UN Climate Change conferences are reknowned for running extensively into overtime with last minute negotiations to try and salvage a way forward through the consensus process. This one was no different with a Saturday afternoon ending.
Draft texts are issued, debated, watered down, reissued, debated and further watered down until enough compromise has been achieved for consensus. Occasionally some new ambition may sneak in, but generally its a dilution of action. It's a tough process, especially when urgency and ambition is required, which empowers countries with vested interests in maintaining fossil fuel production.
Australia has taken advantage of this process in the past, such as when the Australian delegation threatened to walk out in 1997 at final stage of negotiations unless a special clause on land use emissions was inserted. We got our way and a special clause was created specifically called the Australia clause which allowed us to increase our emissions by 8 percent while all other countries had commitments to reduce emissions.
During the final days of this negotiation process, Small island states and many developing countries gave up in the spirt of compromise on the Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility to be replaced by a vague Dialogue during 2022 as part of Draft texts version 3, but they were not happy about this. But the fact there were other areas of ambition in the overall deal and they are suffering now from climate impacts, made them commit to consensus.
But during the discussion India, Iran, Nigeria and China objected to the wording around coal and inefficient fossil fuel sibsidies phase out. The stocktaking plenary was adjourned and huddles reformed.
Australia actually had accepted the deal that included a call for "accelerating efforts towards the phase-out of unabated coal power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies." They had already successfully lobbied with others to soften the text with those two adjectives: unabated and inefficient.
When the plenary restarted India proposed asking to change language to "phase down" coal instead of "phase out". Switzerland, Europe, Mexico, Marshall Islands and Fiji all expressed profound disappointment at this proposed change, and questioned this as a non-transparent process. Switzerland received overwhelming applause.
The most eloquent statement came from the Marshall Islands:
"On behalf of the Marshall Islands I wish to read into the record our profound disappointment with the change in the language on coal from phase out to phase down. I ask that this be reflected in the report of this meeting. This commitment on coal had been a bright spot in this package. It was one of the things we were hoping to carry out of here, back home with pride, and it hurts deeply to see that bright spot dim. We accept this change with the greatest reluctance. We do so only, and I really want to stress only, because there are critical elements of this package that people in my country need, as a lifeline for their future. Thankyou.
Fiji said "we were told 2 days ago that we could not add Loss and Damage language because it was "last minute", now new language on coal has been added 2 minutes before adoption of the text. A "phase-down" has no demonstrable measures to monitor the end of coal."
The reaction actually put COP President Alok Sharma into tears for a moment, as he said, "I am truly sorry about how this process has unfolded. It is also vital that we successfully conclude this package"
This is going to lead to a much greater push next year for Loss and Damage implementation and finance, at COP27, which has been long delayed at these conferences.
Antigua and Barbuda speaking on behalf of AOSIS commented that they "would like to take note that we expect to see the development of a Loss and Damage facility by COP27." Venezuela added that they "would like to take up the issue of unilateral measures in subsequent COPs".
There was cheering in the American delegation and around other sections of the Plenary hall as the decision on Article 6 on carbon markets was gavelled, putting in place this important part of the Paris Agreement rulebook, although it seems there are already identified issues of integrity with the rules passed.
Multiple civil society organisations including indigenous and environmental groups co-ordinated a protest outside the main Plenary - Baker Room this afternoon, to protest the lack of action during this COP on multiple fronts, and the continuing attack on the space the civil society. The intention was to protest peacefully for 30 minutes outside Plenary Baker.
The protest was noisy, with chanting and singing. A few banners and small paper and cardboard signs. Security cordoned off the front of the plenary. It was a bit of a crush. and some people sat down. After5 about 20 miniues security pushed people to a rollerdoor to the outside, and then cordoned the door for several minutes before closing it. Locking all those people outside, many without their coats or bags, in the Madrid winter weather.
In a brief statement the UNFCCC announced that COP25 would not be held in Chile as advised by the Chilean President, Sebastián Piñera.
Chilean civil Society climate organisation rejected the decision of the President not to carry out COP 25 in Chile, highlighting that the climate change summit was a great opportunity to relieve the social and environmental problems that affect Chilean people and ecosystems, and to lift some of the leadership lost internationally.
President Piñera indicated that Chile will continue to hold the COP presidency, responsible for shepherding leadership in the UN climate negotiation process for the next year.
