en conference in a glance

8/3/2019 en Conference in a Glance

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/en-conference-in-a-glance 1/88

1

Reactions after the Copenhagen Conference

(COP-15)

By:

Dr. Gregor Wolbring1

Seyyed Ghaderi

*

February 2010

1 This after Copenhagen Literature Review was performed by Dr. Gregor Wolbring Assistant Professor at

the University of Calgary and leader of the GE3LS team with the help of PhD student Seyyed Ghaderi. We

would like to also thank Tom Jack a member of the GE3LS team and the other members of the grant. *

Dr. Gregor Wolbring is the corresponding author email: gwolbrin [at] ucalgary.ca



2



3

Contents Some webpages with constantly new, relevant material that also covered and covers the Copenhagen

discourse ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

Views of Experts Specialist Organizations ................................................................................................... 7

Among Bloggers ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Views of NGOs .......................................................................................................................................... 41

Governments ............................................................................................................................................ 61

In Media .................................................................................................................................................... 66

Specific to Canada/Alberta ....................................................................................................................... 82



4

Preface

Canada recognizes the necessity to transition global energy production towards renewable resources.

But until the technologies exist to make it economically feasible to do so, Canada’s oil, gas and coal must

be extracted in the most environmentally friendly way possible. This project is designed to generate

data that can be used to minimize the environmental impact of oil sands production, by decreasing itsuse of water and emission of greenhouse gases and by enhancing the extraction of clean burning gas

from coal beds. Work performed in this Genome Canada grant Metagenomics for Greener Production

and Extraction of Hydrocarbon Energy: Creating Opportunities for Enhanced Recovery with Reduced

Environmental Impact will develop a database to describe and harness the genetic potential of the

microorganisms, genes and biological processes that exist naturally in microbial communities in our oil

sands and coal beds to improve our understanding of how methane in hydrocarbon resources is

generated, to identify the enzymes involved in the natural cracking of hydrocarbons that produce

methane and carbon dioxide, to extract hydrocarbons in the more environmentally friendly way, to

decrease the water used and land lost in mining operations and manage better the methane emissions

from tailings ponds. The GE3LS (ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues) team that is

part of this grant has various tasks. One of them is to outline the existing energy discourse. Theliterature review of the reaction after the Copenhagen climate change conference is one deliverable in

regards to the energy discourse section of the mandate of the GE3LS team. All the literature review

generated in this project hopefully serve as a foundation to give people an idea as to the lay of the land

and trigger research questions by students and others.



5

Some webpages with constantly new, relevant

material that also covered and covers the

Copenhagen discourse

• United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

http://unfccc.int

• Energy search engine

http://www.reegle.info/index.php

• International Energy Agency

http://www.iea.org/

• The World Bank Group Energy Program

http://www.worldbank.org/energy/

• OECD Energy

http://www.oecd.org/topic/0,3373,en_2649_37459_1_1_1_1_37459,00.html

• United Nations Development Program Energy http://www.undp.org/energy/

• World Energy Council

http://www.worldenergy.org/publications/324.asp

• Climate-I.org funded by Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

http://climate-l.org/

• The International Institute for Sustainable Development – Reporting Services Division

http://www.iisd.ca/

• The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

http://www.iisd.ca/voltoc.html

• Global Climate Law Blog

http://www.globalclimatelaw.com/

• Climatechangecentral

http://www.climatechangecentral.com

• Third World Network

http://www.twnside.org.sg/climate.htm

• Stockholm Environmental Institute

http://www.sei-international.org/index.php

• UN Department of economic and social affairs Division for Sustainable Development (DSD)

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/index.shtml

• Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

http://en.cop15.dk/

• European Commission Climate Change section

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm

• United Nations Development Programme Climate Change

http://www.undp.org/climatechange/

• OECD Climate Change


• Allianze Insurance

http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/

• World Bank Climate Change

http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/

• World Health Organization Climate Change

http://www.iea.org/

http://www.iea.org/





http://www.undp.org/energy/






http://www.iisd.ca/

http://www.iisd.ca/





http://www.climatechangecentral.com/






http://en.cop15.dk/

http://en.cop15.dk/
















http://en.cop15.dk/






http://www.iisd.ca/






http://www.iea.org/



6

http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/en/

• Canadian Government

http://canada.gc.ca/azind/eindex-eng.html#env

• Alberta Government Climate Change

http://environment.alberta.ca/1319.html









7

Views of Experts Specialist Organizations



8

Copenhagen COP15 Analysis and Press Releases

Press releases and analysis notes for work completed during the December 2009 COP15 UNFCCC event.

Copenhagen Accord Submissions Press Release 4 February 2010 - PDF

The Copenhagen Accord reaffirms the goal of limiting temperature increase to 2.0°C but pledgessubmitted to the UNFCCC for inclusion in the Accord would allow mean global temperature to increase

3.9°C (7.0°F) by 2100.

Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 - PDF

The final Copenhagen Accord reaffirms the importance of limiting global warming to 2 °C, but current

national commitments would lead to approximately 3.9 °C (7.0 °F) warming by 2100.

Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 - Expanded Version

Expanded version of final press release, including graphs and technical backup

Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09 - Spreadsheet

Spreadsheet documenting all the results in the press release and technical backup

UNFCCC "Mitigation Gap" Press Release 12 December 09 - PDF

Mitigation Gap: National Emissions Reductions Proposals Currently Fall Short of the Targets Defined inDraft Text from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action

UNFCCC "Mitigation Gap" Press Release 12 December 09 - Summary and Notes

Group Press Release on State of Global Deal 9 December 09

"Copenhagen must deliver emissions cuts beyond the high end of current proposals or risk missing the

opportunity for a reasonable chance of keeping below 2°C." -- Joint Statement from the Grantham

Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, the United Nations Environment Program,

Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute, the European Climate Foundation and

ClimateWorks

Document Actions

http://climateinteractive.org/resolveuid/88533d603c731ee69b9cf0f0e0899cb3

http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/Copenhagen%20Accord%20Submissions%20Press%20Release%204%20February%202010.pdf/view


http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/COP-15%20Final%20Analysis%20v11%20091219.pdf/view


http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/COP-15%20Final%20Analysis%20091219%20with%20tech%20notes.pdf/view


http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/COP-15%20Summary%20Backup%20Data.xls/view


http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/SI%20mitigation%20press%20release%2012%20Dec%2009.pdf/view


http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/unfccc-mitigation-press-release-12-december-09


http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/9%20Dec%2009%20COP15%20Modeling%20Groups%20press%20release.pdf/view











10

Copenhagen's climate finance promise: six key questions

J. Timmons Roberts, Martin Stadelmann and Saleemul Huq

One of the promises emerging from the confusion of the Copenhagen climate talks focused on climate

finance. Ramping up to US$100 billion a year starting in 2020, the promised finance would support

developing countries in adapting to climate impacts and adopting low-carbon pathways. This briefing

explores the wording in the Copenhagen Accord to unearth six big questions about the promise – any

one of which could seriously challenge the trust these funds were designed to build.

http://www.iied.org/pubs/display.php?o=17071IIED

http://www.iied.org/pubs/search.php?a=J.%20Timmons%20Roberts


http://www.iied.org/pubs/search.php?a=Martin%20Stadelmann



http://www.iied.org/pubs/search.php?a=Saleemul%20Huq











11

The Real Tragedy of Copenhagen

By: Martin Khor Year: 2009

The Copenhagen Accord drawn up after the UN climate conference in December is only three pages

long. What is left out is probably more important than what it contains. The so-called deal, which the

governments only “took note of” and was not adopted, does not mention any figures for emission

reduction that the developed countries are to undertake after 2012. However, the larger failure was

that while Copenhagen should have been designed as a stepping stone, and not as a final conclusion,

western political leaders tried to hijack the legitimate multilateral process of negotiations that had been

taking place before Copenhagen and at Copenhagen itself. What the world ended up with was a disaster

of a meeting and a document.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/info.service/2010/20100101/EPW.14305.pdf



12

Summary of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference:

Year: 2009

The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark took place from 7-19

December 2009. It included the fifteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fifth Conference of the Parties serving asthe Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5). COP 15 and COP/MOP 5 were held in

conjunction with the thirty-first sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

(SBSTA 31) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 31), the tenth session of the Ad Hoc

Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP 10) and

the eighth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the UNFCCC

(AWG-LCA 8).

The Copenhagen Conference marked the culmination of a two-year negotiating process to enhance

international climate change cooperation under the Bali Roadmap, launched by COP 13 in December

2007. Close to 115 world leaders attended the joint COP and COP/MOP high-level segment from 16-18

December, marking one of the largest gatherings of world leaders outside of New York. The conference

was subject to unprecedented public and media attention, and more than 40,000 people, representinggovernments, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, faith-based

organizations, media and UN agencies applied for accreditation at the conference.

Many hoped that the Copenhagen Climate Conference would be able to “seal the deal” and result in a

fair, ambitious and equitable agreement, setting the world towards a path to avoid dangerous climate

change. To this end, what many characterized as “intense negotiations” took place over the two weeks

at the level of experts, Ministers and Heads of State. But it was not without controversy. Questions

concerning transparency and process played out during the meeting. Differences emerged, inter alia, on

whether work should be carried out in a smaller “friends of the chair” format as well as on a proposal by

the Danish COP Presidency to table two texts reflecting the work done by the AWGs. Many parties

rejected this idea, urging that only texts developed in the AWGs by parties should be used.

During the high-level segment, informal negotiations took place in a group consisting of majoreconomies and representatives of regional groups. Late on Friday evening, these talks resulted in

political agreement entitled the Copenhagen Accord,” which was not based on the texts developed by

either of the AWGs. Details of the agreement were widely reported by the media before the COP closing

plenary. While most reports highlighted that Heads of State had been able to “seal the deal,” almost

everyone participating in the negotiations openly admitted that it was “far from a perfect agreement.”

During the closing COP plenary, which lasted nearly 13 hours, long and what many characterized as

“acrimonious” discussions ensued on the transparency of the process that had led to the conclusion of

the Copenhagen Accord and on whether the COP should adopt it. Most negotiating groups supported its

adoption as a COP decision in order to operationalize it as a step towards “a better” future agreement.

Some developing countries, however, opposed the Accord reached during what they characterized as an

“untransparent” and “undemocratic” negotiating process. During informal negotiations facilitated by UN

Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon during the night and early morning, parties agreed to adopt a COPdecision whereby the COP “takes note” of the Copenhagen Accord, which was attached to the decision

as an unofficial document. Parties also agreed to establish a procedure whereby countries supporting

the Copenhagen Accord can accede to it.

Many recognized the historical significance of the Copenhagen Conference, highlighting its

unprecedented success in bringing together the majority of the world’s leaders to consider climate

change and listing mitigation actions pledged by developed and developing countries, as well as

provisions on finance and technology. Most delegates, however, left Copenhagen disappointed at what



13

they saw as a “weak agreement,” and questioning its practical implications given that the Copenhagen

Accord had not been formally adopted as the outcome of the negotiations.

http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12459e.pdf



14

UNFCCC Press Briefing on the Outcome of Copenhagen and the Way Forward In 2010

Addressing the media for the first time since last month's Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen,

Yvo de Boer said the fact that Copenhagen did not deliver the full agreement the world needs to address

climate change “just makes the task more urgent.”

Three key things that Copenhagen produced are: 1) It raised climate change to the highest level of government; 2) The Copenhagen Accord reflects a political consensus on the long-term, global response

to climate change; 3) The negotiations brought an almost full set of decisions to implement rapid

climate action near to completion.

Mr. de Boer said that we’re now in a cooling off period that gives countries useful and needed time to

resume their discussions with each other. “If countries follow up the outcomes of Copenhagen calmly,

with eyes firmly on the advantage of collective action, they have every chance of completing the job,”

he said.

http://unfccc.int/2860.php



15

COP15—Copenhagen Climate Conference

By: Anup Shah Year: 2009

December 7 – December 18, 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark was the venue for the 15th annual United

Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as the 15th Conference of the Parties — or COP 15.

As with previous conferences, thousands of politicians (including head of states), diplomats, journalists,lobbyists and NGOs attended hoping the summit would finalize a post-Kyoto international agreement on

climate change to take effect in 2013.

The build-up to the meeting was full of optimism and hope, as the US was, for the first time in a long

time, going to be seen as a positive contributor, and their involvement is always recognized as key.

There was also increasing focus on emerging economies such as China and India.

Instead of a positive outcome, most commentators saw it as a failure, though for different reasons…

http://www.globalissues.org/article/784/cop15-copenhagen-climate-

conference#Loweredexpectationsandoutcomes



16

Copenhagen Climate Conference Collapses

Ronald Bailey's Fifth and Final Dispatch from the Copenhagen Climate Conference

By: Ronald Bailey Year: 2009

World leaders are abandoning the Bella Center like rats off a sinking ship after declaring that a deal has

been reached at the Copenhagen climate change conference. Two years ago at the Bali climateconference, it was agreed that the signatories to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change

and the Kyoto Protocol would finalize a binding global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the

Copenhagen meeting. That goal was put aside even before the meeting here got started. In turn, the

Copenhagen conference was supposed to resolve major issues like the mid-term reduction

commitments by developed countries, how to monitor those commitments, and how to fund adaptation

and mitigation in poor countries. Now those goals have been put off to the indefinite future.

Although the detailed language is not yet available, the broad outlines are apparently these:

(1) The agreement sets a target of no more than two degrees Celsius for the increase in global

temperatures.

(2) The agreement sets the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2050 with the

developed countries cutting their emissions by 80 percent.

(3) Going into the Copenhagen conference, the goal was to adopt a binding treaty by next meeting in

Mexico City in 2010. That goal has been dropped and no date set for a future deal.

(4) With regard to transparency—the big sticking point between China and the U.S.—countries are

supposed to provide information tracking their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but the

guidelines for monitoring those activities are to be negotiated later.

Ignore the spin that the politicians try to put on it: In any meaningful sense, the Copenhagen climate

conference collapsed.

http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/18/copenhagen-climate-conference



17

Industrial Policy and Environmental Sustainability: The Challenge after COP15

By: Wim Naudé and Ludovico Alcorta

Industrial policy is being reassessed in the light of the global financial crisis as well as the negotiations on

a global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gases – the fifteenth United Nations Climate Change

Conference (COP15) which took place in December 2009 in Copenhagen. This conference took placeagainst the concern (as the UN’s climate panel’s recent fourth report indicates) that human society is

contributing significantly, through emission of greenhouse gases, to global warming, and that this will

have an overall negative impact on global development. Kemal Derviş, in his WIDER Annual Lecture

presented in Helsinki in March 2008, pointed out. ‘Climate change will have a larger and more

immediate negative impact on many of the world’s poor. Our concern for development and poverty

reduction, as captured in the Millennium Development Goals, dictates that we mitigate climate change

urgently to reduce the threats to the development prospects of the most vulnerable, as well as take

action to help those already affected to adapt.’

Human-induced climate change and its effects on global development is part of the more general

challenge of achieving environmental sustainability. It requires a rethink of the process and outputs of

production and of distribution and consumption. As recently put by Jeff Sachs[i] ‘The global economy isliterally unsustainable now and cannot absorb further economic and population growth without serious

risks of global destabilization – even collapse’. In addition to rising greenhouse gas emissions and its

consequences, areas of concern include rising commodity prices, peak oil, pollution from agriculture,

and increasing water scarcity to name but a few.

