RE: Copenhagen result
Watch for the geoengineering section of the upcoming National Academy of Science panel on America's Climate Choices. From the public hearings, this is likely be a carefully constructed, and potentially influential, framing. == 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 Wil Burns [williamcgbu...@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:13 AM To: 'Dale W Jamieson'; 'Matthew Paterson' Cc: 'Maria Ivanova'; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Copenhagen result I concur with Dale that geoengineering's stock is on the rise, and I think that the trend toward climate policymaking being made by a small faction of States is foreboding in this context because many of the potential side-effects of geoengineering proposals may be visited upon States outside of this decision-making framework. As Maria Ivanova said recently in Nature Geoscience, this could become the quintessential governance issue over the next few decades. Incidentally, I'm planning to do an edited volume on geoengineering for Cambridge University Press and would like to invite members of the list interested in the topic to send me proposals for chapters. wil 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 ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns -Original Message- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dale W Jamieson Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:59 AM To: Matthew Paterson Cc: Maria Ivanova; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: Copenhagen result i think it's misleading to view the outcome of copenhagen as having been produced by any single actor. this leads us away from a more complex analysis that takes seriously the domestic politics and international positions of all the key players, as well as the collective actions problems that are at the heart of this problelm. it also leads to exaggeration and caricature, perhaps bordering on demonization (e.g., China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower, China wrecked the Copenhagen deal). as i said in an earlier post, i think the most interesting question is what happens next, and i do think that in the us, the fallout from copenhagen will be a big boost to geoengineering (esp now among environmentalists), whose stock has been rising anyway. ** 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: Matthew Paterson mpate...@uottawa.ca Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:48 pm Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: Maria Ivanova mivan...@wm.edu, gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu A really interesting comment on china¹s strategy here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change- mark-lynas Supports Dan¹s interpretation earlier on in this thread and undermines mine! Mat -- Matthew Paterson École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 tel: +1 613 562-5800 x1716 Web site: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/pol/eng/profdetails.asp?ID=123 And http://matpaterson.wordpress.com/ Co-editor, Global Environmental Politics: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/glep Latest books Climate capitalism: global warming and the transformation of the global economy (with Peter Newell) http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521194857 And Cultural Political Economy (edited, with Jacqueline Best) http://www.routledgepolitics.com/books/Cultural-Political-Economy-isbn978041 5489324 From: Maria Ivanova mivan...@wm.edu Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:31:38 -0500 To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Copenhagen result I also recommend Bill McKibben¹s analysis at http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2225 Maria Maria Ivanova, Ph.D. Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300
Re: Copenhagen result
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
Re: Copenhagen result
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 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
Re: Copenhagen result
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
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 danbodan...@gmail.com Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:25 am Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: Heike Schroeder heike.schroe...@ouce.ox.ac.uk Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu 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 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
RE: Copenhagen result
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 ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns -Original Message- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dale W Jamieson Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:14 AM To: Daniel Bodansky Cc: Heike Schroeder; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu 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 danbodan...@gmail.com Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:25 am Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: Heike Schroeder heike.schroe...@ouce.ox.ac.uk Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu 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 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
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
RE: Copenhagen result
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
Re: Copenhagen result
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
Re: Copenhagen result