Cancellation of the COP has thrown the organisation of the annual UNFCCC climate conference in disarray. With only a month to organise the conference, very few locations would have the ability to stage the event in it's current timetable. Bonn, Germany, where the UNFCCC is headquartered, is a possibility. The conference could very well be delayed, pushed into 2020.
Civil society organisations fought hard at the United Nations Climate Change conference COP21 in Paris in 2015 for human rights obligations to be included as part of the Paris Agreement text. This was an important recognition of social justice in addressing climate change.
However, it appears there has been little mention or discussion of inclusion of human rights obligations in negotiations this week in Katowice, Poland at the current United Nations climate change conference, COP24. Time is fast closing and final draft texts are nearing completion before the ministerial meetings of the Conference of Parties takes place early next week.
It is highly important that human rights obligations are included in relevant portions of the Paris Agreement rulebook presently being negotiated.
COP24, Katowice, Poland, 3rd December 2018: Transcript of speech by David Attenborough
Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen.
‘We the peoples of the United Nations’. These are the opening words of the UN Charter. A charter that puts people at the centre. A pledge to give every person in the world a voice on its future. A promise to help protect the weakest and the strongest from war, famine and other man-made disasters.
Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate Change.
If we don’t take action the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.
Forecast Map produced by Bureau of Meteorology for 5pm 11 February, 2017. Source
I am reflecting on how easy it is for misleading information to be circulated, even with the best of intentions. A UNFCCC tweet on the Australian extreme heatwave published on 10 February was factually misleading.
Abolition of Funding for IPCC, UNFCCC, Green Climate Fund is the target of Bill HR 673 introduced into U.S. Congress on January 24, 2017. Currently the bill is referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
Transition advisor Myron Ebell, at a talk of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, was adamant that Trump wants to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, despite Secretary of State Rex Tillerson saying it would be advantageous to have a place at the negotiating table.
Strangley, Ebell has never spoken to President Trump, and now seems to be out of the loop altogether.
He outlined three major ways Trump might withdraw US participation from the Paris climate agreement.
Ebell argued that in the first instance, the president can simply stop any US financial contributions to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and that all US funding to the UNFCCC, including to the Green Climate Fund, represents a violation of US law ever since Palestine was accepted as a UNFCCC member. Secondly, Trump might request the US Congress to reject the Paris agreement on the basis that legally it is a treaty and does not qualify as an executive presidential order. Thirdly, Trump could withdraw the US from the UNFCCC altogether.
The Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Christiana Figueres, is stepping down from her position.
She took over the important role in 2010 in time for COP16 at Cancun, after the trainwreck that was Copenhagen COP15 in 2009, and served six years in the role.
Slowly she navigated the UNFCCC secretariat, national parties, business, science and civil society groups, building a new consensus, through to concluding the Paris Agreement at COP21 in December 2015.
Her final negotiating session as Executive Secretary was the Bonn negotiations this May. Mexican politician and diplomat Patricia Espinosa will take over the role as UNFCCC Executive Secretary from July.
A Joint meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) said farewell.
A Record 176 nations signed the Paris Agreement at a UN ceremony in New York, Australia among them. But Australia was also snubbed by not being invited to a meeting of the Coalition of High Ambition the night before. It seems our last minute belated membership that Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was so happy to highlight and share with me last December in response to one of my tweets, hasn't brought any ongoing diplomatic benefit.
I am sure our support for coal, abysmally low targets and ineffective emission reduction policies that track for a 4 degree world have something to do with it. I tweeted my shame to Julie Bishop in Paris during COP21, she replied to me that there was no need for my shame, that she had accepted a late invitation to join the Coalition of High Ambition.
Funny but I still feel ashamed. Australia is signing on but is still not showing signs of walking the talk on climate action.
The latest analysis from Reputex energy consultancy shows that Australia will not meet our 2020 emissions reduction target, except by using carry over credits from the Kyoto Protocol first commitment period (2008-2012).
Reputex highlights that the Government's own figures indicate Australia will continue on a new upward emissions trajectory, with forecast growth of 6 per cent to 2020, despite current climate policy. The market report by Reputex estimates emissions growing to 4 per cent above 2000 levels by 2020 and that trend continuing with Australian emissions unlikely to peak before 2030.
The growth of our emissions is the opposite to most developed economies.
RepuTex executive director Hugh Grossman said the government was relying on "carry over" carbon credits from the Kyoto Protocol to meet it's 2020 target, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald.
"Meeting Australia's abatement task is largely just a victory in accounting terms," Mr Grossman said. "We have met our target, but we used a credit to get there, so it's not a sign of any progress to reduce emissions."
Percentage change in Australian emissions 2005/06 to 2014/15
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull promised in Paris that Australia would meet and exceed it's low 2020 carbon emissions target of minus 5 per cent on 2000 levels. His speech was eloquent but contained little of substance.
Yet our latest annual Greenhouse Gas Inventory report which was released on Christmas Eve shows our total Greenhouse Gas emissions rising by 1.3 per cent to June 2015, and our electricity sector emissions rising by 3 per cent.
Australia met and exceeded the Kyoto Protocol first commitment period target because Australia was allowed an exceedingly generous target of plus 8 per cent emissions on 1990 levels. We were allowed that target due to threats to block consensus and wreck the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Just before COP21 the Guardian journalist Lenore Taylor explained some of the history and detail of 'How can it be possible for national emissions to rise over 30 years while a country “meets and beats” successive promises to reduce them?'. It is worth getting your head around some of this history.
Compared to the base year of 1990, Europe promised to reduce its emissions by 8% in the five-year “commitment period”, 2008-12. The United States agreed to cut emissions by 7%, and Japan and Canada by 6%. Australia dug its heels in and got its way; its Kyoto target would be 8% above 1990 levels.
And then there was the addition of the "Australia clause" in the Kyoto Protocol inserted during final hours, which allowed Australia to include landuse emissions for it's carbon accounting.
Sounds fair? Except we had a massive amount of land use change emissions in 1990 so our emission reduction target was from a very high base year. Emissions had already reduced significantly from this sector by 1997, which made the plus 8 per cent target so much easier to meet.
This artificially high base year allowed Australia’s emissions from all sources except land-use change and forestry to grow, and grow significantly. All up our emissions from all sectors except land use grew by 28 per cent from 1997 to 2012.
While most developed nations were actually putting in the hard yards in actual emission reduction in their economies under the first commitment phase, under John Howard's Liberal Party Government (1996-2007) in Australia we pretty much carried on with business as usual and did not start the process of economic transition to any large degree.
Country comparison emissions projections to 2020
Even though Australia was given substantial concessions under the Kyoto Protocol, we refused to sign up to ratify this international treaty for several years, following in the wake of the US Bush administration. We finally ratified the Kyoto Protocol after the Rudd Labor Government came to power in 2007.
As a result, Australia had 128m tonnes of carry-over credits from our Kyoto Protocol 2008 - 2012 reporting period.
So Environment Minister Greg Hunt applied to use these credits from commitment period one to apply to our targets in commitment period 2. Australia's submission to carry over these credits was submitted after the Paris climate conference on 22 December 2015, in advance of the UN deadline of 2 January 2016.
Excerpt from Kyoto carryover credits submission
Nothing wrong with that is there?
Well, during the Paris conference five developed countries stood up and announced they would not be applying these credits to their new targets, but cancelling them.
According to the Guardianreport, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Britain all announced they will cancel 634.6m tonnes of emission reduction credits they were technically able to count towards their targets for the second Kyoto period. These credits have been described as a giant “hot air” loophole.
These countries actually had much more significant emission reduction targets than Australia in the first commitment period.
The UNFCCC final decision of COP21 actually calls for parties not to utilise these credits, as an enhanced pre-2020 action.
107. Encourages Parties to promote the voluntary cancellation by Party and non-Party stakeholders, without double counting of units issued under the Kyoto Protocol, including certified emission reductions that are valid for the second commitment period;
Australia, along with 194 other nations, agreed to this paragraph as part of the final COP decision which includes the Paris Agreement, yet we have proceeded to apply Kyoto carry-over credits to our own low 2020 target anyway.
Greg Hunt's move to use the Kyoto carryover credits are out of step with both the UNFCCC and other developed nations.
So while Australia belatedly joined the Coalition of high ambition for the 1.5 degree target and an ambition mechanism, it has effectively thumbed it's nose at the UNFCCC and international community by use of Kyoto carry-over credits to meet our low 2020 target.
On an international political level, our actions, rather than our words, continue to be miserly and against the spirit of international cooperation on climate change action and emissions reduction.
I was surprised at what I found of the extent of conflict of interest between the sponsors of the UN Climate Conference, the French State and the UNFCCC secretariat.
On Thursday evening I left the UN climate conference at the Le Bourget centre straight after the Fossil of the Day ceremony at 6pm to attend the Pinocchio awards which examines and compares the greenwashed credentials of major corporations.
These awards are run by Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth) to highlight corporate mal-practices. The three categories being judged were local impacts, lobbying and greenwashing.
The Geneva negotiating text provides hope for a global climate agreement in the lead up to the United Nations Paris climate negotiations in December 2015.
The Paris climate talks are a significant landmark: whether the international community will negotiate an effective agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions and reduce global warming, or allow rising business as usual emissions to cause economic and civilisation disruption due to increasing severity of extreme weather events and rising temperatures.
Friends of the Earth International representatives said that COP19 United Nations climate change negotiations are set to fail due to the very low targets for emission reductions proposed by richer nations, especially with Australia and Japan having dramatically reduced their targets and ambition and with Europe maintaining a very low level of emissions cuts.
FoE International called on governments of the developed nations for greater levels of ambition, to honour the promises they had made to provide finance to help poorer countries to cut their emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
The gravity of the situation was made clear: "We are in a planetary emergency. It is known more than ever that climate change is happening. The impacts we are facing are threatening and will become worse. We are in an urgent situation that we have to act. We have to act in a very fast period."
Justice is being demanded from the UNFCCC leadership to reverse its decision to take away the badges of 3 youth observers who were expressing their solidarity with the Filipino people suffering from the massive loss and destruction brought about by Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda).
Three youth observers were ejected by security from the conference and had their accreditation withdrawn on Monday for 5 years. They had expressed solidarity with a non-sanctioned banner and signs after Philippines negotiator, Naderev Saño (Yeb Saño) left the main plenary after making his impassioned plea: "time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway".
Clémence Hutin from Young Friends of the Earth Europe, and Graham Thurston Hallett and Maria Alejandra Escalante from Earth in Brackets were attending their first COP. The 3 activists were later informed they were being banned indefinitely from the negotiations on the express orders of Christiana Figueres, the UNFCCC Exec Secretary. (@CFigueres). And not just for this conference, according to Hallett and Escalante's blog, they have been banned from attending UNFCCC conferences for 5 years!
Civil society members have joined with the lead negotiator from the Philippines, Yeb Sano, to fast for the duration of the UNFCCC climate negotiations in protest at the lack of progress in an agreement to reduce global emissions and in establishing Green climate finance to aid developing countries mitigation and adaptation.
Civil society members joined the fast after Yeb Sano's powerful speech at the opening session on Monday on the impact of Super Typhoon Haiyan (known in the Philippines as Yolanda) which devastated eastern coastal regions, with estimates of more than 10,000 deaths, and at an economic cost estimated at $70 billion to the Filipino economy.
Greenpeace activists launched protests at six coal fired power stations across Poland just before the UN climate conference - COP19 - started. Using projectors on Sunday night the activists projected anti-coal messages onto the power stations urging the world’s governments to phase out fossil fuels which cause serious environmental damage.
Messages projected included “Climate change starts here!” and “Storms start here!” and highlighted the link between greenhouse gas emissions, climate change and the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like Super Typhoon Haiyan that devastated the Philippines.
Australia had the dubious priveledge of earning the first Fossil of the Day award at the United Nations climate talks in Warsaw, Poland. Civil society organisations confer the awards each day of the climate talks, and have been doing so since 1999.
The new Federal Government lead by Prime Minister Tony Abbott has in a few short weeks dismantled the Climate Change Department, closed the independent scientific panel the Climate Commission and set about undoing Australia's carbon pricing through preparing legislation to repeal the operation of the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
But the award wasn't for all this political attack on climate change action at home in Australia. It was conferred because Australia will not be putting forward any new finance commitments at the Warsaw negotiations, beyond the Fast Start Finance commitments made by the former Labor Government.
Tony Abbott has confirmed that the Australian government would be making no further commitments of funding to the Green Climate Fund, setup by the UNFCCC climate talks to fund climate mitigation and adaptation programs in third world and developing countries. It was hoped that $100bn a year in public and private financing would be channeled to developing countries by 2020. The previous Labor government deposited $500,000 last year to help get the new fund established, as well as committing almost $600m to a "fast-start" fund.
A spokeperson for Foreign Minister Julie Bishop told the Guardian: "The Green Climate Fund is currently in the design phase and Australia will consider its longer term involvement in the fund once its design has been further progressed."
