Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies Blog

It is 6:13 am and in the Bella Conference Center I am listening to the chair of the AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) trying to fight off uncontrollable tears. I am almost certain that the Group of 77 (a behemoth of 130 plus developing country states) is coming to an end. Countries are divided and I am witnessing accusations fly across the plenary. Why has it taken us so long to arrive at this point? We sit here with the “Copenhangen Accord” staring at our faces. It is a document full of hot air and is not what billions of people across the planet had been promised to deliver atmospheric restitution. Once again the developed nations have managed to gain somewhat of an upper hand in the wake of greater sacrifices of the larger developing countries.

That aside, negotiators had feared from day one of the talks that the documents and the process of negotiating would not mature to the point required in order to allow negotiations to move into the high level segment where over 100 Heads of States would come to sign a just climate deal. Their fears were realized. The process has been deeply flawed and the voices of nations regarding lack of transparency, conspiracy to kill off the Kyoto protocol has been true. I often found myself being witness to the injustice within the UNFCCC process (where had I not gone to certain meetings, I would have missed out on joint drafting sessions which I assumed were only scheduled G-77 coordination meetings). Text messages were sent, rooms were changed, information was not available to all.

All of this, in the wake of the greatest climate conference the world has ever seen since the birth of the Convention some 18 years ago. Why did it take us so long? How did we get so bitterly entrenched in this process? I have seen and learned more about the process as a negotiator in the last 2 weeks than I could have my entire life. As a result, I have become deeply disillusioned. Two nights ago, at the launch of the Maldives “Survival Kit” for nations, President Nasheed had all but given up on the process and called on youth to take to the streets and make this the absolute issue in politics. For nations like the Maldives that lie 1.5 meters above sea level at their highest point, this is an issue of their survival. I would agree.

After a bitter impasse, and stalling of the talks due to the flawed process, negotiators had still not made progress on many of the key issues. In the group discussing “enhanced action on mitigation” I found myself transported back in time as if no progress had been made between the developed and rapidly developing countries on any of the points on emissions reductions. On the issue of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing countries, the parties talked in circles and could not arrive at any concrete conclusions. Finally the Heads of States arrived adding further confusion to an already impossible situation. Having lost a day and half due to the boycott of the talks by members of the African Group and other major developing countries didn’t help but probably was the only thing that kept the two track process (the Kyoto protocol) alive. Late last night, the heads of 25 nations were invited as part of a “friends of the chair” group to help broker a deal: United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Maldives, Grenada, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Algeria, Denmark, Germany, Korea, Bangladesh, France, Gabon, and three others. The leaders of this group tried to hammer out a rough document to provide the basis for further negotiations. This is the “Copenhagen Accord“.

The deal is far from perfect. It is non-binding for starters and has a range of base years from which the many countries putting up targets can choose. If one looks closely, there is probably no way that it meets the 2 degrees guard rail target that we need at the MOST in order to avert a run-away climate disaster (even though it claims to use 2 degrees as the upper limit). It is far from what the islands need, far from what the Least Developed Nations require and still leaves many questions to be resolved. Yet it is the only thing that can salvage the absolute and utter lack of trust and faith that has been built up over the last two years between parties of the United Nations. Climate poses the biggest question to humanity as to whether or not we are going to be able to save ourselves. That is after all, what we are trying to do here. At this time, what we need is trust, faith, and greater understanding to move forward. I am only 25 years old. I fear bringing children into this world and as I sit here listening to nation after nation make statements in favor of or against supporting the passing of the Copenhagen Accord, I am now as uncertain as ever as to the future of humanity.

We have not attained “climate justice” here today. Nor have we secured our future. Outside over 200 protesters mobilized to arrive at the conference center to organize a “Shame Vigil.” Mind you civil society suffered the most fatal defeat during these talks by having been forcibly locked out in the final days. However, with an unprecedented over 45,000 registered delegates to the talks I think we have indeed arrived at a crucial point where the movement is unstoppable and will only continue to grow. It is 7:00 am on December 19th and I am unsure as to what the outcome will be. I leave you with this:

“In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel.” –Severn Suzuki (age 12), Rio Earth Summit 1992

There is little encouraging news from inside the Bella Center today. Last night some drafting groups continued but with little progress. In parallel sessions at the high level, heads of state met from 24 countries with broad regional representation and there was consensus that some sort of deal should be possible. Working off of the Danish text, technical drafters worked through the night, hoping to arrive at a deal to present to regional constituencies for this morning. Unfortunately they were unable to come to any agreement and stopped work at paragraph 3 of 13.

Rumors are that another high-level group based on the so-called “Copenhagen Commitment Circle” convened by Australia and the UK have also come up with a text. The problem is that the process for producing this has no legitimacy within the UNFCCC and there is no guarantee it would be accepted by countries not represented in the production of it. Many are angry that such a process was going ahead at all.

Obama has arrived and leaders are gathering in the main Plenary Hall for what is apparently the largest gathering of Heads of State outside New York ever. The session is already 1.5 hours late and most negotiators, with little else to do, are either getting some sleep or waiting to watch the beginning of the segment. What the Heads will do, apart from take a picture together, remains undecided – which is apparently unprecedented for such a gathering.

By Andrew K. Barnett

Dear friends,
After many sleepness nights at Copenhagen’s climate talks, I write to you with an urgent sense of hope. Not the ‘bury your head in the sand’ kind of hope. I’m talking about the ‘roll up your sleeves, put on a rally cap, batting in the bottom of the ninth’ kind of hope. Ultimately we must acknowledge that important work happens before, during, and after these talks. And it is this forward work that Minnesota can engage. If you’re following the news and wondering what you can do, here are some ideas.

First, global warming is undeniable, unforgiving, and urgent- and you can have this conversation. Distinct and multiple data sets indicate that human emissions are trapping heat in the atmosphere at unprecedented levels. This is not politics and this is not a scam- these are cold hard facts. Even if we dispose of the data set that ‘Climategate’ skeptics challenge, humanity rests on the work of 2,000+ scientists, gathering independent data and challenging each other’s conclusions. Consensus this strong is rare in science.

Sitting ten feet from Senator John Kerry yesterday, I echo his sentiments. “Those who look for excuses to continue to deny the science have a fundamental responsibility: prove us wrong or stand down. Explain why the ice is melting, the rivers drying, the dessert growing, and pony up a single peer-reviewed article that denies man-made warming. Now and forever amateur hour is over. It’s time for science fact to trump science fiction. If Dick Cheney can argue that a 1% chance of a terrorist attack deserves an $800 billion response, then we must agree that a near-100% chance of climate change deserves a global response.”

It is not possible to argue sanely in favor of increased droughts, floods, famine, disease, hurricanes and hundreds of millions of refugees due to rising seas. These are the consequences of unabated climate change, they have already begun, and they will worsen unless we act with fortitude and wisdom.

Second, U.S. senate legislation would cement a global deal next year, and you can raise political support. The Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733) will jump start America’s next industrial revolution- one based on the efficient, carbon-neutral, and cost-effective movement of electrons. By putting a price on carbon, this legislation works with market forces to drive energy innovation.

Cap-and-trade works, and it fertilizes the economy. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, President George H.W. Bush’s cap-and-trade policy, which targeted acid rain, saw the U.S. economy grow by 5.4 percent and provided $100 billion in annual health and environmental benefits. Despite dire predictions that the policy would cost $6 billion annually, the EPA pegs the actual cost at $1.5 billion.

When we apply cap-and-trade to carbon the benefits will be substantial. According to McKinsey and Company, U.S. companies could use energy efficiency to slash energy bills 30% by 2020, at a profit. We save money when we save energy, and we create local jobs that can’t be outsourced. Here we see mutual benefits to people and planet as we reduce globe-warming emissions.

We buy insurance to protect ourselves against dangerous events. Likewise, we can insure ourselves against climate collapse by reducing emissions and launching the clean energy economy. These actions would make sense even if climate change weren’t a threat. They offer the economic opportunity of a lifetime, and national legislation . The most important thing we can do is pass this bill by contacting our Senators and raising political will in our community.

Third, climate change requires a global response, and you can support American diplomacy. While these UN talks are cumbersome and slow, they are vital because no country can solve this problem alone. I’ll be honest- many of us on the floor have been flabbergasted by China’s reluctance to deal. But Senator Kerry made it clear that no country will be able to dump high-carbon goods on the economies of countries that reduce emissions.

While China may talk tough in Copenhagen, they have an eagle-eye on U.S. legislation. I attended a press conference with China’s lead negotiator, Su Wei, and he directly referenced Kerry’s senate bill. China will deal on climate change- whether through diplomacy or economic pressure. They will not sit out the next industrial revolution.