Reassessing industrial policy is now necessary as (i) industrialization and industrial catch-up by

industrially lagging countries will increasingly run into resource constraints and climate change impacts,

and (ii) without appropriate forms of industrialization in both advanced economies and in developing

countries, little progress will be made towards any agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol. The

Gordian Knot to be untied is how to achieve these changes in a manner that does not limit the

development and industrial catch-up of the poorest countries, and which does not result in politically

unacceptable job losses in advanced economies.

Industrial policies – whether explicitly termed as such or referred to as ‘competitiveness’ policies – will

increasingly take centre stage in governments’ responses as they grapple with rising commodity prices,

growing inequality and sluggish growth. But given the dangers and failings inherent in industrial policy,

extreme caution is required. Hence a new debate on industrial policy, supported by new research and

new paradigms, is required to move forward. In recognition of this challenge, UNU-WIDER, UNU-MERIT

and UNIDO held a successful workshop on the topic in Maastricht, The Netherlands on 22-23 October.

Following this workshop, we outline a number of considerations for environmentally sustainable

industrial policies in this article…

http://www.wider.unu.edu/home/news/en_GB/Highlights-january/



18

Should Coal Company Investors Breathe Easy After Copenhagen?

Green Energy Investing For Experts, Part V

By: Tom Konrad

A global climate deal in Copenhagen would have been bad for coal miners, and coal companies have

been rallying as the economy recovers, but it may not be clear skies for the black rock.In the battle to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, coal is enemy number one. The global disarray in

Copenhagen can only be good for coal mining companies, and they duly rallied when the climate talks

ended with little to show for it.

Yet carbon emissions are not the only black mark on the coal industry's record, and investor relief may

be premature.

* The EPA's endangerment finding means that the administration may tackle greenhouse gas emissions

with regulation rather than cap and trade.

* Economic coal reserves may fall far short of widely accepted estimates.

* While "Climategate" may not make some scientists look good, it's mostly hot air.

* The risks of coal fired power are not limited to climate. A repeat of 2008's Tennessee coal ash flood orother coal related environmental disaster could quickly knock the wind out of the industry.

* Opposition continues to mount against the destructive mining practices such as mountain top

removal.

* Carbon Capture and Storage ("Clean Coal") is likely to be uneconomic, even if the technical challenges

are overcome.

* Climate change is real, and plans to reduce carbon emissions have to address coal to be effective. The

longer we delay, the more drastic the action will have to be.

None of this is to say that coal mining stocks have to fall anytime soon. Rather, I'm pointing out that

there are large and significant risks that coal investors ignore at their peril. The polarization of climate

debate is such that many conservatives seem unable to see these risks because of their preconceived

notions. Climate deniers may crow in anticipation about their impending victory in the climate changedebate, but this is a debate they cannot win because the facts simply do not support their case, no

matter how many careless emails they are able to dredge up.

Investors usually have to operate in a realm of uncertainty. We don't know what next years earnings of

any company will be, we only hope that our estimate is better than the rest of the crowd. The climate

debate, on the other hand, is a rare opportunity where we know the outcome with near certainty, and

yet there is a large contingent of climate deniers willing to put their money down on the other side of

the bet. Today, with recent polls showing fewer Americans supporting action on climate change than

last year, it's easy to become discouraged about the chances of real action to confront climate change.

As an investor, it is dark moments like these when courageous investors put their money down and are

rewarded when the pendulum swings back, as it always does.

Betting Against Coal: A Green Lottery Ticket I'm not one of those courageous investors. I prefer to take small risks that still have the potential for

large rewards. Since I don't know if the pendulum of public opinion on climate change will begin to

swing back today or ten years from now, I'm not ready to start shorting coal companies. However, I am

ready to make a few small bets that change might be sudden and soon. I've bought a couple cheap,

long-dated puts on coal companies.

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2010/01/should_coal_company_investors_breathe_easy_aft

er_copenhagen.html



19

A Brief Analysis of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference

Year: 2009

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was, in many ways, an historic event. It marked the

culmination of two years of intensive negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Bali Roadmap, which was agreed by the thirteenth Conference of theParties (COP 13) in December 2007. Millions of people around the world hoped that ―Hopenhagen

would be a turning point in the battle against climate change. The high-level segment brought together

115 Heads of State and Government, and was widely reported as one of the largest high-level gathering

outside New York. More than 40,000 people applied for accreditation for the Conference, far exceeding

the 15,000 capacity of the Conference venue. Large, and at times violent, demonstrations took place in

Copenhagen during the Conference as people urged the world‘s leaders to reach a meaningful

agreement. There is little doubt that the Copenhagen Conference left its mark in history – never before

has climate change featured so prominently on the international agenda. However, feelings about the

outcome are, at best, mixed and some even consider the Conference to be a failure.

This brief analysis focuses on the Copenhagen outcome, both in terms of substance and process,

examining what the outcome might mean for the UNFCCC process, and most importantly, for the battleagainst climate change.

http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2009/enb_copenhagen_commentary.pdf



20

PricewaterhouseCoopers Sustainability & Climate Change Services Post-Copenhagen Analysis:

Implications for Business

Year: 2010

So much has been written about the ‘disappointment’ or ‘failure’ of the Climate Summit in Copenhagen

last month that rehashing the final eventful days and hours of COP-15 here would add little. But therehas been much less analysis of the implications of the Copenhagen Accord for business. This is the focus

of this paper.

Political commitment, but little clarity

Business had been pressing governments to send clear, long term signals about the pace and direction

of climate policy. On any credible measure, the Accord does not do this. It reflects a broader coalition

behind the intent to stay within 2 degrees Celsius of warming, but failed to deliver any specifics on

national emissions targets or mitigation plans for either 2020 or 2050. Even on issues where progress

appears to have been made, such as technology transfer or adaptation, the Accord lacks the detail

required to prompt action.

Developed countries are expected to submit targets for 2020 to the UN by the end of January this year,

whilst developing nations are encouraged to log mitigation actions by that date. These targets and planswould provide some granularity to the policy agenda. But it remains to be seen how many countries

meet the deadline and whether the submissions reflect any greater ambition than the pledges made by

politicians in the run up to Copenhagen. Even then, businesses looking for clarity will continue to face a

period of uncertainty which will remain until those targets are enshrined in national legislation…

http://www.pwc.co.uk/pdf/pwc_copenhagen_analysis_implications_for_busines.pdf



21

UN Climate Change Conference (COP15)

Year: 2010

The Copenhagen climate conference ended on 19 December by taking note of the 'Copenhagen Accord',

which was supported by a large majority of Parties, including the European Union, but opposed by a

small number.The conference also mandated the two ad hoc working groups on long-term cooperative action under

the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and on further commitments for

developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol to complete their work at the next annual climate

conference, to be held in Mexico City in November 2010.

These results fall well short of the European Union's goal of achieving maximum progress in Copenhagen

towards the finalisation of an ambitious and legally binding global climate treaty to succeed the Kyoto

Protocol in 2013. Though disappointing, the Copenhagen outcome is however a step in the right

direction.

The EU secured key elements of the Copenhagen Accord, which was negotiated among some 30 parties

– many of them represented by their heads of state or government – from all UN regional groups during

the course of 18 December and into the early hours of 19 December. These parties collectivelyrepresent more than 80% of global emissions.

The Accord received support from the vast majority of Parties to the UNFCCC, but due to opposition

from a handful of countries the closing plenary session of the conference merely took note of the

Accord without formally endorsing it.

Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, who as Council Presidency negotiated on behalf of the EU

together with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, said of the Accord: “This will not

solve the threat of climate change. But it is a first step, an important step.”

President Barroso commented: “This accord is better than no accord.” He expressed disappointment

over the absence of any reference to a future agreement being legally binding. “At the same time, it also

fair to say that this was the first time we could put, in an agreement at this level, the actions that have

now been pledged by many other Parties,” he said.Following a discussion of the Accord by EU Environment Ministers on 22 December 2009, the

Commission joined the Swedish Presidency in concluding that the Accord marks a first step towards a

legally binding global agreement.

The Accord endorses for the first time at global level the objective of keeping warming to less than 2°C

above the pre-industrial temperature. Another positive element is that it requires developed countries

to submit economy-wide emission reduction targets, and developing countries to submit their

mitigation actions, by 31 January 2010 so that they can be listed as part of the document. The Accord

also lays the basis for a substantial ‘fast start’ finance package for developing countries approaching $30

billion for the period 2010-12, and medium-term financing of $100 billion annually by 2020.

However, the Accord does not refer to the conclusion of a legally binding agreement, a key objective for

the EU, or set the goal of at least halving global emissions by 2050 compared to 1990 levels in order tokeep warming below 2°C. The EU will continue to push for these.

The Accord also leaves many important details to be worked out. Much work will now be needed to

make the Accord operational. If this can be achieved it could, together with the outcomes of the two

working groups, provide the basis of a new global climate treaty.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/copenhagen_09.htm



22

How to Cure the Post-Copenhagen Hangover

By: Patrick Bond Year: 2009

In Copenhagen, the world’s richest leaders continued their fiery fossil fuel party last Friday night,

December 18, ignoring requests of global village neighbours to please chill out. Instead of halting the

hedonism, US President Barack Obama and the Euro elites cracked open the mansion door to add a few

nouveau riche guests: South Africa’s Jacob Zuma, China’s Jiabao Wen (reportedly the most obnoxious of

the lot), Brazil’s Lula Inacio da Silva and India’s Manmohan Singh. By Saturday morning, still drunk with

their power over the planet, these wild and crazy party animals had stumbled back onto their jets and

headed home.

The rest of us now have a killer hangover, because on behalf mainly of white capitalists (who are having

the most fun of all), the world’s rulers stuck the poor and future generations with the vast clean-up

charges – and worse: certain death for millions.

The 770 parts per million of carbon in the atmosphere envisaged in the "Copenhagen Accord"

signatories’ promised 15% emissions cuts from 1990 levels to 2020 – which in reality could be a 10%

increase once carbon trading and offset loopholes are factored in – will cook the planet, say scientists,

with nine out of 10 African peasants losing their livelihood.

The most reckless man at the party, of course, was the normally urbane, Ivy League-educated lawyerwho, a year ago, we hoped might behave with the dignity and compassion behooving the son of a

leading Kenyan intellectual. But in Obama’s refusal to lead the global North to make the required 45%

emissions cuts and offer payment of the US$400 billion annual climate debt owed to Third World victims

by 2020, Obama trashed not only Africa but also the host institution, according to 350.org leader Bill

McKibben: "he blew up the United Nations."

Economist Jeffrey Sachs charged Obama with abandoning "the UN framework, because it was proving

nettlesome to US power and domestic politics. Obama’s decision to declare a phony negotiating victory

undermines the UN process by signaling that rich countries will do what they want and must no longer

listen to the `pesky' concerns of many smaller and poorer countries."

The accord is "insincere, inconsistent, and unconvincing", Sachs continued, "unlikely to accomplish

anything real. It is non-binding and will probably strengthen the forces of opposition to emissionsreductions". Moreover, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s "announcements about money a decade

from now are mostly empty words. They do not bind the rich countries at all."

As Naomi Klein summed up, the accord is "nothing more than a grubby pact between the world’s

biggest emitters: I’ll pretend that you are doing something about climate change if you pretend that I

am too. Deal? Deal."

http://links.org.au/node/1426



24

Monitoring and Reporting On Financial Flows Related To Climate Change

By: The World Bank Year: 2009

Mitigating and adapting to climate change increases the cost of development. Considerable resources

are needed in addition to the present levels of official development assistance (ODA) to complement

rather than undermine the efforts and progress towards the achievement of development objectivesincluding Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The panoply of types and sources of financial flows is

extremely broad and includes both new instruments established to address climate change as well as

core development and investment finance shifting towards low carbon solutions and adaptation. In this

complex landscape, keeping track of financial support to adaptation and mitigation will be a challenge.

Following the mandate provided in the Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group (WBG) on

Development and Climate Change, an internal discussion paper on the challenges related to monitoring

such flows has been prepared by World Bank staff in consultation with UNFCCC and OECD.

The first part focuses on tracking, monitoring and reporting various types of flows, primarily from ODA

and other public sources, but also briefly reflecting on flows from private sources. It briefly reviews

available information on the various (current and upcoming) financial and investment flows to support

climate action in developing countries as a first step in assessing the challenges associated withmonitoring of such flows. It considers both climate finance (i.e., the amount of additional resources

required to catalyze the shift of a much larger volume of public and private development investments to

climate-friendlier options) and underlying finance (i.e., the almost 10 to 20 times larger amount of

financial and investment flows in developing countries that must be increasingly put to climate action).

The second part on focuses on possible ways of tracking additionality in ODA flows only, with the aim to

stimulating the discussion within the World Bank Group and its partners on this issue. It describes the

various perceptions of different groups of countries as well as possible baselines, benchmarks and tools

for tracking progress. It concludes that the future technical solutions for monitoring official (ODA and

non-ODA) financial flows towards climate action will most likely be a combination of the application of

(current and improved) OECD DAC Rio Markers, more consistent reporting by MDBs, and reporting by

UNFCCC on new funding through levies, and increased capacity by recipient countries in trackingincoming flows, etc. Increasingly reliable, comprehensive and transparent reporting is needed to

demonstrate that new climate finance instruments are not introduced at the expense of those targeting

other objectives.

The thirds part provides proposals for further action by developed and developing countries, the UN

system and MDBs.

http://beta.worldbank.org/climatechange/sites/default/files/documents/ClimateFin-Monitoring-

122909.pdf



25

A Convention for persons displaced by Climate Change

The effects of climate change will cause large-scale human displacement. We are engaged in a research

project which seeks to address the problem of climate change displacement. The focus of our project is

a proposal for a draft convention for persons displaced by climate change. The convention would

establish an international regime for the status and treatment of such persons.

http://www.ccdpconvention.com/






26

Among Bloggers



27

The Copenhagen Accord: What Happened? Is It A Good Deal? Who Wins And Who Loses? What Is

Next?

By: Emmanuel Guérin, and Matthieu Wemaere Year: 2009

The two weeks of negotiations in Copenhagen (7-18 December 2009) have been full of twists and turns.

The outcome of the first phase, when heads of delegations and Ministers had the leadership, is a set of draft decisions, heavily bracketed, and not recognized by all Parties – especially the US – as a basis for

negotiations. It proves the difficulty – if not the impossibility – of making progress towards an

agreement through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto

Protocol (KP) process. The lack of clarity of the Bali Roadmap – setting a two-track process, one under

the UNFCCC and one under the KP, but leaving open the form and legal nature of the final outcome –

and the lack of skill of the Danish Presidency, did not help.

The outcome of the second phase, when a small group – around 30 – heads of State took the lead, is a

minimalist agreement, disappointing in substance, and hectic in process. It proves that the pileup of

countries redlines did not leave room for an ambitious agreement: the agreement found is somehow

the lowest common denominator. This is not the deal we hoped, but given the context, and especially

given the perception that States had of their own national interests, this was probably the best possibledeal.

http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Idees-pour-le-debat/The-Copenhagen-Accord-What-

happened-Is-it-a-good-deal-Who-wins-and-who-loses-What-is-next



28

The issues of adaptation in Copenhagen

By: Benjamin Garnaud Year: 2009

Adaptation to climate change has rapidly grown in importance in climate negotiations and will probably

be one of the achievable points of agreement in Copenhagen in December. But progressing from an

agreement on adaptation to genuine implementation will take a long time and will require dealing withnew theoretical issues, from which a new conception of international cooperation shall inevitably arise.