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 marc.l...@ciesin.columbia.edu Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:09 pm Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: Hirsch, Leonard l...@si.edu Cc: Stephen Van Holde vanho...@kenyon.edu, Lorraine Elliott lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au, gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu 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- e...@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
Re: Copenhagen result
Wil, you raise a lot of issues here, we could end up with a long (and interesting debate). A few reactions, following your numbering. 1. we did know that it was highly likely that we¹d only get a political agreement, although it is worth noting there was always an (outside) chance that enough KP parties might say it was worth inserting new numbers into a second KP commitment period, alongside this political declartation including non-KP countries, notably the US. But this declaration is a hell of a lot weaker than many observers expected, and I¹d say was absolutely possible before the start of the Copenhagen talks. The numbers in terms of emissions reductions already on the table were (while obviously inadequate to deal with Tuvalu¹s problems or to get to a 2C overall goal) were broadly consistent enough that you could imagine a deal aroudn them even those weren¹t in the final version, although they say they¹re going to put numbers in by Feb. The US-China monitoring spat seems incomprehensible from the outside, since the US itself wants a relatively light multilateral monitoring of emissions reporting (consequently it¹s not certain that your point 4a is correct). And so on on every issue a deal seemed possible, they¹ve come up with the weakest version. 2. on legally binding. You¹re right of course that international law is weak in terms of enforcement. But you¹re wrong that many¹ Annex B countries will fail to meet their Kyoto targets the EU will get there easily enough, as will (for hot air reasons) most ex-soviet countries. NZ still has some to do but has set up a system which will mean it will buy hot air in effect. Australia and Japan aren¹t too far off. Only really Canada is way off, and I despair at the idiots in charge of the country I moved to. So the q to my mind is not about enforcement, but rather about (a) the set of expectations that the term legally binding¹ sets up amongst states that they tend to behave differently in the context of such a status to an agreement here I¹d claim that if Kyoto had just been a political declaration¹ then I can¹t see the EU having set about achieving its targets so thoroughly without the legal status (although that¹s a judgement call of course), and (b) you can¹t set up any sort of institutional arrangements such as the CDM without the legal¹ status of an agreement. And Kyoto compliance overall for the Annex B countries (they will get there collectively, canadian rubbishness being outweighed by russian hot air) has been driven by the Kyoto-CDM-EU ETS relationship, which couldn¹t have existed without a legal agreement. 3. I tend to agree on this realist¹ point, although one thing this misses is that the multilateral process has become much more focused on adapation in recent years, and there those countries (not venezuela, but the AOSIS and african states) are crucial. 4. I¹ll just raise two points here one is that the money is totally unclear on details whether it¹s additional money from states, whether its expectations of flows from offset markets (CDM or otherwise), wheher its additional to existing aid, etc. And while forest people love REDD, if it¹s included in an offset mechanism like the CDM, which it looks like it will be, this could be a disaster, taking away incentives for actual emissions reductions in the Annex I/B countries. An interesting aside here is that while in the negotiations much was being heralded for REDD, in the carbon market meetings IETA was running, there were workshops on how the hell you might make money out of a REDD project they are of the view it¹s probalby not a very cheap option. That might save us in fact. Enough for now. Mat -- Matthew Paterson École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 tel: +1 613 562-5800 x1716 Web site: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/pol/eng/profdetails.asp?ID=123 And http://matpaterson.wordpress.com/ Co-editor, Global Environmental Politics: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/glep Latest books Climate capitalism: global warming and the transformation of the global economy (with Peter Newell) http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521194857 And Cultural Political Economy (edited, with Jacqueline Best) http://www.routledgepolitics.com/books/Cultural-Political-Economy-isbn978041 5489324 From: Wil Burns williamcgbu...@comcast.net Reply-To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:42:53 -0800 To: 'Radoslav Dimitrov' radoslav.dimit...@uwo.ca, 'Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe' gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Copenhagen result I think amidst all of the (legitimate) gloom about the results at Copenhagen, we should emphasize a couple of things: 1. It was known well before the meeting that we were likely to only get a political declaration from Copenhagen; in many ways, I think the media hyped the final stages of the meeting as some kind of unraveling of consensus, when
RE: Copenhagen result
