Thanks for the weeks of reporting. One of the elements which this group, I think, should focus a bit more on, is the US internal political angle. The President was quite clear, and the Chinese President certainly heard, that he did not want a Kyoto-II result--ie, the international community agreeing to something the US Senate would not agree to.
Prior to Copenhagen it was quite clear to anyone who listened to the US negotiators that there would not be a binding agreement until the US knew what it could agree to. And it does not. There are too many competing bills on Capitol Hill. When they come together, the successful rounds of negotations internationally will commence. If it is before Mexico City, there could be something by then, most folks think it will be 2 years. Did the system fail--messier than we would like. But unreasonable expectations are just that--unreasonable and expectations. This does not mean that it shouldn't be done--please do not attack the messenger--just that the necessary pieces for an agreement that can stand the test of time have not yet been fully articulated and developed. Watch for the development of carbon accounting methodologies and proposals for verification (both remotely sensed with on-the-ground truthing). This is where the major real fights will be, and probably many of the solutions will come from. We need to remember that in 1992, carbon markets were developed so that the developed world would not have to put lots of ODA forward. The sizable (not sufficient) $/euro/yen put forward last week will have lots of strings, conditions, and funnels included. Yes it is x number of years since the seriousness of this issue was beginning to be addressed (I first lectured about climate issues in 1978, look at Holdren's 1980s article on No Regrets). We are in a particularly negative moment as corporations are fighting tooth and nail not to have to change too much, being aided by over-zealous scientists and activists who have played into the agnotological traps set for them, all leading to a confused and wary public and thus an ever warier political establishment. As analysts, let's be clear. As teachers, this could be a teachable moment about law, policy, aspirations, process, and inflection points. As citizens, we clearly have lots to do. And as scientists, we have to work harder to be fact-based, wary of all assumptions--others and our own, and clear about the scientific process. ========================================================== "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power" (B. Clinton, 2008). --------------------------------------------------------- Leonard P. Hirsch Smithsonian Institution New mailing address: 1100 Jefferson Drive SW #3123 PO Box 37012 Q-3123 MRC 705 Washington, DC 20013-7012 1.202.633.4788 1.202.312.2888 fax [email protected] ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde [[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM To: Lorraine Elliott Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Copenhagen result Well put, Lorraine. I have exactly the same problem standing in front of my classes. And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says, what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform rather than in state-based solutions. And while I've been reluctant to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they may be right. But of course that does little or nothing to address the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world.... Just my 2 cents. Steve Stephen Van Holde Departments of Political Science and International Studies Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA [email protected] Quoting Lorraine Elliott <[email protected]>: > But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two > decades since the Toronto conference at which participating > governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to reduce emissions > by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a > decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC > assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've probably > killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to > the 'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in > the time that all this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen > is a good first step? Somehow I don't think my students will be > persuaded. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of people at > Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who worked > non-stop to try to retrieve something. I know a lot of those people. > But I've just been in Southeast Asia where the livelihoods (and in > some cases lives) of millions of people are under threat a result of > the impacts of climate change. I have students from Bangladesh and > the Pacific. Despite the rhetoric and spin coming from world > 'leaders', they want someone to stand in front of them and tell them > why their homes, their livelihoods are under threat and no-one is > doing much about it. I no longer have an answer for them. Sorry, bit > of a rant, but I feel pretty dispirited by the whole process at the > moment. > > Lorraine > > Original Message ----- > From: Daniel Bodansky <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm > Subject: Re: Copenhagen result > To: Heike Schroeder <[email protected]> > Cc: Daniel Bodansky <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> But countries did move beyond position 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! >> >> __________________ >> Daniel Bodansky >> Associate Dean for Faculty Development >> Woodruff Professor of International Law >> School of Law >> University of Georgia >> Athens, GA 30602 >> Tel: 706-542-7052 >> >> 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 >> > > > Dr Lorraine Elliott > Senior Fellow in International Relations > Department of International Relations > Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies > College of Asia and the Pacific > The Australian National University > Canberra, ACT 0200 > AUSTRALIA > > e: [email protected] > t: +61 2 61250589 > f: +61 2 61258010 > > > > >
