Climate talks on verge of collapse in final hours

by: Nick Berning

Fri Dec 18, 2009 at 11:28


There's a somber mood in Copenhagen on the last day of climate negotiations, with prospects for a strong and fair agreement feeling further and further out of reach.

A leaked UN document shows current proposals would add up to an alarming 3 degree C temperature rise and the U.S. is still refusing to budge.

Indeed, it now seems increasingly possible that rich countries' leaders may not even be able to piece together the weak, fig leaf of a "political" rather than "binding" agreement that most observers had been anticipating.

There's been some important news here over the last 24 hours.

LEAKED UN DOCUMENT EXPOSES HOW CURRENT PROPOSALS ADD UP TO CATASTROPHIC WARMING

First, a secret UN analysis of countries' current emission reduction proposals was leaked to the media. That analysis concluded that, when put together, the proposals now on the table would likely result in a global temperature rise to 3ºC above pre-industrial levels -- a catastrophic rise that would put small island states under water and cause suffering and death for millions of people.

Small island states that are fighting for their very survival are calling for limiting warming to 1.5ºC, and almost all countries -- including the U.S. -- have said that more than a 2ºC rise would pose unacceptable risks. So it's nothing short of scandalous that while calling for a 2ºC rise, rich countries' proposed actions would actually lead to 3ºC. This is the real climate gate. Indeed, this document shows that developing nations are actually proposing deeper emissions cuts at this point than developed ones. That's abhorrent.

NEW SECRET RICH COUNTRY TEXT ALSO LEAKED

One of the key dynamics at the negotiations has to do with process and lack of transparency. There are two key formal negotiating tracks here -- one under the Kyoto Protocol and one for all signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which includes those countries that have not signed onto Kyoto (the U.S. falls into this second group). But it seems like most of the real negotiating has gone on behind closed doors between rich countries and a few hand-picked poorer ones. The world's poorest nations have done the least to cause climate change but face some of its worst impacts. It's a shame that they're being cut out of the process.

During the first days of the climate summit, we learned that secret pre-negotiations had produced a "Danish text" -- a proposed draft text for an agreement that could be substituted for the text being formally negotiated in the conference if talks fell through. When the existence of that text was exposed, developing country representatives were outraged and the text was ditched.

But this morning, a new secret draft text assembled by a group of 26 countries -- primarily wealthy ones -- has leaked. Friends of the Earth's policy team has already analyzed it. We found that, while the draft still has many blanks that need to be filled in, it's already clear that it would shift the burden of paying for adaptation to climate change impacts away from rich countries, effectively selling out the world's poor. Basically, the draft isn't worth the paper it's written on. But reports from negotiators in the Bella Center indicate that this draft -- and an updated version being worked on -- could be the likely basis for any eventual political agreement.

(More on President Obama's flop of a speech in the extended entry.)

Nick Berning :: Climate talks on verge of collapse in final hours

OBAMA'S SPEECH FLOPS

President Obama arrived here this morning and delivered a speech to the climate summit this afternoon. I was expecting an inspiring speech, even if Obama didn't offer substantive improvements on the U.S. position. But the speech fell flat and Obama failed to deliver either inspiration or substance. He basically reiterated the U.S. position and gave the world a take it or leave it offer. There's no question that Obama faces a lot of constraints on what he can do in the Senate, for example, but he has a lot more space to show leadership than he's using. Instead of leading, it appears that the U.S. is attempting to bring the rest of the world down to this country's weak position. Obama didn't budge in his speech, and the unimpressed crowd of delegates from around the world offered scant applause.

Click here to read Jamie Henn's analysis of Obama's speech on It's Getting Hot in Here.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

I'm in a room in the basement of the Klimaforum (the site of the "people's climate summit") with about 25 members of Friends of the Earth's policy team -- a group of people from all over the world united by a common desire to achieve climate justice. We're working closely with developing country delegates inside the Bella Center and are monitoring progress inside the talks on a minute-by-minute basis as heads of state continue their work. It's not clear if they'll be able to find consensus. Whatever happens, we'll keep you updated.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
At what point do we revolt? (0.00 / 0)
I am serious.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

You mean you havent been building a base? (4.00 / 1)
more of a rhetorical question.

But seriously, we need to be building membership based organizations as of yesterday.

And I mean one that goes beyond this web, and is real in our communities.

If we arent doing that, then revolt is just a theoretical idea we like.  


[ Parent ]
Very important point (4.00 / 4)
The environmental "movement" definitely hasn't been enough of a movement. And if it doesn't become one, we're in big trouble. I mean, we're already in big trouble, but things can get worse.

We've also got to get out of our silo. This fight is as much about social justice as anything else. Polar bears are cute, but we're fighting for (or ought to be fighting for) the future of people IN the environment as much as we're fighting to protect the environment. And people everywhere -- not just in poor countries but also in the U.S. -- are going to be hit very, very hard if we don't get our act together.


[ Parent ]
I'm very happy to hear you say that. (0.00 / 0)
This is a problem that touches on all aspects of life, both human and non-human. It's about justice, both social and economic. It's about human rights. It's about development. It's about education, the rule of law and food and whether or not the next generations will have to literally fight over food. It's about a global economy that will be horrifically devastated by AGW, whether anyone cares to admit it or not.

You just pegged my respect-o-meter for FOE to "She can't take anymore, captain!"

The rest of the world seems to get this. It's time for the US to step up to that plate. The enviro movement just isn't big enough to handle this alone.

"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates


[ Parent ]
I confess I have more than enough anger.... (0.00 / 0)
to be willing to participate in a revolution.

VEBO - Vote Every Bastard Out - starting at the top of both "parties".


[ Parent ]
More Change You Can't Believe In! (4.00 / 1)


What I think would be fair: (0.00 / 0)
I think that all the parts of the world are contributing much to unsustainability. Rich countries use too much energy and emit too many greenhouse gasses. However, rich countries have managed something very admirable, which is to completely halt all human population growth, the single worst contributor to global environmental collapse.

So here's what I think would be fair: The rich countries kick in a whole lot of money and promise to emit far less. The poor countries take the aforementioned money and use it for programs that halt population growth, like schools for girls, contraception, other "female empowerment" programs, etc.

The greatest threat to our planet is not from greenhouse gasses but from soil erosion, wilderness destruction and other effects of a growing human population. Any serious summit on the environment would be focusing on slowing the population growth, which is far more serious than CO2 ppm levels. There are ways of addressing it, and not all of them are totalitarian immoral like China's "one child" policy. But somehow Al Gore's crusade has made everyone ignore the elephant in the room.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox