Bunkering down at Copenhagen as the bombshells rain down
|
Matthew Knott writes from Copenhagen: The bombshells are raining down so hard and fast here at the Copenhagen climate change summit that somebody had better build a bunker. The smoke hadn’t even settled on the “climate gate” email affair when news of a leaked secret draft Copenhagen Agreement written by the Danish Prime Minister and the spooky-sounding “circle of commitment” — a group including Kevin Rudd and the leaders of other industrialised nations — exploded at lunchtime on day two. Suddenly the mushy day-one platitudes of co-operation and consensus were gone, as developing nations accused richer countries of sabotaging the UNFCC negotiating process and attempting to saddle the third world with the costs of tackling climate change. The so-called “Danish text” is a “serious violation that threatens the success of the Copenhagen negotiating process”, said Sudan’s Lumumba Stanislas Dia Ping, who heads the G77 group. “This is a very serious development; a very unhelpful development,” he said. “The principles that this text is based on are inhuman.” The only problem is that many of the most frightening aspects of the “Danish text” appear to be imaginary. Props must be given to The Guardian for bringing the leaked secret draft to light, but not for quoting, without even the slightest scepticism, the claims of NGOs and developing country delegates pushing their own agendas. Take one of The Guardian’s claims currently echoing through the blogosphere: “The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank”. In fact, the text doesn’t even mention the World Bank. Rather, it advocates that a climate fund “under the guidance of”, “accountable to” and “elected by” the UNFCC Conference of Parties be set up to finance mitigation and adaptation in the developed world. An International Climate Financing Board, made up of developed and developing country representatives and led by the UNFCC secretariat, would also be set up. The World Bank scare — talked up by NGOs such as Oxfam and Friends of the Earth — seems to come from one, rather vague line: “Support from the fund may be channeled by multilateral institutions or directly to national entities”. Hardly sounds like a transfer of power from the UN to the World Bank does it? The claim that the agreement, if approved, would “not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes” also has a bad smell about it. No such figures are contained in the draft itself, which proposes emissions cuts of 80% by 2050 for developed countries. Writing up secret draft agreements without first consulting developing countries is certainly a bad look for COP15 Denmark, shattering its image of an honest broker seeking to build compromise. And although it gives no detail on 2020 emissions targets, the “Danish text” is not the work of the devil that it is being sold as. “Overall the text, if agreed, would provide a framework for an agreement that could lay the foundation for an ambitious global agreement,” says Erwin Jackson, of the Climate Institute. As well as the 80% by 2050 emissions pledge, it also includes recognition that global temperature should not rise beyond two degrees and flags a mechanism for financing renewable energy uptake in the third world by shipping and environmental levies. The Guardian got the story half-right: the “Danish text” is worrying, but for what it doesn’t say rather than what it does say. Where are the genuinely ambitious emission pledges from the US and other developed nations? Obama’s promised 17% reduction on 2005 levels by 2020 represents a measly 4% on 1990 levels. And if the world can finance trillion dollar bank bailouts why can’t it do the same to prevent African and Bangladeshi children dying from climate change-induced floods and droughts? China, Brazil, India and South Africa are said to have developed their own draft agreement as a counter to the “Danish text” and the G-77 is planning to do the same. Stay tuned: this battle is only just beginning. |
|
|
|
26 Comments
Surely this is a normal process of negotiation: different parties make ambit claims, and then give and take until, hopefully, mutual agreement is reached. You wouldn’t expect the first proposed draft to be acceptable by all parties immediately, would you?
Ah, the old staple: Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. This will keep the conspiracy theorists in work for a long time methinks.
Exactly RT, but the political naysayers will disingenuously claim that it’s all in disarray after round 1.
Hi Rodney, yes the Danes have stressed that the text in question was just one of many proposals and far from definitive. The interesting thing is that the text was never meant to be made public and it has, quite ironically, given developing countries a lot of attention for their cause.
