Going from Mark's blog entry, I found another piece on State of the Plane, by Peter Kelemen, that makes pretty much the same argument that I made in my earlier post, only in a much more articulate way. http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/blog/2009/12/08/real-scientists-are-climate-skeptics/#comment-4315 Graham
----- Original Message ----- From: Marc Levy <[email protected]> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:09 pm Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: "Hirsch, Leonard" <[email protected]> Cc: Stephen Van Holde <[email protected]>, Lorraine Elliott <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 > > [email protected] > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] [owner-gep- > [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]" <gep- > [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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > ------------------------------- Graham Smart Associate Professor Carleton University School of Linguistics & Language Studies 215 Paterson Hall 1125 Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1S 5B6 ------------------------------