With this in mind we will set current discussions in their true context, then explain the various objects

negotiated within the pillar of adaptation. We will then present the positions and negotiating strategies

of the various protagonists, before summarizing what can be expected from Copenhagen.

http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/sy_0904_Garnaud_AdaptCop15_EN.pdf



29

Closing Thoughts on Copenhagen

The airport line ups were long this morning in Copenhagen as folks left for home. Many had not slept

the night before, waiting around the clock at the Bella Centre for the response of the EU, Japan, the G77

and the Least Developed Countries to the Obama-negotiated Copenhagen Accord.

Once thing is for certain. The re-entry of the U.S. into the global climate talks was not the panacea that

environmentalists and others had hoped for. President Obama swept into town at the tail-end of the

negotiations, tried to broker a backroom deal with China, Brazil, India and South Africa, and left. The

world climate negotiations are now in disarray with no one really sure about what happened, what it all

means and what will happen next.

The second lesson of Copenhagen is that what China wants, China is willing to pay hardball for. One can

only imagine the consternation of American representatives as they sat waiting in vain for President Hu

Jintao to show up for their meetings – twice. Some media outlets have reported that President Obama

and Secretary of State had to barge, uninvited, into a meeting between China, India and Brazil to get

Jintao to talk to them. Given this, it leads one to wonder who really brokered the final deal announced

by Obama some hours later.

What does it all mean for Canada? The Canadian-centric reportage over the past week would have us

believe that we are global pariahs that obstructed progress at every turn. In truth, we were pretty mucha bystander and peripheral to the entire discussion – both inside the plenary and out.

Sure there were loud voices – as near as I can tell, almost if not, all Canadian – denouncing the oil sands

and Canada’s climate policies in Copenhagen. But this was mostly a show for all the folks at home. In

truth, the reaction of international media and delegates was perhaps worse than censure – it doesn’t

even cross their minds to ask us if we have anything to say.

Something to sleep on during the long ride home.

http://leahlawrence.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/closing-thoughts-on-copenhagen/



30

After Copenhagen: Hot Air in China

By: Shai Oster Year: 2009

Copenhagen may be over, but the finger-pointing for the meeting’s failure to reach a binding accord on

climate change lives on.

President Obama and the U.S. have taken plenty of blame, but so has China, accused by some of obstructing the talks to reach an accord on global warming over technicalities.

Even Gordon Brown has pointed the finger at China (and the U.S., who together account for 40% of the

world’s carbon emissions).

But China isn’t taking this all sitting down. In an unusual indication of the growing media savvy of the

Chinese regime, China’s consular officials in the U.S. have been forwarding the Chinese version’s of

events to American journalists.

Accompanying the special report written by the official Xinhua news agency about Premier Wen Jiabao’s

efforts, is a note saying: “I strongly recommend this story to the U.S. Public, for a better understanding

of the importance of Sino-U.S. co-operations on the Climate issue and a clearer view of the Chinese

stand upon this issue.”

The Xinhua story about Wen’s trip to Copenhagen portrays him as a selfless hero, struggling to protect

the interests of Poor Nations and shocked by the rudeness of others toward China as he struggled to

reach a last-minute consensus.

China had portrayed the Copenhagen talks as a make-or-break moment for fighting global warming.

Many critics say China’s insistence on leaving out absolute limits is what gutted the final agreement,

which ended up disappointing hopes for a political statement out of the talks.

Now that Copenhagen is widely seen as a failure and China as the main culprit, China’s propaganda

workers are in overdrive trying to spin the story in China’s favor.

Considering that climate talks are likely to drag on, there’ll be plenty of chances to fine tune the

message if not the matter.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/12/25/after-copenhagen-hot-air-in-china/?mod=blogmod



32

Copenhagen Conference Report

By: Henrietta Davis Year: 2010

Cambridge was fortunate to have City Councilor Henrietta Davis attend the recent United Nations

conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen. Here is a report of her experiences:

Some have called the COP 15 meeting last month in Copenhagen “the environmental Woodstock of thisgeneration.” It brought together people from far and wide with high hopes and aspirations,

representatives of large countries and small, some like the Maldives, fighting for their survival.

The excitement of COP 15 was evident not only at the formal conference center, but also throughout

the city of Copenhagen where green messages and holiday greetings combined in (energy efficient)

lights and billboards. I was honored to attend the meeting as one member of the five-person National

League of Cities delegation.

While the large—very large—international meeting focused on nations setting targets for greenhouse

gas emission reductions and determining how the developed world would assist the developing nations

(goals that were advanced but not quite accomplished), our NLC delegation focused on mobilizing the

unique and powerful role of local governments.

To that end we got together with leaders of cities and local communities from all around the globe. Wemet formally and informally with leaders of American, Canadian, Australian, Eastern and Western

European cities. We were introduced to the European Union’s Municipal and Regional Commission. We

spoke with city leaders from Dubrovnik and Paris and from small towns in England who all spoke

passionately of how much work there is for cities to do and the help we need to do it.

At informational briefings we confirmed that we cities, towns and counties are a big part of the

greenhouse gas emission problem: home to the bulk of the world’s population, we are users of a

significant amount of the world’s energy.

We also confirmed that we are an essential part of the solution and that we’re already doing so much.

As a Cambridge City Councilor and recent chair of the Health and Environment Committee, I am well

aware of our city’s efforts and desire for U.S. and world leaders to partner with us to do even more.

Local governments like Cambridge are the organizers of significant mitigation efforts, retrofitting ourlocal government buildings to use less energy, enacting stringent local building energy codes, planting

and maintaining trees in urban forests and reducing mountains of trash through local recycling efforts.

We are the first responders when there are emergencies arising from severe weather events like heat

waves, hurricanes and droughts. And it will be up to us to adapt our cities to climate change effects

such as the rise in sea level and insect pest infestations.

While the U.N badges we were issued indicated that our delegation represented a non-governmental

organization (NGO), it’s important to point out that the thousands of municipalities represented through

the NLC are indeed governmental. Unlike many NGOs, we have a broad perspective that must go

beyond the interests of narrow, particular solutions. I suggest that we are local government

organizations (LGOs) and that we are already playing a unique and critical role in solving the worldwide

problem of climate change. As government organizations, we will seek every appropriate remedy, usingour authority and powers.

Indeed, like Cambridge, many U.S. local governments have already written climate action plans and have

begun implementing those plans as we’ve waited for the federal government to play its part with major

policies and programs such as increased CAFE standards, a national energy policy and most recently

funding for Energy Efficiency Block Grants.

At the COP 15 meeting our delegation met with the U.S. State department to negotiate the critical role

of cities and the need for partnerships at all levels of government: local, state, county and federal. On



33

Tuesday, I testified along with others from U.S. cities, from ICLEI (Cities for Sustainability), from the U.S.

Conference of Mayors and from NACO (National Association of Counties) to say that we want local

government to be specifically mentioned in any written U.N. agreement. We are already working to

prevent climate change.

In closing, the most important thing I learned in Copenhagen is that local governments and their

representative organizations, such as the NLC, can and must work together within our own countriesand across national boundaries to share our best practices with each other, including reaching out to

cities in developing nations. No matter what happens with the U.N.’s climate accord, cities, towns and

counties will continue to protect the world’s climate and its people.

There’s much more we local government organizations (LGOs) can do together. We have just begun to

harness the power of LGOs−cities, towns and counties−working together.

http://energytwodotzero.org/2010/01/08/copenhagen-conference-report/



34

Frustrated after COP15?

By: Georg Guensberg Year: 2010

Don't be. Cities will be the driving force of real change.

There is no doubt that COP 15 was a disappointment. A lot of reflection has been made in the last few

weeks on what the outcome means for international climate policy. Will there be another chance forsaving the climate on UN-level?

Maybe that is the wrong question. The interview with Antony Giddens underlines the complexity of

climate policy. “Climate change is very, very different from any other political issue we have had to deal

with“, he says.

To be honest: My expectations for COP 15 were low. I have been part of the Austrian governmental

delegation at COP 1 (Berlin) and COP 3 (Kyoto). I had to understand what it means for negotiators to find

a compromise between more than 190 countries. These countries have different interests and positions.

They have even different political systems and cultures. The formal UN procedures including the well

known part of informal negotiations are by now not capable to get the enormous challenge of a global

agreement on a CO2 reduction on track.

So does that sound too pessimistic? Well, actually I´m not. COP 15 brought something else. It showedthe enormous potential of other players on the field: Individuals, organisations, companies, regions and

mainly cities. Cities can be the driving force of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Around COP 15 there were different conferences on the role of cities in climate protection. Fredrik

posted on the Mayors Climate Summit in Copenhagen spotlighting different initiatives on a local level. In

Mid December the Ecocity Conference took place in Istanbul. I had the opportunity to participate at the

Global Urban Summit Conference in Rotterdam right before COP 15.

World-famous Jeremy Rifkin is right when addressing city representative being at the fore-front of a real

change in climate and energy politics. Today, already half of the world’s population lives in urban areas.

They consume two-thirds of total primary energy and produce over 70% of global energy-related CO2

emissions. It is a good sign that the rather conservative International Energy Agency (IEA) now gives a

focus on the role of cities. A rather new study projects that by 2030, as a result of increasedurbanisation, cities and towns will be responsible for 76% of global energy-related CO2 emissions.

It is the density of cities that offers a lot of opportunities to us. Density not only in a spatial dimension,

but politically. Short distance and closer networks are important in decision making and

implementation, too.

There are a lot of examples showing that change is possible. It was again Vancouver impressing in

Rotterdam and Istanbul with ambitious targets and a so far successful program in significantly reducing

the carbon footprint of its population. The action plan called Vancouver 2020 is inspiring and motivating.

Brent Toderian , Vancouver’s Director of City Planning, says: “We are far ahead of other North American

cities. Nevertheless we are still not sustainable. We still need more action to reduce our carbon

footprint”.

That´s the kick we need. That´s the spirit of real change.

http://sustainablecities.dk/en/blog/2010/01/frustrated-after-cop15



36

Part of the coalition’s approach to meeting the targets might be carbon intensity import tariffs, to

penalise China’s exports. The role of civil society, environmental groups etc. is to lobby for such

legislation and to campaign for a boycott of Chinese goods. The two approaches cover the top-down and

bottom-up angles, they penalise the Chinese high carbon economy and promote lower carbon, locally

produced products. Win-win?

Is there evidence of boycotts actually achieving things in the past? Nestlé is widely boycotted but seemsto be doing okay.

http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2009/12/after-cop15-boycott-china/



37

A Climate Con: Analysis of the "Copenhagen Accord"

By: David Spratt and Damien Lawson Year: 2009

''In biblical terms it looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our future and our

people … our future is not for sale.'' Ian Fry, Tuvalu negotiator

"This is a declaration that small and poor countries don't matter, that international civil society doesn'tmatter, and that serious limits on carbon don't matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he's

wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a

tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries

have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight." Bill

McKibben, 350.org

"The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport.

There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty. It is now evident that

beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in

Copenhagen." John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK

"So that's it. The world's worst polluters – the people who are drastically altering the climate – gathered

here in Copenhagen to announce they were going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientificwarnings. They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying islands, its glaciers,

its North Pole, and millions of lives. Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't

surprised. Every day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of warming gases have

been offered by scientists, developing countries and protesters – and they have been systematically

vetoed by the governments of North America and Europe." Johann Hari, The Independent, 19 December

2009

"I think that our prime minister has played an outstanding role ... He's been working very hard for the

last few months... and he's just been fantastic all the way, he just shines at it... he's been really

important through these meetings". Tim Flannery, ABC News, 19 December 2009…

http://climatecodered.blogspot.com/2009/12/climate-con-analysis-of-copenhagen.html



38

Copenhagen De-briefing

An Analysis of COP15 for Long-term Cooperation

Year: 2010

The 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) and the 5th Conference of the Parties serving as the

Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP5) in Copenhagen marked the culmination of two years of negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) and the Bali Roadmap. The purpose of the negotiations was to ultimately create a

comprehensive, legally-binding international treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in

2012. However, it has been clear for some time that such an agreement would not materialise in

Copenhagen as a result of the ongoing contention associated with many of the issues on the negotiating

table.

Widely disputed aspects of a deal:

• Levels of climate finance and its long-term governance

• Discussions around targets for emissions reduction

• The threshold at which to limit average global temperature increase

• The introduction of a brand new treaty, or upgrade of the existing Kyoto Protocol

Early negotiations in the run-up to the Copenhagen conference highlighted the lack of progress in

reaching a unanimous agreement on how to tackle climate change, suggesting that the negotiations in

Copenhagen may instead provide us with a strong political agreement or framework, which could then

be turned into a legal treaty by mid-2010.

With the expectations for a legally-binding agreement lowered, Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of

the UNFCCC, outlined five essentials for success in Copenhagen.

5 essentials for success:

• Enhanced adaptation assistance to the most vulnerable and poorest nations

• Major industrial countries must propose substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions

• Emerging economies – such as China and India – must limit the growth of their emissions

• The mechanisms in place to help developing countries engage in mitigation and adaptation activities

must be financed (through both short-term and long-term funds)

• An equitable governance structure for the management and deployment of financial resources

Utilizing Mr. de Boer’s criteria for success in Copenhagen, there arise several issues to analyze beyond

the conference’s resultant document, the Copenhagen Accord.

Report Structure

In this report, we begin with a discussion of the dynamics between developing and developed countries

that have influenced the debates. This is then followed with a description of the financial mechanisms,

requirement for short and long-term funds, and problems with the current institutional arrangements.

We then highlight some of the mechanisms in place to help countries mitigate climate change that wereunder discussion in Copenhagen. In particular, we focus on: technology transfer; Reducing Emissions for

Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD); the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint

Implementation. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the Copenhagen Accord and an analysis of the

Accord’s potential effect on future negotiations.

http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/climatico-cop15-analysis1.pdf



39

Copenhagen Climate Accord Avoids Legally-Binding Goals

By: Andrew Bates Year: 2010

While the Copenhagen Accord, released to the world in December, recognized the problem of climate

change, it contained no legally binding emission reduction goals and was not formally adopted by

participating countries.The Copenhagen Accord was the result of the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) of the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. COP15 represented the result of two years of

planning and pre-negotiations, and took place Dec. 7 to 18 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

The agreement aims to reduce and limit carbon emissions worldwide so as to limit the rise in global

temperature to only two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. It also aims to establish a

global fund to aid the efforts of poor nations dealing with climate change.

The completion of any sort of deal whatsoever looked almost impossible heading into the conference’s

final day, news outlets reported at the time. A negotiation deadlock meant there was no significant

document for leaders to sign, as many of them arrived only the day before. This forced world leaders to

negotiate directly; an unusual occurrence, said Robert Orr, the UN assistant secretary-general at a press

conference after the meeting.The text of the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated mainly between the U.S., China, India, Brazil and

South Africa, and presented to the plenary, where delegates voted to “take note” of it. The UNFCCC

cannot formally adopt an accord without unanimous support from its members, which some developing

countries refused to give.

The accord is therefore not legally binding and does not make any official commitments to reduce

emissions. It is expected, according to TIME magazine, that next year’s COP meeting in Mexico City will

largely be concerned with adding details and structure to the document.

