For what it's worth, I posted some of my thoughts at this location: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/blog/2009/12/21/the-welcome-end-of-unanimity/
(The title isn't mine -- an editor assigned it.) - Marc On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Hirsch, Leonard <l...@si.edu> wrote: > 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 > lhir...@si.edu > ________________________________________ > From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu > [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde > [vanho...@kenyon.edu] > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM > To: Lorraine Elliott > Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu > 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 > vanho...@kenyon.edu > > Quoting Lorraine Elliott <lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au>: > >> 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 <danbodan...@gmail.com> >> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm >> Subject: Re: Copenhagen result >> To: Heike Schroeder <heike.schroe...@ouce.ox.ac.uk> >> Cc: Daniel Bodansky <bodan...@uga.edu>, >> "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu> >> >>> 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 >>> <heike.schroe...@ouce.ox.ac.uk> 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: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- >>> e...@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 >>> > >> >> 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: lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au >> t: +61 2 61250589 >> f: +61 2 61258010 >> >> >> >> >> > >
