The issues that dominated the conference included discussions on keeping carbon levels low and limiting the emissions from emerging economies, like India and China, who have not been too compliant to the idea of emissions cuts monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) through outside inspections; financing poorest nations to help deal with the effects of global warming, the controversies surrounding the Kyoto Protocol - the only legally binding treaty that requires rich nations to take responsibility for their actions; deforestation, which is responsible for 17% of all carbon emissions etc.
A review of carbon emissions in 2007 as reported by The Guardian website gives a fair idea of where true responsibility lies. China was estimated to emit 6283.6 tonnes of carbon that year alone whereas US stood at 6006.7, European nations at 4690.4, Russia at 1672.6, India at 1400.7 Japan at 1262.4, Canada at 589.9, UK at 564 and Australia at 456.4. Carbon emissions by Africa, Brazil, Ethiopia and Maldives were at 452.3, 397.6, 5.4 and 0.8 tonnes respectively.
The developing nations particularly from the South Asian region voiced their concerns at the summit about their vulnerability to effects of climate change in terms of food, water and energy security. To mention just a few examples, a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (UNIPCC) in 2007 asserted that a sea-level rise of just three feet would be enough to sink 80% of Maldives under water; Bangladesh is losing coastal land mass every year, severe water insecurity in Asia threatens survival where many Asian rivers would dry up owing to the rapid melting of the Himalayan ice by 2035 while floods, droughts, storms and loss of crops and danger of extinction for plant and animal species remains a serious concern. Pakistan is on 12th position in the list of most vulnerable nations in the world.
Despite intense negotiations, serious deadlocks on RMVs, emission cutting targets and aid for poor nations crippled the discussions at many points. The Kyoto Protocol also continued to pose a challenge as there was a major push by developed nations to abandon it and replace it with a non-binding political agreement, a move which was strongly resisted by the developing countries.
During the course of the two-week discussions, offers which helped lift the gloom , albeit temporarily, included the US Energy Secretary Steven Chu's announcement regarding an international plan called The Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative (Climate REDI) - a $350million five-year endeavor backed by Italy, India and Australia for clean technology in developing countries. Ethiopia also put forward a multibillion-dollar plan to raise funds which was supported by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy. An agreement called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) was also reached. The United States pledged $1bn over the next three years. Australia, France, Japan, Norway, Britain and America also agreed to provide $3.5bn in immediate cash for forest preservation. The US commitment to support an EU-backed idea of a $100bn fund for poor nations (though dependent on existing budgets) by 2020 was also well received. Another welcome move came from Japan with an offer to cut emissions by 25%, and to provide $15 billion over the next three years to help impoverished countries adapt to global warning's impacts.
Much hope had been pinned on the charismatic American President, Barack Obama, leader of the world's largest economy responsible for the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions until recently. When he finally managed to shape an accord with four Heads of States including Brazil, India, China and South Africa, (named ‘BASIC') calling it a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough", skeptics like Jim Tones of World Development Movement dismissed it outright, "To say that this deal is in any way historic or meaningful is to completely misrepresent the fact that this deal is devoid of real content since it only acknowledges the problem and sets no clear limits or guidelines."
The chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, Mr. Di-Aping strongly declared, "The developed countries have decided that the damage to developing countries is acceptable." Part of it was true. India and China strongly resisted any move to include emissions peak by 2020. When references to China's non-cooperation as a possible cause of the Summit's relative failure were made, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao refused to comply with what he considered sacrificing his country's economic interests in order to take responsibility for a problem that had been caused and aggravated by the Western nations and not by China.
As the African delegates complained of having been kept completely out of any negotiations, and the Sudanese negotiator compared the draft text to "a suicide pact", the UK threw its weight behind The Copenhagen Accord, and Mr. Ban Ki-Moon asked other countries to accept it and not let the Summit be a complete failure. He promised that "the UN system will work to immediately start to deliver meaningful results to people in need and jump-start clean energy growth in developing countries." Unfortunately, no clear time frame or emission limit was part of the document, even though according to UNIPCC the cuts required by industrialised nations are a 25-40 % reduction by 2020. Ironically the US offered a mere four percent.
However, a wider consensus on the Accord could not be achieved because it clearly fell short of expectations on many scores including a framework for authentication of carbon emissions and formation of a panel to evaluate financial contribution for the developing countries. More promises were made at the occasion which will, according to Yvo De Boer, Executive Secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) be a challenge to turn into a legally binding deal in Mexico in 2010.
All in all, the entire message from the leaders of the developed countries was clear. They seemed to be unwilling to share the concerns of the nations at stake - to the low-lying island states which might disappear from the face of earth, the food and water wars which might hinder the smooth functioning of these nations. The resourceful nations depicted that they will continue to choose their financial interests simply because the effects of their actions are not likely to come back to hurt them badly enough just yet. It is high time that we realize that choosing short-term goals cannot be a smart choice. After all, the environment is shared by all and Nature does not negotiate.
During the course of the two-week discussions, offers which helped lift the gloom , albeit temporarily, included the US Energy Secretary Steven Chu's announcement regarding an international plan called The Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative (Climate REDI) - a $350million five-year endeavor backed by Italy, India and Australia for clean technology in developing countries. Ethiopia also put forward a multibillion-dollar plan to raise funds which was supported by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy. An agreement called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) was also reached. The United States pledged $1bn over the next three years. Australia, France, Japan, Norway, Britain and America also agreed to provide $3.5bn in immediate cash for forest preservation. The US commitment to support an EU-backed idea of a $100bn fund for poor nations (though dependent on existing budgets) by 2020 was also well received. Another welcome move came from Japan with an offer to cut emissions by 25%, and to provide $15 billion over the next three years to help impoverished countries adapt to global warning's impacts.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed