Copenhagen Accord: Something or a Failure???

Prashanta blogging from Copenhagen

The most awaited global gatherings and most importantly the largest gathering of youths from all over the world pushing for fair, ambitious and legally binding agreement went in vain. Hopes, aspiration and faith of 6.8 billion people had been literally not respected.

Obama almost travelled a halfway of the earth to tell the world he has nothing new to offer.  The word ACCORD was said to be used as harder word than a declaration but not enough harder to stabilize the increase of temperature below 1.5˚C (the demand of most of the vulnerable countries), not enough harder to address the millions of climate victims and not enough harder to ensure the safety of our lives and future generations.

Is the Copenhagen Accord something or a failure? (How will you define: a deal enough to be appreciated or a climate catastrophe?)

Target/Mitigation: A very obvious flaw of this accord: Not legally binding accord with optional commitments but promising to limit the increase of temperature by 2˚C, failing to set its peak emission year and its GHGs emission cuts targets.

Another obvious flaw: doesn’t address historical responsibility, principle of equity, precautionary and polluter’s pays principle is neglected

Besides committing for its own mitigation targets, developed countries said to provide finance to developing countries to mitigate its GHGs emission. (The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation.)….isn’t it funny? I propose the developing countries to bounce back one part of balanced allocation to them to set their own enhanced mitigation target.

Finance:   Though a huge sum of money but not adequate for adaptation, enhanced mitigation, REDD+, capacity building, technology development and transfer is accorded to be provided for developing countries. The accord reads scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding shall be provided. ………………Is short-term finance of USD 30 billion and 100 billion USD by 2020 as read by accord is adequate to safeguard the billions of people living in most vulnerable developing countries?

“New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements, with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant portion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” …………..By when the governance structure will be formed and the finance is channelled immediately in the affected communities?  Read the last sentence carefully……… Is that mean Copenhagen Green Climate Fund channel through existing financial mechanisms/bodies like World Bank……?

When the whole world is criticizing its governance structure, its history (and still) on contribution of GHGs emission, its ethical issues of funding, its transparency and policies, how would the developed countries will ensure that the financial mechanism is democratic, transparent and easily accessible,…..simply not through the existing mechanisms?

This accord totally violates the process of UNFCCC. Few countries (US, China, India, South Africa, Brazil…..) assembled this Accord outside of UNFCCC process on behalf of everyone. A lot of countries left disappointed by the Copenhagen accord, some refer it as holocaust and countries of  Latin America more furious.

Amidst of huge debate among the parties and still is, the Accord was formally accepted by Conference of Parties on Friday night (doubt: forced to accept or lured to accept).  There are some positive vibes midst of Climate Catastrophic Accord.

• Though not binding, emission target for 2020; Separate Annexes for developed and developing countries, voluntary pledges of major developing countries and nationally appropriate targets for rest

• Recognises the importance of REDD and agree to provide positive incentives

• Additional finance for mitigation and adaption to be provided for most vulnerable countries (short term-$ 30 billion and $100 billion per year by 2020: Copenhagen Green Climate Fund)

• Decided to establish tech mechanism for both development and transfer

• Carbon Markets (but not in detail and most debated mechanisms)

How Old will Obama be by 2050?

Sangita Blogging from Copenhegan.

U S president Obama in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly had said that ‘US will lead on climate and energy stating the statement that US must seize the opportunity to make Copenhagen a significant step forward in the global fight against climate change’.

As of his fascinating speeches are concerned,it was highly expected from around the world that he will deliver the commitments with deeper emission cuts by harnessing the alternative energy and making energy-efficient America.In a presidential campaign,Obama had assured that America would be a leader on climate policy.Having an image of powerful leader in the history of United States, his presence in COP 15 on 18th of Dec in Copenhagen was a big concern for entire planet.

President Obama landed in to Copenhagen in an air craft written ‘President of United Stated of America’ as big as people thing of him. Being one of the participant of COP 15 I was also desperate to hear words from him full of actions right there .This was definitely for saving environment and climate victims who are literally not responsible for climate change.Beside an observer to COP 15 I have also observed the dangerous impacts of climate change,it was obvious to expect a step forward to commitment to have a legally binding climate treaty by America.Instead, the overall text of the speech went to crap except his two nice word that ‘I am here for not to talk but to act’. In contrary, it was reverse.It touched me so much deep inside that he just created an illusion to the world. Despite the fact that he has both the authority to regulate green house gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and an admitted moral responsibility to commit US to an international agreement on climate change.

