans to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, causing still faster accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and still more warming, in a vicious cycle. The good news is that there are many opportunities to cut emissions today, profitably, with technologies for efficiency, and for clean, renewable energy. And the faster we do so, the cheaper it gets: through R&D, scale economies and learning, every megawatt of solar and wind we build today lowers the costs of the next one, further boosting demand for clean energy and cutting emissions in a virtuous cycle. The nations whose policies drive these positive feedbacks the fastest will create jobs and build the industries that will dominate the economy of the future. http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/COP15%20Final%20Analysis%20v11%20091219.pdf/view 53

UNFCCC "Mitigation Gap" Press Release 12 December 09 Mitigation Gap: National Emissions Reductions Proposals Currently Fall Short of the Targets Defined in Draft Text from the Ad Hoc Working Group on LongTerm Cooperative Action Year: 2009 With less than a week to go, significant differences remain between the aggregate emissions reductions from current national proposals and the mitigation targets released yesterday in a draft text at the UNFCCC climate talks in Copenhagen. This draft text from the Ad Hoc Working Group on LongTerm Cooperative Action (AWGLCA) includes greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that could limit global temperature increase by 2100 to 2.0C (3.6F) or less, relative to preindustrial temperatures. However, current proposals from individual countries for their own actions would lead to temperature increase of approximately 3.8C (6.8F) in the same period. Achieving the potential declared in the draft texts will require sufficient commitment to financing, technology transfer, monitoring, verification, and accountability to allow nations to commit to and achieve higher reduction targets than they have currently put on the table. This analysis does not seek to analyze the political viability of the draft text or make any judgment as to the sufficiency of any elements of the draft other than the emissions reduction targets specified. http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-pressreleases/SI%20mitigation%20press%20release%2012%20Dec%2009.pdf/view

54

Copenhagen Must Deliver Emissions Cuts beyond the Highend of Current Proposals or Risk Missing the Opportunity for a Reasonable Chance of Keeping below 2C Year: 2009 Recent independent analyses of current mitigation proposals on the table in Copenhagen by Nicholas Stern, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute (CROADS), the European Climate Foundation and ClimateWorks (Project Catalyst), all point to the same conclusion: the negotiations must deliver the highend of current proposals and stretch beyond them, if the world is to have a reasonable chance of containing warming to below 2C above preindustrial levels, or the 1.5C goal of many developing nations. Copenhagen, 9 December 2009 There is a narrow window of opportunity to have the possibility of achieving the global political and scientific consensus of avoiding global warming of more than 2C above pre -industrial levels, or the 1.5C goal of 100 developing nations. The concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing everyday and, without significant reductions in emissions, will soon reach levels at which the consequent changes in the Earths climate will have very serious and potentially disastrous and irreversible, impacts. Research papers and analysis released in the past few days by several of the leading independent authorities on the question have looked at the impact of the current proposals made by countries at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. While there are differences in the details of the findings, the overall messages from these studies are clear: 1. To have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming to 2C, or lower, action at the high -end of current proposals and beyond will be required. This means that the global deal needs a clear commitment to go significantly above the most ambitious targets currently under discussion, and hence stretch above those in the next 8 days of negotiations. 2. Such an agreement is possible; the levels of reduction required are both technically and economically feasible what is required is the political will and leadership -in lock commitments in to these Copenhagen. 3. Achieving the high-end of the proposed reduction range and beyond, will also require strong financial and technology support for developing countries. 4. If achieved, such an agreement would be an historic step forward and keep hope alive that the world can contain longterm global warming to below 2C or 1.5C. If anything less than the high-end of current proposals plus significant additional reductions is achieved, then climate risks will be higher and it may not be possible to catch-up later we may miss the window of opportunity. 5. Copenhagen is only the beginning of a journey even if the high -end of current proposals plus additional reductions are locked more work will be required. Each of the studies show that a gap in -in, mitigation may remain after Copenhagen against 2020 requirements. It is thus essential that a Copenhagen agreement also include a review and strengthen clause where countries review progress against the latest scientific evidence and continue to adjust their commitments accordingly; the first such review should end no later than 2015 and draw upon the next assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due for conclusion in 2014. A deal that puts us on the path to having a good chance of avoiding warming of 2C, is possible but the proposals on the table are not quite there . We need to capture the high -end of those proposals and more in Copenhagen, and then continue to ratchet commitments over time. We have an historic -up opportunity in Copenhagen to increase climate security and economic security for the world for generations to come. This statement is supported by and may be attributed to: 55

 Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Bill Hare, Director, Climate Analytics Niklas Hhne, Director Energy and Climate Policy, Ecofys Bas de Leeuw, Executive Director, Sustainability Institute, C-ROADS Andreas Merkl, Director of Global Initiatives at ClimateWorks and Project Catalyst leader Jules Kortenhorst, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and Project Catalyst core team member\ http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-pressreleases/9%20Dec%2009%20COP15%20Modeling%20Groups%20press%20release.pdf/view

56

Key Stories 2009: Copenhagen Discord The chaotic Copenhagen climate summit failed, staggering to a political compromise that offers no clear way to stabilize the climate. We were warned. World leaders had already rejected Copenhagens original goal: a legally binding treaty to curb carbon emissions. Instead we got the non-binding Copenhagen Accord: no emissions targets, no enforceable obligations, and no treaty deadline. Civil society cried foul, carbon markets plunged, and business leaders fumed. The U.N. sponsored RioKyoto-Copenhagen consensus-based approach had failed again. Optimists noted that over 100 world leaders had discussed climate change. Pessimists pointed out that they fought like cats, while the climate policy leader, the EU, was sidelined. Optimists cheered the money promised to the poorest countries for mitigation and adaptation. Pessimists said dont hold your breath. All countries now admit they must combat climate change but the major polluters who brokered the dealincluding China, the U.S., and Indiadodged any commitments that might threaten economic growth. http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/microfinance/top_climate_stories/key_stories_2009_cop enhagen_climate_summit.html

