| Makase Nyaphisi, an ambassador from Lesotho, explained African countries’ frustrations: We know the scientific evidence. We know the impacts on agriculture, health and so on. We know what action needs to take place. And we are expecting that there have to be ambitious targets taken on by Annex-1 countries -- and at the moment they are not coming up with that. … We must have an equitable, transparent and fair deal. Alfred Wills, South Africa’s lead climate negotiator echoed in an interview with Bloomberg: We’re going around and around in circles on side technical issues rather than the core issue. … The countries which have put pledges on the table which are within the range required by science are Norway and Japan. That’s it. Everyone else is below. International Activists Show Solidarity with African Demands  On Monday, I participated in an action sponsored by Friends of the Earth International to show solidarity with African delegates' demands. We invited delegates and observers at the negotiations to join a human shield against the killing of strong targets for emissions reductions by rich countries under the Kyoto Protocol. As these pictures illustrate, we urged Annex I, or rich countries, to avoid being “grim reapers” of climate destruction and to commit to at least 40 percent emission reductions within their countries by 2020.  Having spent more than seven weeks in negotiations sessions this year, the African action is the boldest and bravest move I have seen and the political backlash has been severe. We can only anticipate that, as stakes rise, developed countries will resort to coercive tactics to exert pressure on developing country delegates. It’s important that activists in the U.S. show solidarity with the demands of delegates from African and other developing countries. After all, it’s our U.S. negotiating team, even with our Nobel Peace Prize-winning president at the helm, which continues to do the most to obstruct serious action and is leading rich countries in a race away from their responsibilities. U.S. Proposals Threaten to Undermine Progress As Friends of the Earth reported here on OpenLeft at the end of the Bangkok talks in October, the United States is pushing for the abandonment of the strongest elements of the Kyoto Protocol. These critical elements are (1) binding emissions reduction targets on a global level and (2) an international compliance mechanism to ensure that individual countries meet their targets. The last two years of negotiations were supposed to be used to update the Protocol for a second commitment period, with stronger emissions reduction targets, and find some meaningful way to bring the United States into a global agreement – not to scrap the whole thing! Instead of joining the global consensus, the U.S. has decided to throw its weight behind what policy junkies like me call a “pledge and review” scheme, whereby countries would simply commit to do whatever they happen to decide to do domestically, regardless of whether that adds up to enough emissions cuts globally to avoid catastrophic climate change. (And forget about considering countries’ historical responsibilities for what they have done to cause global warming.) Under the U.S. scheme, a peer review process would take the place of an international compliance provision. Having a climate agreement with no compliance mechanism is like telling your kids they can’t eat any more chocolate—and then turning a blind eye as they down four Snickers, two Heath Bars and a box of Oreos. A strong compliance provision is the one thing that has made all international environmental agreements work. It simply is unacceptable for the U.S. to undermine this vital component of an agreement. As Brendan Demelle summarized in his Grist post on the African delegates’ action: In other words, while representatives from the developing world are calling for a strong, science-based treaty to combat climate change and save the poorest and most vulnerable nations from climate catastrophe, wealthy industrialized nations want to substitute lofty politic rhetoric for a commitment to action in Copenhagen. Africa Forces Focus Back on the Core Issue The African negotiators' bold move reaped some short-term progress. On Tuesday, a compromise was struck to continue discussions under the Kyoto Protocol negotiating track, with a more concerted focus on emissions reduction targets from rich countries. John Ashe, chair of the Ad hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol, announced that of ten continued negotiating sessions, six would focus on emissions reductions and four on other matters, such as land use, land use change and forestry and flexible mechanisms for the implementation of emissions reduction projects. Developing countries expressed appreciation for this new agenda. But, developing countries continued to express their frustration at the overall lack of progress on targets -- after all, their future is at stake! Raising the issue of rich country targets in such a bold, public fashion was severely criticized by—guess who?—rich countries. On Wednesday I heard reports that leaders in European Union capitals are calling their counterparts in the capitals of their former colonial states to demand that they rein in their negotiators. Unfortunately, such political pressure tactics could happen in Copenhagen if developing countries choose to exercise their muscle in the hopes of provoking real action from rich countries. For now, though, this protest has helped to focus the negotiations on the core issue at hand: emissions reductions. Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan, the lead climate negotiator for the Group of 77 developing countries, struck a dire tone in regards to the so far paltry commitments made by rich countries on this core issue: We try to be optimistic [but] we cannot accept total destruction of our countries as a choice for developing countries. Anything south of [an emission cut of] 40 percent means Africa is destroyed.
If you take the EU position of a 20 or 30 percent cut the result is to condemn developing countries to total destruction, loss of livelihoods, and economies, land forests will be destroyed. You can't solve the climate change problem by tinkering around the edges. As the Barcelona talks wrapped up on Friday, Lumumba continued to criticize the lack of progress on this front: Nonperformance, nondeliverance and noncommitment by the developed countries is acting as a break for any meaningful progress. … We need a real change of heart and mind by the developed countries, [which seek to] relieve themselves of the commitment by asking the poorest of the world and the most vulnerable and the most underdeveloped to subsidize their high standard of living. Will President Obama Earn His Nobel? I’ve watched negotiations leading to Copenhagen over the last two years. With this week’s session in Barcelona coming to a close, we now have zero negotiating days left before leaders convene in Copenhagen and, sadly, we are nowhere near agreement on the key issue of emissions reductions targets. We are also far from agreement on financial support to help developing countries deploy clean technology and deal with the climate change impacts that rich countries like the U.S. have primarily caused. We have strayed into a serious danger zone. A big question for the few weeks left before Copenhagen is: Will the United States continue to try to drag the rest of the world down with it towards climate chaos or will the world—and will we—be brave enough to ask President Obama to earn his Nobel and commit to the action that’s necessary to save our planet for ourselves and for our children? |
