Copenhagen Rescued

About 4 hours ago, I thought the Copenhagen boat had sunk.

 

Bjorn Lomborg, the skeptical environmentalist, was sitting beside me as I wolfed down a quiche and coffee. Bjorn looked smug as the cat that ate the canary. Meanwhile, Lord Stern, the economist turned climate crusader, looked like he might cry.

 

But the most recent leader’s draft, which has some blanks to fill in, but I think will be adopted, is a watershed moment in several crucial ways. Of course it does, in a few areas, employ the old Canadian solution for solving tough intractable problems: procrastination. Too bad the UN doesn’t have Royal Commissions.

 

The leaders of the world have just finished a meeting to flesh out the latest draft. And Obama is walking into the press breifing room where I am luckily already sitting.

See my analysis below, which will be updated as Obama speaks to us, which I think will be in a few moments. 

 

Here are the big highlights:

 

• Accepts 2 degrees Celsius as a critical threshold.

 

• Cut global emissions by 50% by 2050 from 1990, “taking into account right to equitable access to atmospheric space.” [this, on the face of it, is a huge concession by the U.S. to China, India and other developing countries, as it says that we are have same per-capita rights to greenhouse gas emissions. This works out ok, if the incoming low-carbon economy brings emissions down dramatically all around. But God help us if the convergence point is closer to current rich country levels than poor country levels.

• Copenhagen Climate Fund: Quick-start $30 billion 2010-2012 for poor countries. $100 billion/year to poor countries by 2020 subject to transparency of mitigation actions.
• Enshrines principle (thank you Nick Stern) that "low emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development."
  

 

 

According to a U.S. official, the U.S. underestimated coming into Copenhagen how much of a sticking point keeping the Kyoto Protocol would be. The Kyoto Protocol divides rich and poor countries, with one set of obligations for rich countries and essentially a soft to no set of obligations for poor countries. Coming into Copenhagen, the U.S. wanted to get rid of this segregation and have just one arrangement for all major countries. The poor countries dug in and said that was a deal breaker.  The poor countries seem to have won, which in one way is bad from the atmosphere’s point of view in that 97 per cent of the growth in greenhouse gases over the next two decades is expected to come from developing countries, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). But it is good for fairness, and there is enough tofu-meat in this accord to give rocket-boost to the burgeoning trillion dollar green economy, which should end up making many of the lower carbon technologies the cheapest option, eclipsing many of the concerns of poor countries reluctant to trade off development for the environment.And shattering the business as usual projections by the IEA.

 

The Copenhagen Declaration has been upgraded in name to a Copenhagen Accord, which I understand is higher on the pecking order of diplomatic outputs.

 

The Copenhagen Accord is set to include two appendices listing the carbon reduction measures taken by rich and poor countries. Rich countries (Annex 1 parties to the Convention), including the U.S., which was not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, will have to individually or jointly make “economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 yielding aggregate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of X% in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y% in 2020 compared to 2005.” Delivery of reductions and financing will be measured, reported and verified in accordance with internationally prescribed standard that is robust and transparent.  While group targets have been announced in many communiqués, putting country specific emissions commitments to paper is significant. This measure allows China to safe face, and probably doesn’t make a big difference.

 

Poor countries (non-Annex 1 countries) will implement mitigation actions listed in an appendix to limit emissions, and will be subject to “domestic measurement, reporting, and verification, the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years.” This, although it appears silly, is a key concession by the U.S. which had said all conference that it would accept nothing less than internationally verified mitigation actions by major emerging economies such as China.

 

The rich countries are also promising to increase overseas development assistance by 100 per cent by 2020. Specifically, rich countries commit to provide “quick-start financing” of new and additional resources of $30 billion from 2010-2012 for balanced allocation between adaptation, mitigation, including forestry. In the context of meaningful mitigation mechanisms and transparency, developed countries support a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.  This $30 billion is unconditional and will include details provided in an appendix. The $100 billion, which will come from variety of sources isn’t as fleshed out, but calls for governance mechanism with equal representation by developing and developed countries. 

The accord calls for this “Copenhagen Climate Fund” to support mitigation including forestry, adaptation, capacity building and technology development and transfer in developing countries. 

Comments

[Ralph Torrie]

Hi Toby, great update, thanks. Ralph Torrie.

[dave]

Toby, why do erroneously label Lomborg a "sceptic"? He doesn't deny global warming is real; he merely questions what would be the best approach to long-term mitigation. Not a skeptic at all.

[bh021552]

What a spinmeister, Toby!

Putting your likely bias about how Lomborg may have looked aside, Copenhagen is producing almost precisely what he predicted - a declaration of intent, with the real costs pushed off on future politicians who are unlikely to follow through. This is what happened the last two times, as well.

Lomborg has also advocated for mitigation/adaptation, especially in the developing world, as one of two prongs to deal with AGW (with the other being greatly expanded funding of R&D into lower emission energy tech.) It looks as if the only tangible outcome of Copenhagen is to spend more money on mitigation/adaptation in the developing world.

If I were Lomborg, I'd be smug about getting the best possible outcome from this stacked deck.