BG, also agree that the “Copenhagen is in disarray” Guardian line is overblown. If they are in disarray they were anyway - this document has just brought to light the huge underlying conflict between developed and developing countries in approaches to climate change. They can´t even agree on the temperature rise we should limit ourselves to (2 vs 1.5 degrees).
Even the WWF have derided the ‘leak’ of the so called ‘Danish text’ as a minor distraction. The leak of what turned out to be a months old draft of a negotiating text seemed to most to be a lame attempt designed to inflame the delegated from some of the developing nations, and the whole thing had fizzed by the afternoon.
Everyone here has draft texts being thrashed around. If people actually bother to read the danish text they’d soon see, and you point out, it’s got no actual numbers and simply makes the point that the developed world will continue to have higher emissions per capita than the developing world for some time. No news there.
Cheers (also) from COP15
Dave
Rodney is right: in any negotiating, there is pre-negotiating that always goes on. And drafts that might or might not get accepted do get drawn up. Did none of the G77 have any pre-Copenhagen meetings and mutually desirable plans drawn up as draft starter points of negotiation? Of course they would have!
This is not really news. But the media is making it out to be!
And the misinformation industry is quick to use anything of course. Distort, exaggurate, and lie. It sells. And sometimes it protects big interests that don’t want change.
Of course, it would be nice to see some really ambitious drafts that really do tackle the problem and are not half-hearted responses trying to appease big business interests in the rich nations.
The Guardian? WTF? What has that paper turned into? I used to like reading it when I lived in the UK and then just got sick of it being anti-everything and pro-nothing.
Just listened to a speech Sir Nicholas Stern gave recently at a literary festival in the UK. You can download it: Radio National, The Book Show. He elucidated what the problem is, the mechanics of how the scientific data gives us what we need to do, time-frames, and possible solutions. He gave the simple mathematics of reduction targets - which correlates to what you reported is in the Danish Text Matthew - and how we break the maths down over the next 3 decades to reach a target of no more than 2 degrees in temperature increases.
I still love reading the Guardian`s Football web page, but if they are going to resort to this kinda gutter journalism they can GGF.
Secret drafts, Circle of Commitments, Climategate…. whose running this show? Ernst Stavro Blofeld?
I agree with some of this analysis, Matthew, but certainly not your rubbishing of the emissions figures. Those numbers (what the developing world would be entitled to emit under this scenario) are very easily calculable on the basis of the 2C goal and the 80% Annex I emissions cut by 2050. This is the point that the developing world negotiators, the Greens here and elsewhere and many others have long been making.
If you really want to limit warming to 2C (and many now say that is too much), and you want developing nations to have a fair go, Annex I nations need to cut very deep and very fast. Just the other day, Kevin Anderson from the Tyndall Centre put out figures that, to have a 50:50 chance of avoiding 2C, developed nations needed to reach zero emissions from energy by 2030.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/kevin-anderson-decision-time-face-the-facts-or-give-up-1835525.html
80% cuts by 2050 simply don’t cut it. That is at the very heart of the problem.
What this bust up shows, more than anything else, is that there is a growing rich / poor divide which desperately needs to be bridged, but the negotiations are continuing with the chair’s team presenting drafts that present the world in the view of the developed world, and the developing world won’t stand for it.
Secret drafts? Probably not secret, just that those involved were trying to get something down in writing to submit, to debate, to articulate, a position.
Circle of Commitments? Well a circle of Governments would suggest a link between them on their Commitments.
Climategate? Hmmmn, now why wasn`t this ever reported as Breach of Security Window? Why does everything possibly controversial end with the suffix -gate? Could it be that a lot of journalists are lazy?
Who is running the Show? I thought you were JFPE. Are you saying you aren`t in Charge of the Copenhagen Climate Conference? What a travesty! What an oversight! Get there mate, get there. Your scientific research must not be ignored.
@ROLLO: “The Guardian? WTF? What has that paper turned into?”
With such a patronising name as The Guardian what would we expect?
Nicholas Stern mentions the word science in his speech, several times. He is an economist with a degree in Political Science. Stern talking about actual scientific theory and measurement is like a car mechanic trying to tell a neurosurgeon what to do.
