Reports from Copenhagen #4 & #5

Reports 4 and 5 from Gary.

Copenhagen UN Climate Conference report 4

Climate meetings were suspended for a few hours Monday when African nations walked out, saying that developed countries are trying to kill the Kyoto Protocol.

Here's some background: These negotiations, attended by almost every country in the world, are complicated by the fact that the US and China, and a few others, are not part of the Kyoto Protocol. So there are two negotiating tracks, as indicated in an earlier report, one for continuing Kyoto, and another for everyone. The US is only an observer for the Kyoto talks, but is a full participant for the other track. There are three approaches to a new climate agreement proposed by different countries in Copenhagen talks.

1) Some, including many developing countries, want to continue the Kyoto Protocol with new commitments, and with the US and China added.

2) Some, including the US and many developed countries, want to replace Kyoto with a new agreement that includes the US and China.

3) Others want two agreements, continuing Kyoto and adding a new agreement for those outside Kyoto. This is part of what Tuvalu was trying to push last week that met with strong objections from some.

Some scientists are saying CO2 must be limited to 350 ppm, and temperature rise must be limited to 1.5 degrees C to avoid major damage. Others have been saying 450 ppm and 2 degrees C. The current CO2 concentration is 387, so 350 is very difficult. The US and many countries have established a target of 450 and 2 degrees. In July 2009 G8 countries agreed to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees C, and to reduce emissions by 2050 world wide by 50%, and by 80% from developed countries compared with 1990.

Later in July at the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, heads of state of developed and developing countries agreed to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees C.

Friday I attended a briefing by Lumumba Da-Ping of Sudan, who head of the G77 group of 130 developing countries. (I don't know why a group of 130 countries is call G77) Here are some of the things he said:
CO2 must be limited to 350 ppm, and temperature rise must be limited to 1.5 degrees C. He quoted a projection (I think from IPCC) that 2 degrees worldwide would mean 3.5 degrees for Africa, if I remember the numbers correctly. He stated that 2 degrees world wide would be certain death for Africa, and devastation for island states. "A deal that cannot save God, humanity, and nature should not be considered.
Emissions must be radically reduced starting now" developed countries
52% by 2017, 65% by 2020, 80% by 2030, and 100% by 2050. Deferring action
condemns millions to immeasurable suffering." (No developed countries have
proposed anything close to this.) He said that to do less means we do not
care about the lives of millions of people.

The Kyoto Protocol must be defended. He said the US should join the Kyoto Protocol. (The US position is that it will not join the Kyoto Protocol, but will join a new agreement.)

Western people have become the instruments of a small group of industrialists. (Actually, this has been a fact for a long time.)

A substantial financial package to assist poor countries in mitigation (emission reduction) and adaptation must be fast tracked. He said 1% of GDP of developed countries is necessary, and he decried the $10 billion or so that has been committed. He said countries have spent trillions to bolster economies, and British bankers pocketed 300 billion last year. He also mentioned how much is being spent on wars, and stated that the war on climate change is the most important war.

US citizens have an important role because the US is historically the greatest emitter, and because the US has great power. The G77 called upon Obama to join the Kyoto Protocol. He said the problem in the US is not Congress, it is the “conservative industrial complex, and we in the audience have to convince Congress.

Perhaps you can understand why these negotiations are difficult. You can compare the statements above with my coming report on the US statements and positions from meetings with the US delegation.

In this report I will 1)describe some things happening this week and how
they differ from last week 2)report on meetings with the US delegation and the US positions and reasons for them 3) Some of the obstacles that are impeding progress toward an agreement.

1) This week high level government ministers and officials, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are converging on the conference center to push toward a final agreement. Leading up to the end of the week well over 100 heads of state will be here, including President Obama. Of course each of these officials brings an entourage of support and security people to a conference center that was already bulging with attendees last week, so attendance has had to be limited. Observer delegations such as Sierra Club have been required to reduce their number of members admitted, and the reductions become more severe as the week progresses. By Friday, with all the heads of state here, very few observers will be admitted. I am no longer in Copenhagen, but I am receiving reports from inside, and I will continue to report important developments.