Half a world away from the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan, the Philippines delegation is in Warsaw, Poland, for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks. Yeb Sano leads the delegation and has made a speech at the plenary of the importance for taking substantive climate action now.
You may recall Yeb Sano made an impassioned speech last year at the Doha meeting after Typhoon Bopha slammed into the Philippines. Once again, this mild mannered diplomat feels the personal anguish of a disaster unfolding at home, indeed affecting his own family.
Amid the latest UN climate talks taking place in Bonn Germany Friends of the Earth International have released a report highly critical of the role of the World Bank in continuing to fund dirty energy investment in developing countries and continuing to push carbon markets and offset programs which essentially privatise developing country forests in the process of generating carbon offsets.
The World Bank was made interim trustee of the new Green Climate Fund in December 2010 in Cancun. The Fund was established to assist developing countries to adapt to the impacts of global warming.
Climate negotiations in Copenhagen ended with a whimper and some chaos in the final plenary. About 115 national leaders attended the Copenhagen climate talks but the final 'agreement' announced by the US, India, China and South Africa, was drafted far outside the consensus process of the United Nations and amounted to only aspirational targets and promises, falling far short of an ambitous, fair and binding treaty demanded by civil society.
"The conference of the parties takes note of the Copenhagen Accord," said a final decision announced by Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen. But Tuvalu declared the COP15 process completely undemocratic, conducted in closed door sessions, and slamed the target of 2 degrees for failing to be sufficient to ensure their survival. "We are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our children. Our future is not for sale." Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Costa Rica also raised their voices that the proposal cannot be considered as the work of COP according to Copenhagen End Game of the It's Getting Hot in Here Blog of the Youth Climate Movement.
Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese leader of G77, compared the proposed Copenhagen Accord to entering a suicide pact in a discussion with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now "In all four regions of Africa, and in all seasons, the median temperature [increase] lies between 3 degrees C and 4 degrees C, roughly 1.5 times the global mean response. One hundred and fifty times, so a two degrees is not three; it's actually 3.5 and above. So, for me, it means simply I will accept the total destruction of my continent, her people, in Copenhagen. That, I would not do. That should not be asked of Africa, because it is effectively saying Africa is not the part of the human family."
Similarly The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Apisai Ielemia, says he will not sign a climate change agreement that does not meet his demands on limiting global temperature rises. Tuvalu has had a proposal on the table for 6 months for global temperature rises to be kept below 1.5 degrees to ensure the survival of island nations. Despite bullying from Australia on Pacific Island nations, Tuvalu is standing its ground: "We have nowhere to run to because our islands are tiny, we just have to prepare ourselves individually, family wise so that they know what to do when a cyclone comes in or a hurricane blows because there is nothing else we can do. There is no mountain we can climb up, there is no other inland where we can run to like in your big countries." according to Radio New Zealand.
The negotiator for the Marshall Islands told the final plenary "Today the issue is not just about sovereignty, it is our fundamental right - that our nation is but a collection of tiny specks of corals in a vast ocean. This tiny collection of islands may be seen as navigational hazards for most people, but it is for me the land of my ancestors. Allow these islands to sink under the waves, and you will have destroyed an entire race. I leave your country, with a profound sense of loss. My country, only 2 m above sea level, is one of the biggest losers. I will have nothing to show my grandchildren for my absence the past two weeks, and I have failed to secure the future for my grandchildren and their future."
Papua New Guinea played a key role in breaking the deadlock at the Bali negotiations in 2007, when it told the USA to either commit or to stand aside. Their negotiator said in the final Copenhagen plenary "In the final analysis, we left our leaders without anything of substance to carry forward. For this reason, we support this document despite its flaws. We must identify that many of the flaws are due to us as G77; many annex 1 nations were willing to make strong commitments and yet several G77 nations were the ones who struck their flaws. Many G77 countries sent only public servants who struck much of the substance out of this document. We must move forward. The world must move forward."
To be accepted as an official UN agreement all 193 nations at the talks need to endorse the deal.
Civil Society Response Bill McKibben, American environmentalist and founder of 350.org, said that President Obama had wrecked the UN and the planet: "This is a declaration that small and poor countries don't matter, that international civil society doesn't matter, and that serious limits on carbon don't matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight."
A couple of hundred people flash rallied at 1am outside the Bella Centre with banners saying "Climate Shame" and chanting "climate Justice Now", "World wants Climate Justice, U.S. Climate Shame". Watch a Youtube video including an interview with Bill McKibben where he accuses Barack Obama and China and India selling out the planet's climate and the United Nations.
Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International described the deal as a triumph of spin over substance : "This agreement barely papers over the huge differences between countries which have plagued these talks for two years. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash."
"Millions of people around the world do not want to see their hopes for a fair, binding and ambitious deal die in Copenhagen. Leaders need to get back round the table in early 2010 and take the hard decisions they copped out of in Copenhagen." he said.
Bolivia's ambassador to the UN, Pablo Solon angrily denounced the released text of the agreement, "This is completely unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the majority of more than 190 nations. We have been negotiating for months on one of the gravest crises of our age, and yet our voice counts for nothing? If this is how world agreements will now be agreed, then it makes a nonsense of the UN and multilateralism."
At about 2:15am, while discussions continued inside the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, Pablo Solon, went out to address the demonstrators holding a vigil at the main entrance. "From the substantive part, we know, we don't have the final text, but they have approved that it will be two degrees (Celsius) - the goal. And we don't accept that. Why we don't accept because that means that several islands are going to disappear. Our glaciers in the mountains are going to disappear. Africa is going to be cooked. We are approaching a situation where we cannot guarantee that we are going to be able to save whole humanity. Maybe some millions are going to die because of the decision that tonight is being taken and this is not discussed." he said.
To cheers he told the crowd that "For us, the most important thing here is that Copenhagen was a success. Not here. Outside (cheers). Because there has been a lot of awareness, a lot of conscience, and now we have to build a very big movement. Things are not going to change in the negotiation if we don't have a strong social movement, a strong civil society mobilise in the street." (Andy Bodycombe, Bolivian Statement Outside Bella Centre)
Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, also identified Copenhagen as a turning point with the birth the birth of a diverse global movement for climate justice: "The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today's agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president's hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice -- demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it." she said.
Friends of the Earth were one of the NGOs excluded from observing the conference in its final days, with all their credentials suspended by the UN with no satisfactory reason given.
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth U.S said "The blame for the failure to achieve a real deal lies squarely on the rich countries whose pollution has caused the climate crisis -- especially the United States. Rich countries refused to budge from the grossly inadequate emissions reduction proposals they brought to Copenhagen, and they failed to put sufficient money on the table so that poor countries that did not cause this crisis have the capacity to cope with it."
The failure of Copenhagen is a wake up call for those who care about the future Erich Pica said: "It is a call to action. Corporate polluters and other special interests have such overwhelming influence that rich country governments are willing to agree only to fig leaf solutions. This is unacceptable, and it must change. Fortunately, while the cost of solving the climate crisis rises each day we fail to act, the crisis remains one that can largely be averted. It is up to the citizens of the world -- especially citizens of the United States, which has so impeded progress -- to mobilize and ensure that true solutions carry the day. I firmly believe that together, we can still achieve a politics in which climate justice prevails."
Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director called Copenhagen but a first step with much more work needed for a fair, binding, and ambitious climate deal. He identified the US Senate and its obstruction as one reason preventing President Obama from taking the necessary leadership on this issue: "President Obama and the rest of the world paid a steep price here in Copenhagen because of obstructionism in the United States Senate. That a deal was reached at all is testament to President Obama's leadership--all the more remarkable because of the very weak hand he was dealt because of the Senate's failure to pass domestic clean energy and climate legislation. Now that the rest of the world--including countries like China and India--has made clear that it is willing to take action, the Senate must pass domestic legislation as soon as possible. America and the world can no longer be held hostage to petty politics and obstructionism."
The climate deniers were also in Copenhagen, and while their lobbyists still have tremendous financial resources and access to politicians, the science of climate change is now overwhelmingly accepted by most nations and most politicians. Members of the Youth Climate Movement succeeded in crashing a climate denier live webcast.
"What was clear over the past two weeks is that there is no argument over the science of global warming or the urgency with which we must act. A parade of developed and developing counties alike made crystal clear that they would implement their national plans to tackle global warming and build the clean energy economy not because they were required to do so, but because it was simply in their own national interest to do so." said Carl Pope.
Scientists Respond
Scientists also responded to the failure to set ambitious emission targets that matched with the the science. "Continued failure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions commits the World to metres of sea-level rise, with severe consequences for many millions of people and the natural environment." said Dr John Church, Principle Research Scientist in Australia's CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research and Leader of the Sea Level Rise Program at the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Cooperative Research Centre.
