UNCERTAIN ACCORD: A draft accord was announced Friday at the United Nations's climate summit, which has nearly concluded in Copenhagen
Image: istockphoto
More In This Article
Listen to this Podcast
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Editor's note: After this story was posted, delegates at the U.N. Climate Summit resumed negotiations into the early hours of Saturday morning and the body eventually came to a consensus to recognize the deal outlined in the story below.
COPENHAGEN—The U.S., China, India and South Africa form the core of a growing group of nations that have agreed upon a commitment to combat climate change, concluding a grueling two weeks of negotiations in the Danish capital here as part of the United Nations' climate summit. The so-called "Copenhagen Accord" will not be legally binding but will list in annexed documents, for the first time, commitments from both developed and developing countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
"We're going to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius," said President Barack Obama in a press briefing. "Transparency, mitigation and finance that the U.S. and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen is a new consensus, a consensus that will serve as the foundation of global action."
A draft text of the accord—details were still be finalized as this report was filed—included goals to reduce global emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; developed countries will reduce their emissions by 80 percent by 2050 as well as "X" (this is the literal wording at present) percent by 2020; developing countries will take "mitigation actions" that will be "subject to international measurement, reporting and verification"; $30 billion for adaptation and mitigation between 2010 and 2012 for the most vulnerable countries, including a "Copenhagen Climate Fund"; and a review of this accord in 2016, which will "include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal to limit the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees [Celsius]."
"We know [to-be-set emission targets] will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to be," Obama said. "Science dictates even more needs to be done."
The accord leaves out large swaths of the world, of course, including Africa, so-called small island states, and others likely to be impacted by climate change, though prime minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia was part of the negotiations, Obama said. "Africa loses more than most if there is no agreement on climate change," Zenawi said Wednesday in an address to the conference. "Because we have more to lose than others, we have to be prepared to be flexible and be prepared to go the extra-mile to accommodate others."
Some of the targets likely to be listed are already clear, such as a reduction in emissions intensity by China. "We have set the new target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent by 2020 from the 2005 level," said premier Wen Jiabao in an address to the conference Friday. "We have not attached any condition to the target, nor have we linked it to the target of any other country. We will honor our word with real action." And India's Prime Minister Manomhan Singh reaffirmed his country's commitment to reduce its emissions intensity by 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.
"The money that will be put on the table is the payment for greenhouse gas emissions that were made over two centuries because [developed countries] had the privilege of those countries that industrialized themselves first," said President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil in an address to the conference Friday morning. "If it is necessary for us to make more sacrifices, Brazil is willing to tap money to help other countries."
But neither the money nor the cuts are guaranteed. "I think we should still strive towards something more binding than this is but that was not achievable at this conference," Obama said. "Kyoto was legally binding and people still fell short anyway."
Nevertheless, all 193 countries will now have the opportunity to respond to the would-be "Copenhagan Accord" late Friday, the night of the last day of negotiations. Sudan's Lumumba Di-Aping, a negotiator involved with the G77 bloc of developing countries, called the accord a "gross violation" of United Nations principles and noted "two degrees Celsius will result in massive devastation for Africa and small island states." He added: "This deal remains an idea. If any single party refuses the deal, there is no deal."
Environmentalists and other activist groups also expressed skepticism. "It clearly doesn't match up to the science," says Alden Meyer, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "We don't even have the [emissions] cut numbers you need to evaluate how good it is."
Scientists have no role left to play at this point, either. "There is nothing more for us to do," says Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Bureau member Taka Hiraishi. "People are really exhausted. Perhaps fed up is the better phrase."
But many U.S. politicians showed support for something similar earlier in the week. "Two degrees Celsius is the proper goal for this moment in history," said U.S. Representative Edward Markey in a press conference on Thursday, although some of his colleagues in the House continued to debate the science of climate change at the summit. "There is a culture of corruption going through the scientific community," charged Rep. John Sullivan on Friday. And Senator John Kerry argued in a press conference Wednesday: "Success in Copenhagen is really critical to success next year in the U.S. Senate and Congress."
Ultimately, domestic and international politics trumped science in the drafting of this accord. "Ultimately this issue is going to be dictated by the science. The science indicates we are going to have to take more aggressive steps in future," Obama said. "We're going to meet those targets as I said before not because the science demands it but because it offers us enormous economic opportunity down the road."