Hey Mat, OK, lets not bore the list too much, so Ill just briefly respond to some of these points below: 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 mailto:ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com/ http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns From: Matthew Paterson [mailto:mpate...@uottawa.ca] Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:33 AM To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net; 'Radoslav Dimitrov'; 'Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe' Subject: Re: Copenhagen result Wil, you raise a lot of issues here, we could end up with a long (and interesting debate). A few reactions, following your numbering. 1. we did know that it was highly likely that wed only get a political agreement, although it is worth noting there was always an (outside) chance that enough KP parties might say it was worth inserting new numbers into a second KP commitment period, alongside this political declartation including non-KP countries, notably the US. But this declaration is a hell of a lot weaker than many observers expected, and Id say was absolutely possible before the start of the Copenhagen talks. The numbers in terms of emissions reductions already on the table were (while obviously inadequate to deal with Tuvalus problems or to get to a 2C overall goal) were broadly consistent enough that you could imagine a deal aroudn them even those werent in the final version, although they say theyre going to put numbers in by Feb. The US-China monitoring spat seems incomprehensible from the outside, since the US itself wants a relatively light multilateral monitoring of emissions reporting (consequently its not certain that your point 4a is correct). And so on on every issue a deal seemed possible, theyve come up with the weakest version. · I would suggest many observers were a bit pie in the sky. One of the reasons that I decided to set out Copenhagen is that there were a tremendous number of signs from the U.S., China, and India in the month heading into Copenhagen that the process was going to generate a fairly weak agreement. As to the emissions pledges, theres a big difference between folks making pledges and being willing at this point to lock into them in a legal framework. 2. on legally binding. Youre right of course that international law is weak in terms of enforcement. But youre wrong that many Annex B countries will fail to meet their Kyoto targets the EU will get there easily enough, as will (for hot air reasons) most ex-soviet countries. NZ still has some to do but has set up a system which will mean it will buy hot air in effect. Australia and Japan arent too far off. Only really Canada is way off, and I despair at the idiots in charge of the country I moved to. So the q to my mind is not about enforcement, but rather about (a) the set of expectations that the term legally binding sets up amongst states that they tend to behave differently in the context of such a status to an agreement here Id claim that if Kyoto had just been a political declaration then I cant see the EU having set about achieving its targets so thoroughly without the legal status (although thats a judgement call of course), and (b) you cant set up any sort of institutional arrangements such as the CDM without the legal status of an agreement. And Kyoto compliance overall for the Annex B countries (they will get there collectively, canadian rubbishness being outweighed by russian hot air) has been driven by the Kyoto-CDM-EU ETS relationship, which couldnt have existed without a legal agreement. · The EU is only meeting its targets because the expansion, which brought in a lot of former Soviet entities whose economies (and thus emissions) collapsed in the 1990s and early twenty first century. Peel them away and you have a large number of EU states (Italy, Austria, Ireland) who arent going to make it (some by very large margins), and even purported stalwarts in the process e.g. the UK largely will meet their commitments because of exogenous factors, like shutting down large swaths of the coal industry. Until the recession, UK emissions, for example, were rising at levels clearly not in line with the KP; · You could certainly set up mechanisms like the CDM (which, incidentally, has produced almost nothing in terms of emissions reductions, and has wrought things like the HCFC scandals in China that may have resulted in a net negative impact on the environment) without KP, through bilateral agreements, so at least in terms of multilateral agreements, I dont think so. And again, the flexible mechanisms may be a poor rationale for binding international agreements; · If we get to the KP target through hot air
RE: Copenhagen result
I take Wil's "exogenous" comment to mean that the bulk of UK emissions reductions would have occured in the absence of Kyoto. From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Henrik SelinSent: Sun 12/20/2009 1:11 PMTo: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.eduSubject: RE: Copenhagen result 2. on legally binding. Youre right of course that international law is weak in terms of enforcement. But youre wrong that many Annex B countries will fail to meet their Kyoto targets the EU will get there easily enough, as will (for hot air reasons) most ex-soviet countries. NZ still has some to do but has set up a system which will mean it will buy hot air in effect. Australia and Japan arent too far off. Only really Canada is way off, and I despair at the idiots in charge of the country I moved to. So the q to my mind is not about enforcement, but rather about (a) the set of expectations that the term legally binding sets up amongst states that they tend to behave differently in the context of such a status to an agreement here Id claim that if Kyoto had just been a political declaration then I cant