2a) I have attended some meetings with the US delegation; a press conference and two off the record briefings for NGOs (non governmental organizations) by US negotiator Jonathan Pershing, and a Sierra Club delegation meeting with Trigg Talley, Director of the Climate Office in the US State Dept. Here is some info I gained: The top US priority is to have a climate bill pass Congress, with the thought that this is the best single thing the US can do for the climate. So in Copenhagen and elsewhere the
delegation needs to avoid anything that might cost a vote in the Senate for the climate bill. The US wants an agreement that helps pass a climate bill and that provides for action from other countries. So the US is committing only to what the House passed and the Senate is thought likely to pass. The second priority seems to be to avoid repeating the Kyoto mistake of agreeing to a treaty that the Senate will not ratify. It will be difficult to achieve enough votes for ratification with most Republicans seeming to be under the influence of the energy companies. A recent news report described a letter from 19 progressive and moderate Democratic Senators to Pres Obama outlining conditions for their support of a treaty. (See obstacles below.)

In the press conference Mr. Pershing spoke about the steps and pledges the US has made. The US submitted the most detailed draft proposal for this conference of any country. He stated that the US has committed to a target of 80% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050, and he stated that is what the science calls for. He pointed out that he is a scientist who was a contributing author to some of the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the trajectory toward 80% in 2050 is what more important than short term goals. (Some countries
have said the US goal for 2020 of 17% is inadequate.)

2b) The US has a major presence at this conference, unlike such meetings in the past. The US Center has 2 rooms; a meeting room with speakers all day, one after the other, and an info room with info and TV monitors showing the speakers in the next room. In the info room there is a giant globe hanging from the ceiling, on which can be displayed the earth with any number of conditions. Some of the displays I saw on the globe at different times were the spread of black carbon emissions and other emissions, current cloud cover, all the airlines currently in the air, continental drift over millions of years, and more. The talks in the meeting room are related to
climate change; some to scientific findings, some to future implications, and some describing what the US is doing about climate change. On different days there have been talks by the Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Agriculture, and the EPA administrator, all talking about what the US is doing to limit its contributions to climate change. The US Center and the talks were all quite impressive, and every time I looked, the meeting room was full. When the cabinet members were speaking, there was an overflow crowd watching monitors outside the room.

3) The negotiating meetings are not close to an agreement. For reasons including those described above, the US insists that developing countries such as China and India that are major emitters commit to absolute emission reductions, and submit to international verification. One of the reasons that the US Senate would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol was that there were no such commitments from developing countries, and in addition, this was a condition stated in the recent letter mentioned above from 19 Democratic Senators whose votes will be needed. Meanwhile, China and India have long been adamant that they will not agree to such requirements. Tuesday China, India, Brazil, and South Africa issued a joint statement outlining significant voluntary emission reductions they commit to, but stating they will not agree to international verification. Developing countries are
pledging to take major steps to reduce emissions over business as usual (China is already taking major steps), but most of them do not want to commit to a date when their emissions will peak and start downward. Even China and India, which have large total emissions, have small per capita emissions, and they say the developed countries caused the problem, and developing countries have a right to raise their standard of living. On the other hand. China has already passed the US in total emissions, and the US position is that the problem cannot be solved without absolute reductions from those major emitting developing countries. It is not clear whether
this impasse will be resolved in Copenhagen or after.

Another big issue, as I previously reported, is the magnitude and speed of emission reductions overall, and especially by developed countries. The US is committing to what Congress might pass. Europe is making a somewhat more aggressive commitment. If more aggressive reductions were committed to, I wonder whether they would actually be achieved. Developing countries are saying this is not enough to prevent major problems and suffering, and they are probably correct. One island nation in the Indian Ocean has already had to evacuate according to a report I have seen. I think all the other island nations are quite likely doomed. And with projections that much of Africa will warm more than the world average, and with ongoing terrible droughts
and famines in Africa, Africans are understandable very disturbed. As I previously reported, developed countries have established a goal of limiting CO2 concentration to 450 ppm, and global temperature rise to 2 degrees C.

But developing countries are demanding limits of 350 ppm and 1.5 degrees C, based on some scientific reports, because they believe 2 degrees will doom them. With CO2 concentration already at 387, and temperature rise already at 0.8 degrees C, I doubt that developed countries will agree to 350 and 1.5, because they probably can't sell the drastic measures required to their constituencies.

A third big disagreement is funding and technology for developing countries to reduce their emissions and to adapt to the ravages of climate change, and for many of these countries, ravages will not be an exaggeration. Developed countries agree that they must help developing countries mitigate (reduce emissions) and adapt, and have committed billions of dollars. Developing countries say the committed amounts are inadequate for the needs, and much more must be provided. The US and other countries insist that intellectual property rights must be protected, but this may not be a sticking point.

Rafael @www.climateatbay.net