Copenhagen summary - the what, why, & who
What exactly is going to happen in Copenhagen? What will be discussed? Who will discuss it? How does it work? And what are the contentious issues?
Why in Copenhagen?
Because the Danish government offered to host it.
Why have a meeting?
Our planet’s climate is changing.
In the past century, the global average temperature has risen by about 0.7oC.
Scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) say there is a 90% chance that this is due to human activities that emit greenhouse gases, such as power generation, deforestation, transport, agriculture and industry.
The IPCC warns that impacts are already being felt and further changes could be ‘abrupt or irreversible’. They suggest global greenhouse gas emissions must decline rapidly if we are to avoid a dangerous increase in temperature.
This is the scientific background to what is now a deeply political problem.
Their self-imposed deadline is the end of COP15 – shorthand for both the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC) and the 5th Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
In the past century, the global average temperature has risen by about 0.7oC.
Scientists in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC) say there is a 90% chance that this is due to human activities that emit greenhouse gases, such as power generation, deforestation, transport, agriculture and industry.
The IPCC warns that impacts are already being felt and further changes could be ‘abrupt or irreversible’. They suggest global greenhouse gas emissions must decline rapidly if we are to avoid a dangerous increase in temperature.
This is the scientific background to what is now a deeply political problem.
- Globally, emissions are rising steadily, making reductions (mitigation) all the more urgent.
- It is also clear that some climate change is unavoidable, so societies must act to reduce impacts (adaptation).
Their self-imposed deadline is the end of COP15 – shorthand for both the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ( UNFCCC) and the 5th Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
Based on an original article by Mike Shanahan, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), November 2009
What will be discussed?
4 Key Questions to answer
There are a number of key battlegrounds at COP15.
First is the division between the 189 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which are negotiating the Protocol’s continuation, and the United States, which wants a quite different international framework.
Another major battle is between developed (or Annex I) and developing (or non-Annex I) nations.
The former have the greatest responsibility for causing climate change because of their combined current and historical greenhouse gas emissions. They also have the highest emissions per person today, and greater financial and technological means to address the problem.
But some developing nations such as China and India now have very large and growing emissions, and developed nations want them to share the burden of mitigation.
Developing countries insist they must deal with immediate poverty reduction and social issues and should be assisted with mitigation actions, as they did not cause climate change and have fewer resources to deal with it.
Many are unilaterally acting to cut emissions in ways that are consistent with development priorities.
Increasingly vocal in calling for urgent action from all major emitters are the countries that have the lowest emissions and are the most vulnerable to impacts: the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
By contrast, oil-producing countries appear to be stalling the negotiations and seeking less ambitious actions.
Out of this complex mix of competing interests, COP15 must answer 4 key questions.
First is the division between the 189 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which are negotiating the Protocol’s continuation, and the United States, which wants a quite different international framework.
Another major battle is between developed (or Annex I) and developing (or non-Annex I) nations.
The former have the greatest responsibility for causing climate change because of their combined current and historical greenhouse gas emissions. They also have the highest emissions per person today, and greater financial and technological means to address the problem.
But some developing nations such as China and India now have very large and growing emissions, and developed nations want them to share the burden of mitigation.
Developing countries insist they must deal with immediate poverty reduction and social issues and should be assisted with mitigation actions, as they did not cause climate change and have fewer resources to deal with it.
Many are unilaterally acting to cut emissions in ways that are consistent with development priorities.
Increasingly vocal in calling for urgent action from all major emitters are the countries that have the lowest emissions and are the most vulnerable to impacts: the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).
By contrast, oil-producing countries appear to be stalling the negotiations and seeking less ambitious actions.
Out of this complex mix of competing interests, COP15 must answer 4 key questions.
- How much will developed countries commit to reducing their emissions?
- What are major developing countries willing to do to limit theirs?
- Where will the money and technological support come from to help developing nations reduce emissions and adapt to climate change?
- And how will that money be managed?
Who will discuss it?
The negotiating blocks
Parties to the UNFCCC make decisions by consensus, and there is a big difference in the power of individual nations as their negotiating teams vary greatly in size, skills and experience.
To help address this, nations come together in different blocks to negotiate on common interests.
The G77/China brings together 130 countries whose main position is that the rich countries should accept their historical responsibility for climate change and greatly reduce their emissions while allowing the G77/China to continue to develop. Within that group there are some tensions due to the wide diversity among countries and regions.