see the EU having set about achieving its targets so thoroughly without the legal status (although thats a judgement call of course), and (b) you cant set up any sort of institutional arrangements such as the CDM without the legal status of an agreement. And Kyoto compliance overall for the Annex B countries (they will get there collectively, canadian rubbishness being outweighed by russian hot air) has been driven by the Kyoto-CDM-EU ETS relationship, which couldnt have existed without a legal agreement. · The EU is only meeting its targets because the expansion, which brought in a lot of former Soviet entities whose economies (and thus emissions) collapsed in the 1990s and early twenty first century. Peel them away and you have a large number of EU states (Italy, Austria, Ireland) who arent going to make it (some by very large margins), and even purported stalwarts in the process e.g. the UK largely will meet their commitments because of exogenous factors, like shutting down large swaths of the coal industry. Until the recession, UK emissions, for example, were rising at levels clearly not in line with the KP;· You could certainly set up mechanisms like the CDM (which, incidentally, has produced almost nothing in terms of emissions reductions, and has wrought things like the HCFC scandals in China that may have resulted in a net negative impact on the environment) without KP, through bilateral agreements, so at least in terms of multilateral agreements, I dont think so. And again, the flexible mechanisms may be a poor rationale for binding international agreements;· If we get to the KP target through hot air, the agreement is indeed a chimera, and while you might be able to fool the public, you cant fool the atmosphere.I dont want to come across as an EU apologist here, but I think a few things should be pointed out. First, the EU Kyoto target is EU-15 and that has not changed with any subsequent enlargement. The EU-15 is still the EU-15. As such, the EU Kyoto target is separate from any gains that the EU-27 may have made since 1990 as a result of bringing in countries going through economic and industrial reconstruction. The fact that the EU-15 member states are on track collectively to meet their Kyoto target is not a result of enlargement (but you are absolutely right in your criticism of some individual EU-15 countries not doing their fair share). Second, so what if the UK is meeting its target in large part to switching away from coal; is that not something we want to see on a larger scale globally? How is that an "exogenous factor"?Cheers,Henrik
RE: Copenhagen result
Hi Henrik, You're quite right that I was pretty inarticulate in using the term exogenous. What I meant to say was that the shutdown of the UK coal industry was largely related to non-energy policy considerations, so not really driven by considerations of its legal obligations under the UNFCCC or the KP (which I believe was the locus of my discussion with Mat) and at this point, the UK is not performing that well, so I have some serious questions about the viability of the legally binding KP in terms of how much it is driving domestic decision-making. wil 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 mailto:ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org http://www.jiwlp.com/ http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Henrik Selin Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 10:11 AM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: RE: Copenhagen result 2. on legally binding. You're right of course that international law is weak in terms of enforcement. But you're wrong that 'many' Annex B countries will fail to meet their Kyoto targets - the EU will get there easily enough, as will (for hot air reasons) most ex-soviet countries. NZ still has some to do but has set up a system which will mean it will buy hot air in effect. Australia and Japan aren't too far off. Only really Canada is way off, and I despair at the idiots in charge of the country I moved to. So the q to my mind is not about enforcement, but rather about (a) the set of expectations that the term 'legally binding' sets up amongst states - that they tend to behave differently in the context of such a status to an agreement - here I'd claim that if Kyoto had just been a 'political declaration' then I can't see the EU having set about achieving its targets so thoroughly without the legal status (although that's a judgement call of course), and (b) you can't set up any sort of institutional arrangements such as the CDM without the 'legal' status of an agreement. And Kyoto compliance overall for the Annex B countries (they will get there collectively, canadian rubbishness being outweighed by russian hot air) has been driven by the Kyoto-CDM-EU ETS relationship, which couldn't have existed without a legal agreement. . The EU is only meeting its targets because the expansion, which brought in a lot of former Soviet entities whose economies (and thus emissions) collapsed in the 1990s and early twenty first century. Peel them away and you have a large number of EU states (Italy, Austria, Ireland) who aren't going to make it (some by very large margins), and even purported stalwarts in the process e.g. the UK largely will meet their commitments because of exogenous factors, like shutting down large swaths of the coal industry. Until the recession, UK emissions, for example, were rising at levels clearly not in line with the KP; . You could certainly set up mechanisms like the CDM (which, incidentally, has produced almost nothing in terms of emissions reductions, and has wrought