Copenhagen 101

Copenhagen

OVERVIEW

The Copenhagen Negotiations in Denmark, December 7 – 18 of 2009, are the most significant climate change talks since the 1997 meeting that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Preparatory meetings started two years ago. The conference has the potential to produce a roadmap to reduce the damage caused by global climate change for decades to come. However, while the 192 countries present at the conference largely agree on the destination, the hardest part will be agreeing on how to get there. The terms of the Kyoto Protocol run out in 2012; unless an agreement is forged at Copenhagen there will be no plan to cut global warming pollution or to help vulnerable countries work with developed countries on this shared threat.

 

 

HISTORY

The international community has been attuned to the threat of global warming for decades. Our knowledge has continued to improve in this time, and with it, the awareness of the major threats that pollution and climate change pose to the creation and to the livelihoods of the poor and other vulnerable populations.

The First World Climate Conference in 1979 put the issue on the map. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the largest scientific undertaking in history, was established in 1988. The IPCC called for a global treaty on Climate Change in 1990, and its second, third, and fourth reports have only presented starker threats to humanity and creation as a result of man-made changes to the environment.  In the past 15 years, a number of Conferences of Parties (COPs) have considered and introduced a large amount of international collaboration. COP1 was held in March and April, 1995 in Berlin, and produced the Berlin Mandate.

The Kyoto Protocol was finalized at COP3 in Kyoto, Japan, although it was the product of five years of negotiations. The Protocol included important commitments by industrialized countries to reduce carbon emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012; it limited the growth of carbon consumption in developing countries; and it helped developing countries protect their forests and other natural habitats. It included means for the developed countries to reduce their cost of emissions reduction by paying for projects in developing countries where changes are less expensive. As a matter of international law, although the protocol was a product of the negotiations in 1997, it could not go into effect until 2/3 of the signatories had ratified the agreement. The Protocol became effective when Russia ratified in 2004.

The Buenos Aires Plan of Action from COP4 in 1998 and the Marrakesh Accords, which resulted from COP7 in 2001, helped address major issues of implementation and addressed questions and further interpretation of the Kyoto Protocol. There have been no other major protocols or international agreements since Marrakesh, although there have been near-annual conventions on matters of implementation.

The Bali Road Map, formed in December 2007, outlined several agreements on the roadmap to help international negotiators prepare to finalize the successor to the Kyoto Protocol at the Copenhagen round of negotiations (COP 15). In the past year, many nations with similar interests, including industrial nations, developing nations, and regional groups, have held separate meetings to form positions based on points of consensus prior to the formal talks.  The formal UN-sponsored process has continued, and nongovernmental groups have organized events globally on the issues of climate change, environmental justice, and economic development.

 

WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF COP15 IN COPENHAGEN?

Originally, the Copenhagen negotiations were intended to produce a binding international agreement, as strong or stronger than the Kyoto Protocol. However, as a result of the failure to produce binding consensus at many of the preparatory meetings, key national leaders announced in November, 2008 that they would seek a non-binding agreement at Copenhagen. Instead, they aim to establish points of agreement and principles, and try to get a binding legal document next year.

According to U.S. News and World Report, the top five issues in the negotiations are: developed vs. developing nations; emissions cuts; poor nation assistance; carbon trading; and pollution offsets.

 

THE MAJOR PLAYERS

One of the greatest challenges that faces climate change agreements is that, while there is near-consensus that something must be done and that fixing the problems associated with carbon-intensive development and protecting vulnerable populations from natural disasters, rising sea levels, food insecurity, and other major threats associated with climate change are needed, the different parties to the conference cannot agree on who should pay for it. The New York Times summarizes the “fault lines” between different nations; we summarize some of the key players below.

The United States:

As the most important non-member of the Kyoto Protocol, the United States has a lot on the line as it enters the Copenhagen Negotiations. As the world’s second-largest carbon-emitter and the largest economy, the U.S. has considerable concerns about what proportion of the costs it will be expected to bear, as well as making sure that carbon reduction requirements don’t put it at a competitive disadvantage to rapidly developing countries such as India and China.