On the whole Copenhagen thing. I just won 10 bucks from my office pool, I called it going down the toilet within two days.
Thanks guys. I’ll buy a Big Mac (C) and eat it in your honor.
I’m just sad McDonald’s got rid of those styrofoam boxes.
@BG:
True, perhaps I was more left-leaning and it appealed to me, but yeah, I just got over the inherent nothingness of the commentary. Still, it does have a class Football section.
@The Duke of Madness:
Stern makes clear he is not a scientist, but it is hardly unremarkable that for him to devise an economic formula and possible solution, he needs to refer to the scientific data or else he would just be making numbers up. He also makes clear they can not predict with absolute %100 certainty the Climatic outcomes of increased temperatures or at what exact point atmospheric CO2 levels become irreversible.
Dude, you should try harder with your Trolling: it was unfunny, akin to a mozzie buzzing near your ear. 1 outta 10 from me. Do better next time.
Sigh. Lots of non-scientists pushing an ambiguous line. No voices of dissent allowed. It’s all decided. Yes this whole climate change thing is frightening, but I’m beginning to wonder what I should be more alarmed about - shabby science, diddled data or pushy politicians determined to be heroes in their own lunchtimes…
@Mad Jack:
Show me where the shabby science? Where is the diddled data?
Politicians determined to be heroes? Maybe, but they are the elected officials who we choose to negotiate on our behalf on all these types of things. They have taken their scientists, treasury & finance & environment ministers with them to try and negotiate a binding agreement.
And what about this claim of no dissent allowed? What rubbish. No one is suppressing or censoring dissenters. In fact skeptics seem to get just, if not quite, as many headlines as those who believe in AGW. The consensus, by a very large majority of the world`s climate-related scientists, is that AGW is real and we can do something to about it.
“…if the world can finance trillion dollar bank bailouts why can’t it do the same to prevent African and Bangladeshi children dying from climate change-induced floods and droughts?” shows a total lack of respect for the economic machine that got us to this sorry pass. It is thanks to institutions like the World Bank in cahoots with lobbying multi-nationals and supine governments that we have starving millions as well as climate change - and we’ve known about it for over 20 years. And it is the same reason we will have billions die over the next millenium (people, plants and animals).
The plutocracy (as has been pointed out before in this august online organ) have always behaved thus and will survive whatever the climate, greenies and our beefed up Opposition throw at them. They know because they’ve always known that power is never ceded - it must be TAKEN!! But their regency is so designed to make taking their power a criminal offense. It will only get worse. The G20 riots will seem like a flower power march in 10 years when food and water wars are the norm.
Mr’s Rollo and BG - That The Guardian prints specific reference to the World Bank and has (to two digits!) numbers suggesting the disparity in ‘accepatable’ pollution between rich and poor nations says to me (a huge fan of a quality newspaper) they have more than just ‘the Danish text’ and ‘this space’ should be watched. I’d also suggest that given the abjectly pathetic quality of newspapers (journalism) here in Australia, throwing stones at The Guardian is more than a tad misguided.
The so-called “Danish text” appears to say the less developed nations will get shafted by the richer nations. Surely that’s a given rather than news?
whilst this may be a normal process, this paper does nothing to alleviate the deep suspicions that developing world leaders already have on western world leaders. This is the issue.
@Tom:
Dude, I used to read it all the time when I was in the UK and came to the opinion that it was for nothing except being against everything. It was depressing. I think journalism across Fairfax, News Ltd., ABC TV & Radio, and On-line, Australia has the equal to, if not better, than the Guardian. Feel free to disagree, it is a subjective view point.
Rollo - completely agree…! I have lived in London for a while now and have also lived in NY so chuck the Times in with the Guardian!!
