U.S. winning “Fossil of the Day” penalty in Copenhagen
COPENHAGEN — The daily presentation of the €˜Fossil of the Day’ awards has become as integral a part of the UN climate talks as the all-night negotiating sessions, colorful protests, and eleventh hour deliberation among parties to try and reach an agreement. This ten year old tradition organized by the Climate Action Network (CAN), an umbrella organization comprising 500 NGOs worldwide, selects and awards the three countries that performed the worst during the past day’s negotiations at the COP. The theatrical and slightly sarcastic awards ceremony presents a bronze, silver, and gold trophy to representatives of the winning (or losing) countries accompanied by songs, skits, and in recent years, a lot of press. While the Fossil awards are a light hearted way for the NGO community to point fingers at countries that are most impeding progress at the negotiations, the Fossil has become an effective and powerful way of shaming countries to clean up their act. Unfortunately, the United States is taking the gold in Copenhagen.
U.S. leadership is critical to the success of the negotiations. Without buy in from the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, countries will not agree to a deal. The United States managed to dodge the Fossil for the entire first week of the negotiations, but quickly made up for lost time by kicking off the second week with a three day winning streak. The U.S. earned its first Fossil for putting forth a weak mid-term emissions reduction target- 4% below 1990s levels by 2020- while the EU has already pledged to reduce emissions by 20% below 1990 levels and is willing to hike the number up to 30% if the United States takes comparable action. The U.S. also refused to commit to long-term financing to help developing countries decrease emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The U.S. snagged its second gold for being the only industrialized country to obstruct “bunker finance.” Bunker finance is a proposed initiative to generate revenue for adaptation funding by setting a carbon price on emissions from international shipping and aviation (bunker fuels) through a cap-and-trade system or a straight tax. The United States won its final Fossil for proposing a puzzling €˜x%’ as an overall mid-term target for developed countries in place of the science based target already in the negotiating text. The x% would be voluntary for the parties in agreement, not legally binding.
With a newly elected President pledging U.S. leadership on climate change for the first time in nearly a decade and a democratic Congress, why is the U.S. becoming the Fossil of the negotiations? President Obama has been careful to not repeat the mistake made by President Clinton during the Kyoto negotiations by committing the United States to an international treaty that the Senate would never ratify. Two weeks before COP15, Obama announced the mid-term and long-term reduction targets the U.S. would be putting on the table in Copenhagen. The targets- in the range of 17% below 2005 emission levels by 2020 (4% below 1990 levels) for the mid-term and 83% below 2005 levels by 2050 for the long-term- match up with the targets in Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed in the House this June and are in line with the current targets in the proposed Kerry-Boxer climate bill in the Senate. Without domestic climate legislation, the U.S. delegation cannot negotiate past these targets. However, even if U.S. climate legislation had passed before the COP, it is not certain the United States would agree to higher targets.
The contentious issue of long-term financing for developing countries is at the core of the Copenhagen negotiations. Developing countries are unwilling to take action unless money is put on the table by developed countries to assist them in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Today, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton stated that the United States would work with other developed countries to generate 100 billion per year for the next decade in funding for the “poorest and most vulnerable” countries. However, the proposed funding has been put on the table under the condition that developing countries will agree to transparent reporting of national emissions data. Developing countries, notably China, are refusing on principle to be monitored by an international body. It will be difficult for the Senate to ratify a treaty that delivers billions of dollars of funding to emerging economies like China without an international oversight mechanism in place. Many experts think China may budge on this issue for a price: significant financing from developed countries like the United States for clean technology, sustainable development, and adaptation. Currently, developed countries have committed to 10 billion in adaptation funding for 2010 with 1.2 billion coming from the United States. These figures are nowhere near the estimated amount (100 billion per year) needed and demanded by developing countries. It is also difficult for the United States to commit to long-term financing without a domestic cap-and-trade system in place as a reliable source of revenue.
With 24 hours left in the COP15 climate talks, professional negotiators have ceded their roles to ministers and approximately and 120 heads of state who have arrived in Copenhagen to try to secure a deal. Questions circled earlier today on whether President Obama will in fact come to Copenhagen. It is now almost certain that he will participate in the negotiations. Hopefully the United States won’t leave Copenhagen with the gold.
