Copenhagen Adds More Hot Air to the Environment

It’s been forty-eight hours since the United Nations on Saturday forged a climate deal in Copenhagen.
Much has been said and reported since.

As an observer on the sidelines, with none of the crazed deadlines I would have had to deal with had I come as a journalist; I got a ringside view of the melee.

And the deal, I believe, was indeed unprecedented. Unprecedented because this is perhaps the first time in history of a major global summit that NO agreement was actually reached.

The final document, a draft of which I had detailed in my previous post, is similar to it on all counts except one; it has shed all its teeth.

It spells no emission reduction targets whatsoever for industrialised nations and makes no mention of the fact that it needs to be legally adopted at any point.

After a series of mutinous objections from countries like Sudan, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and a threat of suspension of the entire conference, the final text on Saturday, was “taken note of.”
And if you, like me, are not familiar with UN semantics, “taking note of”, according to the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer, is acknowledging that, “something is there, but not going so far as to directly associate yourself with it.”

A journalist in fact quoted a Chinese delegate as saying that the Copenhagen accord was, “not agreed (upon), not endorsed, not adopted.”

With no concrete commitments by rich nations, no requisite compliance mechanism, and yet a detailed account of how developing nations will have to adhere to international rules on their climate related actions, is it any wonder that many small developing countries are quite displeased with the outcome?
This conference I believe has also altered some equations. One, the rising ideological schism between BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India & China) and the rest of the G 77 developing nations on their varied demands from a climate deal. Two, it has undermined the responsibility of industrialized states towards less developed nations in mitigating historic levels of emissions in the atmosphere. The conference also perhaps highlighted the UN’s waning ability to forge a meaningful agreement.

To some developed country leaders, the UNFCCC and many optimists, Copenhagen was a significant “first step.”

To me, it’s the first step in a series of first steps over the last 17 years. Kyoto, which couldn’t get the US on board, was a first step, Bali where any semblance of a global emission target disappeared was a first step, and Copenhagen where no country signed up is being seen as a first step.

We’ve essentially not moved beyond the first step. But to be fair there are some unique challenges. International environmental law for instance does not yet have an effective framework for transnational treaties, having historically been the keeper of sovereign rights in the event of a bilateral standoff.

It would have been so much easier and effective, as Mr Boer suggested, to forge a deal between a handful of the large emitters constituting 80 percent of the world’s global emissions. But where’s the equity in that?  Especially since it’s the smaller island states and African nations with an insignificant carbon footprint who perhaps have the most to lose.

But these nations say they were not kept in the loop of the final draft. Observers- over 10,000 of them comprising of scientists, policy think tanks, researchers, and youth delegates were shunted out of the process. Stuck out in the cold for hours, without any facilities for food and drink, they started jokingly calling themselves conference refugees.

Denmark’s credibility in organizing a global summit has come under criticism, as has its level of hospitality.

But the executive secretary of UNFCCC has gone public to take the blame, suggesting that it is only to be expected when an “unprecedented” 115 heads of state came visiting.

They came, they spoke eloquently, and they flew back, some even got down to the job of wording the deal, and yet there is no agreement to show for it.

The climate is a complicated system, and models measuring repercussions in a Business As Usual scenario, however sophisticated, are merely indicative. But indicators they are - so ignoring the science until the geo-political climate is more conducive to agreement, is reckless. So, this is the way the COP ends, not with a bang but a whimper.