Post
COP15: A historic failure
It was almost clear after the disappointing speeches of Barack Obama and Wen Jiabao Friday noon: Instead of becoming a historic endeavour, the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen became a historic failure. Unfortunately, it was not only a failure in terms of climate change policy but also in terms of democracy.
From my point of view, there were two critical success factors for COP15 and the final "Copenhagen Accord" fails in both areas: With regards to emission reduction targets, there is only a commitment to the 2-degrees target but this committment is not legally binding and there are no concrete emission reduction targets. With regards to the financing of adaptation measures in developing countries, an annual upfront payment of $ 10 bn in 2010-12 and an annual green fund of $ 100 bn until 2020 were announced but both lie at the lower bound of expectations and they are also not legally binding.
So, instead of a fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement we only got an insufficient, short declaration of five countries (USA, China, India, Brazil, South Africa) of which the conference only took note instead of formally approving it. As in many parts of the world, the reactions in Austria were clear, including a "tremendous disappointment" (The Greens), a "climate catastrophe" (Klimabuendnis, WWF), a "humiliating defeat" (Greenpeace), a "negotiation desaster" (Global 2000), a "climate fiasco" (Attac), a "shame in Copenhagen" (KOO) or a "black day for climate protection" (Minister for the environment).
The final days of negotiations highlighted the political responsibility and inability of industrialised countries (especially the United States with their insufficient emission reduction targets), the emerging conflicts in a bipolar world and the apparent conflicts between industrialised countries, emerging countries and developing countries. Moreover, the final days of negotiations were also a fiasco in terms of democracy. In fact, media representatives were constrained in their coverage of the summit and most NGO representatives were banned from the Bella Center. This was especially regrettable as NGOs are an important political antipole with huge expertise and because NGOs from the South had to bear high financial costs to send one or two delegates to Copenhagen.
In addition, contrary to the principles of the United Nations, the final negotiations took place in a small circle of 25 and later only 5 countries behind closed doors. So, the most vulnerable countries had to helplessly watch how industrialised and emerging countries blocked each other and negotiated a minimum outcome which will further enhance global inequality. In this context, it was a comprehensible and important decision of seven countries, led by the island Tuvalu whose existence is extremely endangered by rising sea levels, not to approve the "Copenhagen Accord".
So, what next? Despite widespread anger and despair, the official statements also try to spread some optimism. US President Barack Obama mentioned the importance of building confidence among industrialised, emerging and developing countries and said that a legally binding agreement remains to be the top goal. According to UN General Secretary Ban Ki-moon such an agreement should be finished within next year. So, it is now time to focus on the next UN Climate Change Conference COP16 in Mexico in December 2010.
Moreover, it will be necessary to build on the political announcements and to sustain the momentum of civil society campaigns. In the face of the disappointing results for developing countries, we have to better highlight the aspects of global responsibility and global inequality in terms of climate change. At the same time, we also have to question economic growth and talk about sustainable lifestyles as well as sustainable tax, budget and business cycle policies as these important answers to climate change were not really discussed in Copenhagen.
Comments
I’ve been so pissed all day than I don’t have enough words to express my disappointment.
I also put up a post on the outcome, from a more personal point of view. You’ve done a great job in reporting it objectively.
Andreas, you are young and it is a chance.
If you want to understand what arrives, please look at the history and the geography.
An example:
In 1950 India had 400 million of very poor inhabitants.
Europe (very poor at that time) helped India with the Western techniques.
Today India is much richer and there is more than one billion Indians.
Who can ask Europe to still pay for India?
Geography:
For the African continent:
An article of the newspaper “Jeune Afrique” recalls that this continent has an enormous potential of hydraulic energy production.
This has as consequences that to enter a cleaner world Africa is the richest continent of the world!
Do you think that we must help Africa?
I say no!
There are many things to negotiate but not like the project of Copenhagen.
NB: China exploits Africa harder than Europe!
ETC ... more if you want as well!
You’ve done a great job in reporting it objectively.
Yep, many links and sources too.
I guess I fell like Adela right now, it was kind of emotional to be there and share the general disappointment, maybe in a few days I’ll be more objective and rational.
I wish you to start to put back you and to find a little happiness with your friends and your family.
Someone have said that only way to take is - forward. So let’s move on and keep being t/here for our believes and visions!
I await your comments on comments on present scenario, is COP 15 still a failure, when 55 countries with 80% of global emission have submitted their targets.
Despite being a failure in your terms, I saw a strong positive outcome from the Conference. 192+ nations stands united to fight a common cause ‘Global Warming’. It was a common consent in disguise in support of climate change control. The only disputes were: Base Year for new agreement, Temp. level (2 Degree C or 1.5 Degree C), and mostly on targets of emission cuts. This should have been main agenda of discussion from Day 1 of COP 15, but some countries didn’t allowed discussion on these most critical issues. It was discussed only after a group of countries lead by India left the conference hall showing their disappointment on unnecessary discussions.
For those who think ‘Why Europe should pay for India?’ or why developed countries should pay for developing countries? The answer is in simple questions: Who is responsible for their undeveloped economies? Who exploited resources of these developing countries? Would the scenario had been same if these countries were not colonized by today’s developed countries?
Despite of all these facts developing countries have taken targets for emission and well as emission intensity cuts. Now compare their target with targets taken by developed countries, and then compare per capita emissions of these countries.
COP 15 was not a failure, but yes it’s a bit difficult for 192+ nations to arrive at a common consensus.
@Ankur,
Good comment!
Your point of view is “Ethic”.
Do you understand that we are in politic!
We have to choose between peace or war.
Can you find in any time in the history a moment where your point of view were applied?
Do you understand that peak oil will change the question.
In some years oil production will decrease of 6 to 8% each year!
That is a spring of war.
When you look what China makes with Tibet: all the trees cut and the same with culture.
Now they make the same in Africa ..
Colonization were hard but not so much.
You say that we have used oil .. and so on ..
Do you think that any other civilization is able to make in another direction.
We have brought a lot of good technologies with!
When you look at mankind you have every time the good and the bad.
All that makes me think that the good solution is to develop new energies 3% (of all energy consumed) more each year.
With that we have peace and development every where.
More: Africa will be the Saudi Arabia of the world!
Are they able to be really rich?