Print
Share
Pathetic Outcome in Copenhagen
December 18, 2009
Right – it’s an “agreement”… to punt down the field for some transient face-saving. Obama said he had to fly back to Washington early because of the weather (riiiight ….). These guys have signally failed us. The Americans failed on emissions reductions. The Chinese failed on transparency. Plenty of credit to go around, as it turns out. But the problem doesn’t go away, and efforts to find solutions outside of the failed negotiating framework now become more crucial and urgent than ever. We at CGD will be doing our part. Stay tuned.
And in the meantime, it’s well worth recalling the last stanza of this poem:
The Hollow Men
T.S. Eliot
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
Share 
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to “Pathetic Outcome in Copenhagen”
Post a Comment
We value frank and constructive exchanges and encourage you to use your real name in your comments.
December 19th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
David – it is good, at this point, to be reminded that there are roads to action other than through the negotiations…
Having read the “Copenhagen Accord” document containing the consensus among large emitters, here are some preliminary reactions:
- Goals: even weaker than expected. No aggregate emissions target, not even for 2050, as I certainly expected. The two degrees goal is repeatedly referred to, but not explicitly endorsed. While this is disheartening, I must admit that I am not sure I would have preferred lofty statements of ambition without commitments to back them up. I do find it chilling, however, that there is no mention of completing a binding agreement in 2010 (although the main working group was asked to continue its work). The one positive element is an agreed review of goals and progress by 2015.
- Commitments: bottom-up for developed countries, as predicted.
- Measuring/reporting/verification (MRV) of developing-country *actions*: not so bad, really. Report on actions every other year in national communications, “on the basis of guidelines to be adopted,” which could be a good thing, since current reporting is entirely voluntary. Domestic MRV, but results must be reported and are subject to “provisions for international consultations and analysis.” International MRV (yes, apparently M, R, and V, not just verification) for actions receiving support, with guidelines tbd.
- By way of contrast, nothing is said on more frequent national emissions reports from large developing-country emitters, and that is indeed a worry.
- Institutions: a registry is established for actions that seek support. (Good.) Copenhagen Green Climate Fund established “as an operating entity” (not “the” operating entity) “of the financial mechanism of the Convention” for mitigation, adaptation and technology projects. Establish a Technology Mechanism with (vague) mandate to speed transfer, “guided by a country-driven approach.” (Country-driven: good.)
- Draft does not put in place a mechanism for reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+), but recognizes the “need” for the “immediate establishment of a mechanism.”
- Governance: delivery of “new multilateral funding for adaptation” (note: adaptation only) through a fund “with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries.” (I.e., probably a hybrid? Not bad.) High Level Panel established under the Conference of the Parties “to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue.” (Not sure if this has any concrete meaning, or is a sop to developing country desires for assessed contributions.)
- Funding: $30bn cumulatively through 2012, “balanced allocation” between adaptation and mitigation. This includes forest funding, which I think may imply no more funding from US than was known already. $100bn p.a. by 2020, but this includes market funding and bilateral flows.
I take three messages away:
- Firstly, we are in a tight spot. – And I think it has only become clearer that the only hope for changing the negotiating dynamics is to pass a bill in the U.S. Congress and enable the U.S. to make a serious commitment.
- Secondly, in terms of institutions and governance, the ‘Accord’ suggests at least some agreement on a workable rump framework. This is the one point where the outcome may turn out to be a bit better than I feared.
- Thirdly, discord seems to be even deeper than expected. I am not surprised China pulled the MRV issue out of the hat: if they had not, their commitment would have been the same in nature as the U.S.’s, and they have been consistent in rejecting that. Yet, I think the fact that not even a REDD+ mechanism could be finalized (which I think was really a low-hanging fruit, politically) speaks for itself.
All this being said, it seems that we will have to wait somewhat more until the dust settles, and it is clear what meaning the ‘Accord’ really has…
January 6th, 2010 at 6:54 am
A positive development worth noting:
Contrary to what the early draft of the Accord I summarized above suggested, the final version now states clearly that,
“Mitigation actions subsequently taken and
envisaged by Non-Annex I Parties, including national inventory reports, shall be communicated through
national communications … every two years …”
This is good news: maybe we will at last manage to put a system in place that makes transparent where emissions are headed.