57

Copenhagen and the Future of the Canadian Economy By: Peter Corbyn Year: 2009 Many articles have been, and will be written about the results, or lack thereof, from the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. My comments are from the perspective of a Canadian concerned about the future of the planet and the future of our domestic economy. First of all, I am concerned about the outcome of the conference, but not surprised. There are numerous competing positions on how to deal with the climate crisis and to think it could all be solved in a couple of weeks may be nave. That said, after years of analysis and pre-negotiations, you would think they would have accomplished more. Lets hope something concrete happens in the next few months towards agreements on numbers by the end of 2010. Now back to Canada. Have you noticed Barack Obamas messaging around the climate crisis this is an opportunity to transform the American economy to that of a world leader in clean and renewable energy technology. Leadership. The renewable energy sector in Germany is projected to pass their automotive sector in total employment by 2011. People are still buying BMWs, Porsches, Audis and VWs around the world good on em. Leadership. And Canada? If Stephen Harper was Henry Ford, he would have quit at the Model A. If he was IBM, he would have quit at the 1 MB Ram, 10 MB hard-drive PC. If he was Bill Gates, he still wouldnt believe the Internet was going to have the value and job creation impact that it had over the last decade. As a Canadian, I am concerned for two reasons. Number one. I am concerned that our Minister of Environment states that we represent just 2% of global emissions. Yes, but our once proud international moral compass can leverage well beyond that 2% in influence. How many other countries may say now well Canada isnt taking action, so why should we? Number two. Stephen Harpers obvious greater concern for his political future (i.e. getting re-elected) greatly trumps his concern for the future economic strength of our country. Investing in renewable energy technology, such as wind, solar and biomass, or in green transportation, such as the electrification of vehicles, will result in growing economic prosperity for the next few decades. And, just as importantly, this prosperity can be shared throughout the country, not just in Alberta. Hats off to Dalton McGuinty for showing some leadership in Ontario. Green technology means jobs. Period. Any economist should be able to figure that out. http://www.greennexxus.com/post/2009/12/Copenhagen-and-the-Future-of-the-CanadianEconomy.aspx

58

Five Reasons the Copenhagen Climate Conference Failed By: George Dvorsky Year: 2010 Im still reeling from the rather anticlimactic finish to the recent Climate Change Conference held in Copenhagen. Like so many others, I was hoping for an internationally binding deal that would, at the very least, compel and motivate the nations of the world to address the climate crisis in a meaningful and precedent setting way. But it was not to be. The immediate reasons for the conferences failure are complex and laden with the political and economic realities of our time (e.g. settling on exact targets and incentives). But these reasons are part of a deeper malaise that is currently paralyzing the countries of our warming planet. As this crisis is revealing, our social and political institutions are ill equipped to deal with a pending catastrophe such as this. More specifically, there are basically five birds eye view reasons that can account for the conferences failure: 1. Nation-states are far too self-serving: Countries dont like to be told what to do, and when push comes to shove its far too easy for them to hide behind the sovereignty shield. Instead of acting proactively and with leadership, many nations (particularly those in the developed world) are aligning themselves with what other countries are doing. No more and no less. And seeing as no one is doing anything.well, there you have it. Compounding this problem is the realization by some countries that they arent going to be too negatively impacted by climate changea disturbing reminder that nationstates are unwilling to deal with threats that are not considered local. 2. Democracies are too ill-equipped and irresolute to deal with pending crises: A reader of mine recently complained that the people of the world were not being consulted on what they feel should be done about climate change. Well, this would only work if the people of the world were universally educated about the intricacies of the issues (including scientific, economic, cultural and political considerations) and disarmed of their petty selfishness and local biases. This isnt going to happen anytime soon, and consulting the Joe the Plumbers of the world on something as multi-faceted and complex as climate change is probably not a good idea. Moreover, like the politicking politicians who supposedly represent them, the masses have shown a tremendous unwillingness to deal with a problem that has yet to show any real tangible negative effects. 3. Isolationist and avaricious China: One thing that the Copenhagen failure revealed is that Chinas isolationism is alive and welleven as they emerge as a global superpower. Theyre going to go about this whole global warming thing on their own terms, whatever thats supposed to mean. This unilateral approach is particularly disturbing considering that theyre the largest manufacturing state in the world and house a massive population that will soon start to demand first-world standards of living. And exacerbating all this is the communist Chinese system itself with all its corruption and lack of accountability and due process. 4. The powerful corporatist megastructure: As the onset of last years economic crisis so beautifully illustrated, capitalism, if left to its own devices, will eat itself. This is because corporations dont act rationally or in a way that would indicate foresight or a desire for long-term self-preservation. Moreover, corporations will never voluntarily deal with a seemingly ethereal and controversial problem, especially one that requires a dramatic reduction of profits. 5. Weak consensus on the reason for global warming: Global warming denalists are no longer the problem. Whats of great concern now is the growing legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change denialiststhose individuals who believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon. This is a particularly pernicious idea because it absolves humanity from the problem. Adherents of this view 59

contend that human civilization is not responsible for the changes to the Earths climate and that as a consequence we dont need to fix anythingwe can keep on spewing carbon into the atmosphere with reckless abandon. This idea is particularly appealing to politicians who use it as a convenient escape hatch. Im inclined to think that the only way the nations of the world will band together and act decisively on this issue is if an actual climate-instigated disaster happensone that touches all international stakeholders in a profound way. But even this isnt guaranteed as there will always be global disparities in terms of impact. Part of the problem right now, aside from the intangibleness of it all, is that some countries will be impacted more than others, a prospect that will ultimately lead to the rise of a new geopolitical stratification: different regions (both inter- and intra-national) will experience the effects of global warming differently, whether it be coastal areas, those dealing with desertification or those having to contend with the exodus of climate refugees. Given the failure of Copenhagen, Im inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the way to go. Instead, Id like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent emergency session that is parliamentary in nature (i.e. representative and accountable) and dedicated to debating and acting on the problem of anthropogenic climate change (a sub-parliament, if you will). The decisions of this governing board would be binding and impact on all the nations of the world. The chances of outright failure (like the one in Copenhagen) would be significantly lessened. Instead of ad hoc conferences, the emergency sub-parliament would conduct a series of ongoing debates over proposed legislation that would ultimately result in internationally binding agreements. The current climate problem has caused the emergence of another crisis, namely a crisis-of-resolution. Failure at this point is not good enough. Whats required is something more respective of the dire situation were in. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20100110/

60

Governments

61

The Copenhagen Accord - A First Stab at Deciphering the Implications for the EU By: Christian Egenhofer and Anton Georgiev Year: 2009 The original purpose of the conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) had been to complete negotiations on a new international agreement on climate change to come into force when the Kyoto Protocols first commitment period came to an end in 2012. In the last two years, however, climate change has assumed such importance on the global agenda that an unprecedented number of heads of governments almost 120 decided to meet in Copenhagen to provide political leadership and give the final push for a global climate change agreement, hoping thereby to lay the foundations for the new global climate change order. Days after the meeting ended, people are still asking themselves whether the gamble paid off. Almost everyone agrees that the outcome was far less than most had hoped for. On the other hand, the final outcome is better than what even the most optimistic observer could have wished for after the conference entered into deep negotiations in the second week, where deadlock built up. It is still unclear whether the agreement is a disaster (Swedish EU Presidency) or represents an unprecedented breakthrough (US President Obama). Even the EU seems to be divided. German Chancellor Merkel hailed the outcome as a step, albeit a small one, towards a global climate change architecture. What is striking is that the outcome is generally seen in a more favourable light in the US than in Europe. This difference, however, can be explained by different expectations and perspectives. http://www.ceps.eu/book/copenhagen-accord-first-stab-deciphering-implications-eu

