Don't worry, Dale; in the end we'll solve it with geoengineering :)
Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 1702 Arlington Blvd. El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA Ph: 650.281.9126 Fax: 510.779.5361 [email protected] http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dale W Jamieson Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:14 AM To: Daniel Bodansky Cc: Heike Schroeder; [email protected] Subject: Re: Copenhagen result i think the depth and severity of the structural problems involved in addressing climate change are well indicated in this thread: some wonderful, honorable people "sweated blood" to get what would have been a good first step in the 1990s, but are wholly inadequate for 2009. it's time to analyze the failures in political and structural terms, and to focus on what it means for humanity that climate will increasingly become subject to human domination, in much the same way that several other natural systems are human dominated. happy holidays, dale ********************** Dale Jamieson Director of Environmental Studies Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy Affiliated Professor of Law Environmental Studies Program New York University 285 Mercer Street, 901 New York NY 10003-6653 Voice 212-998-5429 Fax 212-995-4157 http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html "Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable thing...--Blanche DuBois ----- Original Message ----- From: Daniel Bodansky <[email protected]> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:25 am Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: Heike Schroeder <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > But countries did move beyond their positions in significant ways. > China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US agreed > > to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, plus personal > > commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was far from easy - people > > sweated blood to get it! > > Best > Dan > > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder > <[email protected] > > wrote: > > > 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: [email protected] [owner-gep- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky > > [[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM > > To: [email protected] > > 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