Finally, you can reduce emissions and help people in your community. There’s no need to wait for a global deal, or even a national one. While sweeping changes to energy policy are certainly needed, emissions won’t go down until we change behavior on the ground. Around home you could: program your thermostat so the house cools down when you’re gone, use energy efficient lights, plug leaky holes in the basement, insulate the attic, close gaps around doors, close storm windows, and consider efficient heaters and air conditioners when it’s time to replace. A quick Home Depot run would provide everything you need. Consider mass transit, carpooling, local food through a community supported agriculture project, backyard vegetable garden and compost, and working with your employer to reduce energy use at work. We can only create systemic change through policy, but local actions have real impact.

As I dash to Copenhagen’s press briefings, UN plenary sessions, and side events, I am overwhelmed by the complexity of climate change. My body aches from lack of sleep, my feet swell from hours of standing, and yet, I have the profound sense that the world will deliver on climate change. We can, we will, and we must.

Currently ‘near-term mitigation’, still bracketed, crops up at the end of paragraph 1 of an obscure LCA text on “Various Approaches, Including Opportunities for Using Markets, to Enhance the Cost-Effectiveness of, and to Promote Mitigation Actions”, proceeding under paragraph 1b5 of the Bali Action Plan. This language is the final result of a long and heated debate over a proposal, originally submitted by Micronesia, on fast-track mitigation options. This proposal drew attention to a number of mitigation opportunities not currently covered by the international climate regime, specifically biochar, *black carbon*, and HFC abatement. The idea is that these could result in for more rapid reductions in radiative forcing then “classic” mitigation efforts (such as reducing CO2 emissions). This paragraph would establish a work programme to explore voluntary implementation of these mitigation measures as well as ways of improving the cost-effectiveness of implementation.

The original, detailed proposal has been reduced to just a couple, somewhat obscure words (with the HFC reference removed into a separate paragraph) in a long and embittered negotiation. The reason it is so controversial is the reference to black carbon, which unlike CO2, is emitted largely from developing countries. Brazil, China and Saudi Arabia have been battling furiously to keep any reference out of the text. In the drafting group just finished, Micronesia, the Maldives (represented by yours truly), the EU and Norway worked to avoid having this reference removed. Following an intervention by China, it is likely the language will now be changed to “including actions with near-, medium-, and long-term effects”, though the establishment of the working group is now in doubt after Saudi Arabia pushed to change the beginning of the paragraph from “Agrees to establish a work programme” to “Invites Parties to consider a work programme”. Brackets remain after 1.5 hours of negotiations, and this is one of the least contentious issues in this text. If this progress is typical of the other drafting groups then little forward momentum will be made tonight.

By Angel Hsu and Andrew Barnett, part of ‘Team China’ tracking the Chinese delegation a the Copenhagen climate negotiations. These posts are originally being featured on Green Leap Forward and also cross-posted on Climateprogress.org and the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy blog.

As we predicted from the beginning, the negotiations in Copenhagen are coming down to two countries that could make or break a deal – China and the United States. As we mentioned in our post on Day 9, the crux of this deadlock seems to be centered around a few critical issues. The United States’ Congress won’t pass domestic legislation without key developing countries like China, which is now a major greenhouse gas emitter signing on to reduction commitments; and China sees themselves as a developing country that has acted progressively and responsibly to address climate change when it technically has no obligation to do so under the UNFCCC.

Sure, we know that the U.S.-China showdown makes for great headlines and COP-15 drama. It’s been exciting to see leaders from both the U.S. and China duke it out Celebrity Deathmatch-style through sharp words, criticisms, and finger-pointing over the course of the past 10 days in Copenhagen. However, as we mentioned yesterday, we’re not so sure that this is a genuine “impasse” between the two countries is immovable or, instead, a nuanced disagreement over issues like MRV (”measurable, reportable, verifiable”) that can be resolved before the heads of state meet Thursday and Friday. We’ll provide updates on some of the U.S.-China dialogue on the MRV issue in this post, as well as provide suggestions as to how the U.S. and China might work swiftly together to bring resolution to key sticking points (as if Beijing were built in a day).

1) Which comes first – the chicken or the egg? U.S. climate bill or China MRV?