"A brave face on total failure. This is a triumph for the fossil fuel lobby." said Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Director of the Centre for Marine Studies at the University of Queensland and attended the climate negotiations and gave presentations on climate impact on marine biodiversity.
Professor Tim Flannery, Chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council and Macquarie University's Division of Environmental and Life Sciences was more postive than others saying the agreement is good but not perfect: "We've made a huge advance at this meeting on a number of fronts, one being those pledged emissions, another being the funding we've now got for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. The third is the REDD negotiations, the world's efforts to protect the tropical rainforests and that seems to be going very well indeed."
Dr Jim Salinger, climate scientist and honorary researcher University of Auckland writing from the Cook Islands said: "I welcome the news that the big players: USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have committed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees C. It is essential that all countries sign on to effective emissions reductions targets of greenhouse gases by 40% at 2020 and 80% by 2080 to prevent disruptive climate change and sea level rise later this century that so threaten peoples such as those in the tropical Pacific."
Dr Andy Reisinger, Senior Research Fellow - New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington, called the agreement a crucial breakthrough as it provides verifiable emissions reductions targets by most of the world's largest emitters. He qualified this support saying "The devil is in the details though. It is worrying that even those countries that brokered the deal have admitted that the specific emissions targets will not be stringent enough to reach their stated long-term goal, which is to limit global average temperature increases to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. We will have to wait until the final numbers are on table to see how far the actual emissions targets fall short of that ultimate goal, and what amount of warming we might expect more realistically once the dust and celebratory rhetoric has settled."
Professor Suzi Kerr, Visiting Professor, Stanford University, Department of Economics, Senior Fellow, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research said "The agreement on a transparent monitoring mechanism is a relief and a major step forward with respect to some key developing countries."
Global Movement The Copenhagen climate negotiations have sparked a global justice movement on climate. Over Thirteen million signatures were collected on a global petition for an ambitious fair and binding treaty. Hundreds of thousands attended vigils, marched in the streets of Copenhagen, Melbourne or took direct action on the Streets of the United States.
The Science of climate change is clear on the impacts we face. The current emission reduction national proposals as of Dec 19, will result in a 3.9 degrees Centigrade of temperature rise above pre-industrial levels according to the Climate Interactive Scoreboard.
The Climate Crisis will deepen as more scientific studies are published. A new study on Sea Level was published in the Dec. 17 issue of Nature. Professor Michael Oppenheimer, from Princeton University said about the study that "According to the analysis, an additional 2 degrees of global warming could commit the planet to 6 to 9 meters (20 to 30 feet) of long-term sea level rise. This rise would inundate low-lying coastal areas where hundreds of millions of people now reside. It would permanently submerge New Orleans and other parts of southern Louisiana, much of southern Florida and other parts of the U.S. East Coast, much of Bangladesh, and most of the Netherlands, unless unprecedented and expensive coastal protection were undertaken."
While National leaders have not shown the necessary leadership on emssion reduction targets many local and regional Governments are taking their own actions independent of national Governments.
The Climate Justice Movement has achieved much in a short time and needs to continue to pressure national Governments to take decisive action on carbon emissions and for policies that avoid Climate Colonialism
Watch George Monbiot on "Why we Fight", filmed by Australian Youth Climate Campaign.
Sources
Oxfam Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Historic Moment, Historic Gathering, Historic Cop out
Bolivia Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Bolivia calls Copenhagen climate accord "unacceptable"
Sierra Club Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - President Obama Leads World to Historic, If Incomplete Climate Deal. Progress Made Sets Stage for Fair, Ambitious, and Binding Deal in 2010
Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Center for Biological Diversity Statement on "Deal" at Copenhagen
Bill McKibben, 350.org, Media Release, Dec 18, 2009 - Bill McKibben and 350.org Response to President Obama's Speech
Youth Climate Movement - Dec 19, 2009 - Copenhagen End Game from the It's Getting Hot in Here Blog
Takver is a citizen journalist from Melbourne who has been writing on Climate Change issues and protests including Rising Sea Level, Ocean acidification, Environmental and social Impacts since 2004.
Climate negotiations in Copenhagen ended with a whimper and some chaos in the final plenary. About 115 national leaders attended the Copenhagen climate talks but the final 'agreement' announced by the US, India, China and South Africa, was drafted far outside the consensus process of the United Nations and amounted to only aspirational targets and promises, falling far short of an ambitous, fair and binding treaty demanded by civil society.