Canada’s chief negotiator, Environment Minister Jim Prentice, told the Canadian Press that the accord

was a success. “It sits within the principles we put forward as a Canadian government and it essentially

achieved all our negotiating objectives,” he said.

In a statement, Prime Minister Stephen Harper claimed Canada played a “key part” in the negotiation of the accord.

But Canada and the Conservative government have faced criticism on this issue. Liberal Leader Michael

Ignatieff attacked Harper’s importance on the international stage after the prime minister wasn’t invited

to a 20-nation emergency meeting of world leaders. “For decades,” he said in a press release, “the world

has looked to Canada as a broker on progressive matters of international importance – regardless of the

party in power. Now we are no longer even at the table.”

The standard measure of emissions reductions being used is the difference between annual emissions in

the year 1990 versus the year 2020. Unlike many other nations who support the 1990 benchmark,

Canada wants to establish 2006 as the year for comparison. That “would wipe out any obligation to deal

with the country’s 26 per cent rise in . . . emissions since 1990,” according to an article by Jonathon

Gatehouse in Maclean’s Magazine.Canada’s current emissions reduction targets are equivalent to three per cent below 1990 levels by the

year 2020, which is much less than targets of 25 per cent set by Russia and Japan. Many provinces have

targeted their own emissions cuts, according to the McGill Tribune, including a 20 per cent cut from

1990 levels in Quebec, 15 per cent in Ontario, 11 per cent in British Columbia and 10 per cent in New

Brunswick. However, oil giant Alberta’s climate goals are simply to stabilize emissions by 2020,

according to Maclean’s.



40

Canada was presented the “Fossil of the Year” award by the global Climate Action Network after COP15.

“Canada’s performance here in Copenhagen builds on two years of delay, obstruction, and total

inaction,” Ben Wikler, the U.S. campaign director of the global action movement Avaaz, said during the

announcement. “This government thinks there’s a choice between environment and economy, and for

them, tar sands beats climate every time.”

http://www.theconcordian.com/copenhagen-climate-accord-avoids-legally-binding-goals-1.1006354



41

Views of NGOs



43

Climate Change: ‘Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is’

By: Ranjit Devraj Year: 2010

While the BASIC bloc countries - Brazil, South Africa, India and China - will submit their plans for

voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31 deadline stipulated by the Copenhagen Accord, they have

taken care to emphasise that the agreement, reached at the end of the December climate change

summit in the Danish capital, has no legal basis.

Addressing a joint press conference after a meeting of concerned BASIC ministers on Sunday, India’s

environment minister Jairam Ramesh said: "We support the Copenhagen Accord. But all of us were

unanimously of the view that its value lies not as a standalone document but as an input into the two-

track negotiation process under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC)."

Ramesh explained that the Accord was not a legal document and that the "understanding reached at

Copenhagen was that the accord will facilitate the two-track negotiating process which is the only

legitimate process to reach a legally binding treaty in Mexico.’’ The two-track negotiation process was

agreed upon at the December 2007 Bali conference, pertaining to Long-Term Cooperative Action under

the UNFCCC and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The BASIC meeting and the press conference were attended by Carlos Minc, the Brazilian environmentminister, his counterpart from South Africa, Buyelwa Sonjica, and the vice-chairman of China's National

Development and Reform Commission, Xie Zhenhua.

At the press conference, Xie said that the BASIC group’s objectives were consistent with the interests of

the developing countries. "BASIC will take the lead in large-scale emission reduction and also stick to the

policy of common but differentiated principle." Sonjica said BASIC would not make any decision outside

the Group of 77 (G-77) countries. "We see ourselves as adding value to the proposals of G-77," she said.

Siddharth Pathak, a member of the international environmental group Greenpeace’s policy division, told

IPS that the willingness of the BASIC group to support vulnerable countries by ensuring their

participation in open and transparent negotiations and plans to provide technological and financial

support was commendable. "We hope that this support will become tangible by the group’s next

meeting in April."Pathak said that while BASIC appeared keen to consolidate itself as a group and also take along the G-77

countries, it needed to "demonstrate leadership, both in furthering negotiations on a fair, ambitious and

legally binding agreement, and in terms of pushing industrialised counties to urgently reduce GhG

(greenhouse gas) emissions and make their own appropriate contributions.’’

Other analysts said the BASIC meeting had the potential of cementing differences both within and

outside the bloc.

"What is crucial now is to see whether China and India will stick to carbon intensity figures in their action

plans, as they announced before the Copenhagen meet," said Siddharth Mishra, director at CUTS

International, a leading economic policy and advocacy group. Carbon intensity is a measure of carbon

dioxide emissions per unit of production.

"This will suit China well because it is already on a trajectory of lowering its energy intensity and it has

voluntarily announced cuts of 40-45 percent before Copenhagen," said Mitra. "India, too, can reduce the

trend of the growth of its emissions and specify domestic regulations to ensure reductions in emissions

from its dirty industries," Mitra told IPS.

Mitra added: "We don’t know what the back-of-the-envelope calculations are, but both China and India

may benefit from the pledge of 100 billion U.S. dollars by the end of the decade for developing countries

to adapt to climate change and limit the global rise in temperatures, since industrialisation began, from

exceeding two degrees Celsius."



44

Denmark, as president of the Conference of Parties (CoP), has been asked by the BASIC ministers to

convene immediately meetings of the two negotiation groups for the Kyoto Protocol and the Long-Term

Cooperative Action in March and ensure that they meet on at least five more occasions before the 16th

CoP in December.

After the BASIC countries joined hands with the United States in negotiating the Copenhagen Accord, at

the end of the summit in the Danish capital, several developing countries expressed fears that the

document would become legal and dilute the Bali two-track process.

BASIC ministers have also asked the rich nations to speedily distribute the 10 billion dollars they had

pledged to the least developed countries and the islands to address climate change this year.

Brazil’s Minc said at the press conference that BASIC had decided to create its own fund to help small

island states and the least developed countries. "The actual contributions will be decided at the next

meeting of the BASIC in South Africa," he said.

A day before the BASIC meet, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh let it be known that he had

reservations over pressure from Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and United Nations

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon for follow-up action on the Copenhagen Accord and get results by the

Jan. 31 deadline.

While the Accord had called for "economy-wide emission targets" by 2020 by the Annex-1 (rich

countries) and the other countries to submit "mitigation actions," Rasmussen and Ban had writtenseparately to all heads of state and governments on Dec. 30, urging them to submit their commitments

by Jan. 31.

Their joint letter was silent on the Kyoto Protocol, raising suspicions. Mitra said that such suspicions first

surfaced after the UNFCCC executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, failed to mention the Kyoto Protocol at a

press conference held soon after the Copenhagen Accord. "The impression that there is a plan afoot to

bury Kyoto is not helped by the fact that the European Union is pushing it as a first step to new

negotiations.’’

The Kyoto Protocol, the world’s only legally binding agreement, required 37 wealthy nations to cut GhG

emissions by 2012, but asked for no commitments from developing countries. In contrast, the

Copenhagen Accord does not talk of mitigation goals for the developed countries and is seen to be

acting to lower the bar in climate negotiations when scientists warn that the climate is changing morerapidly than estimated earlier.

The Accord was opposed by Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua and Sudan on both substantive and

procedural grounds. For that reason, it could not be accepted or endorsed by the CoP, which only "took

note" of it, denying the document status at the U.N.

In an editorial on Tuesday, the respected ‘The Hindu’ newspaper commented that the response of BASIC

"underscores the view of the developing world that the Copenhagen Accord chose to give insufficient

importance to the central tenet of "common but differentiated responsibilities" outlined in the UNFCCC.

The Hindu editorial said one positive outcome of the "common strategy" adopted by BASIC countries

was the fostering of "active South-South cooperation" to advance science. "Given that intellectual

property rights on technology remain a major barrier to achieving higher energy efficiencies, such joint

efforts involving India and China hold great promise."

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50104



45

From Copenhagen to Flopenhagen through Hopenhagen

By: Olivia Sage Year: 2010

The Copenhagen Conference of Parties (COP15) held from 7 to 19 December 2009 marked (or was

supposed to) the culmination of a two-year negotiating process launched in Bali at COP 13 in December

2007, to enhance international climate change cooperation and extend the Kyoto Protocol commitmentperiod. The Conference's high level segment held from 16 to 18 December and attended by close to 115

world leaders represented one of the largest gatherings of world leaders outside of New York. The

conference was subject to unprecedented public and media attention, and more than 40,000 people,

representing governments, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental organizations, media

and UN agencies applied for accreditation at the conference.

Those who had hoped that the Copenhagen Climate Conference would be able to “seal the deal” and

result in a fair, ambitious and equitable agreement, setting the world towards a path to avoid dangerous

climate change are extremely disappointed. Negotiations took place over the two weeks at the level of

experts, Ministers and Heads of State, but saw hostility to compromise, ill will and many controversies.

Leaked documents, a lack of transparency, a disorganised, unclear and undemocratic process, an

unwillingness to move out of a conditional mode to converge on an agreement, and a lack of regard forthe work achieved since 2007 by the two ad hoc working groups launched in Bali - all these

characterised the fortnight-long negotiations. A lot of precious conference time was wasted discussing

process, how to conduct consultations, what text(s) should be used as a basis for final negotiations; even

old unresolved matters in the climate negotiations were revived such as the adoption of rules of

procedures; the insistence of Tuvalu to formally consider proposals of protocols under the Convention

also delayed the proceedings.

The Conference ended in complete disarray when the results of a political agreement entitled the

'Copenhagen Accord' - not recognisably based on the outcome of the international negotiating process -

went out all over the world, backed by press conferences from some Heads of State including Presidents

Obama and Sarkozy, before the formal closing plenary meeting. When the media reported that Heads of

State had been able to “seal the deal” some negotiators were outraged as they felt they had been

hijacked by a parallel process. However, almost everyone participating in the negotiations openly

admitted that the celebrated Accord was “far from a perfect agreement.” The exceptional procedure

under which the Accord came out (described below) led to a reluctance to analyse its legal and

operational implications.

The closing COP plenary lasted nearly 13 hours, and witnessed acrimonious statements, including

references to suicide for Africa and analogies to the Holocaust. Even though most negotiating groups

supported the adoption of the Accord as a COP decision in order to operationalize it as a step towards “a

better” future agreement, some hardliners including Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba opposed the Accord,

reached during what they characterized as an “untransparent” and “undemocratic” negotiating process.

With the help of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, the Parties agreed to adopt a COP decision

whereby the COP “takes note” of the Copenhagen Accord. The Accord itself therefore has no official

status. A procedure to indicate support to the Accord has been established.

How can the Conference be characterised? Its historical significance lies in the fact that it brought

together the majority of the world’s leaders to consider climate change; that mitigation actions were

pledged by developed and developing countries, as well as provisions on finance and technology made;

and that a temperature limit of 2 degrees Celsius was mentioned. Something might come of the fact

that Heads of States actually worked on texts, negotiating down to the level of commas. However no

quantum leap in international governance was made. Most delegates felt that only a “weak agreement,”

had come out of an event which had raised high expectations given its size, the money spent, the people



47

The Copenhagen Conference: A Setback for Bad Climate Policy in 2010

By: Ben Lieberman Year: 2010

The December 2009 United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen capped off what must have been

a very disappointing year for global warming activists and their allies in Washington. The year began

with high hopes that the new Congress and Administration would enact global warming legislation andsign up the U.S. to a new global warming treaty. It ended with that legislation stalled in the Senate and

with the Copenhagen conference concluding with an agreement so weak that it represents a step

backward for the U.N. treaty process.

The reality is that restrictions on energy use in the name of fighting global warming are a costly and

ineffective solution to an overstated threat. That reality emerged in Copenhagen and will remain a

major obstacle to an ill-advised climate treaty or legislation in 2010.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/sr0075.cfm



49

How Copenhagen Could Give You a Job

One idea for settling the rift behind China and the U.S. over carbon dioxide emissions: Build more

stuff here, to send there.

By: Jim DiPeso Year:2009

The diplomats, politicians, entourages, activists, reporters, and hangers-on are heading home fromDenmark - leaving behind trash for Copenhagen and a throbbing headache for the rest of the world.

It was probably unrealistic to expect representatives of 192 countries - each of which have different

interests and politics - to come to terms on a treaty settling all of the details involved with reworking the

world's energy economy in time to keep the global climate out of the red zone.

Disappointment at the dishwatery deal that came out of Copenhagen is understandable. Still, the

tortuous history of nuclear arms control negotiations shows that there might be a productive roads

towards progress.

Back in the day, the Big Two were the United States and the Soviet Union. Both maintained nuclear

arsenals that posed existential risks to civilization. None but the Big Two could dial back the risks.

Haltingly, through many high-level summit meetings, some friendlier than others, and many sets of

highly complicated, difficult negotiations, the Big Two found ways to shrink their arsenals. Success tooklonger than was optimal, but the result was a safer world.

Today, the Big Two are the United States and China. Both emit enough greenhouse gases - 40 percent of

the global total - to risk pushing the global climate system into dangerous territory. If the Big Two don't

reduce their emissions substantially, there is little chance of stabilizing the atmosphere's concentration

of CO2. (Message to the climate denial illiterates. CO2 traps radiant heat energy. That's been a

documented fact since the Buchanan administration. Catch a clue.) Post-Copenhagen, the U.S. and

China should embark on negotiating climate deals covering a gamut of issues - joint efforts to carry out

demonstrate and deploy low-carbon technologies, financing mitigation, and coming to terms on

verification, one of the bugaboos that roiled the Copenhagen talks and, incidentally, one of the more

vexing issues between the previous Big Two.

Here's a small example of what could be done. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republicanwho is one of the few working scientists in Congress, and three other Republicans suggested working

out a deal with China to spend stimulus funds buying and installing U.S.-manufactured pollution control

technology for Chinese coal plants in exchange for retiring a proportional amount of U.S. debt held by

China.

Such an agreement wouldn't amount to much as far as reducing greenhouse gas emissions goes, but it

would build confidence and serve as a foundation for future cooperative projects in the energy realm

that would cut carbon pollution.

There's an old saying in diplomacy. There are no permanent friends, only permanent interests.

The U.S. and Soviets negotiated a series of arms deals because it was in the interest of both countries to

tamp down the arms race and reduce the risks of a global conflagration.

Likewise, rational actors in both the U.S. and China know that it is in both countries' interest to reducegreenhouse gas emissions and stop the highly imprudent chemistry experiment that humanity is

performing on the global climate system. There is plenty that both countries can do together to tamp

down emissions and reduce the risks of dangerous climate change.

Let the thin gruel of an agreement that came out of Copenhagen serve as the first of many climate deals

between the U.S. and China that push the emissions reduction ball forward and leave the world better

off.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/climate-politics-47122002



50

Analysis: The Copenhagen Accord - Worth the Paper It Came On?

Copenhagen - It was the agreement for which the world had been waiting for years: an ambitious United

Nations deal on fighting catastrophic global warming. "Today we have made a meaningful and

unprecedented breakthrough," US President Barack Obama told the press as the ink was still drying on

the so-called Copenhagen Accord."For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to

take action to confront the threat of climate change," Obama said.

But as world leaders began to drain away from the snow-covered conference centre, a chorus of voices

protested that the long-awaited accord was less a breakthrough on policy than a breakdown in

ambition.

"What could be agreed today falls far below our expectations, but ... it was the only deal available," the

head of the European Union's executive, Jose Manuel Barroso, said resignedly.