From Copenhagen NGOs here’s an analysis that generally lines up with Matthew’s. It’s from a leader of the Australian Youth Climate Change group, Fergus Green, accredited at Copenhagen:
After the Sun had set on what had been a relatively uneventful day 2 at Copenhagen (admittedly, the Sun sets at about 4pm in Denmark), the Bella Center was jump-started back to life by a late-breaking media report that has caused a stir among developing countries and NGOs and put developed countries on the back-foot. The offending article was from the UK’s Guardian newspaper, which reported late this afternoon on a leaked copy obtained by it of a “secret” draft climate change agreement – the so-called “Danish Text” – that the Danish Government has purportedly been shopping around to delegates in the back halls of the conference while the formal negotiations proceeded in earnest.
There is legitimate scope for criticism of some elements of the Danish text and the process by which it has been produced. However, the Guardian story is overhyped, misleading and, in numerous places, plain wrong. Moreover, the storm it has generated (much of it unjustified) could hamper negotiations when they resume tomorrow.
First, a bit of background – notably absent from most reporting on the issue – is necessary. Normally, climate change agreements materialise in a bottom-up fashion, whereby countries hammer out consensus on each issue and gradually build a comprehensive text that addresses every country’s interests. Naturally, this is a cumbersome process that tends to drag on for years. The Bali/Copenhagen process has been no exception, and virtually everyone recognises that this process will not conclude in Copenhagen – meaning that a comprehensive agreement to extend or replace the Kyoto Protocol will not be produced, ready for signature by leaders, by the end of this conference.
Yet such a “halfway” outcome would be incommensurate with the soaring political expectations for Copenhagen, and the more than 100 world leaders now confirmed to attend the final days of the conference are keen to have something to show at the end of it, even if it’s not a comprehensive agreement. But the desire for tangible results in such a short-time frame necessitates a more “top-down” approach to negotiations whereby a small group of countries proposes an overall text, which all countries then modify with a view to achieving consensus.
The task of preparing such a framework has fallen to the Danes, as Chair of the conference. News that they were considering such an approach originated a couple of weeks ago when the Danish PM flew to Singapore to present APEC leaders with a proposal for a short-term, political agreement in Copenhagen (coupled with a mandate to continue negotiations on a comprehensive agreement). Since then, and particularly since the beginning of the Copenhagen conference this week, rumours about the existence of a secret draft document embodying the Danish proposal have been flying thick and fast. And it was these rumours that were confirmed via the Guardian story this evening.
Seizing on the Guardian article more so than the Danish text itself, developing countries and the NGO community are crying foul about numerous elements of the text and the process surrounding it. But an independent reading the draft text reveals the Guardian article to be way off the mark.
First, the article claims that the draft text would “force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement”. Well, it’s only a draft text and no country can be “forced” to do anything (remember the consensus rule?). Moreover, the fact that something in the draft text for a new treaty wasn’t in the original UN agreement (presumably they mean the UNFCCC or the Kyoto Protocol) is hardly a surprise – what would be the point of having a new agreement if you just agreed on things that were in the old treaty? The Danish text in fact proposes a framework for incorporating emissions reduction commitments from developing countries (except those from the Least Developed Countries group) into a new treaty – an issue that is already squarely on the Copenhagen agenda (and on which countries have been negotiating for two years). While such a proposal has aleays been controversial among developing countries, this controversy is nothing new.
Second, the Guardian article claims that the Danish text would “not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.” The Danish text contains no such provision – in fact it says nothing about per capita emissions reduction targets (a moment’s reflection would surely lead one to question why the text’s architects would ever be so brazenly greedy as to proclaim that developed country citizens have a greater right to emit greenhouse gases than citizens of poor countries). It is unclear where these numbers came from or how (and using what assumptions) they were calculated. One can only assume that they must have been provided by the “developing countries” on whose “confidential analysis of the text” the Guardian appears to have unquestioningly relied.
Third, the Danish text, according to the Guardian, “hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank” (developing countries object to such an approach because the governance of finance managed by that institution is weighted toward the interests of donor states) and would “weaken the UN’s role in handling climate finance”. Actually, the draft text contains no mention of the World Bank whatsoever. On the contrary, it proposes the establishment of a financial mechanism (ie. for distributing funds from developed countries to help poorer countries undertake emissions reduction projects and adapt to climate change) that would be managed by the Conference of the Parties (the existing institutional structure established under the UNFCCC, which is dominated by developing countries) – which is precisely what developing countries have been asking for. In other words, the Danish text would do the exact opposite of what the Guardian article says it would do.