62

The Copenhagen Conference: How Should The EU Respond? By: Joseph Curtin Year: 2009 The EU was marginalised at Copenhagen. As a consequence the Copenhagen Accord neither conceptually nor substantively reflected the EUs original negotiating position. This failure must lead to a reevaluation of its modus operandi in international negotiations if Europe wishes to match its rhetoric of leadership on climate protection with real influence. This paper first offers a context for the EUs approach to climate change followed by a review of EU leadership on the issue; the next section provides an analysis of the content of the Copenhagen Accord and the overall direction of negotiations from a European perspective; the final section assesses the reaction within the EU to the Accord and offers initial thoughts on how the EU might increase its influence at future international climate negotiations. http://www.iiea.com/publications/the-copengahen-conference-how-should-the-eu-respond

63

COP15: The Copenhagen Conference Copenhagen Outcomes The move towards global and immediate action on climate change has been agreed as part of the Copenhagen Accord, following two weeks of intensive negotiations and two years of talks. The Accord agreed by major developed and developing country leaders and backed by a large majority of countries - will reinforce the need for strong domestic action on climate change across the world, as the UK is itself doing through its Low Carbon Transition Plan. The Accord includes international backing for an overall limit of 2 degrees on global warming; agreement that all countries need to take action on climate change; and the provision of immediate and longer term financial help to those countries most at risk of climate change. For the first time, the new Copenhagen Accord [external Link] will also: * List what each country is doing to tackle climate change including economy-wide commitments to cut emissions by developed countries and actions by developing countries * Introduce real scrutiny and transparency to ensure emission targets are put into effect, with mandatory reporting every two years for developing countries * Provide $30 billion of immediate short term funding from developed countries over the next three years to kick start emission reduction measures and help the poorest countries adapt to the impacts of climate change * Commit developed countries to work to provide long term financing of $100 billion a year by 2020, a figure first put forward by Prime Minister Gordon Brown in June of this year. The UK and other countries will now be working to convert the Accord into a legally binding agreement as soon as possible. The benefits to the UK of the shift to low carbon are clear and the UK stands by its domestic commitment to reduce emissions by at least 34% by 2020, and more if the European Union moves to a total 30% cut. The UK wants to see the European Union move to a target of a 30% cut in emissions by 2020, compared with the current 20% figures, alongside other countries moving to the top of their emissions reduction ambitions. Countries now have until 31 January 2010 to submit their commitments. Secretary of State, Ed Miliband said: Our agreement today marks the start of a new phase in tackling climate change. Developed and developing countries have come together to take action and there is an unprecedented commitment of climate finance. Major developed and developing countries have signed up to tackle the problem and to limit global warming to 2 degrees. As countries enter their emissions cuts in the formal register by January 31st, they can and should make good on this. These negotiations have shown how hard it is to get agreement on such complex and profound issues. Today it took eight hours from the convening of the plenary in the early hours of the morning. There is much further to go, including ensuring we achieve a legally binding outcome for everyone. As the British Government, our aim is, as it has always been, to ensure that the politics catches up with the science. Today we made a start but we have a long way to go." http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/tackling_clima/copenhagen/co penhagen.aspx 64

Copenhagen Conference a "Failure": Cuba Cuba has descibed the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference that ended Saturday a "failure", and accused U.S. President Barack Obama of being "imperial and arrogant." Speaking at a news conference in Havana, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said Monday that "no true agreement was reached at Copenhagen", and called the deal that was reached at the summit a "step backward on climate-change." Criticizing Obama for his "imperial and arrogant" attitude at Copenhagen, the Cuban leader called him a "liar" for expressing confidence about reaching an effective deal at the end of the talks. "Obama knew he was lying, that he was deceiving public opinion," he added. The Cuban Foreign Minister also described the conference "a fallacy, a farce", adding that "at this summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama," and he acted like the "world's emperor" who would not listen, imposed his views on leaders of other countries and even threatened developing countries. 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 polluterd (rich) economies to make concessions on CO2 emissions. He said Obama later called leaders of 16 countries for a separate meeting, and behind the back most heads of state of the participating nations, had an "apocryphal document" adopted, with commitments insufficient for the planet's needs. Rodriguez praised the speeches of the presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia, Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales, at Copenhagen. Meanwhile, Evo, one of the most applauded heads of state at Copenhagen, proposed a Summit of the Peoples against Climate Change, for April 22 in Bolivia. The two-week chaotic U.N. climate-Change summit at Copenhagen ended Saturday with a broad, nonbinding accord that agreed at keeping average increases in global temperatures below 2C, but did not set out the emission cuts which each country will undertake. Much of the developing world was disappointed with the outcome. http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1163524

65

In Media

66

LIMATE CHANGE: Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is By Ranjit Devraj NEW DELHI, Jan 26, 2010 (IPS) - While the BASIC bloc countries - Brazil, South Africa, India and China will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord, they have taken care to emphasise that the agreement, reached at the end of the December climate change summit in the Danish capital, has no legal basis. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50104

67

Green Light: Copenhagen Fallout, Peak Theory and Reader Photos of the Year After Copenhagen As the dust settles on the Copenhagen climate talks, we've taken a step back to ask what was achieved at the summit, whether the deal is worth anything and consider who was to blame for the final unambitious text known as the 'Copenhagen accord'. Mark Lynas, who was with the Maldives delegation, tells the inside story of the last minute dealings between China and other heads of state. But for the big picture, head to our Copenhagen page for more comment, photos, audio, videos and news on how the last dramatic moments of the conference played out. Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room Copenhagen climate deal: Spectacular failure - or a few important steps? Jailed Copenhagen protesters face Christmas behind bars If you want to know who's to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate Copenhagen treaty was 'held to ransom', says Gordon Brown Beyond Copenhagen: Dialogue, not diktat Energy The lack of a strong deal at Copenhagen also had ramifications for the carbon trading market. In Europe, the carbon price fell by 10% in one day, causing experts to warn the low price could discourage investment in new clean power. Biofuels: can they fuel our lifestyle without taking food from the poor? Falling carbon price could result in higher bills, energy firms warn Has peak theory reached its tipping point? Green living For those cyclists still braving the icy roads, this week's bike blog features an account by Homa Khaleeli on cycle training and a post by Ben Thomas asking why motorists are so opposed to 20mph zones. Meanwhile Leo Hickman is looking for your tips on efficient heating and Lucy Siegle pre-empts Christmas day disappointments with a look at re-gifting. How can I make my heating system more efficient? British Gas wants you to Pay As You Save Do cyclists need restricting? How cycling lessons transformed me from a cautious to a confident rider Is it green to re-gift? And finally Loan wolf? Prizewinning photographer faces fakery claims Was it wild or was it staged? Click the link and see what you think. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/23/1