Environmental groups were even more critical of the agreement, cooked up at the eleventh hour

between the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

"Copenhagen has been an abject failure: justice has not been done," said Nnimmo Bassey, chair of

Friends of the Earth International. Greenpeace and WWF were similarly scathing.

Defending his deal, Obama pointed out that the proposal endorsed scientific calls for global warming to

be kept to 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.

"We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees ... and importantly, to

take action to meet this objective consistent with science," he said.

US officials also stressed that the deal offered poor states around 30 billion dollars in climate aid by

2012, with up to 100 billion dollars per year expected by 2020.

And they said that, crucially, it maintained the momentum of international talks on fighting climate

change, leading up to another summit in Mexico next year.

"Going forward, we are going to have to build on the momentum that we have established here in

Copenhagen," Obama said.

But those arguments missed key points.

The agreement on the 2-degree target, for example, simply echoed a call from the world's mostpowerful leaders at a summit in the Italian city of L'Aquila in July.

"This sounds just like L'Aquila all over again," Tom Brookes, head of communications at the European

Climate Foundation think tank in Brussels, told the German Press Agency dpa.

The offer of 100 billion dollars, meanwhile, repeated earlier calls from European and African nations,

while the 30-billion-dollar offer consisted of existing offers from Japan and the EU, topped up with a

new pledge of a meagre 3.6 billion dollars from the US.

And the draft accord dropped earlier calls for developed states as a group to sign up to binding

emissions cuts by 2020 and deeper ones by 2050 - leaving it to each state to set its own targets.

"Instead of committing to deep cuts in emissions and putting new, public money on the table to help

solve the climate crisis, rich countries have bullied developing nations to accept far less," Bassey said.

That left the main innovation of the Copenhagen Accord - its key "breakthrough" - an agreementbetween China and the US that developed states would not be able to pry too deeply into developing

states' own claims of their greenhouse-gas emissions.

"In the end, they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through," said

Kumi Naidoo, head of Greenpeace.

Obama admitted that the progress embodied in the Copenhagen Accord "is not enough" to tame

climate change on its own.



51

But as the US president left Copenhagen, analysts said that the real decision taken in Denmark was to

put off dealing with the really difficult issues until the next meeting in Mexico.

"Copenhagen produced a snapshot of what leaders already promised before they got here. The biggest

challenge, turning the political will into a legally binding agreement, has moved to Mexico," said Kim

Carstensen, leader of WWF's global climate campaign.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/300089,analysis-the-copenhagen-accord--worth-the-paper-it-

came-on.html



52

Copenhagen Accord Submissions Press Release 4 February 2010

Year: 2010

Copenhagen Accord Pledges Do Not Meet Climate Goals

Emissions reduction pledges submitted to the UNFCCC as part of the Copenhagen Accord process fall

short of the level of greenhouse gas emissions reductions required to limit temperature increase to 2°C(3.6°F) relative to preindustrial temperatures. Instead, the proposals, if fully implemented, would allow

global mean temperature to increase approximately 3.9°C (7.0°F). To reach the Copenhagen Accord

goal, global emissions must peak within the next decade and fall to at least 50% below 1990 levels by

2050.

The Climate Interactive team of researchers from Sustainability Institute, the MIT Sloan School of

Management, and Ventana Systems have analyzed the emissions reductions goals expressed by various

nations in their submissions to UNFCCC as part of process laid out in the Copenhagen Accord. The

researchers analyzed proposals through February 2, 2010. The analysis, based on the C-ROADS

computer simulation of climate change, assumes that the goals for emissions reductions pledged by

nations in their submissions are fully achieved and that loopholes (such as double counting of offsets or

the selling of surplus emissions quotas) do not occur.Simulation of the emissions reductions pledges contained within letters submitted to the UNFCCC show

a large gap between the 2 degree target and current pledges. Using the C-ROADS simulation, the

researchers estimate that current pledges would allow global mean temperature to increase by 3.9°C

(7.0°F) by 2100. Full details and assumptions are at

http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/scoreboard-science-and-data. The team of researchers

conducted a similar analysis during the COP-15 negotiation in Copenhagen (December 7-18, 2009),

which showed an expected temperature increase of 3.9°C (7.0°F) by 2100. Thus, in the month following

the creation of the Accord, the gap between current pledges and the level of collective reductions

needed to meet climate goals has not been closed. The Copenhagen Accord calls for “deep cuts in global

emissions ... with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature

below 2 degrees Celsius.” Our analysis shows that doing so would require global greenhouse gasemissions to peak by 2020 and then fall at least 60% below current emissions.

Under the current proposals submitted to the UNFCCC, global emissions of greenhouse gasses would

increase on average 0.8% per year between now and 2020. After 2020, emissions would need to fall at a

rate of approximately 3.3% per year to achieve the goal of reducing emissions 60% below current levels

by 2050. The Copenhagen Accord does not include commitments or means to achieve these reductions.

According to Dr. Elizabeth Sawin of Sustainability Institute, “Without deeper near term emissions

reductions and an explicit commitment to longer term global emissions reductions, the Copenhagen

Accord leaves the task of creating a global framework to prevent dangerous interference with the

Earth’s climate unfinished. A new degree of collective ambition and cooperation will be required before

the world sees a climate agreement consistent with limiting warming to even 2°C, let alone the 1.5°C

goal named by a growing number of governments and civil society groups.” …

http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-

releases/Copenhagen%20Accord%20Submissions%20Press%20Release%204%20February%202010.pdf/

view



53

Final Copenhagen Accord Press Release 19 December 09

Year: 2009

The final Copenhagen Accord reaffirms the importance of limiting global warming to 2 °C, but current

national commitments would lead to approximately 3.9 °C (7.0 °F) warming by 2100.

To close that gap global emissions must peak within the next decade and fall approximately 50% below1990 levels by 2050 (a cut of approximately 60% below current emissions). The sooner the nations of

the world begin to close this gap the cheaper and easier it will be. The Climate Interactive research team

from Sustainability Institute, the MIT Sloan School of Management, and Ventana Systems have analyzed

the greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets stated in the final Copenhagen Accord and compared

these with the emissions reduction commitments made by individual nations. The analysis, based on the

C-ROADS climate policy simulation model (http://climateinteractive.org), assumes that all national

commitments offered prior to and during the Copenhagen meeting remain in force, are verifiable and

will be fully implemented.

The Accord adopted in Copenhagen (accessed 19 December 2009) calls for “deep cuts in global

emissions…so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius” compared to

preindustrial levels.Simulations of the C-ROADS model show that doing so requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak

by 2020 and then fall 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (a cut of approximately 60% below current

emissions). However, simulations of the C-ROADS model show a large gap between the targets in the

final Copenhagen agreement and the commitments offered by individual nations. Using the C-ROADS

model, the researchers estimate that current confirmed proposals (that is, submissions to the UNFCCC

or official government positions) would raise expected global mean temperature by 3.9 °C (7.0 °F) by

2100. Including conditional proposals, legislation under debate and unofficial government statements

would lower expected warming to an increase of approximately 2.9°C (5.2°F) over preindustrial levels.

Full details and assumptions are at

http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases. Climate

Interactive researcher and MIT Professor John Sterman comments “If you pour water into your bathtubfaster that it drains out, the level of water in the tub will rise. In exactly the same way, the world

currently pours about twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere each year than nature can remove,

increasing the concentrations of greenhouse gases that drive continued warming, sea level rise, and

other climate changes that pose grave risks to our economy and welfare (see

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/05/carbonbath).

The longer we delay the emissions reductions required to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations, the

more costly it will be to cut emissions, the worse warming will be and the more the people of the world,

rich and poor, will suffer. The longer we delay, the greater the risk that warming will trigger positive

feedback loops in the climate system that can limit the ability of the land and oceans to remove CO2

from the atmosphere, causing still faster accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and still more

warming, in a vicious cycle. The good news is that there are many opportunities to cut emissions today,

profitably, with technologies for efficiency, and for clean, renewable energy. And the faster we do so,

the cheaper it gets: through R&D, scale economies and learning, every megawatt of solar and wind we

build today lowers the costs of the next one, further boosting demand for clean energy and cutting

emissions in a virtuous cycle. The nations whose policies drive these positive feedbacks the fastest will

create jobs and build the industries that will dominate the economy of the future.”

http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-press-releases/COP-

15%20Final%20Analysis%20v11%20091219.pdf/view



54

UNFCCC "Mitigation Gap" Press Release 12 December 09

Mitigation Gap: National Emissions Reductions Proposals Currently Fall Short of the Targets Defined in

Draft Text from the Ad Hoc Working Group on LongTerm Cooperative Action

Year: 2009

With less than a week to go, significant differences remain between the aggregate emissions reductionsfrom current national proposals and the mitigation targets released yesterday in a draft text at the

UNFCCC climate talks in Copenhagen. This draft text from the Ad Hoc Working Group on LongTerm

Cooperative Action (AWGLCA) includes greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that could limit

global temperature increase by 2100 to 2.0°C (3.6°F) or less, relative to preindustrial temperatures.

However, current proposals from individual countries for their own actions would lead to temperature

increase of approximately 3.8°C (6.8°F) in the same period. Achieving the potential declared in the draft

texts will require sufficient commitment to financing, technology transfer, monitoring, verification, and

accountability to allow nations to commit to and achieve higher reduction targets than they have

currently put on the table. This analysis does not seek to analyze the political viability of the draft text or

make any judgment as to the sufficiency of any elements of the draft other than the emissions reduction

targets specified.


releases/SI%20mitigation%20press%20release%2012%20Dec%2009.pdf/view



55

Copenhagen Must Deliver Emissions Cuts beyond the Highend of Current Proposals or Risk Missing the

Opportunity for a Reasonable Chance of Keeping below 2°C

Year: 2009

Recent independent analyses of current mitigation proposals on the table in Copenhagen by Nicholas

Stern, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Potsdam Institute for Climate ImpactResearch (PIK), Ecofys, Climate Analytics, the Sustainability Institute (CROADS), the European Climate

Foundation and ClimateWorks (Project Catalyst), all point to the same conclusion: the negotiations must

deliver the highend of current proposals and stretch beyond them, if the world is to have a reasonable

chance of containing warming to below 2°C above preindustrial levels, or the 1.5°C goal of many

developing nations.

Copenhagen, 9 December 2009 – There is a narrow window of opportunity to have the possibility of

achieving the global political and scientific consensus of avoiding global warming of more than 2°C

above pre-industrial levels, or the 1.5°C goal of 100 developing nations. The concentrations of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is increasing everyday and, without significant reductions in

emissions, will soon reach levels at which the consequent changes in the Earth’s climate will have very

serious and potentially disastrous and irreversible, impacts. Research papers and analysis released in thepast few days by several of the leading independent authorities on the question have looked at the

impact of the current proposals made by countries at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. While there are

differences in the details of the findings, the overall messages from these studies are clear:

1. To have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming to 2°C, or lower, action at the high-end of

current proposals and beyond will be required. This means that the global deal needs a clear

commitment to go significantly above the most ambitious targets currently under discussion, and hence

stretch above those in the next 8 days of negotiations.

2. Such an agreement is possible; the levels of reduction required are both technically and economically

feasible – what is required is the political will and leadership to lock-in these commitments in

Copenhagen.

3. Achieving the high-end of the proposed reduction range and beyond, will also require strong financialand technology support for developing countries.

4. If achieved, such an agreement would be an historic step forward and keep hope alive that the world

can contain long-term global warming to below 2°C or 1.5°C. If anything less than the high-end of

current proposals plus significant additional reductions is achieved, then climate risks will be higher and

it may not be possible to catch-up later – we may miss the window of opportunity.

5. Copenhagen is only the beginning of a journey – even if the high-end of current proposals plus

additional reductions are locked-in, more work will be required. Each of the studies show that a gap in

mitigation may remain after Copenhagen against 2020 requirements. It is thus essential that a

Copenhagen agreement also include a “review and strengthen” clause where countries review progress

against the latest scientific evidence and continue to adjust their commitments accordingly; the first

such review should end no later than 2015 and draw upon the next assessment of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due for conclusion in 2014.

“A deal that puts us on the path to having a good chance of avoiding warming of 2°C, is possible – but

the proposals on the table are not quite there . We need to capture the high-end of those proposals and

more in Copenhagen, and then continue to ratchet-up commitments over time. We have an historic

opportunity in Copenhagen to increase climate security and economic security for the world for

generations to come.”

This statement is supported by and may be attributed to:



56

• Nicholas Stern, Chair of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment

• Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

• Bill Hare, Director, Climate Analytics

• Niklas Höhne, Director Energy and Climate Policy, Ecofys

• Bas de Leeuw, Executive Director, Sustainability Institute, C-ROADS

• Andreas Merkl, Director of Global Initiatives at ClimateWorks and Project Catalyst leader

• Jules Kortenhorst, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and Project Catalyst core team member\


releases/9%20Dec%2009%20COP15%20Modeling%20Groups%20press%20release.pdf/view



57

Key Stories 2009: Copenhagen Discord

The chaotic Copenhagen climate summit failed, staggering to a political compromise that offers no

clear way to stabilize the climate.

We were warned. World leaders had already rejected Copenhagen’s original goal: a legally binding

treaty to curb carbon emissions. Instead we got the non-binding Copenhagen Accord: no emissionstargets, no enforceable obligations, and no treaty deadline.

Civil society cried foul, carbon markets plunged, and business leaders fumed. The U.N. sponsored Rio-

Kyoto-Copenhagen consensus-based approach had failed again.

Optimists noted that over 100 world leaders had discussed climate change. Pessimists pointed out that

they fought like cats, while the climate policy leader, the EU, was sidelined.

Optimists cheered the money promised to the poorest countries for mitigation and adaptation.

Pessimists said don’t hold your breath.

All countries now admit they must combat climate change but the major polluters who brokered the

deal—including China, the U.S., and India—dodged any commitments that might threaten economic

growth.

http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/microfinance/top_climate_stories/key_stories_2009_cop

enhagen_climate_summit.html



58

Copenhagen and the Future of the Canadian Economy

By: Peter Corbyn Year: 2009

Many articles have been, and will be written about the results, or lack thereof, from the Copenhagen

Conference on Climate Change. My comments are from the perspective of a Canadian concerned about

the future of the planet and the future of our domestic economy.First of all, I am concerned about the outcome of the conference, but not surprised. There are numerous

competing positions on how to deal with the climate crisis and to think it could all be solved in a couple

of weeks may be naïve. That said, after years of analysis and pre-negotiations, you would think they

would have accomplished more. Let’s hope something concrete happens in the next few months

towards agreements on numbers by the end of 2010.

Now back to Canada.

Have you noticed Barack Obama’s messaging around the climate crisis – “this is an opportunity to

transform the American economy to that of a world leader in clean and renewable energy technology.”

Leadership.

The renewable energy sector in Germany is projected to pass their automotive sector in total

employment by 2011. People are still buying BMW’s, Porsche’s, Audi’s and VW’s around the world –good on ‘em. Leadership.

And Canada?

If Stephen Harper was Henry Ford, he would have quit at the Model A. If he was IBM, he would have

quit at the 1 MB Ram, 10 MB hard-drive PC. If he was Bill Gates, he still wouldn’t believe the Internet

was going to have the value and job creation impact that it had over the last decade.

As a Canadian, I am concerned for two reasons.

