Up to the minute state of debate in Copenhagen

Obama’s plane has landed. I hope he slept well, as today’s talks are not going to finish early.

 

The likely outcome in Copenhagen has been downgraded from political accord to a political declaration, with a silver lining: a six-month deadline to agree to get a climate treaty in place that will keep temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

 

In the context of a vast gulf between major rich and developing countries, the economics of climate change Sherpa Lord Nicholas Stern, who is intimately involved in behind the scenes negotiations, is predicting Copenhagen may indeed be a success.

 

Looking battle weary on the last scheduled day of the Copenhagen talks, Stern told me just now between brisk strides: “There’s a lot of work to do, but I think we’ll get there.”

 

Last night, 28 world leaders including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and leaders of major players at the summit from Europe to Asia to Africa to Latin America to the Maldives, met at President Sarkozy’s instigation to rescue the floundering Copenhagen summit.

 

Although he was in town, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, did not attend, instead sending his Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei.

 

Presently, about 28 heads of state are looking at text for a political accord they left their Sherpas to massage last night after they retired to sleep at 3am.

 

A western official who attended the talks said that the most unhelpful countries were India, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, which is seen as marionette whose dance is choreographed by China.

 

China remains the biggest obstacle to a deal, but is acutely sensitive to being isolated or singled out for Copenhagen failure.

 

The political declaration as it stands contains language to the effect that goes some way to addressing the “transparency” concerns [of verifying emissions reductions] of the U.S. that Clinton said is a deal breaker.

 

The prospect of countries applying carbon taxes on imports from free-riding countries (who do not place a price on carbon) remained a point of fierce contention, with China and other developing countries in opposition and the U.S. and France in support.

 

The political declaration in its current form, crucially, also contains text that would set a six-month deadline for reaching an international treaty to keep temperature increases to less than two degrees.

 

Stay tuned.

Clinton Puts Ball in China's Court

Hillary Clinton just held a press conference. She said two significant things, which were designed to--and seem to--put the ball squarely in China's court if this summit succeeds or fails.

1. U.S. is ready to work with other countries to offer support of $100 billion per year to developing countries, with a particular focus on adaptation and forestry for the poorest and most vulnerable, IF all major economies agree to meaningful mitigation reductions and stand behind them with "transparency."
2. Using the word transparency is a concession from the language that Climate Envoy Todd Stern has been using all week, which is "legally binding and accountable."

“In my 15 years of covering these climate talks, I have never seen the United States commit to this kind of long-term financing," Andrew Deutz, director of International Government Relations at The Nature Conservancy, the largest United States environmental nonprofit

She also suggested that President Barack Obama may not come to Copenhagen. She was asked if there were truth to the rumours the President might not be coming, in the wake of a negotiating process that has gone haywire, with procedural pettiness and "form triumphing over substance" according to Australian PM Kevin Rudd. Her reply: The President is planning on coming...Let's hope he has something to come for."

Will Copenhagen be bust or beginning of new chapter?

The nations of the world have convened the much anticipated Copenhagen climate talks, billed as the most important meeting since WWII.

Two days in to the 12-day negotiating marathon, how do things look?

That depends on who you talk to. On the “Nopenhagen” side (those who don’t think Copenhagen will deliver an effective compact), esteemed climate scientist James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is hoping the talks collapse in failure. The present Swiss-cheese cap-and-trade negotiating positions do not add up to what the atmosphere can safely handle. Better to start from scratch with a carbon tax, he says.

The respected U.S. environmentalist, Bill McKibben, is of a similar view (see Why Copenhagen May Be a Disaster).  He argues that climate change is not like other political problems where compromise can move things forward, because unlike racism, or inequality, which can be whittled down over time, climate change is about physics, which imposes a bottom line and time limit.

The Climate Action Tracker released this past Thursday by a group of European think-tanks, shows that all of the recent ‘bold’ climate commitments aren’t going to get us where we need to be. Emissions will continue rising to 2040, rather than peaking in the next 10 years. On this path, scientific opinion suggests that we will pass the 2 degrees Celsius mark, generally considered to be the crucial threshold for staving off the more catastrophic impacts of a wild climate.

On the “Hopenhagen” side (those who think Copenhagen can deliver an effective climate compact), Lord Nicholas Stern, author of perhaps the most widely referenced economic paper of the past decade (The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change), sounded a more optimistic note. He suggests that the major nations of the world are within stretching distance (72 per cent of the way) of bridging a deal that keeps temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius, provided that rich nations follow through on financing for things such as forest protection.

On a pecuniary note, the Global Climate Prosperity Scoreboard showed while diplomats talk, money is walking — right into the green economy. Partly in anticipation of the ripples from Copenhagen, over US$1.2 trillion has been invested in greening the economy since 2007. Their modelling shows that if this trend continues for the next 10 years at the present clip, it may be enough to lay the foundations for climate-safe low-carbon prosperity.

We won’t get a clearer idea as to whether Copenhagen will be remembered as Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen until the world leaders begin to pour in on December 15^th.

On the bright side, President Obama has opted to join the final pressure cooker part of the negotiations, and at least 111 other leaders have also confirmed their attendance—even, belatedly, our own Stephen Harper.

Leaders are not likely to come home from such gatherings empty-handed. At a minimum, there will be a compendium of commitments. The litmus test for whether these commitments are exercises in saving face or a legitimate pretext for redefining the DNA of our global economy will depend on the presence of credible mechanisms to back-up the lofty commitments.

For the climate’s sake, here’s to Copenhagen shaping up as Hopenhagen.

(For anyone looking for a reliable summary debunking resurgent climate sceptics’ myths in the wake of some sloppy stolen e-mails from a UK University, check out this link.