things like the HCFC scandals in China that may have resulted in a net negative impact on the environment) without KP, through bilateral agreements, so at least in terms of multilateral agreements, I don't think so. And again, the flexible mechanisms may be a poor rationale for binding international agreements; . If we get to the KP target through hot air, the agreement is indeed a chimera, and while you might be able to fool the public, you can't fool the atmosphere. I don't want to come across as an EU apologist here, but I think a few things should be pointed out. First, the EU Kyoto target is EU-15 and that has not changed with any subsequent enlargement. The EU-15 is still the EU-15. As such, the EU Kyoto target is separate from any gains that the EU-27 may have made since 1990 as a result of bringing in countries going through economic and industrial reconstruction. The fact that the EU-15 member states are on track collectively to meet their Kyoto target is not a result of enlargement (but you are absolutely right in your criticism of some individual EU-15 countries not doing their fair share). Second, so what if the UK is meeting its target in large part to switching away from coal; is that not something we want to see on a larger scale globally? How is that an exogenous factor? Cheers, Henrik
RE: Copenhagen result
I'm in the middle of editing the ENB summary on this crazy meeting, but I'll take a minute to respond. See my comments below. Pam Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin IISD Reporting Services 300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955 E-mail: p...@iisd.org International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) www.iisd.org IISD Reporting Services - Earth Negotiations Bulletin www.iisd.ca Subscribe for free to our publications http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm -Original Message- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Lorraine Elliott Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:01 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: Copenhagen result Hi all A few quick questions in finding one's way through the Accord - surely some of the most garbled syntax adopted at an international negotiation? While the 2 degrees celsius number is mentioned at least twice, as I read it there isn't actually a /formal /commitment to that as a stabilization target. PAM: No, as I understand it, there is no formal commitment. Furthermore, since countries will be able to indicate whether they want to be associated with this or not, it has even less meaning. And it was only taken note of by the COP -- not adopted. Article 5 is rather confusing but it seems to say that mitigation actions by non-Annex I parties will be subject to their own MRV processes unless they are seeking 'international support' in which case they will be subject to the same international MRV as for Annex I parties. Have I read this correctly? PAM: As I understand it, if they receive international support for their mitigation actions, they will be subject to international MRV. If no support is provided (think China), then they will do their own domestic MRV. Clarification on article 8 - $100 billion by 2020 of which $30 billion should be forthcoming in the period 2010-12, yes? PAM: Actually it says $100 billion a year by 2020. Appendix I - on emissions targets for Annex I parties by 2020, also includes a column for base year. Does this mean that countries can set their own base year rather than being tied to the 1990 levels in the KP? PAM: Yes, Annex I parties can set their own, as I understand it. Cheers (or not as the case may be) Lorraine -- Dr Lorraine Elliott Senior Fellow in International Relations Department of International Relations Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA t: +61 2 6125 0589 f: +61 2 6125 8010 e: lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/admin/elliott.php http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/tec
Re: Copenhagen result
Pam Thanks for this ... and particularly for pointing out my error in not seeing the 'a year' for the USD100 billion by 2020. Much appreciated. L Chasek wrote: I'm in the middle of editing the ENB summary on this crazy meeting, but I'll take a minute to respond. See my comments below. Pam Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin IISD Reporting Services 300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955 E-mail: p...@iisd.org International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) www.iisd.org IISD Reporting Services - Earth Negotiations Bulletin www.iisd.ca Subscribe for free to our publications http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm -Original Message- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Lorraine Elliott Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:01 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: Copenhagen result Hi all A few quick questions in finding one's way through the Accord - surely some of the most garbled syntax adopted at an international negotiation? While the 2 degrees celsius number is mentioned at least twice, as I read it there isn't actually a /formal /commitment to that as a stabilization target. PAM: No, as I understand it, there is no formal commitment. Furthermore, since countries will be able to indicate whether they want to be associated with this or not, it has even less meaning. And it was only taken note of by the COP -- not adopted. Article 5 is rather confusing but it seems to say that mitigation actions by non-Annex I parties will be subject to their own MRV processes unless they are