Number one. I am concerned that our Minister of Environment states that we represent just ‘2% of

global emissions’. Yes, but our once proud international moral compass can leverage well beyond that

2% in influence. How many other countries may say now – ‘well Canada isn’t taking action, so why

should we?’

Number two. Stephen Harper’s obvious greater concern for his political future (i.e. getting re-elected)

greatly trumps his concern for the future economic strength of our country. Investing in renewable

energy technology, such as wind, solar and biomass, or in green transportation, such as the

electrification of vehicles, will result in growing economic prosperity for the next few decades.

And, just as importantly, this prosperity can be shared throughout the country, not just in Alberta. Hat’s

off to Dalton McGuinty for showing some leadership in Ontario. Green technology means jobs. Period.

Any economist should be able to figure that out.

http://www.greennexxus.com/post/2009/12/Copenhagen-and-the-Future-of-the-Canadian-

Economy.aspx



59

Five Reasons the Copenhagen Climate Conference Failed

By: George Dvorsky Year: 2010

I’m still reeling from the rather anticlimactic finish to the recent Climate Change Conference held in

Copenhagen. Like so many others, I was hoping for an internationally binding deal that would, at the

very least, compel and motivate the nations of the world to address the climate crisis in a meaningfuland precedent setting way.

But it was not to be. The immediate reasons for the conference’s failure are complex and laden with the

political and economic realities of our time (e.g. settling on exact targets and incentives). But these

reasons are part of a deeper malaise that is currently paralyzing the countries of our warming planet. As

this crisis is revealing, our social and political institutions are ill equipped to deal with a pending

catastrophe such as this.

More specifically, there are basically five ‘bird’s eye view’ reasons that can account for the conference’s

failure:

1. Nation-states are far too self-serving: Countries don’t like to be told what to do, and when push

comes to shove it’s far too easy for them to hide behind the sovereignty shield. Instead of acting

proactively and with leadership, many nations (particularly those in the developed world) are ‘aligning’themselves with what other countries are doing. No more and no less. And seeing as no one is doing

anything….well, there you have it. Compounding this problem is the realization by some countries that

they aren’t going to be too negatively impacted by climate change—a disturbing reminder that nation-

states are unwilling to deal with threats that are not considered local.

2. Democracies are too ill-equipped and irresolute to deal with pending crises: A reader of mine recently

complained that the people of the world were not being consulted on what they feel should be done

about climate change. Well, this would only work if the ‘people of the world’ were universally educated

about the intricacies of the issues (including scientific, economic, cultural and political considerations)

and disarmed of their petty selfishness and local biases. This isn’t going to happen anytime soon, and

consulting the Joe the Plumbers of the world on something as multi-faceted and complex as climate

change is probably not a good idea. Moreover, like the politicking politicians who supposedly representthem, the masses have shown a tremendous unwillingness to deal with a problem that has yet to show

any real tangible negative effects.

3. Isolationist and avaricious China: One thing that the Copenhagen failure revealed is that China’s

isolationism is alive and well—even as they emerge as a global superpower. They’re going to go about

this whole global warming thing on their own terms, whatever that’s supposed to mean. This unilateral

approach is particularly disturbing considering that they’re the largest manufacturing state in the world

and house a massive population that will soon start to demand first-world standards of living. And

exacerbating all this is the communist Chinese system itself with all its corruption and lack of

accountability and due process.

4. The powerful corporatist megastructure: As the onset of last year’s economic crisis so beautifully

illustrated, capitalism, if left to its own devices, will eat itself. This is because corporations don’t actrationally or in a way that would indicate foresight or a desire for long-term self-preservation.

Moreover, corporations will never voluntarily deal with a seemingly ethereal and controversial problem,

especially one that requires a dramatic reduction of profits.

5. Weak consensus on the reason for global warming: Global warming denalists are no longer the

problem. What’s of great concern now is the growing legitimacy of anthropogenic climate change

denialists—those individuals who believe that global warming is a natural phenomenon. This is a

particularly pernicious idea because it absolves humanity from the problem. Adherents of this view



60

contend that human civilization is not responsible for the changes to the Earth’s climate and that as a

consequence we don’t need to fix anything—we can keep on spewing carbon into the atmosphere with

reckless abandon. This idea is particularly appealing to politicians who use it as a convenient escape

hatch.

I’m inclined to think that the only way the nations of the world will band together and act decisively on

this issue is if an actual climate-instigated disaster happens—one that touches all internationalstakeholders in a profound way. But even this isn’t guaranteed as there will always be global disparities

in terms of impact.

Part of the problem right now, aside from the intangibleness of it all, is that some countries will be

impacted more than others, a prospect that will ultimately lead to the rise of a new geopolitical

stratification: different regions (both inter- and intra-national) will experience the effects of global

warming differently, whether it be coastal areas, those dealing with desertification or those having to

contend with the exodus of climate refugees.

Given the failure of Copenhagen, I’m inclined to believe that semi-annual conferences are not the way

to go. Instead, I’d like to see the United Nations assemble an international and permanent emergency

session that is parliamentary in nature (i.e. representative and accountable) and dedicated to debating

and acting on the problem of anthropogenic climate change (a sub-parliament, if you will). The decisions

of this governing board would be binding and impact on all the nations of the world. The chances of

outright failure (like the one in Copenhagen) would be significantly lessened. Instead of ad hoc

conferences, the emergency sub-parliament would conduct a series of ongoing debates over proposed

legislation that would ultimately result in internationally binding agreements.

The current climate problem has caused the emergence of another crisis, namely a crisis-of-resolution.

Failure at this point is not good enough. What’s required is something more respective of the dire

situation we’re in.

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/dvorsky20100110/



61

Governments



62

The Copenhagen Accord - A First Stab at Deciphering the Implications for the EU

By: Christian Egenhofer and Anton Georgiev Year: 2009

The original purpose of the conference in Copenhagen (COP 15) had been to complete negotiations on a

new international agreement on climate change to come into force when the Kyoto Protocol’s first

commitment period came to an end in 2012. In the last two years, however, climate change hasassumed such importance on the global agenda that an unprecedented number of heads of

governments – almost 120– decided to meet in Copenhagen to provide political leadership and give the

final push for a global climate change agreement, hoping thereby to lay the foundations for the new

‘global climate change order’. Days after the meeting ended, people are still asking themselves whether

the gamble paid off. Almost everyone agrees that the outcome was far less than most had hoped for. On

the other hand, the final outcome is better than what even the most optimistic observer could have

wished for after the conference entered into deep negotiations in the second week, where deadlock

built up. It is still unclear whether the agreement is “a disaster” (Swedish EU Presidency) or represents

“an unprecedented breakthrough” (US President Obama). Even the EU seems to be divided. German

Chancellor Merkel hailed the outcome as a “step, albeit a small one, towards a global climate change

architecture”. What is striking is that the outcome is generally seen in a more favourable light in the US

than in Europe. This difference, however, can be explained by different expectations and perspectives.

http://www.ceps.eu/book/copenhagen-accord-first-stab-deciphering-implications-eu



63

The Copenhagen Conference: How Should The EU Respond?

By: Joseph Curtin Year: 2009

The EU was marginalised at Copenhagen. As a consequence the Copenhagen Accord neither

conceptually nor substantively reflected the EU’s original negotiating position. This failure must lead to a

reevaluation of its modus operandi in international negotiations if Europe wishes to match its rhetoric of

leadership on climate protection with real influence.

This paper first offers a context for the EU’s approach to climate change followed by a review of EU

leadership on the issue; the next section provides an analysis of the content of the Copenhagen Accord

and the overall direction of negotiations from a European perspective; the final section assesses the

reaction within the EU to the Accord and offers initial thoughts on how the EU might increase its

influence at future international climate negotiations.

http://www.iiea.com/publications/the-copengahen-conference-how-should-the-eu-respond



64

COP15: The Copenhagen Conference

Copenhagen Outcomes

The move towards global and immediate action on climate change has been agreed as part of the

Copenhagen Accord, following two weeks of intensive negotiations and two years of talks.

The Accord – agreed by major developed and developing country leaders and backed by a large majorityof countries - will reinforce the need for strong domestic action on climate change across the world, as

the UK is itself doing through its Low Carbon Transition Plan.

The Accord includes international backing for an overall limit of 2 degrees on global warming;

agreement that all countries need to take action on climate change; and the provision of immediate and

longer term financial help to those countries most at risk of climate change.

For the first time, the new Copenhagen Accord [external Link] will also:

* List what each country is doing to tackle climate change – including economy-wide commitments to

cut emissions by developed countries and actions by developing countries

* Introduce real scrutiny and transparency to ensure emission targets are put into effect, with

mandatory reporting every two years for developing countries

* Provide $30 billion of immediate short term funding from developed countries over the next three

years to kick start emission reduction measures and help the poorest countries adapt to the impacts of

climate change

* Commit developed countries to work to provide long term financing of $100 billion a year by 2020, a

figure first put forward by Prime Minister Gordon Brown in June of this year.

The UK and other countries will now be working to convert the Accord into a legally binding agreement

as soon as possible.

The benefits to the UK of the shift to low carbon are clear and the UK stands by its domestic

commitment to reduce emissions by at least 34% by 2020, and more if the European Union moves to a

total 30% cut.

The UK wants to see the European Union move to a target of a 30% cut in emissions by 2020, comparedwith the current 20% figures, alongside other countries moving to the top of their emissions reduction

ambitions.

Countries now have until 31 January 2010 to submit their commitments.

Secretary of State, Ed Miliband said:

“Our agreement today marks the start of a new phase in tackling climate change. Developed and

developing countries have come together to take action and there is an unprecedented commitment of

climate finance.

Major developed and developing countries have signed up to tackle the problem and to limit global

warming to 2 degrees. As countries enter their emissions cuts in the formal register by January 31st,

they can and should make good on this.

These negotiations have shown how hard it is to get agreement on such complex and profound issues.Today it took eight hours from the convening of the plenary in the early hours of the morning.

There is much further to go, including ensuring we achieve a legally binding outcome for everyone. As

the British Government, our aim is, as it has always been, to ensure that the politics catches up with the

science. Today we made a start but we have a long way to go."

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/change_energy/tackling_clima/copenhagen/co

penhagen.aspx



65

Copenhagen Conference a "Failure": Cuba

Cuba has descibed the Copenhagen Climate-Change Conference that ended Saturday a "failure", and

accused U.S. President Barack Obama of being "imperial and arrogant."

Speaking at a news conference in Havana, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez Parrilla said Monday

that "no true agreement was reached at Copenhagen", and called the deal that was reached at thesummit a "step backward on climate-change."

Criticizing Obama for his "imperial and arrogant" attitude at Copenhagen, the Cuban leader called him a

"liar" for expressing confidence about reaching an effective deal at the end of the talks.

"Obama knew he was lying, that he was deceiving public opinion," he added.

The Cuban Foreign Minister also described the conference "a fallacy, a farce", adding that "at this

summit, there was only imperial, arrogant Obama," and he acted like the "world's emperor" who would

not listen, imposed his views on leaders of other countries and even threatened developing countries.

Rodriguez was also critical of the American role in the talks in "conspiring" to impose on the world a

"suicidal" and non-binding agreement on climate, which fell short of obliging main polluterd (rich)

economies to make concessions on CO2 emissions.

He said Obama later called leaders of 16 countries for a separate meeting, and behind the back most

heads of state of the participating nations, had an "apocryphal document" adopted, with commitments

insufficient for the planet's needs.

Rodriguez praised the speeches of the presidents of Venezuela and Bolivia, Hugo Chavez and Evo

Morales, at Copenhagen.

Meanwhile, Evo, one of the most applauded heads of state at Copenhagen, proposed a Summit of the

Peoples against Climate Change, for April 22 in Bolivia.

The two-week chaotic U.N. climate-Change summit at Copenhagen ended Saturday with a broad, non-

binding accord that agreed at keeping average increases in global temperatures below 2C, but did not

set out the emission cuts which each country will undertake. Much of the developing world was

disappointed with the outcome.

http://www.rttnews.com/Content/GeneralNews.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1163524



66

In Media



67

LIMATE CHANGE: ‘Copenhagen Accord Not Legal, Kyoto Protocol Is’

By Ranjit Devraj

NEW DELHI, Jan 26, 2010 (IPS) - While the BASIC bloc countries - Brazil, South Africa, India and China -

will submit their plans for voluntary mitigation actions by the Jan. 31 deadline stipulated by the

Copenhagen Accord, they have taken care to emphasise that the agreement, reached at the end of theDecember climate change summit in the Danish capital, has no legal basis.







68

Green Light: Copenhagen Fallout, Peak Theory and Reader Photos of the Year

After Copenhagen

As the dust settles on the Copenhagen climate talks, we've taken a step back to ask what was achieved

at the summit, whether the deal is worth anything and consider who was to blame for the final

unambitious text known as the 'Copenhagen accord'. Mark Lynas, who was with the Maldivesdelegation, tells the inside story of the last minute dealings between China and other heads of state. But

for the big picture, head to our Copenhagen page for more comment, photos, audio, videos and news

on how the last dramatic moments of the conference played out.

• Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure

• How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

• Copenhagen climate deal: Spectacular failure - or a few important steps?

• Jailed Copenhagen protesters face Christmas behind bars

• If you want to know who's to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate

• Copenhagen treaty was 'held to ransom', says Gordon Brown

• Beyond Copenhagen: Dialogue, not diktat Energy

The lack of a strong deal at Copenhagen also had ramifications for the carbon trading market. In Europe,

the carbon price fell by 10% in one day, causing experts to warn the low price could discourage

investment in new clean power.

• Biofuels: can they f uel our lifestyle without taking food from the poor?

• Falling carbon price could result in higher bills, energy firms warn

• Has peak theory reached its tipping point?

Green living

For those cyclists still braving the icy roads, this week's bike blog features an account by Homa Khaleeli

on cycle training and a post by Ben Thomas asking why motorists are so opposed to 20mph zones.

Meanwhile Leo Hickman is looking for your tips on efficient heating and Lucy Siegle pre-empts Christmasday disappointments with a look at re-gifting.

• How can I make my heating system more efficient?

• British Gas wants you to Pay As You Save

• Do cyclists need restricting?

• How cycling lessons transformed me from a cautious to a confident rider

• Is it green to re-gift?

…And finally

• Loan wolf? Prizewinning photographer faces fakery claims

Was it wild or was it staged? Click the link and see what you think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/23/1



69

Low Targets, Goals Dropped: Copenhagen Ends In Failure

By: John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg Year: 2010

The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in Copenhagen tonight, falling far

short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of tough negotiations

to come.After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama and Wen

Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen accord

"recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not contain

commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This progress is

not enough."

"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added.

Gordon Brown hailed the night as a success on five out of six measures.

In a press conference held after the talks broke up, Brown said the agreement was a "vital first step" and

accepted there was a lot more work to do to get assurances it would become a legally binding

agreement. He declined to call it a "historic" conference: "This is the first step we are taking towards agreen and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps

are difficult and they are hard."

"I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night it was

unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session. The deal aims to

provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn

a year by 2020.

But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries which had been holding out for deeper

emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references

to 1.5C in past drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of

reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce deforestation in

return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing

countries that the US and others demanded.

Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he

condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental agreements.

He said developing countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving towards the position

where everybody recognises that we all need to move together".