The African Group is made up of 50 countries which highlight their vulnerability to climate change and issues of concern such as poverty and access to resources.
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is a coalition of 43 small islands and low-lying coastal countries that share concerns about rising sea levels.
The 49 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are the world’s poorest countries and are mostly in Africa. Their emissions aretiny compared to those of other countries and they are the least prepared for the changes ahead. Although most of their members are also part of the G77/China, the LDCs and AOSIS want large developing nations such as China and India to reduce their emissions and are calling for tougher action to address climate change than any other groups.
The Coalition for Rainforest Nations is not an official negotiating group but it often issues joint statements.
The European Union (EU), which comprises 27 member states, negotiates as a unified entity.
The Umbrella Group brings together non-EU industrialised nations (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and the United States).
The Environmental Integrity Group (Mexico, South Korea and Switzerland, together with Liechtenstein and Monaco) sometimes intervene as a separate negotiating group to ensure their inclusion in last-minute, closed-door negotiations.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is not a formal negotiating group, but its 13 member states closely coordinate their positions.
To help address this, nations come together in different blocks to negotiate on common interests.
The G77/China brings together 130 countries whose main position is that the rich countries should accept their historical responsibility for climate change and greatly reduce their emissions while allowing the G77/China to continue to develop. Within that group there are some tensions due to the wide diversity among countries and regions.
The African Group is made up of 50 countries which highlight their vulnerability to climate change and issues of concern such as poverty and access to resources.
The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) is a coalition of 43 small islands and low-lying coastal countries that share concerns about rising sea levels.
The 49 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are the world’s poorest countries and are mostly in Africa. Their emissions aretiny compared to those of other countries and they are the least prepared for the changes ahead. Although most of their members are also part of the G77/China, the LDCs and AOSIS want large developing nations such as China and India to reduce their emissions and are calling for tougher action to address climate change than any other groups.
The Coalition for Rainforest Nations is not an official negotiating group but it often issues joint statements.
The European Union (EU), which comprises 27 member states, negotiates as a unified entity.
The Umbrella Group brings together non-EU industrialised nations (Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Ukraine and the United States).
The Environmental Integrity Group (Mexico, South Korea and Switzerland, together with Liechtenstein and Monaco) sometimes intervene as a separate negotiating group to ensure their inclusion in last-minute, closed-door negotiations.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is not a formal negotiating group, but its 13 member states closely coordinate their positions.
How does it work?
The negotiations are in fact 2 parallel sets of talks.
In fact, it is just the protocol’s 1st commitment period which ends in 2012. Its structural elements, like carbon markets and compliance mechanisms, as well as the Adaptation Fund (funded mainly by the CDM), have no expiry date.
Developed countries party to the protocol are legally bound to agree new targets for a 2nd commitment period that begins in 2013.
In accordance with the IPCC’s scientific findings, developing nations are calling for deep cuts. The LDCs and SIDS demand an overall target of cutting emissions to 45% below their 1990 levels by 2020.
But so far developed nations have proposed targets only up to 16-23%, according to the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Under the AWG-LCA negotiating track, meanwhile, the United States is also calling for a replacement of economy-wide targets that are internationally binding (like those of the Kyoto Protocol) with a pledge and review approach.
Under this proposal, each nation would pledge national actions that are open to some degree of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) by other countries, and which then combine to create a global total. Such a total may or may not add up to what science demands, and pledging countries would not be internationally bound to adhere to any targets.
The US proposal may appeal to some developing nations that are voluntarily reducing their emissions. Some – such as India – say they would consider international MRV, but only of any actions that are supported by finance and technology from developed nations.
So far, however, the developed countries are delaying making any commitments to provide such support until after developing nations have pledged their mitigation actions.
Almost all developed countries want the 2 negotiating tracks to merge, leading to a single new agreement.
Most developing countries favour a dual-track strategy that would both amend the Kyoto Protocol and create a new agreement resulting from the LCA track, as this would ensure the Kyoto Protocol’s more environmentally rigorous targets and multilateral compliance would remain in place. They fear that a single agreement may result in some or all of the KyotoProtocol features being dropped in an attempt to craft a weak deal appealing to the United States.
The legal form of the CoP15 outcome is a major sticking point, as developing nations largely want the Kyoto Protocol to go on, with a new commitment period, and they oppose any new agreement that spells out new commitments for them.
For any agreement to replace the protocol, it must appeal to developing countries as being better overall in terms of its environmental outcomes and additional financial resources it promises.