seeking 'international support' in which case they will be subject to the same international MRV as for Annex I parties. Have I read this correctly? PAM: As I understand it, if they receive international support for their mitigation actions, they will be subject to international MRV. If no support is provided (think China), then they will do their own domestic MRV. Clarification on article 8 - $100 billion by 2020 of which $30 billion should be forthcoming in the period 2010-12, yes? PAM: Actually it says $100 billion a year by 2020. Appendix I - on emissions targets for Annex I parties by 2020, also includes a column for base year. Does this mean that countries can set their own base year rather than being tied to the 1990 levels in the KP? PAM: Yes, Annex I parties can set their own, as I understand it. Cheers (or not as the case may be) Lorraine -- Dr Lorraine Elliott Senior Fellow in International Relations Department of International Relations Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA t: +61 2 6125 0589 f: +61 2 6125 8010 e: lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/admin/elliott.php http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/tec
Re: Copenhagen result
Pam, Lorraine and others, Just one clarification. Article 5 does indeed say that supported actions by non Annex 1 parties alone are subject to international MRV, but it is important to note the additional sentence: Non-Annex I Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through National Communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines that will ensure that national sovereignty is respected. This sentence implies that non-supported mitigation actions, while not subject to international MRV, will be communicated to the Parties and while be subject to consultation and analysis. This is compromise text short of international MRV, but which goes beyond many developing countries' demands that these be entirely off limits for international scrutiny. THis was a huge stumbling block to a deal and is one of the 2-3 biggest political redlines here in India. The text only really partially fixes the problem since the devil will lie in the details of consultation and analysis. But it does enable the Parties to park the issue and move on. For those interested the WSJ website has the text along with commentary by three observers: a WWF rep, someone from the American Chamber of Commerce, and myself as a developing country voice. Unsurprisingly, we all perform true to type in our reading of the text. Thanks, Navroz. On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 7:45 AM, Pam Chasek p...@iisd.org wrote: I'm in the middle of editing the ENB summary on this crazy meeting, but I'll take a minute to respond. See my comments below. Pam Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin IISD Reporting Services 300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955 E-mail: p...@iisd.org International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) www.iisd.org IISD Reporting Services - Earth Negotiations Bulletin www.iisd.ca Subscribe for free to our publications http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm -Original Message- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [mailto: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Lorraine Elliott Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 9:01 PM To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: Copenhagen result Hi all A few quick questions in finding one's way through the Accord - surely some of the most garbled syntax adopted at an international negotiation? While the 2 degrees celsius number is mentioned at least twice, as I read it there isn't actually a /formal /commitment to that as a stabilization target. PAM: No, as I understand it, there is no formal commitment. Furthermore, since countries will be able to indicate whether they want to be associated with this or not, it has even less meaning. And it was only taken note of by the COP -- not adopted. Article 5 is rather confusing but it seems to say that mitigation actions by non-Annex I parties will be subject to their own MRV processes unless they are seeking 'international support' in which case they will be subject to the same international MRV as for Annex I parties. Have I read this correctly? PAM: As I understand it, if they receive international support for their mitigation actions, they will be subject to international MRV. If no support is provided (think China), then they will do their own domestic MRV. Clarification on article 8 - $100 billion by 2020 of which $30 billion should be forthcoming in the period 2010-12, yes? PAM: Actually it says $100 billion a year by 2020. Appendix I - on emissions targets for Annex I parties by 2020, also includes a column for base year. Does this mean that countries can set their own base year rather than being tied to the 1990 levels in the KP? PAM: Yes, Annex I parties can set their own, as I understand it. Cheers (or not as the case may be) Lorraine -- Dr Lorraine Elliott Senior Fellow in International Relations Department of International Relations Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies The Australian National University Canberra, ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA t: +61 2 6125 0589 f: +61 2 6125 8010 e: lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/admin/elliott.php http://rspas.anu.edu.au/ir/tec -- Navroz K. Dubash Senior Fellow Centre for Policy Research Dharma Marg Chanakyapuri New Delhi 110 021 India Tel: +91-11-2611-5273/74/75/76 Fax: +91-11-2687-2746 Email: ndub...@gmail.com www.cprindia.org