One of the biggest headlines today involved Massachusetts Senator John Kerry’s presence at the Bella Center. Senator Kerry Read more

It has been a strange day in the Bella centre… eerily quiet. The main hall is now a sea of unbroken black suits and subdued whispers, where previously it was dominated by the noise and colour brought by civil society. After yesterday’s protests, only 300 NGO passes were made available for today’s activities. This was an improvement on yesterday’s plan, which was that no NGOs would be admitted. Yvo de Boer is well aware that this means there is now essentially no civil oversight of COP activities, which makes a mockery of the UNFCCC’s objectives of transparency and civil society oversight, but says his hands are tied. Apparently he was told by his head of security that this was the only way to ensure the safety of the insane number of heads of state present. Still, this really can’t set a precedent.

We reached another stalemate as of this morning. G77 were furious over rumors circulating that there was an alternative “President’s” version of the texts, separate from those prepared by AWG-KP and AWG-LCA (but no delegations or individuals to whom I have spoken will acknowledge having read any such texts or seen them). This resulted in another morning of delays as trust was obliterated, and countries panicked that the two weeks (read: two years) of negotiations would be sidelined in an alternative, non-open and non-transparent process. We are finally in a meeting reestablishing negotiations (it is 2:30), after an additional COP/MOP meeting was called to establish new contact groups to continue negotiations. The contact groups (who haven’t started negotiating yet) are convening later this afternoon (hopeful…) to report progress.

As always, there is little doubt that the real deals are happening all around, in the back rooms – it feels almost as though these contact groups are a smoke screen, designed to distract G77. And things are getting quite interesting, take for example a recent announcement by Hilary Clinton that she is prepared to support $100 billion climate funding by 2020 – this really changes things, and will most likely be used to get smaller nations to pressure China into making some fairly serious concessions, most likely on developing country mitigation efforts.

Will keep updating as the afternoon progresses.

Once again Parties are waiting for what seems like forever in Plenary 2 for the COP to begin. It should be working on the texts forwarded from the LCA, which finally held its closing session between 4 and 7am this morning after an all night session. Texts from the LCA were officially finalized and forwarded to be taken up by the COP.

The main hold up last night appeared to revolve around US objections to paragraph 12 of the Chair’s text which read:
“Developed country Parties shall undertake, individually or jointly, legally-binding nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions, [including] [expressed as] quantified economy-wide emissions reduction objectives with a view to reducing the collective greenhouse gas emissions of developed country Parties by at least [25-40] [in the order of 30] [40] [45] percent from 1990 levels by 2020.”
The US objected to the use of “shall”, to the 1990 baseline, and to the numbers in the paragraph. After much debate, G77 agreed to the text being reopened for comments and a new draft was prepared that reflects these changes. This is available online at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca8/eng/l07r01.pdf
where you can see the US changes and bracketing in paras 12 and 14.

Right now the high level session happened this morning, but the COP plenary to begin work on the texts from the LCA, scheduled for 10am has still not started at 5pm. It is unclear what, if anything, is happening.

We have finally made progress. Hot off the press, here is the final text of the Copenhagen COP agreement.

Financing
[to be determined at COP 16]

Adaptation
[to be determined at COP 16]

Binding commitments
[Yes][No][we give up][not before you][you first][bugger off][......to be determined at COP 16]

**************
After an anticlimactic all-night negotiating session last night, which decreased agreement over the LCA text rather than increasing it, and a highly eventful morning, all hope of something coming from this process seems to have been lost. This defeat is now enshrined in the current version of the text, where the simple statement “to be determined at COP 16″ is some of the only unbracketed text. That things have reached this point is tragic, and a completely lost opportunity. Even the experienced negotiators say they have never experienced a stalemate quite this bad. So already, days before the COP is due to finish, people are looking to Mexico.

Meanwhile, disarray in and outside the Bella centre is verging on funny. Except that it isn’t. Even high level ministers were being blocked from entering hte plenary this morning by an overenthusiastic security guard… On the subject of overenthusiastic security, a youth delegate I was talking to had followed a group of peaceful protesters from the centre, only to see them bashed by the Danish police standing outside. Rumours were circulating about water cannons and tear gas – the first time the Danish police have ever considered using them.

That said, it is hard to get a feel for what is happening outside when stuck in the centre. The protests, the real world and anything other than arguments over some recalcitrant brackets seem a very distant reality.

Anyway, just a quick update on what has been happening. Honestly, you will probably all get a better idea watching the news… reliable information, rather than wild rumours, is hard to come by.