This was a not-so-veiled reference to the row over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and its legal

distinction between developed and developing countries. Developing nations saw this as an attempt by

the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. Many observers blamed the US for

coming to the talks with an offer of just 4% emissions cuts on 1990 levels. The final text made noobligations on developing countries to make cuts.

Negotiators will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance – but,

without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete.

Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed US global leadership: "The time has come for us to get off the

sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to Copenhagen."

But the US president also said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather constraints

in Washington".



70

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the deal had

"the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action.

It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him

and Bush."

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene

tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. Ed Miliband [UK climate changesecretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit." It is now evident that

beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in

Copenhagen."

Lydia Baker of Save the Children said world leaders had "effectively signed a death warrant for many of

the world's poorest children. Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next

major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal



71

EU in Cold as Climate Deal Redefines Relations

By: Andrew Ward Year: 2009

It could go down in history as the moment that defined the new, multipolar world.

At 7pm on the final evening of the Copenhagen climate conference, Barack Obama, the US president,

walked into an unscheduled meeting with Wen Jiabao, Chinese premier, and the leaders of India, Braziland South Africa. “Mr Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?” asked Mr Obama.

During the next two hours, the five leaders and their advisers ended two weeks of diplomatic deadlock

by thrashing out a tentative deal on global warming that became known as the Copenhagen Accord.

Conspicuously absent from the room was the European Union and Japan. America’s two main postwar

allies were left on the sidelines as Mr Obama cut a deal with China and other emerging economies.

“We’ve been taught some lessons about the realities of the so-called multipolar world,” Carl Bildt,

Sweden’s foreign minister, said. “These lessons will have to be taken into account when we go for a

more comprehensive global agreement.”

Until the US-brokered compromise, the conference had been characterised by stalemate and bickering

between rich countries and the big emerging economies, with neither bloc dominant nor united enough

to prevail.

Poorer countries, meanwhile, revelled in their role as swing voters between the rival powers.

Writing in the FT, Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, senior director for policy and programmes at the German

Marshall Fund in Washington, said the climate conference heralded an “age of transition” in

international relations. “Decisive action is inhibited as the power structures of a new world order are

only just emerging and thus produce insecurities about where power rests,” he said. “Copenhagen was

multipolarity as chaos.”

The EU had hoped to use its much-trumpeted pledge to deepen emissions cuts as a bargaining chip to

coax the US and China into stronger action.

Instead, Mr Obama brushed aside EU demands and forged a non-binding deal that José Manuel Barroso,

president of the European Commission, derided for its “commitment to the lowest common

denominator”.

Some might argue it was a telling indictment of Europe’s failure in Copenhagen that, when Mr Barroso

announced the EU’s grudging backing for the accord on the final night of the conference, some

journalists in the front row slept through the whole event.

“Europe is the big loser from Copenhagen,” wrote Mr Brockhoff. “Climate has been the one issue where

Europe has led the world. In the end, the continent was too weak to succeed when it counted.”

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut

articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7b06d220-f493-11de-9cba-00144feab49a,dwp_uuid=d68cb1fc-a38d-11de-

a435-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1



72

Copenhagen Conference Roundup

By: EBR_EBdaily Year: 2010

The 15th UN Climate Conference concluded late last month with the ambiguous adoption, or ‘noting’, of

a ‘Copenhagen Accord’. This political document was delivered at the end of two weeks of tense and

often confusing negotiations. Its exact legal status – and hence its implications – remain the subject of debate and it leaves unanswered many of the difficult questions that have bedeviled climate

negotiations for much of the past two years. Download full report now.

Despite this, the Copenhagen Accord represents an important milestone in international efforts to

address climate change. For the first time, the US, China and all other major economies have committed

to take concrete and verifiable action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; new money has been put on

the table; and a long-term objective – keeping the average global temperature increase to below 2°

above pre-industrial levels – has been adopted.

While many details are still to be determined, the Accord contains the seeds for a new, country-driven,

‘bottom-up’ approach to tackling climate change that could potentially offer an effective route to

accelerated global emission reductions. The risks, however, are considerable. In the absence of any

internationally agreed medium- and long-term emission targets, backed by a legally-binding agreement,much will depend on whether governments embrace a ‘race to the top’ mentality or succumb to lowest

common denominator climate policies. The next 12-24 months will be critical in determining which path

countries choose.

The key points of the Accord are as follows:

- On the politics: acknowledgment of the seriousness of the problem and need for urgent, collective

action in line with existing principles (e.g. CBDR1)

- On the science: endorsement of the IPCC’s recommendation that global temperature increase be kept

below 2oC.

- On adaptation: agreement that developed countries will provide adequate and predictable financial,

technical and capacity-building support to developing countries.

- On developed country mitigation: agreement that Annex I parties will commit to quantified economy-wide emission reductions by 2020 (although with no individual or aggregate targets given), with targets

submitted to the UNFCCC by 31 January 2010. These targets, as well as financing to support developing

country climate action, are to be monitored, reported and verified.

- On developing country mitigation: agreement that non-Annex I parties will implement mitigation

actions that are monitored, reported and verified. These actions are to be submitted to the UNFCCC by

31 January 2010. Action by the poorest and most vulnerable countries is voluntary.

- On Monitoring, Reporting, Verification (MRV): agreement that unilateral developing country mitigation

action will be subject to domestic MRV’ing with “international consultation and analysis” that respects

“national sovereignty”; agreement that mitigation action supported by developed countries will be

subject to international MRV’ing. Both developed and developing country MRV’ing will be subject to

existing and to-be-agreed UNFCCC guidelines.- On finance levels: commitment by developed countries to provide US$30 billion in short-term financing

between 2010 and 2012 and to mobilize US$100 billion per annum by 2020. This will be from public,

private, multilateral and alternative sources. Funding will be used for mitigation, adaptation, technology

transfer and capacity-building in developing countries.

- On financial architecture: agreement to establish a ‘Copenhagen Green Climate Fund’ which will

receive a significant proportion of the above finance flows. Also the establishment of a ‘High Level Panel’

to study the contribution of potential sources of revenue.



73

- On ‘REDD plus’: agreement that a mechanism to mobilize funds to reduce emissions from

deforestation and degradation (REDD) and support conservation is needed.

- On technology: agreement to establish a ‘technology mechanism’ to accelerate the transfer and

development of mitigation and adaptation technologies.

http://energybusinessdaily.com/renewables/copenhagen-conference-roundup/



74

Coverage of Copenhagen Climate Conference

By: Mary Hockaday Year: 2009

So, the UN climate conference COP15 finally gets under way in Copenhagen today. It's been a long time

coming.

Copenhagen coverageYou can measure it from the UN climate change conference in Bali in 2007 whereworld leaders agreed to work on further efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more widely and

deeply than the 2005 Kyoto Protocol, and decided to meet in Copenhagen in 2009.

Or you can measure it from more recent events: the hours and hours of diplomacy this year preparing a

draft treaty. Until even a few weeks ago, there was talk of a couple of thousand square brackets of

unagreed text still being pored over by the politicians and their "sherpas" preparing the ground for the

final gathering over the next two weeks.

Our job in the BBC newsroom has been to report on the build-up to the summit and to prepare our

audiences to make sense of whatever happens. Now we aim to interpret the various negotiating

positions and - if a treaty is agreed - to judge what it means for all of us.

Arctic researchOur specialist environment correspondents have been reporting on climate change - the

science and the politics and the debate - for a long time. This year, for example, David Shukman has filedreports from the Arctic and Bangladesh on the changes to our climate and our planet. He was with

scientists on the northern ice trying to measure its thinning, and in Bangladesh talking to those dealing

with the effect of rising sea levels and looking at the analysis that links these to man-made climate

change. Roger Harrabin has reported from China on the effect of warming and efforts to reduce

emissions. And at his blog Earth Watch, Richard Black has built up a rich body of reporting and analysis.

The scientific background is not, of course, undisputed. The row about e-mails from the University of

East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit shows how charged the debate can be. We were the first

mainstream news organisation to report the story and have since drawn out three related but distinct

threads. Are there question marks over the CRU's scientific work? Are there question marks about how

it has handled its scientific data and engaged in public debate? Will the row affect Copenhagen?

There are those who answer the first question with a yes, and many more saying, like UK ClimateChange Secretary Ed Miliband, that "one string of e-mails does not undermine the global science on

climate change". The row has certainly raised the temperature leading up to Copenhagen, and the

second question still needs an answer. In time, we'll report on the findings of the review of the incident

and of a police investigation of the hacking or leaking…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2009/12/bbc_news_coverage_of_copenhage.html



75

Copenhagen Climate Conference: Who Is Going To Save The Planet Now? After The Copenhagen

Climate Conference Failed To Stop Global Warming, The Next Big Question For Climate Change Is Who

Is Going To Save The Planet Now?

By: Louise Gray Year: 2009

The summit was supposed to halt temperature rise by cutting greenhouse gases. But after two weeks of negotiating it ended in a weak political accord that does not force any country to reduce emissions and

has no legal standing anyway.

As a result the world is “one step closer to a humanitarian crisis”, according to the Royal Society.

So, who is going to save the planet now?

President Barack Obama? The US President flew into the conference at the last minute to save the day.

He did not quite manage it, refusing to increase America’s emissions targets and upsetting the Chinese

by insisting on “transparency” for all nations. But this is the one man who believes in “The Audacity of

Hope”. President Obama is currently trying to get legislation through the Senate that might just enable

the US to increase its emissions target. This should encourage China and every other country in the

world to increase their emissions reductions. President Obama has also said he is personally committed

to addressing climate change. We will see how true this is in the next few months.Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband? The UK Prime Minister and his Secretary of State for Energy and

Climate Change were instrumental in ensuring a deal came out of Copenhagen, even if it is pretty weak.

Mr Brown is said to be angry at the failure of the world to agree on such an important issue and will be

working hard to try and get a legally-binding treaty on the table in the next six to 12 months.

World Business? Unlikely as it may seem, the CBI is also angry at the weak deal. If the world had

managed to agree to set up global carbon markets, it would have at least provided a level playing field

for industry around the world as everyone would be equally punished for pumping out carbon. It would

also have triggered a massive “green stimulus” as cleaner technologies like solar panels become a much

cheaper form of energy. The lack of a strong agreement means it is more risky for business to invest in

green technology. However there is a lot of money to be made and if business leaders have the guts to

invest in renewable energy, therefore driving employment, manufacturing and growth, it could well bethe “economy stupid” that ends up cutting greenhouse gases.

Artificial trees? Geo-engineering is becoming more likely the longer the world puts off cutting

greenhouse gases. Engineers are already researching the best way to suck carbon out of the atmosphere

if we leave it too late, for example artificial trees. Other options include putting giant mirrors in space to

reflect back sunlight to reduce the effects of global warming and “fertilising” the oceans with iron so

that algae grows and more carbon dioxide is absorbed.

Us? A lot of civil society is angry at the failure of world leaders to reach an agreement that effectively

tackles the problem of climate change. Already there have been marches of tens of thousands of people

and more are being organised to put pressure on world leaders to come up with a better deal in less

than a year’s time. The power of the vote may also help the process if politicians are rewarded for

offering green policies. Ultimately it comes down to individuals to save the planet. If more people decideto use public transport, buy sustainable goods and demand renewable energy it will force business and

world leaders to act. And if we all reduce our carbon footprints it will mean far less carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6854131/Copenhagen-climate-

conference-Who-is-going-to-save-the-planet-now.html



76

After COP 15, what is the Outlook for Business?

Year: 2009

While the Copenhagen talks yielded a non-binding political agreement, some business sectors say a

better outcome would have included a more concrete set of targets.

In the Copenhagen Accord (PDF) that was reached, a cap was set on worldwide temperature increasesof no more than 2 degrees. Unilateral GHG targets would be set by each nation (see image).

The agreement puts business leaders in the uncomfortable position of not knowing how environmental

policy will force decisions about the costs of doing business, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Without a legally binding carbon target, the outlook for clean tech investment is not as rosy, for

instance, said Joan McNaughton, Senior Vice President, Power and Environment Policies, at Alstom

Power, a clean-coal firm.

The uncertainty has led to a fall in the price of carbon allowances in the EU, with prices falling 5 percent

on Dec. 17, the biggest drop in six months, according to WSJ. Prices fell 8 percent further the morning of

Dec. 21, reports Reuters.

Matthew Curtin, a Dow Jones columnist, wrote that the talks proceeded on a faulty premise of tracking

how much CO2 gas each nation produces, instead of how much fossil fuel each nation consumes.

For corporate sustainability leaders, the lack of a binding agreement means that multinational firms

should update their climate change and sustainability strategies, according to a report from Verdantix,

“Business Implications of the Copenhagen Accord.”

Here are some take-aways from the Verdantix report:

- From 2010-2011, focus on national climate policies. Consider the business implications of a possible

carbon tax in France and allowance auctions in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and the Carbon

Pollution Reduction Scheme in Australia. For companies operating in the U.S., focus on immediate

actions regarding CO2 from the Environental Protection Agency.

- Avoid investing in markets covered by the Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism. The global carbon

market created by the mechanism may be the biggest casualty from the Copenhagen Accord, Verdantix

notes. Poor market rules, insufficient administration and a depressed carbon price make investing in the

mechanism “very high risk.”

- Be prepared to explain to company leadership why carbon management should remain a priority.

Some CEOs will see the lack of firm emissions targets as a reason to scale back on a company’s carbon

reduction plans, Verdantix notes. But the Copenhagen Accord sets in motion a series of nation-based

carbon reduction efforts. Additionally, carbon management yields reduced energy costs and builds

environmental brand value.

- Conduct a climate change adaption risk assessment. Consider the impacts on your supply chain from

water availability, energy costs and other factors.

Some business sectors, including the aviation and shipping industries, had sought an international

accord with defined expectations for their carbon reduction. Without one, companies will be subject to

emissions standards that vary from nation to nation, or even by region.

For instance, the EU is planning strict emissions standards for aviation and shipping. The U.S. airline

industry has launched a shot across the bow of the aviation emissions standards by filing a lawsuit.

While some EU nations wanted taxes on aviation and shipping to pay for a $100 billion climate fund for

developing nations, that approach was fiercely opposed by the sectors, reports the Telegraph.

The European steel industry fears that, without binding international targets, the EU may unilaterally

impose a 30 percent GHG reduction target, up from 20 percent. The EU steel industry says it would need



77

free carbon allowances in order to compete internationally with nations that do not have emissions

targets, said the European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries.

Thomas Friedman, the outspoken New York Times columnist, said that the U.S. business sector would

benefit from an all-out attempt by the U.S. to control carbon emissions – whether through carbon taxes,

pursuit of energy efficiency or construction of renewable energy infrastructure.

The key is economies of scale, he told Grist, in a Q&A. “There’s only one thing that’s as big as MotherNature and that’s Father Greed. It is the market. And the way you leverage the market is to get the

world’s biggest, capitalist country is to take the lead in the clean tech industry,” he told Grist.

Additionally, the lack of a Copenhagen climate deal will have negative implications on the fisheries

industry, reports the Business Standard.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/21/after-cop-15-whats-the-outlook-for-business/



78

Post-Copenhagen, Cleantech Industry Needs to Reconsider Goals

By: Chris Morrison Year: 2009

Last week’s Copenhagen climate conference has already been criticized extensively for failing to

accomplish anything substantive. Many world leaders and environmentalists hoped for a global deal

against greenhouse gas emissions; what they got was a document devoid of any firm goals.The industrial world was likewise disappointed, but for a different reason: companies need to make

long-term projections, but they’ll remain uncertain of the future as long as the meandering diplomatic

process seen in Copenhagen remains in force.