- Those covering the UNFCCC as set out in the Bali Action Plan occur in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA).
- Negotiations under Kyoto take place in the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).
In fact, it is just the protocol’s 1st commitment period which ends in 2012. Its structural elements, like carbon markets and compliance mechanisms, as well as the Adaptation Fund (funded mainly by the CDM), have no expiry date.
Developed countries party to the protocol are legally bound to agree new targets for a 2nd commitment period that begins in 2013.
In accordance with the IPCC’s scientific findings, developing nations are calling for deep cuts. The LDCs and SIDS demand an overall target of cutting emissions to 45% below their 1990 levels by 2020.
But so far developed nations have proposed targets only up to 16-23%, according to the UNFCCC Secretariat.
Under the AWG-LCA negotiating track, meanwhile, the United States is also calling for a replacement of economy-wide targets that are internationally binding (like those of the Kyoto Protocol) with a pledge and review approach.
Under this proposal, each nation would pledge national actions that are open to some degree of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) by other countries, and which then combine to create a global total. Such a total may or may not add up to what science demands, and pledging countries would not be internationally bound to adhere to any targets.
The US proposal may appeal to some developing nations that are voluntarily reducing their emissions. Some – such as India – say they would consider international MRV, but only of any actions that are supported by finance and technology from developed nations.
So far, however, the developed countries are delaying making any commitments to provide such support until after developing nations have pledged their mitigation actions.
Almost all developed countries want the 2 negotiating tracks to merge, leading to a single new agreement.
Most developing countries favour a dual-track strategy that would both amend the Kyoto Protocol and create a new agreement resulting from the LCA track, as this would ensure the Kyoto Protocol’s more environmentally rigorous targets and multilateral compliance would remain in place. They fear that a single agreement may result in some or all of the KyotoProtocol features being dropped in an attempt to craft a weak deal appealing to the United States.
The legal form of the CoP15 outcome is a major sticking point, as developing nations largely want the Kyoto Protocol to go on, with a new commitment period, and they oppose any new agreement that spells out new commitments for them.
For any agreement to replace the protocol, it must appeal to developing countries as being better overall in terms of its environmental outcomes and additional financial resources it promises.
The contentious issues
Shared vision
Countries cannot agree yet on goals for global emissions to peak – whether to include only a long-term goal (2050) or nearer-term goals such as 2015-2020.There is no agreement either on whether to
- use a limit based on the increase of temperature,
- a total level of emissions or
- an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (measured in parts per million or ppm).
But close to 100 other nations, including the LDCs and AOSIS, argue for a more ambitious goal of no more than 1.5 °C of warming.
This would entail limiting concentration to 350ppm (a challenge given that it is already at 387ppm, up from 280ppm in pre-industrial times).
REDD
Deforestation causes 15-20% of all greenhouse gas emissions.Something likely to be adopted at COP15 is REDD, or reducing emissions from deforestation and (forest) degradation in developing countries.
Under REDD, countries that reduce deforestation could gain credits for reduced emissions. These credits could be sold on international carbon markets, compensated through a fund paid by developed nations or, as looks most likely, paid for using a combination of both approaches.
Up for negotiation is whether and how REDD will benefit forest-dependent communities, safeguard against conversion of natural forests to plantations and bring additional benefits for biodiversity (collectively known as REDD-plus).
Fossil fuels
Controversial in both negotiating tracks are the ‘economic and social consequences of response measures’ – the impacts of mitigation.The wealthier oil-producing nations in OPEC are particularly concerned that moves to de-carbonise development will harm their economies. They are calling for compensation for lost oil revenues.
Although this topic is covered under mitigation in the Bali Action Plan, OPEC members keep raising it in discussions of adaptation, to the dismay of poor and vulnerable nations.
LDCs and AOSIS see it as conceptually different from dealing with impacts such as floods, droughts and rising seas.
The key issue is that fossil fuel use drives impacts.
More effective mitigation means less adaptation is needed but this will impact OPEC economies. While AOSIS and LDCs urge immediate action, OPEC would gain from slowing mitigation.
Vulnerability
The vulnerable should be first in line for support to adapt to climate change impacts, but who decides who is vulnerable?Parties have already agreed that some developing nations within the G77/China (such as the LDCs and SIDS) are ‘particularly vulnerable’. But other countries are contesting this, as they fear it could leave them last in line for finance.
They argue that all developing countries have vulnerable communities. This division causes additional tensions within the G77/China.