He has proudly mentioned that America will be financing up to $10 billion by 2012 to least developed countries, vulnerable to climate change as adaptation fund but no one knows how ? at least not me.He is confident that all major economies must put forward decisive national actions to reduce their emissions, but he is not sure of signing legally binding documents. Obama is proud of being renowned in the leadership within international climate negotiations,which I would say is not more than a pejudice.Infact,leadership means legally binding climate agreement for climate justic.An effective deal to reduce emissions by 40% by 2020 not just 17% and he is negotiating to reduce emission by 80% by 2050,just guess I would be with a lot of unanswerable questions on climate victims by my grand children but how old will Obama be by 2050?

Nations fail to deliver legally binding agreement

President Obama held a press conference to announce major developments after an extremely intense day of high level negotiations.

Three major developments that are MAJOR disappointments:

1. Non legally binding

The resulting document will be an ‘accord’ and not a protocol or any agreement that can be ratified.

Another session will be held to to agree on a legal outcome. Exactly when this will take place is not known yet.

2. Aiming to limit temperature increase to 2 degrees

Against what science is demanding to prevent catastrophic loss; this is not ambitious

3. Optional commitments

Developing and developed countries voluntary fill in commitments. This will be assessed through an ‘international consultation’ mechanism. Lack of legal nature means the agreement won’t have a compliance system.

This comes as a major breakthrough as at some points during the day, it looked as if there would be no agreement at all. Advanced developing (China, India, Brazil) are on board though in a weak way.

There is speculation that the current COP will be adjourned to meet again in June 2010 so that a legal treaty can be reached.

Youth Intervene at COP15

Youth Intervention at the High Level Segment of COP15

This is the text:

Thank you mister President for giving us the floor.

Good afternoon fellow human beings.

My name is Juan Carlos, and in the year 2050 I will be 64 years old. I am proud to represent the International Youth Climate Movement.

Christina Ora, a 17 year old from the Solomon Islands, addressed the opening plenary two weeks ago. She said “I was born in 1992. You have been negotiating all my life. You cannot tell us that you need more time.”

We have all worked for the past two years with the promise of a strong deal in Copenhagen to safeguard our future.  Now it seems you will not get it done.

This is unacceptable. We placed our trust in you. You should be ashamed.

The United Nations was created to solve humanitarian and social crises, but instead of standing united, you are now the Divided Nations. Humanity can and must do better. Mother Nature will not negotiate with us.

You must set targets to get us back below 350 parts per million. You must agree on fair, sufficient AND additional financing to pay back the ecological debt to those most vulnerable.

The Youth dream of a sustainable future shared by all humanity. There is wisdom in the people’s hearts, and people are ingenious. We CAN solve this crisis if we just choose so. But this requires going beyond selfish national interests.

We support those nations who have refused to sign a suicide pact. We call on all nations not to accept anything that does not guarantee survival and climate justice.

The Youth believe that you care enough for the future of your children and grandchildren to sign a fair, ambitious and legally-binding agreement.

There will be no decisions about us, without us.

Rest assured that we will keep on working, and we will keep on pushing you harder and harder, until the deal is sealed.

Please do it now.

Thank you.

So much for hope, so much for change

Rishi blogging from Copenhagen

Obama spoke a little while ago here in the Bella Center. As the summit inches towards a make or break finale, Obama did not deliver the much needed moral leadership. He repeated three positions that reflect no change in America’s long held positions.

• Scale of emissions reductions: 17% with a 2005 baseline en route to 83% cuts by 2050 (demands have been 45% reductions by 2020 and 90% reduction by 2050)

• MRV: taking a jab at India and China, Obama said that Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying is not an intrusive process but is rather expected in an international process. India and China have been against submitted national mitigation actions to an international MRV process

• Finance: 100 billion by 2020- through a combination of sources, public and private- this move did help to give some momentum to the talks but how this funding will be channelized, the sources, and the implementation mechanism are not known at all.

The level of ambition was weak. Obama, instead, tried to take the moral high ground by claiming that they’re doing so much already domestically and called on other countries to ‘unite’ to make sure that a deal happens today.

You can watch the speech here:

December 18, 2009

The Text

Remarks of President Barack Obama-As Prepared for Delivery Copenhagen Summit

Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009

Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter,America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy
economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it
will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce
our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers
posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that
America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping ourcommitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty
words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us
farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings
attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing
emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. Buthere is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do
that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of
climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted ourcourse, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come
together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.

Road to 3 degrees

Rishi blogging from Copenhagen

Based on a ‘preliminary’ assessment done by the Secretariat on the pledges made thus far by both Annex 1 and non Annex 1 countries, we are on the Road to 3 degrees.

The emissions reduction will not be enough to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees- something that Least Developed Countries and Most Vulnerable Countries and small island states have been pressing for. In fact, the concentrations could go up to 550ppm, completely falling short of what is demanded by science.

