Copenhagen post script, part 2

While I continue to add post-Copenhagen article references to my post from just after the conference (see Post game), I will also highlight the most interesting items, like those below…

China stands accused of wrecking global deal:

China “systematically wrecked” the Copenhagen climate summit because it feared being presented with a legally binding target to cut the country’s soaring carbon emissions, a senior official from an EU country, present during the negotiations, told The Independent on Sunday yesterday.

The accusation, backed up by a separate eye-witness account from the heart of the talks of obstructive Chinese behaviour, reflected widespread anger among many delegations about the nation’s actions at the conference.

The concluding agreement about tackling global climate change was widely criticised yesterday for being too weak, and was seen as a dashing the hopes of many concerned about the warming threat. The lack of teeth in the “Copenhagen accord” – which, it is accepted on all sides, is inadequate for fighting climate change – was widely blamed by environmentalists on President Barack Obama for not making bigger US commitments to cut carbon emissions.

Yet the key element of the agreement, a timetable for making its commitments legally binding by this time next year, was taken out at the last minute at the insistence of the Chinese, who otherwise would have refused to agree to the deal.

Also removed, at Chinese insistence, was a statement of a global goal to cut carbon emissions by 50 per cent by 2050, and for the developed world to cut its emissions by 80 per cent by the same date. The latter is regarded as essential if the world is to stay below the danger threshold of a two-degree Centigrade temperature rise.

The “50-50″ and “50-80″ goals have already been accepted by the G20 group of nations and world leaders who were negotiating the agreement, including Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel of Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Kevin Rudd of Australia. They were said to be amazed at the Chinese demands, especially over the developed nations’ goal. The European official said: “China thinks that by 2050 it will be a developed country and they do not want to constrain their growth.”

(Please go read the whole thing. It’s far more damning than even these quotes convey.)

I know that this shouldn’t have to be stated this plainly in a virtual gathering of intelligent adults, but let me do it anyway: The US does not have a monopoly on stupidity or myopia or arrogance or ignorance. It’s convenient and fun to make that assumption, and we certainly act in ways at times that it seems to be true, but it’s not.

Further, let me point out that anyone who expected China to play nice was delusional. Why should they bend to our will? They have one goal: Using economic growth to lift as many of its citizens out of poverty as possible, and thereby provide support for the national government. They will cheat on their CO2 and/or economic performance numbers to make their absurd “intensity based” emissions pledge work out, at least on paper. And above all else, they will refuse outside monitoring as long as they can, which could be a very long time unless the world suddenly decides that trade sanctions are an acceptable way to punish liars and cheaters. Put another way, they will act in exactly the same destructive, inconvenient way that leaders from the US, Russia, India, Japan, the EU, etc. would in their position. That’s the biggest single problem with the Chinese–they’re human just like the rest of us on this planet.

Without both MRV (measurement, reporting, verification) and an enforcement mechanism we’re completely at the mercy of every country’s willingness to cooperate. How hard do you think it will be to ratchet up the US’ insulting 3 to 4% CO2 emissions reduction (on a 1990 baseline) by 2020 to what’s needed? If you have a magic solution to that little conundrum, please contact the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I’m guessing he’d be delighted to take your call.

Right before our eyes we have the development of the biggest example one could imagine of the free rider problem. If the other major emitters and potentially high emitters do the right thing and curb their CO2 pollution significantly, it will only make it easier for China to do whatever it wants. The rest of the world will leave more of our global remaining CO2 budget for China, and they will continue using vast amounts of cheap coal, burned in filthy, old-tech plants, to lower their costs so they can continue to be a low-cost producer of many products they export.

Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor threaten to reject:

It is up to national parliaments to adopt the accord, after which signatories will be obliged to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and start preparing to help poor countries adapt to climate change. The intention is for a full legal agreement to be signed within a year.

…

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries that 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.

Last night it was unclear whether the accord would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session. The talks were on the verge of collapse with the Danish prime minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, bringing his gavel down to abandon the meeting. But early this morning the UK climate secretary, Ed Miliband, successfully intervened to salvage the deal and the accord was formally recognised by the UN.

The accord achieves much wider acceptance by nations that global warming must be limited to an increase of less than 2C. It preserves the Kyoto protocol for now. The attempt to kill Kyoto dominated Copenhagen and the resulting furore used up days of precious time, contributing to the ultimate weakness of the accord. 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 no details were given on its source.

No specific targets for greenhouse gas cuts were stated, meaning no action to keep temperatures under a 2C rise was set. There was no deadline for the conclusion of the climate talks, despite many leaders saying previously that six months to a year should be the maximum delay.

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.

Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chair of the G77 group of 130 poor countries, compared the proposed deal to the Holocaust.

“[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It’s a solution based on values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces.”

Di-Aping’s comments triggered immediate protests and calls to withdraw his remarks. Sweden called them “absolutely despicable” and Ed Miliband condemned what he called the “disgusting comparison” which he said “should offend people across this conference whatever background they come from”.

In the final plenary session a Venezuelan delegate cut her palm and asked if she had to bleed to have her points heard. “You are witnessing a coup d’etat against the UN,” she said.

It is unclear how many states will sign up to the accord. The European Union, Japan, the African Union and the Alliance of Small Island States all urged delegates to adopt the plan, but many Latin American countries and Sudan are known to be vehemently against it.

Holocaust comparisons? A delegate cutting herself to make a point? I’m wondering where that stuff is in Robert’s Rules of Order.

My point is that “Copenhagen” was not in any sense a “normal” international meeting, nor is it really over yet.

So, what does this accord add up to? Key issues explained

Copenhagen: The key players and how they rated

A couple of great overviews, one with a Beatles reference.