Renewable energy companies could suffer the worst. The hope going into Copenhagen was that the

world would come away with a carbon trading scheme. With that done, the price of coal, gas and oil

would slowly begin to rise, allowing biofuels, solar power, wind and other clean technologies to become

cost-competitive.

But in the aftermath of Copenhagen, the price for carbon permits traded in the European Union has

tumbled. There’s some hope that the United States will begin its own trading regime, but the result is

uncertain — and anything passed will likely remain weak until a stronger global agreement is secured.

So what’s left to hope for? While some solar companies say they’re close to grid-parity, most renewableenergy is not cost-competitive yet. That leaves government subsidies and mandates.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece today about shifting strategies from big companies like General

Electric:

…some businesses say these policies could play a major role in fostering so-called clean technology,

which includes non-fossil power sources, such as wind turbines, and related know-how, such as software

that equips energy grids to cope with intermittent bursts of power from solar cells…

The adoption of renewable-energy standards, completed or under way in many states, should boost

demand for technologies that make electrical grids more efficient, says Dan Adler, president of the

nonprofit California Clean Energy Fund, set up by the state to help spur cleantech investment.

When it comes to government incentives, there’s one other way that cleantech companies can help

their chances: beefed-up lobbying efforts. Cleantech companies are already a growing force in lobbying,

but next year may be the year that they put all their previous efforts to shame.

http://industry.bnet.com/energy/10002701/post-copenhagen-cleantech-industry-needs-to-reconsider-

goals/



79

Following Copenhagen, Hundreds of U.S. Companies Call on Congress to Enact Clean Energy and

Climate Legislation

As world leaders return home from the Copenhagen climate change summit, hundreds of businesses are

standing together to demand comprehensive action by Congress on federal clean energy and climate

legislation. In its first six weeks, the American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) initiative has grownfrom just 19 members to include over 750 businesses as of today. ABCE is a diverse coalition of

businesses that support Congressional action to pass clean energy and climate legislation that will

significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

ABCE spokesperson Christopher Van Atten said: "The rapid increase in business flocking to ABCE sends a

strong signal to Congress of the strong support for meaningful and effective legislation that will drive

clean technology innovation, create jobs, and address the threat of global climate change. With all of the

business interest in the proceedings at Copenhagen and the increasing focus on climate change, we

expect to see an additional surge in our membership over the holiday period and into January. Frankly,

we have been overwhelmed by the interest in the American Businesses for Clean Energy."

Among the new members is Serious Materials, Inc., a Sunnyvale, California-based company that

manufactures energy-efficient building materials. The company's CEO was named "Entrepreneur of theYear for 2009" by Inc. magazine. Other new members include: The Saunders Hotel Group, a Boston-

based hotel management firm with properties throughout the Northeast; and Recycled Energy

Development, a Westmont, Illinois-based developer of industrial cogeneration projects.

Robin Roy, Ph.D., vice president, Serious Materials, Inc., said: "Serious Materials supports prompt,

effective legislation to address the threat of climate change. We know from our first-hand experience

that policies that deliver cost effective energy efficiency not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions; they

also benefit consumers and create good jobs. There is an enormous opportunity to improve energy

efficiency in homes, schools, offices and other buildings across the country. We are delighted to play our

part, manufacturing cost-effective super-insulating windows, and we are delighted to join with ABCE in

helping get the word out that there are practical, economic steps that can and should be taken right

now."

"The Saunders Hotel Group is proud to be a member of ABCE as we celebrate our 20th year since

pioneering urban ecotourism," said Tedd Saunders, chief sustainability officer of The Saunders Hotel

Group and president of EcoLogical Solutions Inc. "We are one of the many hundreds of mainstream

companies actively sending a message to Congress that American businesses are eager for strong

federal climate policy that will create good jobs and strengthen our economy while avoiding the worst

consequences of the looming climate crisis. Putting a price on carbon will finally send a clear signal to

businesses and industry to invest in a more sustainable future for the benefit of our citizens and

economy."

"The U.S. can cut its greenhouse gas emissions while at the same time improving corporate

profitability," said Dick Munson, senior vice president, Recycled Energy Development. "Clean energy

developers will respond to comprehensive climate legislation by making substantial investments that

increase American productivity and jobs. It's time we change the way our country generates power in

order to both slash our pollution and expand our competitiveness."

ABCE's message is bold and clear: "We are businesses from a broad cross-section of American industry

that support Congressional action to enact clean energy and climate legislation that will significantly

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now is the time to act."

Some of the first signatories to the ABCE pledge of support included Aspen Skiing Company, Avista,

Calpine Corporation, Conservation Services Group, DB Climate Change Advisors (Deutsche Bank Group),



80

FPL Group, Gap Inc., National Grid, New York Power Authority, PNM Resources, and Public Service

Enterprise Group. To see a full list of companies go to:

http://www.AmericanBusinessesforCleanEnergy.org.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/following-copenhagen-hundreds-of-us-companies-call-on-

congress-to-enact-clean-energy-and-climate-legislation-79894727.html



81

Copenhagen: A Lesson in Geopolitics

By: Joanna Kakissis Year: 2009

After two weeks of international deadlock and an all-night marathon negotiating session that produced

a thin and toothless accord, the biggest climate talks in history devolved from "Hopenhagen" to

"Nopenhagen".The Copenhagen Accord - brokered at the last minute by Barack Obama, the US president, with China,

India, Brazil and South Africa - did not receive universal support from the 193 countries participating in

the climate summit.

The accord, which gutted a comprehensive agreement to pay poor countries to protect their forests,

since the mass cutting of trees accounts for 20 per cent of global emissions, is not binding and does not

have a set date for capping carbon emissions.

It provoked reactions from fury to despair.

Lumumba Stanislaus Dia-ping, Sudan's chief negotiator, compared it to the Holocaust, while Hugo

Chavez, the Venezuelan president, referenced the sulfur of hell and suggested that Obama was Satan.

Ian Fry of Tuvalu, the drowning island-nation that has become the poster country for the perils of rising

sea levels, likened the accord to "being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future".

Global climate politics

But longtime observers of climate negotiations never expected a sweeping deal in Copenhagen,

especially considering today's polarised and charged geopolitics. The rift between rich and poor

countries remains wide, and the chasm paralysed the negotiations.

China and India, the developing world's rising economic powerhouses and sometimes adversaries,

together opposed key elements such as the external monitoring of greenhouse gas emissions.

Wen Jiabao, the premier of China - the world's biggest emitter of CO2 gases - also snubbed 11th-hour

meetings with Obama and other leaders, sending low-level aides instead.

Cleo Paskal, a fellow in the Energy, Environment and Development Programme at the British think tank

Chatham House, says the world's changing political landscape is partly why even Obama's last-minute

brokering did not produce something powerful.

"Climate change has become part of global politics," Paskal says. "There was a very high expectation

from the West that a deal would be pushed through. But what's happened is a real wake-up call to how

geopolitics has changed."

Environmental groups, developing nations such Venezuela and Cuba, and much of the European media

criticised Obama for the deal.

"He formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters," environmentalist and author Bill

McKibben wrote in the American magazine Grist. "It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the

henhouse."…

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009122064859919604.html



82

Specific to Canada/Alberta



83

Copenhagen: Canada Ranks Second-Last

By: atthew Bramley, Clare Demerse and P.J. Partington

Clare Demerse, Pembina's Associate Director of Climate Change, says in her Climate Change blog that

Copenhagen produced "a weak deal that needs fixing up as soon as possible, and a diminished

reputation on the world stage for Canada."Matthew Bramley, Pembina's Director of Climate Change, explains in a media release that "Canada's

performance is the worst in the industrialized world" at the UN climate summit. Canada was ranked

56th out of 57 countries in the Climate Change Performance Index.

PJ Partington, Climate Change Policy Analyst, blogged about celebrating his birthday in Copenhagen.

"Yesterday I turned 24 at the Bella Centre," he said. "While somewhat unconventional as far as birthday

celebrations go, I can't think of a more meaningful way to spend the day than fighting for a fair,

ambitious and legally binding global climate deal."

Read our reports from Copenhagen in the Pembina Climate Change Blog. As Clare Demerse, ever the

optimist, says: "The good news is that we can fix the deal, and Canada can get its act together on climate

change in 2010."

Copenhagen Background: Where Canada Stands

Little Mermaid Copenhagen In the lead-up to Copenhagen, Canada has come under intense

international criticism [external link] for positions that are widely considered to be inadequate or unfair.

Download our Copenhagen backgrounder [PDF] for an overview of recent developments in the

international climate negotiations, the agenda of the Copenhagen conference, information on some of

the major issues on the table, and an outline of Canada‘s positions and track record at the talks to date.

http://climate.pembina.org/Copenhagen



85

United Nations Climate Change Conference

From December 7-18, 2009 Copenhagen will host a conference of the parties to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP15 Copenhagen. The UNFCCC is

an international treaty produced at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 that encourages

industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Conferences of the parties to that treaty havebeen held annually since 1995. At COP3 in 1997 held in Kyoto Japan, the Kyoto Protocol was developed.

The agreement set legally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for 37 industrialized countries.

Targets varied according to country, but averaged five per cent over the period from 2008 to 2012.

Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1998 and ratified it in 2002. The United States has not ratified the

protocol.

Some believe Canada’s Kyoto Protocol targets (GHG emissions reductions by six percent below their

1990 levels by 2012) aren’t achievable or realistic. Canada faces challenges due to its energy resource-

based economy, its cold climate and its geography. Others feel trying to achieve these targets would be

expensive and potentially damaging to the Canadian economy. A major criticism is that targets are

mandatory for industrialized nations, but not for developing countries. And without the United States,

the protocol can’t realistically address climate change.

Originally, it was hoped that COP15 would result in a new global climate treaty, but differences between

industrialized nations and developing countries on how to combat climate change may preclude such an

outcome. While the conference may not result in a new treaty all can live with, Yvo de Boer, executive

secretary of the UNFCClC, hopes the conference will at least find agreement on what he calls the Four

Essentials:

1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases?

2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of

their emissions?

3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to

the impacts of climate change going to be financed?

4. How is that money going to be managed?The Centre for Energy has published a COP15 briefing document called Canadian Leadership in Energy.

(3MB PDF) This information will help you learn about the unique characteristics of Canada’s energy

production and consumption and how Canada ranks on the world stage with other major global energy

players. The document also includes information on the value of Canada’s energy exports, our energy

relationship with the United States and Canada’s CO2 emissions.

We have also summarized key energy facts for Canada, domestically and globally as well as for each

province and territory to help you learn about Canada’s contribution to world energy and the Canadian

economy.

http://www.centreforenergy.com/AboutEnergy/CanadianEnergy/COP15/Copenhagen.asp



86

Canadians Unhappy with Harper’s Performance at Copenhagen Summit

Year: 2010

Canadians are generally unhappy with the results of last month’s Climate Change Summit in

Copenhagen, Denmark, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion poll has found. In the online survey of a

representative national sample of 1,013 Canadian adults, 28 per cent of respondents are content withthe leadership shown by Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the summit to discuss climate change

sponsored by the United Nations (UN). Conversely, almost half of Canadians (48%) express

dissatisfaction with Harper’s performance at the meeting.

The Copenhagen Accord

Last month, representatives from 170 countries struggled to agree on a way to curb global warming. In

the end, leaders issued a common statement including certain commitments to act. Most Canadians

(56%) express frustration with the fact that the agreement that was finally reached is not legally binding.

A third of respondents (34%) are satisfied with the commitment to hold the increase of global

temperatures below two degrees Celsius, but slightly more Canadians (36%) were left dissatisfied with

this.

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/files/Angus%20reid%20poll_0.pdf



87

A Problem like Harper - Canada and Climate Change

By: Chris Fellingham Year: 2010

With the dust barely settled from the Copenhagen talks, critics within Canada have been scathing of its

approach to the talks. They note Canada’s failure to take any leadership, its humiliation at the hands of

the Yes Men (although there, Canada is hardly alone) in recent times, as well as the recipient of a fossilaward, for lack of leadership as an industrialized country. When leaders came out of Copenhagen with

an underwhelming accord, many in Canada were quick to point the finger at their own government’s

failure.

For those who criticise Harper, the problem is one of responsibility and leadership, hardly an uncommon

theme among the developed worlds’ environmentalists. They argue that Canada as a developed, liberal

democracy has a moral responsibility to take the lead in tackling Climate Change.

Canada’s fossil fuel based exports are a platform for further leadership not for inaction, the Canada they

know is a liberal leader and critically the moral and political superior of its sometimes whacky Southern

neighbour.

Unsurprisingly, Stephen Harper’s conservatives take a different view. Harper has been abundantly clear

that his first priority is Canada’s economy (some might say only priority). Harper, in conjunction withEnvironment Minister Jim Prentice has argued that the environment must not stand in the way of

economic recovery. Since then Canada has before Copenhagen just turned the corner. Furthermore

Harper has argued that that the harmonization of US and Canadian business environments means that

any undue strain on Canadian businesses would see them shift south.

Harper’s Government has also been keen to shift responsibility for leadership southwards to the US

and/or failing that eastward to China and India. In an interview with CTV News following Copenhagen,

Environment minister Jim Prentice declared it a success:

“”This was the problem, frankly, with Kyoto. The Americans had no obligation to reduce their emissions

under Kyoto; the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians — the so-called major emerging economies had no

obligations under Kyoto.”

Harper is of course correct, that ultimately any negotiation must have the emerging economies with it.Furthermore he’s not wrong either to say that the Canada and the US are highly harmonized, to the

extent that undue sanctions may have some impact, although this doesn’t seem to concern British

Columbia with its Carbon Tax, nor Ontario or Quebec with their progressive legislation.

He’s also not been entirely unwilling on Climate legislation, proposing a Cap and Trade, and even going

as far as to not rule out a Carbon Tax. However the problem is what Harper promises and what he does

do. It’s one thing to discuss potentially far reaching legislation, it’s quite another when it’s unlikely the

US will agree to anything anytime soon. Worse, where opportunity might arise he seems intent on

derailing it, when in December he announced Canada would be prioritising the economy over the

environment at the next G20.

For Canadian environmentalists the future seems uncertain, it can’t easily be demonstrated that Canada

is actually slowing the pack down and even if it was it pales in comparison with the likes of China. Yetcritics are right to assume that Canada is in some ways an archetypal developed liberal democracy and it

makes opposition by other countries that much easier, when they can point to a country as wealthy as

Canada and argue, what are they doing?

One thing is certain, while Harper remains, Canada will not be any kind of leader on the environment.

The US position itself is fraught with problems. Many Democrats expended their political capital on the

healthcare debate and are now looking to shore up support for defence in the mid-term elections.

Worse, the mid-terms are likely to see a weakening of the Democratic party on congress. On the reverse



side, Lindsey Graham(R-SC) is the one forging a Climate Change bill with the Senator John Kerry (D-MA),

which if they create the bill guarantees a modicum of bipartisanship that puts off a filibuster

requirement. As has recently been the case with Canada, one needs to look to Washington or the

Provinces for what is happening in Canada, not Ottawa.

http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/post/a-problem-like-harper-canada-and-climate-change/

en conference in a glance

Documents