"These international discussions have essentially taken place now for almost two decades, and we have very little to show for it other than an increased acceleration of the climate change phenomenon," Obama said Friday morning in his address to the conference before reaching the accord that he called "meaningful." "The time for talk is over." Yet, talks continue as Saturday begins and it remains unclear whether it's accurate to say that an agreement to combat climate change has come out of Copenhagen or not.
"You can't please everyone in the world," says Indian environmental minister Jairam Ramesh, noting that the accord will be taken to the full conference and he remained confident that the text would ultimately be approved. But, he added, some states might not think it strong enough. "For small island states, it's a matter of survival."
President Mohammed Nasheed of the Maldives would seem to agree. "Carbon concentrations higher than 350 parts-per-million and temperature rises above 1.5 degrees [Celsius] will submerge my country, dissolve our coral reefs, turn our oceans to acid, and destabilize the planet's climate," he said in an address Wednesday. "This is a matter of life and death."
But Mexico's president Felipe Calderon—Mexico City will host the next Conference of the Parties, number 16 in November 2010—announced to the press: "This conference will embrace the Copenhagen Accord…the advancements achieved here must be the basis of a future agreement."
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentThis so-called agreement amounts to nothing at all. And I couldn't be happier about that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought Bush was the only obstacle to saving the world from warming. I guess that really wasn't the case. Democrats have total control at this point, and could deliver nothing.
Let it be known from this point forward as Nopenhagen.
Its good that this accord is not binding. None of the UN resolutions taken un-democratically should be binding. A very typical misuse of UN is the UNSC which is a treated as a US mistress. All the impotent UNSC members are blackmailed by tyrant US and its lawless and barbarians accomplices take full advantage of this criminal set up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYawn. Copenhagen was unfortunately timed, taking place during a global recession. Yet there was still some progress made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNations will continue to take steps to reduce their emissions, and the second and third world nations have been included in the process, although their inclusion is token since their emissions are equally token.
Copenhagen will be followed by another, agreement, and then another and then another and so on. Each a step in the same direction toward a managed and sustainable global economy.
This agreement also illustrated how marginal the Denialist industry has become, as their lies and accusations were ignored by the leadership of every nation attending.
The domestication of Man, Continues...
non-biding, half of the world left out. it will take dozens of these kind of "agreements" for something to change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Kopenhagen conference was hijacked by aid-addicted countries hoping to secure free money for the next 20 years under the guise of combating climate change. Hopefully this whole climate change bubble will now deflate so we can go back to dealing with problems that are real and do not depend on computerized predictions of the future that -by definition- can not be tested.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour complacency, Mr. Vedicar9 demonstrates the key characters of self-righteousness and ignorance for which the rest of the world loathes us Americans. It is pathetic that you should even dare to make such a comment, all the while people are literally being cooked alive or watching their very homes sinking into the sea. I hope your next...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHahah... this is a joke right. People aren't really this stupid... are they?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith Copenhagen's failure, we must adopt the nuclear power solution to the world's impeding warming/pollution/peak oil disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFailure to replace all our fossil fuel use within ten years is likely to drive us right over the civilization ending climate/peak oil crisis.There is no renewable option that can and do it within our political, financial and industrial capacities - only nuclear.
The reality is that Deniers and Conservative will get on board with nuclear - they will fight to the death on 10 times the cost "renewables". Greenies need to decide. Do they want to end civilization fighting the "renewable" battle or face their fears, get educated and embrace the nuclear solution.
A worldwide investment in 10000 new mass produced nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great job producing economy boosting investment, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html
Current build of US AP-1000 nukes in China are coming in at $1.5B/Gw and mass produced reactor costs are expected to be less than $1B/Gw.
When the Atomic Energy commission regulated American reactors in the seventies we were building them for under $1B a reactor ($2009, energy equivalent). Today, when the us needs to build 2500 nukes, US industry is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames.
To get US costs in line and end made in the USA subsidies, Kerry needs to tell the president he has the authority to order a single nationwide license for American Reactors, replace the Greenpeacer's on the Nuclear Rejection Commission, and allow nuclear reactors to be build on the site of existing coal plants without any state or local review. Obama could fund a massive national public power utility replacing all the nations coal plants with cheap mass produced nukes.