The Obama Administration has made it clear that they intend to participate in the Copenhagen negotiations; President Obama plans to visit Copenhagen near the end of the conference, hopefully to bring the political will to the table to finalize a deal. Additionally, the EPA announced on the first day of the conference that it is willing to regulate climate-changing pollution as a threat to human health and is considering a number of different policies if Congress fails to act.

The U.S. Senate poses a potential obstacle for the negotiations. While the Obama Administration will decide whether or not to sign whatever agreements come from Copenhagen or subsequent talks, Congressional support will be essential for ratification and implementation. The Clinton Administration did sign the Kyoto Protocol, but the Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying the treaty, deeming that the terms of the protocol were too onerous for developed countries. At present, the Senate has not discussed whether they would ratify an international agreement reached at Copenhagen or in 2010; Congress has been focusing its attention on domestic climate bills. The House has passed the Waxman-Markey Bill; the Senate’s Kerry-Boxer Bill has been sent to the floor but the Senate is waiting for the outcome of Copenhagen before pressing forward with the legislation. Check out Resources for the Future's side-by-sides of the bills.

The European Union:

West European nations have been strong advocates of international climate change treaties, pushing for more dramatic emissions reductions, especially on the part of developed nations. They were parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and have pushed for aggressive commitments from major emitters including the United States and China in advance of COP15 in Copenhagen.

The European Union negotiates its reductions as a block – dramatic reductions in emissions by the U.K., and Germany are largely responsible for the Union meeting its Kyoto Protocol reductions even though other countries including Italy and Denmark will fail to do so. Expansion of the EU has meant the inclusion of many countries that are less developed and more dependent on coal and other carbon-intensive sources for power. These countries, mostly in Eastern Europe, have the same concerns about restrictions on carbon impeding growth as developing nations.

Other Developed Countries:

Japan, host of the COP3 talks that produced the Kyoto Protocol, announced ambitious cuts in greenhouse gases in September, dependent on the commitments to come out of Copenhagen. As the second-largest economy in the world and fifth-largest carbon emitter, they hope to be able to leverage these commitments to induce other major emitters and large economies to agree to significant reductions by 2020.

Canada has emphasized economic growth leading up to Copenhagen; it is heavily dependent on carbon-intensive sources of power such as the oil sands. Although Canada pledged to reduce its carbon emissions, its emissions actually increased dramatically under the Kyoto regime. This has exposed the country to widespread international criticism.

Major Developing Nations:

China is the world largest carbon-emitter, and the third largest economy. However, it has received generous treatment in previous climate negotiations because it was classified as a developing country. In Copenhagen, China’s status as a “developing" nation is subject to consideration. India has another rapidly-growing economy, but at one-third the size of China’s, it will remain in the “developing nation” category of the Copenhagen negotiations.

China and India agreed in October to work together to improve technology and to protect their common interest at Copenhagen. Both countries claim that a cap on carbon emissions would restrict their growth, and are pressing for greater emissions on the part of developed countries. They want to protect their access to financial resources and technology transfer (including easing patent restrictions) to advance low-carbon development. The U.S. met with both countries in advance of Copenhagen.

Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico are other major developing countries. In addition to concerns about the impact of carbon caps on their economic development, a large proportion of carbon emissions in these countries comes from dramatic deforestation. Economic assistance to support responsible land management through LULUCF (land use/ land use change and forestry) projects, or finding environmentally viable ways to make the forest profitable, is a key concern of these nations.

Most Vulnerable Nations:

One of the greatest inequities of climate change is that developing nations – those with the fewest resources to adapt to climate change and who have contributed the least to global warming – will be hit the hardest by changing weather patterns and rising sea levels. Severe weather events are already killing thousands and undercutting development in many developing nations (read the 2009 Global Climate Risk Index report from the German NGO GermanWatch). Nations such as Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Vietnam stand to lose significant portions of their landmass in the coming decades. A block of small island nations formed to push for carbon emissions reductions more robust than other nations have discussed to prevent their nations from being swallowed by the sea.

These countries seek considerable financial assistance, mostly to help with adaptation but also to fund economic development and industrialization that will be less carbon-intensive. Many LULUCF projects are located in these countries, and they are interested in maintaining robust flows of funding for carbon sinks.

 

FOLLOW THE NEWS FROM COPENHAGEN