68

Low Targets, Goals Dropped: Copenhagen Ends In Failure By: John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg Year: 2010 The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in Copenhagen tonight, falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations to come. After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal. American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is not enough." "We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added. Gordon Brown hailed the night as a success on five out of six measures. In a press conference held after the talks broke up, Brown said the agreement was a "vital first step" and accepted there was a lot more work to do to get assurances it would become a legally binding agreement. He declined to call it a "historic" conference: "This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps are difficult and they are hard." "I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible." The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session. The deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020. But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries which had been holding out for deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in past drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped. The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded. Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental agreements. He said developing countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together". This was a not-so-veiled reference to the row over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and its legal distinction between developed and developing countries. Developing nations saw this as an attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. Many observers blamed the US for coming to the talks with an offer of just 4% emissions cuts on 1990 levels. The final text made no obligations on developing countries to make cuts. Negotiators will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete. Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed US global leadership: "The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to Copenhagen." But the US president also said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather constraints in Washington". 69

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had "the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush." John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [UK climate change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit." It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen." Lydia Baker of Save the Children said world leaders had "effectively signed a death warrant for many of the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year." http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal

70

EU in Cold as Climate Deal Redefines Relations By: Andrew Ward Year: 2009 It could go down in history as the moment that defined the new, multipolar world. At 7pm on the final evening of the Copenhagen climate conference, Barack Obama, the US president, walked into an unscheduled meeting with Wen Jiabao, Chinese premier, and the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa. Mr Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready? asked Mr Obama. During the next two hours, the five leaders and their advisers ended two weeks of diplomatic deadlock by thrashing out a tentative deal on global warming that became known as the Copenhagen Accord. Conspicuously absent from the room was the European Union and Japan. Americas two main postwar allies were left on the sidelines as Mr Obama cut a deal with China and other emerging economies. Weve been taught some lessons about the realities of the so-called multipolar world, Carl Bildt, Swedens foreign minister, said. These lessons will have to be taken into account when we go for a more comprehensive global agreement. Until the US-brokered compromise, the conference had been characterised by stalemate and bickering between rich countries and the big emerging economies, with neither bloc dominant nor united enough to prevail. Poorer countries, meanwhile, revelled in their role as swing voters between the rival powers. Writing in the FT, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, senior director for policy and programmes at the German Marshall Fund in Washington, said the climate conference heralded an age of transition in international relations. Decisive action is inhibited as the power structures of a new world order are only just emerging and thus produce insecurities about where power rests, he said. Copenhagen was multipolarity as chaos. The EU had hoped to use its much-trumpeted pledge to deepen emissions cuts as a bargaining chip to coax the US and China into stronger action. Instead, Mr Obama brushed aside EU demands and forged a non-binding deal that Jos Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, derided for its commitment to the lowest common denominator. Some might argue it was a telling indictment of Europes failure in Copenhagen that, when Mr Barroso announced the EUs grudging backing for the accord on the final night of the conference, some journalists in the front row slept through the whole event. Europe is the big loser from Copenhagen, wrote Mr Brockhoff. Climate has been the one issue where Europe has led the world. In the end, the continent was too weak to succeed when it counted. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b06d220-f493-11de-9cba-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=d68cb1fc-a38d-11dea435-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1

71

Copenhagen Conference Roundup By: EBR_EBdaily Year: 2010 The 15th UN Climate Conference concluded late last month with the ambiguous adoption, or noting, of a Copenhagen Accord. This political document was delivered at the end of two weeks of tense and often confusing negotiations. Its exact legal status and hence its implications remain the subject of debate and it leaves unanswered many of the difficult questions that have bedeviled climate negotiations for much of the past two years. Download full report now. Despite this, the Copenhagen Accord represents an important milestone in international efforts to address climate change. For the first time, the US, China and all other major economies have committed to take concrete and verifiable action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; new money has been put on the table; and a long-term objective keeping the average global temperature increase to below 2 above pre-industrial levels has been adopted. While many details are still to be determined, the Accord contains the seeds for a new, country-driven, bottom-up approach to tackling climate change that could potentially offer an effective route to accelerated global emission reductions. The risks, however, are considerable. In the absence of any internationally agreed medium- and long-term emission targets, backed by a legally-binding agreement, much will depend on whether governments embrace a race to the top mentality or succumb to lowest common denominator climate policies. The next 12-24 months will be critical in determining which path countries choose. The key points of the Accord are as follows: - On the politics: acknowledgment of the seriousness of the problem and need for urgent, collective action in line with existing principles (e.g. CBDR1) - On the science: endorsement of the IPCCs recommendation that global temperature increase be kept below 2oC. - On adaptation: agreement that developed countries will provide adequate and predictable financial, technical and capacity-building support to developing countries. - On developed country mitigation: agreement that Annex I parties will commit to quantified economywide emission reductions by 2020 (although with no individual or aggregate targets given), with targets submitted to the UNFCCC by 31 January 2010. These targets, as well as financing to support developing country climate action, are to be monitored, reported and verified. - On developing country mitigation: agreement that non-Annex I parties will implement mitigation actions that are monitored, reported and verified. These actions are to be submitted to the UNFCCC by 31 January 2010. Action by the poorest and most vulnerable countries is voluntary. - On Monitoring, Reporting, Verification (MRV): agreement that unilateral developing country mitigation action will be subject to domestic MRVing with international consultation and analysis that respects national sovereignty; agreement that mitigation action supported by developed countries will be subject to international MRVing. Both developed and developing country MRVing will be subject to existing and to-be-agreed UNFCCC guidelines. - On finance levels: commitment by developed countries to provide US$30 billion in short-term financing between 2010 and 2012 and to mobilize US$100 billion per annum by 2020. This will be from public, private, multilateral and alternative sources. Funding will be used for mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and capacity-building in developing countries. - On financial architecture: agreement to establish a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund which will receive a significant proportion of the above finance flows. Also the establishment of a High Level Panel to study the contribution of potential sources of revenue. 72

- On REDD plus: agreement that a mechanism to mobilize funds to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) and support conservation is needed. - On technology: agreement to establish a technology mechanism to accelerate the transfer and development of mitigation and adaptation technologies. http://energybusinessdaily.com/renewables/copenhagen-conference-roundup/

73

Coverage of Copenhagen Climate Conference By: Mary Hockaday Year: 2009 So, the UN climate conference COP15 finally gets under way in Copenhagen today. It's been a long time coming. Copenhagen coverageYou can measure it from the UN climate change conference in Bali in 2007 where world leaders agreed to work on further efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more widely and deeply than the 2005 Kyoto Protocol, and decided to meet in Copenhagen in 2009. Or you can measure it from more recent events: the hours and hours of diplomacy this year preparing a draft treaty. Until even a few weeks ago, there was talk of a couple of thousand square brackets of unagreed text still being pored over by the politicians and their "sherpas" preparing the ground for the final gathering over the next two weeks. Our job in the BBC newsroom has been to report on the build-up to the summit and to prepare our audiences to make sense of whatever happens. Now we aim to interpret the various negotiating positions and - if a treaty is agreed - to judge what it means for all of us. Arctic researchOur specialist environment correspondents have been reporting on climate change - the science and the politics and the debate - for a long time. This year, for example, David Shukman has filed reports from the Arctic and Bangladesh on the changes to our climate and our planet. He was with scientists on the northern ice trying to measure its thinning, and in Bangladesh talking to those dealing with the effect of rising sea levels and looking at the analysis that links these to man-made climate change. Roger Harrabin has reported from China on the effect of warming and efforts to reduce emissions. And at his blog Earth Watch, Richard Black has built up a rich body of reporting and analysis. The scientific background is not, of course, undisputed. The row about e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit shows how charged the debate can be. We were the first mainstream news organisation to report the story and have since drawn out three related but distinct threads. Are there question marks over the CRU's scientific work? Are there question marks about how it has handled its scientific data and engaged in public debate? Will the row affect Copenhagen? There are those who answer the first question with a yes, and many more saying, like UK Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband, that "one string of e-mails does not undermine the global science on climate change". The row has certainly raised the temperature leading up to Copenhagen, and the second question still needs an answer. In time, we'll report on the findings of the review of the incident and of a police investigation of the hacking or leaking http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html

74

Copenhagen Climate Conference: Who Is Going To Save The Planet Now? After The Copenhagen Climate Conference Failed To Stop Global Warming, The Next Big Question For Climate Change Is Who Is Going To Save The Planet Now? By: Louise Gray Year: 2009 The summit was supposed to halt temperature rise by cutting greenhouse gases. But after two weeks of negotiating it ended in a weak political accord that does not force any country to reduce emissions and has no legal standing anyway. As a result the world is one step closer to a humanitarian crisis, according to the Royal Society. So, who is going to save the planet now? President Barack Obama? The US President flew into the conference at the last minute to save the day. He did not quite manage it, refusing to increase Americas emissions targets and upsetting the Chinese by insisting on transparency for all nations. But this is the one man who believes in The Audacity of Hope. President Obama is currently trying to get legislation through the Senate that might just enable the US to increase its emissions target. This should encourage China and every other country in the world to increase their emissions reductions. President Obama has also said he is personally committed to addressing climate change. We will see how true this is in the next few months. Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband? The UK Prime Minister and his Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change were instrumental in ensuring a deal came out of Copenhagen, even if it is pretty weak. Mr Brown is said to be angry at the failure of the world to agree on such an important issue and will be working hard to try and get a legally-binding treaty on the table in the next six to 12 months. World Business? Unlikely as it may seem, the CBI is also angry at the weak deal. If the world had managed to agree to set up global carbon markets, it would have at least provided a level playing field for industry around the world as everyone would be equally punished for pumping out carbon. It would also have triggered a massive green stimulus as cleaner technologies like solar panels become a much cheaper form of energy. The lack of a strong agreement means it is more risky for business to invest in green technology. However there is a lot of money to be made and if business leaders have the guts to invest in renewable energy, therefore driving employment, manufacturing and growth, it could well be the economy stupid that ends up cutting greenhouse gases. Artificial trees? Geo-engineering is becoming more likely the longer the world puts off cutting greenhouse gases. Engineers are already researching the best way to suck carbon out of the atmosphere if we leave it too late, for example artificial trees. Other options include putting giant mirrors in space to reflect back sunlight to reduce the effects of global warming and fertilising the oceans with iron so that algae grows and more carbon dioxide is absorbed. Us? A lot of civil society is angry at the failure of world leaders to reach an agreement that effectively tackles the problem of climate change. Already there have been marches of tens of thousands of people and more are being organised to put pressure on world leaders to come up with a better deal in less than a years time. The power of the vote may also help the process if politicians are rewarded for offering green policies. Ultimately it comes down to individuals to save the planet. If more people decide to use public transport, buy sustainable goods and demand renewable energy it will force business and world leaders to act. And if we all reduce our carbon footprints it will mean far less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6854131/Copenhagen-climateconference-Who-is-going-to-save-the-planet-now.html