Nuclear waste burning fuel efficient generation IV reactors could power all the worlds energy needs for hundreds of years on nuclear waste alone.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/climate-bill-ignores-our_b_221796.html
Nuclear power is our only In Time answer.
Yes, because the state of the world is so peaceful and stable that we could be sure that this is the safe idea. Oh, so what would you propose to do about all the nuclear waste?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe may not be around twenty years from now anyway without nuclear power with civilization wiped out by climate events.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
If you take the time to read my post you'll find the solution to nuclear waste and a link for you to read to educate yourself.
You're being oh so nice to oour "world" leaders, especially those of the US and its ever complliant minions in Europe (and theArab world). They've just sabotaged the climate summit in Copenhagen. So they're going to keep on pumping oil, burning coal and refusing that polluters pay. Polluters? The rich countries. Now expect the spineless media to pithc mud on China or somebody else hardly responsible for the environment disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're being oh so nice to our "world" leaders, mainly the US elite and its is compliant minions in Europe and elsewhere. They've just saboaged the climate summit in Copenhagen. Those Danes made sure that the organisation of the meet prevented any serious debate on the issue. It brutally kept out dissenters, that is people with real solid arguments. So pullets, that is rich countires, wil keep on drilling oil and burning coal. Polluters should pay? Rich counries don't like it. Now expdect the compliant western media to blast China and others to divert attention from the real culprits. maybe that's why those Norwegians gave Obama the Nobel prize.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll pretend like you didn't just say "nuclear power has nothing to do with nuclear weapons." Seriously...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHo Hum.... Non agreement for a non-crisis. Somehow that kind of makes sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn to some real issues.., What color of underwear was Tiger Woods wearing when he was fooling around? Or was he wearing underwear at all?
This was more about $ than �
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear power reactors have never been used to make weapons grade materials. The waste product of power reactors is so difficult to make into weapons that nobody has ever bothered.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWeapons are made using centrifuges (Iran) or using dirt cheap reactors specially designed.
Educate yourself by reading Steve Kirsch's blogs on Huffington post.
If AGW is real, then all nations should be fighting it. ut all we saw from Copenhagen was a bunch of nations trying to shake down another bunch of nations. it was not about AGW, but how much can they can extort from others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlah, blah, blah... This is going to go down just the time when I told management we should shutdown a large compressor because it's vibrations levels indicated there was a failure developing. But shuting the machine down meant millions of dollars per day in loss of revenues. As a result the machine stopped all by itself and catastrophically. In the end, instead of a two weeks maintenance the plant had to be shutdown for 4 months.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhilJourdan,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs pointed out elsewhere, AGW is about science. Copenhagen was about politics.
The domestication of man..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you mean that man will go back into the middle ages without the motor,it won't ,it will be far worse.All western economy's are kept afloat by the vehicle,without it we are finished as a society.
Think about it, no jobs no food in the shops,zilch,nothing.
Take the UK, goods are delivered quickly and economically there is no other mode of transportation can compare with the vehicle,millions depend and own their livelyhood to it.
There is another thing that the vehicle has given the people that nothing else could or ever will...freedom
By all means cut carbon emmissions but we need vehicles that are capable of running 24/7 and go for hundreds of miles on one fillup. Electric vehcles will cause more problems than they are worth for so many reasons.
You speak about liar's as though politicians never lie...are we on the same planet. In the UK the Labor party were realected on the promise of a referendom concerning the EU,which by the way is the most undemocratic organisation in the world today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Labor party's refusal to honour their promise and deny the right of millions of people to choose ...I can't put in words how to describe such people.
Unless you personaly have conducted tests,experiments into global warming then you don't know who is right. Both sides of the argument may be equally proven scientifically,perhaps one is flawed or even the results massaged,in the end,the bottom line is we the majority can only really make a deciscion on who we believe,that of course may turn out to be the biggest liar.
There is a way whch we can all decide what to do in our daily lives,we all have it,but rarely use,but wish we had usually after making the wrong deciscion,it's called a hunch,gut feeling,common sense call it what you like but we all have experienced it and excalimed " I knew I should have done that".