Intellectual property
Technology will be essential for both mitigating climate change and adapting to its impacts, but the developed countries have most of the advanced technologies and a larger capacity to develop new ones.Parties need to agree ways of transferring technologies to the non-Annex I countries, and a major barrier is disagreement about intellectual property rights (IPRs).
The United States says any agreement must not undermine enforcement of IPRs, which it sees as essential incentives for innovation.
Developing countries argue for a more flexible approach – such as exemptions from patent protection for vulnerable countries – to enhance the transfers of technology.
Finance
The World Bank says developing nations will need US$400 billion per year for mitigation and US$75-100 billion per year for adaptation.Critics say the costs of adaptation have been grossly underestimated as they do not include all sectors that need to adapt.
In this context, key areas for negotiators to agree at COP15 include how much funding will be needed, how it will be raised, and how it will be disbursed and used.
Developed countries want funding to be diffused through existing channels such as the World Bank’s Global Environment Facility, but developing nations point to problems with this and want central institutional control under the authority of the UNFCCC.
There are various proposals for how to raise the money, but so far few pledges of cash.
Mexico has proposed a Green Fund that all countries, except LDCs, would contribute to on the basis of their GDP, emissions and population.
The LDCs have proposed an International Air Passenger Adaptation Levy, which could raise US$10- 15 billion per year for adaptation. But so far, other developing nations in the G77/China have opposed this, as it would raise money from all countries alike.
Time running out
With just 10 days of negotiating time available at COP15, much of the negotiating text is still comprised of various alternative pieces of wording that are presented in square brackets [like this]. These brackets mean that countries still disagree about the contents.
The European Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, said in September 2009 that: ‘If we do not sort this out, it risks becoming the longest suicide note in history.’
As each negotiator aims to maximise their country’s gain and minimise their concessions, we are left waiting to see who blinks first in the world’s biggest poker game.
The European Commission’s president, José Manuel Barroso, said in September 2009 that: ‘If we do not sort this out, it risks becoming the longest suicide note in history.’
As each negotiator aims to maximise their country’s gain and minimise their concessions, we are left waiting to see who blinks first in the world’s biggest poker game.
ANNOTATED:
PRECIS:
Copenhagen Summary- the what, why & who by WWF
Offered by the Danish government to seek the attention of the public, the Copenhagen Summit takes place in Denmark this year (2009). The article uses facts such as the average global temperature has risen by 0.7degrees in the past century, to show the dramatic change of the world to the public. Not only does the article tell the reader of WWF know what has happened over the past century, but it uses naming saying that “scientists” have said that about 90% is produced by humans. Not only does it make the public feel ashamed, but it is a “abrupt or irreversible” process of nature. Although some of the climate change is not avoidable, carbon dioxide and other polluting products keep rising. Listing severe countries that are included in the Summit, the article explicitly points out two large growing and separately poor countries India and China. This not only puts pressure on the large companies, but it puts the public into believe that China and India need to stop, more than everyone else. Although both countries do have an increased CO2 emission output, both are in the process of growing and developing their economy, and arguing that it is not possible to cut emissions if they want to come to the same standard as the greatly developed countries. Other countries attending believe that the emissions need to slow down by mitigation poverty at the same time. Large oil companies such as OPEC are put on the spot by the article by holding them responsible for not working enough on reducing carbon emissions. The large oil companies are worried that reduction of CO2 production would cause in a reduction in oil production and therefore a decrease in total revenue. The article lists all different countries and what groups they go with, such as: G77/China, African Group, Alliance of Small Island States, Least Developed Countries, and Coalition for Rainforest Nations, European Union, Umbrella Group, Environmental Integrity Group, Petroleum Exporting Countries, and Developed Countries. This listing focuses the reader upon the large groups and gives a greater importance to the Copenhagen Summit. Using naming, the IPCC’s scientific findings, the LCDs and SIDS are demanding a 45% cut to the emission percentage before 1990 by 2020. A more convincing goal is 16-23%, in which foreseen statistics convince the reader that this is a great goal for the future. Nations have put together different action plans that will be discussed to find one total plan for the future to work on. Shocking the public, the article states an estimated sum of 475-500billion dollars that is needed to adapt to the new plan. A great overstatement is that critics, notice the naming used, believe that the calculated value is way under calculated and nowhere near the large sum that will be needed. The Summit is compared to a poker game in the last sentence, using a great metaphor to tell the public how much details are revealed voluntarily to one another.
No comments:
Post a Comment