75

After COP 15, what is the Outlook for Business? Year: 2009 While the Copenhagen talks yielded a non-binding political agreement, some business sectors say a better outcome would have included a more concrete set of targets. In the Copenhagen Accord (PDF) that was reached, a cap was set on worldwide temperature increases of no more than 2 degrees. Unilateral GHG targets would be set by each nation (see image). The agreement puts business leaders in the uncomfortable position of not knowing how environmental policy will force decisions about the costs of doing business, reports the Wall Street Journal. Without a legally binding carbon target, the outlook for clean tech investment is not as rosy, for instance, said Joan McNaughton, Senior Vice President, Power and Environment Policies, at Alstom Power, a clean-coal firm. The uncertainty has led to a fall in the price of carbon allowances in the EU, with prices falling 5 percent on Dec. 17, the biggest drop in six months, according to WSJ. Prices fell 8 percent further the morning of Dec. 21, reports Reuters. Matthew Curtin, a Dow Jones columnist, wrote that the talks proceeded on a faulty premise of tracking how much CO2 gas each nation produces, instead of how much fossil fuel each nation consumes. For corporate sustainability leaders, the lack of a binding agreement means that multinational firms should update their climate change and sustainability strategies, according to a report from Verdantix, Business Implications of the Copenhagen Accord. Here are some take-aways from the Verdantix report: - From 2010-2011, focus on national climate policies. Consider the business implications of a possible carbon tax in France and allowance auctions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. For companies operating in the U.S., focus on immediate actions regarding CO2 from the Environental Protection Agency. - Avoid investing in markets covered by the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism. The global carbon market created by the mechanism may be the biggest casualty from the Copenhagen Accord, Verdantix notes. Poor market rules, insufficient administration and a depressed carbon price make investing in the mechanism very high risk. - Be prepared to explain to company leadership why carbon management should remain a priority. Some CEOs will see the lack of firm emissions targets as a reason to scale back on a companys carbon reduction plans, Verdantix notes. But the Copenhagen Accord sets in motion a series of nation-based carbon reduction efforts. Additionally, carbon management yields reduced energy costs and builds environmental brand value. - Conduct a climate change adaption risk assessment. Consider the impacts on your supply chain from water availability, energy costs and other factors. Some business sectors, including the aviation and shipping industries, had sought an international accord with defined expectations for their carbon reduction. Without one, companies will be subject to emissions standards that vary from nation to nation, or even by region. For instance, the EU is planning strict emissions standards for aviation and shipping. The U.S. airline industry has launched a shot across the bow of the aviation emissions standards by filing a lawsuit. While some EU nations wanted taxes on aviation and shipping to pay for a $100 billion climate fund for developing nations, that approach was fiercely opposed by the sectors, reports the Telegraph. The European steel industry fears that, without binding international targets, the EU may unilaterally impose a 30 percent GHG reduction target, up from 20 percent. The EU steel industry says it would need 76

free carbon allowances in order to compete internationally with nations that do not have emissions targets, said the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries. Thomas Friedman, the outspoken New York Times columnist, said that the U.S. business sector would benefit from an all-out attempt by the U.S. to control carbon emissions whether through carbon taxes, pursuit of energy efficiency or construction of renewable energy infrastructure. The key is economies of scale, he told Grist, in a Q&A. Theres only one thing thats as big as Mother Nature and thats Father Greed. It is the market. And the way you leverage the market is to get the worlds biggest, capitalist country is to take the lead in the clean tech industry, he told Grist. Additionally, the lack of a Copenhagen climate deal will have negative implications on the fisheries industry, reports the Business Standard. http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/21/after-cop-15-whats-the-outlook-for-business/

77

Post-Copenhagen, Cleantech Industry Needs to Reconsider Goals By: Chris Morrison Year: 2009 Last weeks Copenhagen climate conference has already been criticized extensively for failing to accomplish anything substantive. Many world leaders and environmentalists hoped for a global deal against greenhouse gas emissions; what they got was a document devoid of any firm goals. The industrial world was likewise disappointed, but for a different reason: companies need to make long-term projections, but theyll remain uncertain of the future as long as the meandering diplomatic process seen in Copenhagen remains in force. Renewable energy companies could suffer the worst. The hope going into Copenhagen was that the world would come away with a carbon trading scheme. With that done, the price of coal, gas and oil would slowly begin to rise, allowing biofuels, solar power, wind and other clean technologies to become cost-competitive. But in the aftermath of Copenhagen, the price for carbon permits traded in the European Union has tumbled. Theres some hope that the United States will begin its own trading regime, but the result is uncertain and anything passed will likely remain weak until a stronger global agreement is secured. So whats left to hope for? While some solar companies say theyre close to grid-parity, most renewable energy is not cost-competitive yet. That leaves government subsidies and mandates. The Wall Street Journal has a piece today about shifting strategies from big companies like General Electric: some businesses say these policies could play a major role in fostering so-called clean technology, which includes non-fossil power sources, such as wind turbines, and related know-how, such as software that equips energy grids to cope with intermittent bursts of power from solar cells The adoption of renewable-energy standards, completed or under way in many states, should boost demand for technologies that make electrical grids more efficient, says Dan Adler, president of the nonprofit California Clean Energy Fund, set up by the state to help spur cleantech investment. When it comes to government incentives, theres one other way that cleantech companies can help their chances: beefed-up lobbying efforts. Cleantech companies are already a growing force in lobbying, but next year may be the year that they put all their previous efforts to shame. http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002701/post-copenhagen-cleantech-industry-needs-to-reconsidergoals/

78

Following Copenhagen, Hundreds of U.S. Companies Call on Congress to Enact Clean Energy and Climate Legislation As world leaders return home from the Copenhagen climate change summit, hundreds of businesses are standing together to demand comprehensive action by Congress on federal clean energy and climate legislation. In its first six weeks, the American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) initiative has grown from just 19 members to include over 750 businesses as of today. ABCE is a diverse coalition of businesses that support Congressional action to pass clean energy and climate legislation that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ABCE spokesperson Christopher Van Atten said: "The rapid increase in business flocking to ABCE sends a strong signal to Congress of the strong support for meaningful and effective legislation that will drive clean technology innovation, create jobs, and address the threat of global climate change. With all of the business interest in the proceedings at Copenhagen and the increasing focus on climate change, we expect to see an additional surge in our membership over the holiday period and into January. Frankly, we have been overwhelmed by the interest in the American Businesses for Clean Energy." Among the new members is Serious Materials, Inc., a Sunnyvale, California-based company that manufactures energy-efficient building materials. The company's CEO was named "Entrepreneur of the Year for 2009" by Inc. magazine. Other new members include: The Saunders Hotel Group, a Bostonbased hotel management firm with properties throughout the Northeast; and Recycled Energy Development, a Westmont, Illinois-based developer of industrial cogeneration projects. Robin Roy, Ph.D., vice president, Serious Materials, Inc., said: "Serious Materials supports prompt, effective legislation to address the threat of climate change. We know from our first-hand experience that policies that deliver cost effective energy efficiency not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions; they also benefit consumers and create good jobs. There is an enormous opportunity to improve energy efficiency in homes, schools, offices and other buildings across the country. We are delighted to play our part, manufacturing cost-effective super-insulating windows, and we are delighted to join with ABCE in helping get the word out that there are practical, economic steps that can and should be taken right now." "The Saunders Hotel Group is proud to be a member of ABCE as we celebrate our 20th year since pioneering urban ecotourism," said Tedd Saunders, chief sustainability officer of The Saunders Hotel Group and president of EcoLogical Solutions Inc. "We are one of the many hundreds of mainstream companies actively sending a message to Congress that American businesses are eager for strong federal climate policy that will create good jobs and strengthen our economy while avoiding the worst consequences of the looming climate crisis. Putting a price on carbon will finally send a clear signal to businesses and industry to invest in a more sustainable future for the benefit of our citizens and economy." "The U.S. can cut its greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time improving corporate profitability," said Dick Munson, senior vice president, Recycled Energy Development. "Clean energy developers will respond to comprehensive climate legislation by making substantial investments that increase American productivity and jobs. It's time we change the way our country generates power in order to both slash our pollution and expand our competitiveness." ABCE's message is bold and clear: "We are businesses from a broad cross-section of American industry that support Congressional action to enact clean energy and climate legislation that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time to act." Some of the first signatories to the ABCE pledge of support included Aspen Skiing Company, Avista, Calpine Corporation, Conservation Services Group, DB Climate Change Advisors (Deutsche Bank Group), 79

