Hi All, Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well... On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political framework was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 attendees (and some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. But given that 120 or so heads of state were coming to town (including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to publicly state (as he did at Forest Day) that heads of state don't come for failure. It nurtured a sense of optimism among attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese premier) and also EU reps would not come empty-handed but move beyond their positions in at least some way, either by more concrete pledging of finance or stronger unilateral targets. None of this happened, except the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the Accord. To me, this is where the disappointment lies. Best, Heike
-- Dr. Heike Schroeder Tyndall Senior Research Fellow Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford South Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QY Tel: 01865 275894 Fax: 01865 275850 ________________________________________ From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky [bodan...@uga.edu] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result Hi all, I sent the message below last night from an email account not registered with GEPED, so it bounced. It doesn't take account of the subsequent discussion from others. For those who are interested, I've been blogging about the Copenhagen meeting on the international law blog, opiniojuris.org. I plan to post some preliminary thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday. Dan Earlier email message: Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat, Just wanted to chime in with a few points: First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email: -- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP decision, it was agreed by 20+ countries. Saudi Arabia didn't oppose the Accord, only its adoption as a COP decision. (Sudan was also among the countries that agreed to the Accord, although don't count on it to associate itself with the Accord formally.) The Accord was reportedly endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP plenary the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group supported its adoption as a COP decision. -- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to negotiate a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico City (along with the EU, AOSIS and others). The proposal was killed by China and India. -- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about adoption of a KP second commitment period amendment reflects the view of the G-77 generally. With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses: 1. I agree with Wil on this point. Pretty much everybody had given up on a legal agreement in Copenhagen by the end of the Barcelona meeting in November, and many had seen the writing on the wall much earlier. I have to strongly disagree with Mat's view that the Copenhagen Accord was easy. Given the total opposition by China (and to a lesser degree India) to any form of listing of their intensity target or any form of international review, getting agreement on the Copenhagen Accord was a huge stretch -- so if one regards the Accord as a pretty modest outcome, just imagine what getting a legal agreement will be like!! 2. Generally agree with Wil on this too, although I agree with Mat that the legal nature of the KP has been significant. 3. Nothing to add here. 4. The Copenhagen Accord may well be the high water mark for climate agreements anytime soon, so let's hope it proves to be significant!! Finally a few additional comments: -- The Copenhagen meeting proves the utter dysfunctionality of the UNFCCC process. The final night, a handful of essentially rogue states, led by Sudan, blocked a COP decision adopting a political agreement by the Heads of State/Government of all of the major world powers. -- The Copenhagen meeting also revealed the complete breakdown of the G-77 as a negotiating group. In the closing plenary, some developing countries openly criticized their G-77 "brethren" (read China) for preventing inclusion of more ambitious emission reduction numbers in the Copenhagen Accord. Best Dan