Fourth, the Guardian claims the text would “divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called ‘the most vulnerable’”. The quote makes it sound as though the text is proposing a new official designation of countries, which it is not. The text merely proposes to direct financing for climate change adaptation to the most vulnerable countries as a matter of priority. The connotation in the text is that vulnerability to climate change would simply be a key criteria for allocating funding. Not only is such a prioritisation of adaptaion financing entirely reasonable, it is in fact being advocated by blocs representing developing countries that are especially vulnerable to climate change, including the Alliance of Small Island States, the Least Developed Countries group and the African Group. The only countries that might object to such a prioritisation are the wealthier developing countries, who want a large chunk of the adaptation financing pie for themselves.
Fifth, the article claims the Danish text “would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions”. Again, this is misleading. Funding for developing country mitigation (emissions reductions projects) would be contingent on developing countries actually undertaking mitigation actions (hardly unreasonable), but funding for adaptation would not be contingent on any “range of actions” – rather it would be directed primarily to poorer and more vulnerable countries.
The only vaguely valid criticism the Guardian makes of the Danish text related to the process by which it has been produced. The text does appear to have been produced primarily by developed countries (apparently including Australian Prime Minister Rudd), as it incorporates a number of developed countries’ long-held demands that are still staunchly resisted by many developing countries, including: an Australian proposal to incorporate developing country commitments into a new agreement via “schedules of commitments”; a developed country preference for a single legal agreement rather than an extension of the Kyoto Protocol combined with a separate new agreement covering non-Kyoto issues; the developed country preference to depart from the Kyoto Protocol and its rigid separation of obligations between developed and develping countries; and developed countries’ proposed (and contentious) goals of limiting temperature rise to 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to reduce global emissions by 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.
But the article overhypes the “unfair process” angle, making the whole thing sound like an evil conspiracy by the developed world to trample on the interests of developing countries. The climate change debate is muddied by enough ludicrous conspiracy theories as it is, thank you very much. It is also worth bearing in mind that some form of “top down” approach will be essential if countries want to have anything tangible to take away from Copenhagen. No doubt the Guardian will be the first to complain if the talks end with a whimper, but if you wanted to get some progress, someone was going to have to take some initiative.
Notwithstanding the Guardian’s generally excellent coverage of environmental and climate change issues, this article is, quite simply, one of the shoddiest pieces of journalism I have ever read. It is all the more reprehensible because the story is and will continue to be so influential. As the first news outlet to leak the Danish text, its reportage has been echoed by news outlets (including in Australia) around the world (few of which seem to have bothered to do their own analysis of the Danish text).
As the text and the hype surrounding it have reopened old wounds and undermined trust between developed and developing countries, talks at Copenhagen may well be hampered when they resume tomorrow. Developed countries will be expected to answer not only legitimate questions about the inclusions and omissions in the Danish text, but also bogus questions generated by the Guardian’s poor reporting.
The only winners from this fiasco are the major-emitting developing countries, whose interests are prominently reflected in the positions of the “G77 & China” developing country bloc. The list of criticisms of the Danish text relayed in the Guardian article reads like a chorus from the G77 hymn sheet. The wave of anti-developed-country hysteria that the story has whipped-up suits the purposes of these countries just nicely.
While developed countries will be up late preparing to spend the next 24 hours in damage control mode, my guess is that members of Chinese delegation will be enjoying a quiet glass of scotch tonight.
Fergus Green (Australia, Project Survival Pacific)
Who cares? It’s already been declared a strawman and burnt.
Can we leave the Copenhagen elite to their glamourous call girls and boys now, no pollution will be lessened, in fact their activities will probably have increased the consumption of the earths resources. Just control individual desires to consume and acquire, have less children and stop showing off with shiny new things. This will avoid the need for another government department and a corrupt and leaky UN tax tap.