FPL Group, Gap Inc., National Grid, New York Power Authority, PNM Resources, and Public Service Enterprise Group. To see a full list of companies go to: http://www.AmericanBusinessesforCleanEnergy.org. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/following-copenhagen-hundreds-of-us-companies-call-oncongress-to-enact-clean-energy-and-climate-legislation-79894727.html

80

Copenhagen: A Lesson in Geopolitics By: Joanna Kakissis Year: 2009 After two weeks of international deadlock and an all-night marathon negotiating session that produced a thin and toothless accord, the biggest climate talks in history devolved from "Hopenhagen" to "Nopenhagen". The Copenhagen Accord - brokered at the last minute by Barack Obama, the US president, with China, India, Brazil and South Africa - did not receive universal support from the 193 countries participating in the climate summit. The accord, which gutted a comprehensive agreement to pay poor countries to protect their forests, since the mass cutting of trees accounts for 20 per cent of global emissions, is not binding and does not have a set date for capping carbon emissions. It provoked reactions from fury to despair. Lumumba Stanislaus Dia-ping, Sudan's chief negotiator, compared it to the Holocaust, while Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan president, referenced the sulfur of hell and suggested that Obama was Satan. Ian Fry of Tuvalu, the drowning island-nation that has become the poster country for the perils of rising sea levels, likened the accord to "being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future". Global climate politics But longtime observers of climate negotiations never expected a sweeping deal in Copenhagen, especially considering today's polarised and charged geopolitics. The rift between rich and poor countries remains wide, and the chasm paralysed the negotiations. China and India, the developing world's rising economic powerhouses and sometimes adversaries, together opposed key elements such as the external monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions. Wen Jiabao, the premier of China - the world's biggest emitter of CO2 gases - also snubbed 11th-hour meetings with Obama and other leaders, sending low-level aides instead. Cleo Paskal, a fellow in the Energy, Environment and Development Programme at the British think tank Chatham House, says the world's changing political landscape is partly why even Obama's last-minute brokering did not produce something powerful. "Climate change has become part of global politics," Paskal says. "There was a very high expectation from the West that a deal would be pushed through. But what's happened is a real wake-up call to how geopolitics has changed." Environmental groups, developing nations such Venezuela and Cuba, and much of the European media criticised Obama for the deal. "He formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters," environmentalist and author Bill McKibben wrote in the American magazine Grist. "It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse." http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009122064859919604.html

81

Specific to Canada/Alberta

82

Copenhagen: Canada Ranks Second-Last By: atthew Bramley, Clare Demerse and P.J. Partington Clare Demerse, Pembina's Associate Director of Climate Change, says in her Climate Change blog that Copenhagen produced "a weak deal that needs fixing up as soon as possible, and a diminished reputation on the world stage for Canada." Matthew Bramley, Pembina's Director of Climate Change, explains in a media release that "Canada's performance is the worst in the industrialized world" at the UN climate summit. Canada was ranked 56th out of 57 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index. PJ Partington, Climate Change Policy Analyst, blogged about celebrating his birthday in Copenhagen. "Yesterday I turned 24 at the Bella Centre," he said. "While somewhat unconventional as far as birthday celebrations go, I can't think of a more meaningful way to spend the day than fighting for a fair, ambitious and legally binding global climate deal." Read our reports from Copenhagen in the Pembina Climate Change Blog. As Clare Demerse, ever the optimist, says: "The good news is that we can fix the deal, and Canada can get its act together on climate change in 2010." Copenhagen Background: Where Canada Stands Little Mermaid Copenhagen In the lead-up to Copenhagen, Canada has come under intense international criticism [external link] for positions that are widely considered to be inadequate or unfair. Download our Copenhagen backgrounder [PDF] for an overview of recent developments in the international climate negotiations, the agenda of the Copenhagen conference, information on some of the major issues on the table, and an outline of Canadas positions and track record at the talks to date. http://climate.pembina.org/Copenhagen

83

Albertas Environment Minister Discusses Copenhagen and Oil Sands By: John Lorinc Year: 2009 With Canada racking up successive fossil-of-the-day awards at the climate change summit in Copenhagen, the countrys climate record will probably come under even more intense scrutiny next week with the arrival of Albertas delegation, led by Environment Minister Rob Renner. Canadas tarsands mines, controversial because they are a particularly dirty form of oil extraction, are located in boreal forest lands in northern Alberta. Green Inc. spoke with Mr. Renner yesterday. Q. Canada is being criticized for failing to meet its Kyoto targets. What message are you bringing to Copenhagen? A. The issue with respect to Kyoto is a reflection of the fact that a signature was put on an agreement without having a plan to achieve any kind of objectives, and complicated even more by the fact that our primary trading partner, the United States, was not a signatory. Were in a much stronger position to come up with an agreement at this point in time. Canada and the U.S. have been in very detailed discussions since the new administration took over. I believe not only can Canada contribute in a significant way to reaching a global agreement, but we can also work handin-hand for a continentwide mitigation strategy. Q. Will the Environmental Protection Agencys decision to regulate greenhouse gases affect Albertas oil exports? A. It doesnt directly affect oil exports. My read of the declaration is that it is aimed at Congress to move quickly to bring forward legislation than it is to regulate through existing legislation. Q. Will Albertas oil sands production change as a result of an agreement that emerges from the Copenhagen summit? A. I dont know there will be a significant amount of change as a result of what comes out of Copenhagen. We have legislation that requires large emitters to reduce their CO2 intensity by 12 percent. In the absence of those reductions, theyre paying into a compliance fund here in Alberta or buying Alberta-based offsets. That C$15 ($14) per metric ton charge has resulted in about C$125 million ($119 million) that now is in a technology fund. Q. The Pembina Institute recently released a report saying most oil sands producers wont comply with new rules governing tailing ponds. How do you respond? A. Its a little presumptive for the Pembina Institute to suggest that operators will not be in compliance. Ill be watching it very closely. Q. Are you expecting direct criticism when you arrive next week? A. Its not unexpected that the focus is on the oil sands. Theyre an easy target. Our message is that we recognize there are challenges, but the degree to which we are having an impact on the environment is probably exaggerated a great deal. We want to talk about the legislation we have that reduces and restricts CO2 emissions. And we want to talk about some of the new and emerging technologies for extracting bitumen, especially in situ operations, which are rarely if ever mentioned by the environmental groups, but in fact constitute about 80 percent of the resource. The vast majority of the resource is much more comparable to conventional oil than it is to a mining operation. http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/albertas-environment-minister-discusses-copenhagenoil-sands/

84

United Nations Climate Change Conference From December 7-18, 2009 Copenhagen will host a conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP15 Copenhagen. The UNFCCC is an international treaty produced at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 that encourages industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Conferences of the parties to that treaty have been held annually since 1995. At COP3 in 1997 held in Kyoto Japan, the Kyoto Protocol was developed. The agreement set legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries. Targets varied according to country, but averaged five per cent over the period from 2008 to 2012. Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 and ratified it in 2002. The United States has not ratified the protocol. Some believe Canadas Kyoto Protocol targets (GHG emissions reductions by six percent below their 1990 levels by 2012) arent achievable or realistic. Canada faces challenges due to its energy resourcebased economy, its cold climate and its geography. Others feel trying to achieve these targets would be expensive and potentially damaging to the Canadian economy. A major criticism is that targets are mandatory for industrialized nations, but not for developing countries. And without the United States, the protocol cant realistically address climate change. Originally, it was hoped that COP15 would result in a new global climate treaty, but differences between industrialized nations and developing countries on how to combat climate change may preclude such an outcome. While the conference may not result in a new treaty all can live with, Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCClC, hopes the conference will at least find agreement on what he calls the Four Essentials: 1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? 2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions? 3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed? 4. How is that money going to be managed? The Centre for Energy has published a COP15 briefing document called Canadian Leadership in Energy. (3MB PDF) This information will help you learn about the unique characteristics of Canadas energy production and consumption and how Canada ranks on the world stage with other major global energy players. The document also includes information on the value of Canadas energy exports, our energy relationship with the United States and Canadas CO2 emissions. We have also summarized key energy facts for Canada, domestically and globally as well as for each province and territory to help you learn about Canadas contribution to world energy and the Canadian economy. http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/CanadianEnergy/COP15/Copenhagen.asp

85

Canadians Unhappy with Harpers Performance at Copenhagen Summit Year: 2010 Canadians are generally unhappy with the results of last months Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found. In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,013 Canadian adults, 28 per cent of respondents are content with the leadership shown by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the summit to discuss climate change sponsored by the United Nations (UN). Conversely, almost half of Canadians (48%) express dissatisfaction with Harpers performance at the meeting. The Copenhagen Accord Last month, representatives from 170 countries struggled to agree on a way to curb global warming. In the end, leaders issued a common statement including certain commitments to act. Most Canadians (56%) express frustration with the fact that the agreement that was finally reached is not legally binding. A third of respondents (34%) are satisfied with the commitment to hold the increase of global temperatures below two degrees Celsius, but slightly more Canadians (36%) were left dissatisfied with this.

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/files/Angus%20reid%20poll_0.pdf

86

A Problem like Harper - Canada and Climate Change By: Chris Fellingham Year: 2010 With the dust barely settled from the Copenhagen talks, critics within Canada have been scathing of its approach to the talks. They note Canadas failure to take any leadership, its humiliation at the hands of the Yes Men (although there, Canada is hardly alone) in recent times, as well as the recipient of a fossil award, for lack of leadership as an industrialized country. When leaders came out of Copenhagen with an underwhelming accord, many in Canada were quick to point the finger at their own governments failure. For those who criticise Harper, the problem is one of responsibility and leadership, hardly an uncommon theme among the developed worlds environmentalists. They argue that Canada as a developed, liberal democracy has a moral responsibility to take the lead in tackling Climate Change. Canadas fossil fuel based exports are a platform for further leadership not for inaction, the Canada they know is a liberal leader and critically the moral and political superior of its sometimes whacky Southern neighbour. Unsurprisingly, Stephen Harpers conservatives take a different view. Harper has been abundantly clear that his first priority is Canadas economy (some might say only priority). Harper, in conjunction with Environment Minister Jim Prentice has argued that the environment must not stand in the way of economic recovery. Since then Canada has before Copenhagen just turned the corner. Furthermore Harper has argued that that the harmonization of US and Canadian business environments means that any undue strain on Canadian businesses would see them shift south. Harpers Government has also been keen to shift responsibility for leadership southwards to the US and/or failing that eastward to China and India. In an interview with CTV News following Copenhagen, Environment minister Jim Prentice declared it a success: This was the problem, frankly, with Kyoto. The Americans had no obligation to reduce their emissions under Kyoto; the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians the so-called major emerging economies had no obligations under Kyoto. Harper is of course correct, that ultimately any negotiation must have the emerging economies with it. Furthermore hes not wrong either to say that the Canada and the US are highly harmonized, to the extent that undue sanctions may have some impact, although this doesnt seem to concern British Columbia with its Carbon Tax, nor Ontario or Quebec with their progressive legislation. Hes also not been entirely unwilling on Climate legislation, proposing a Cap and Trade, and even going as far as to not rule out a Carbon Tax. However the problem is what Harper promises and what he does do. Its one thing to discuss potentially far reaching legislation, its quite another when its unlikely the US will agree to anything anytime soon. Worse, where opportunity might arise he seems intent on derailing it, when in December he announced Canada would be prioritising the economy over the environment at the next G20. For Canadian environmentalists the future seems uncertain, it cant easily be demonstrated that Canada is actually slowing the pack down and even if it was it pales in comparison with the likes of China. Yet critics are right to assume that Canada is in some ways an archetypal developed liberal democracy and it makes opposition by other countries that much easier, when they can point to a country as wealthy as Canada and argue, what are they doing? One thing is certain, while Harper remains, Canada will not be any kind of leader on the environment. The US position itself is fraught with problems. Many Democrats expended their political capital on the healthcare debate and are now looking to shore up support for defence in the mid-term elections. Worse, the mid-terms are likely to see a weakening of the Democratic party on congress. On the reverse 87

side, Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is the one forging a Climate Change bill with the Senator John Kerry (D-MA), which if they create the bill guarantees a modicum of bipartisanship that puts off a filibuster requirement. As has recently been the case with Canada, one needs to look to Washington or the Provinces for what is happening in Canada, not Ottawa. http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/a-problem-like-harper-canada-and-climate-change/

88