The report says:

Even if Parties agreed to deliver in accordance with the upper range of their pledge, this will still leave a gap of around 1.9 to 4.2 Gt. Unless this gap is closed emissions will peak later than 2020 and remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550ppm…temperature raise around 3 degrees Celsius.

COP update: The LCA will be reconvening very shortly. A hybrid of ‘friends of the chair’ and drafting group arrangements were decided as the process to take off the brackets from the text. Hopefully by later on this morning, we will have a text ready for the high level.

We need Alliance of Mountainous Developing Country not Alliance of Mountainous Country

We have seen the group that comprises both the developed and developing Nations does not work properly or fails. We do not want to be in the failures list and make the failing proposal.

It’s a great and bold decision by the Rt. Hon Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal to promote the alliance of the mountainous country at the time when Copenhagen Summit seems to fall.

There has been lots of influence of developed and advance developing countries over the policy of the developing nations. The issue and problem of the developing mountainous small country is totally different form the developed and advanced developing countries. If we form the alliance with them we will be lost and have to face lots of constraints.

We should think something sustainable and form alliance of Mountainous Developing countries

We heartily welcome the proposal of the Prime Minister but request him to take the lead and form the alliance of Mountainous developing countries.

Since most of the mountainous developing countries fall under the LDC and G77 and China group. We also want to see this group to be more vocal which will influence the negotiation process and help to put the mountain issues strongly and provide the climate justice to vulnerable mountain community

COP on the brink

Rishi blogging from Copenhagen

The LCA scheduled to meet in the evening yesterday (Dec 15) met in the wee hours of this morning, 4 45 am precisely. The parties were not able to agree on the draft to forward to the COP. As we don’t have a high level-ready text for COP, the COP president proposed forwarding his text for decisions. Earlier this morning, at the plenary, countries belonging to the G77 plus China, save for Maldives, are protesting about the president’s proposal. Not only all of the hard work that has been done over the course of the two years will go to waste but is a clear violation of what is to be a country driven process.

The lack of ambitious and clear targets by the Annex 1 countries invited most of this deadlock. The developing countries argue that there’s no point in negotiating when the scale of emissions reductions isn’t known. The Annex 1 countries are reluctant to discuss details in the AWGs and have been trying to save these discussions for the high level segment where their political heavyweights will negotiate.

Thought the president’s text has not been circulated out yet, the leaked Danish text last week could provide us some clues as to the strength and nature of the agreement. How well the draft reflects the progress made by the ad hoc groups thus far is again not known.

Regardless of what the substance may be, the fact that it’s not the text that would be decided upon and forwarded again undermines trust between developed and developing countries.

The ‘green room’ event, supposedly called by the Danish government got together 48 countries. Such exclusive meetings that leave out developing countries from the backroom diplomacy raise serious flags.

Time has basically run out. Without a miracle-like development, it is hard to foresee how the parties could agree on a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

PM Nepal proposes Alliance for Mountain Adaptation in Copenhagen

At the plenary of COP15, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Rt Hon M. K. Nepal proposed an alliance of mountain states. This call is a lead up of the summit that Nepal hosted in late August to discuss mountain issues in light of climate change. This high level proposal holds weight as it proposes a new bloc for the following COP meetings.

The PM called for a legally binding treaty that will stabilize atmospheric concentration of GHGs at 350ppm and limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees. He also said that coastal and low lying areas are inextricably linked with the mountain systems and seemed to suggest only focusing on the low lying areas is incomplete.

Sustainable development and the achievement of Millennium Development Goals is a clear and overarching priority.

The PM made it clear that Nepal is not a silent spectator has been making efforts and leading the way in many cases. He gave examples of the community forestry programs, the summit at the Basecamp which came out with the declaration aiming to increase forest cover to 40% and increase protected areas. He also communicated Nepal’s goal to be carbon neutral in the long run by using a combination of renewable energies.

The PM reiterated the need to extend and improve commitments under the Kyoto Protocol itself, in line with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

The video of the speech is given below:

“First deliver on Kyoto targets”

Rishi blogging from Copenhagen

Africans along with the LDCs were supported by the G77 as they moved to block negotiations. They demanded numbers from Annex 1 countries and two separate plenaries as the argue that efforts are underway to merge the two tracks.

The Pan African Press Release is posted below:

Pan-African Parliamentarians on Climate Change

African Parliamentarians express grave concern for about the climate negotiations and the attempts of the COP Presidency to kill the Kyoto Protocol. The two tracks must be kept and industrialized countries must first deliver on their Kyoto targets.

Copenhagen 14 December 2009

African Parliamentarians are very concerned by the recent attempts of the COP Presidency to merge the two negotiation tracks during the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. This would effectively kill the Kyoto Protocol and ruin the hopes for a fair and effective outcome from the Copenhagen meeting.