COPENHAGEN — Finally it’s here: Copenhagen 2009. The climate community has been anticipating this moment since December 2007, when countries agreed to create a new legal binding climate agreement by December 2009 in Copenhagen. Yet, many environmentalists and developing countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are deeply disappointed by recent reality checks on what’s politically feasible at the December climate conference.
At the last round of climate talks in Barcelona in November the UN’s top climate official, Yvo de Boer, acknowledged that countries wouldn’t have time to solidify a legally binding treaty by the December deadline. Instead, he suggested that countries reach a strong politically binding agreement that includes all the trappings of a new climate treaty. At the November Asia -Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, world leaders including President Obama, endorsed this new goal. If the goal is met, the Copenhagen agreement would include:
€¢ commitments by developed countries to limit their emissions and provide near-term financing to help developing countries implement environmentally sustainable growth strategies and cope with the impacts of climate change;
€¢ commitments from major emitters in the developing world to limit their emissions growth;
€¢ decisions on other key issues, like cooperation to promote clean energy technologies, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, among others.
Countries would then add the fine print to create a new climate treaty by Dec. 2010, when countries will meet for climate talks in Mexico, or shortly thereafter.
Some environmentalists are irate about what one Greenpeace policy adviser described as the €˜no, we can’t’ attitude in the lead-up to Copenhagen–and rightly so given that the strong consensus among scientists (yes, even in the wake of climate-gate) reveals that countries must take dramatic and immediate steps to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change.
Some are blaming President Obama for the lower bar in Copenhagen. This in my view is unfair. First, asking President Obama to undo eight years of U.S. inaction on climate change in a mere 11 months (his time in office before Copenhagen) is unreasonable, particularly since he must shore up any international climate commitments he makes with climate and energy legislation currently contemplated by a reluctant U.S. Congress. Secondly, the U.S. is not the only country that is not ready to endorse a new legally binding climate treaty. China and India are also skittish on the notion of internationally legally binding climate commitments. Is there room for stronger leadership from President Obama? Absolutely! In fact, the U.S. Congress is not likely to pass comprehensive climate and energy legislation without a stronger lean from the Administration.
Although it may not be ideal, it’s hard to argue that the new goal for Copenhagen is not ambitious. Nonetheless, I’m very optimistic that countries will reach a strong political deal later this month, particularly in light of the following recent developments.
1. President Obama announced that he will arrive in Copenhagen on Dec. 18th, the last day of the climate talks (rather than during the first week, as originally planned). He would not do this unless he firmly believed that countries would reach a significant deal.
2. President Obama announced that the U.S. would commit to lowering its emissions €˜in the range of’ 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (i.e., roughly 4% below U.S. emissions in 1990). This target is in line with climate legislation that was passed by the House and contemplated in the Senate.
3. China announced that it would lower its emissions relative to the size of its economy by 40-45% by 2020, and India pledged to lower its emissions growth by 20 percent by 2020.
4. There’s an emerging consensus among developed countries that together they must deliver $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing countries deal with the consequences of climate change and lower their emissions growth.
While some say these targets are too weak, they are reasonable opening bids by the world’s biggest emitters on the eve of what is shaping up to be a turning point in history and the beginning of a new era of global cooperation to tackle the threat of climate change.
Don’t forget to visit us here between now and December 20th to read more about the latest developments in the climate talks as GMF policy experts blog about their insights from on the ground in Copenhagen.
Cathleen Kelly
Director, Climate and Energy Program
The German Marshall Fund of the United States
1744 R Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Phone: 202-683-2631 (direct) or 202-683-2650 (main number)
Fax: 202-265-1662
email: ckelly@gmfus.org
No related posts.
