Your comment shall answer these two questions:
What did the Copenhagen Climate Conference tell us?
Pretend you're a senator, what law would you write which would help solve the climate crisis?
Copenhagen and the world's future
Meeting place: Copenhagen, Denmark
Purpose: To produce a new and binding climate change treaty to replace the Kyoto treaty
Participants: Representatives from 192 nations
Dates: December 7-December 18, 2009
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that by 2020 global emissions must fall 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels to prevent the worst results of global warming. This would, they project, limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Would the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen meet this goal? The future of planet Earth hangs upon the answer to this question.
The Climate Change Conference resulted in an agreement called the "Copenhagen Accord." But it did not result in a legal, enforceable international treaty. As Reuters reported, "It set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times -- seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more floods, droughts, mudslides, sandstorms and rising seas. But it failed to say how this would be achieved." (www.reuters.com, 12/19/09)
Four questions
The executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Yvo de Boer, has declared that answers to four questions will determine the extent and worth of any international agreement. (www.en.cop15.dk)
1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions?
According to a New York Times report on a UN meeting in September 2009, none of the larger nations "want to take the lead in fighting for significant international emissions reduction targets, lest they be accused at home of selling out future jobs and economic growth." (9/20/09) The same problem hampered the Kyoto negotiators 12 years ago. Industrialized nations have so far pledged roughly half of the IPCC target.
The Accord does not commit any nation to specific targets for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, but leaves it up to each industrialized and developing nation to make its own target.
2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit their emissions?
President Hu Jintao of China promised at the UN meeting to reduce the growth of his country's carbon dioxide emissions by "a notable margin" between now and 2020-but did not explain further. India's environmental minister, Jairam Ramesh, said that India's demands for an international accord were unchanged: India wants industrialized nations to agree to significant emissions reductions by 2020 and also provide financial and technical assistance to the developing world." (New York Times,10/4/09) China produces roughly 23 percent of all global emissions, India less than 5 percent. Other developing nations have agreed that they must cut emissions but have rejected mandatory limits and, like India, demand help.
Under the Copenhagen Accord, the position of the developing countries is essentially unchanged.
3. How will we pay for the help developing countries need to reduce their emissions and adapt to the impact of climate change?
One example of this dilemma: Many developing countries are cutting down their forests, both for lumber and to open up pasture and farmland. According to William Laurance, the former president of the Association for Tropical Biology and Conservation (www.news.mongbay.com), the destruction of tropical forests spews 5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, accounting for 20 percent of global emissions. (www.climateforestscommission.org). But if these countries are forced to limit deforestation, how will they be compensated for the economic loss?
The text of the Copenhagen Accord says: "Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries." The developed countries accepted a goal, again not a legally binding one, of providing $100 billion a year by 2020 to help the developing countries.
The accord recognized "the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests." The developed world agrees to provide "positive incentives" to fund such action.
The accord recognized "the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests." The developed world agrees to provide "positive incentives" to fund such action.
4. How is the money going to be managed?
The accord did not include an agreement on supervision of financial help.
Reactions to the Copenhagen Accord
World leaders:
President Obama: "Today we've made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen. 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…. We've come a long way, but we have much further to go."
"Finally we sealed a deal," UN Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon said. "The 'Copenhagen Accord' may not be everything everyone had hoped for, but this ... is an important beginning."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel: "The decision has been very difficult for me. We have done one step, we have hoped for several more."
Leaders of developing nations:
Sergio Serra, Brazil's climate change ambassador: "We have a big job ahead to avoid climate change through effective emissions reduction targets, and this was not done here."
Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, Sudanese delegate who represented the Group of 77 developing nations: "The developed countries have decided that damage to developing countries is acceptable….[The 2-degree target] will result in massive devastation to Africa and small island states." (Most of the developing countries want a 1.5 degree target.)
Environmental leaders:
Bill McKibben, a 350.org leader: "Our leaders have been a disappointment, and the talks have ended without any kind of fair, ambitious, or legally binding global agreement. It's unclear whether the weak 'accord' which emerged early this morning will provide a platform strong enough to deliver the kind of action we'll need in 2010 and beyond.
Nicole Granacki, chief organizer for Greenpeace: "The job of world leaders is not done. Today they failed to avert catastrophic climate change. The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight....World leaders had a once in a generation chance to change the world for good, to avert catastrophic climate change. In the end they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big enough to fly Air Force One through."
Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club: "The world's nations have come together and concluded a historic--if incomplete--agreement to begin tackling global warming….It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible."
Erich Pica, Friends of the Earth US: This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one. It's just repackaging old positions and pretending they're new."
US government action
For the first time the United States government is now seriously considering actions to limit global warming.
1) On June 26, 2009, the House passed legislation to curb emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases through a cap-and-trade system. This would establish a limit, or cap, on how much pollution a particular company can emit per year. Permits would be issued to the company based on the level of greenhouse gases it has been authorized to emit.
Companies that exceed their limit would be allowed to purchase permits from companies that are in compliance--this is what the "trade" part of "cap-and-trade" refers to. Companies will be able to purchase someone else's emission reductions rather than reduce their own. For example, rather than cutting emissions at its US refinery, ExxonMobil could purchase "offsets" from an Indonesian farmer who plants trees. (Public Citizen News, July-August, 2009) Tightening the cap on emissions would push such polluters to meet targets by limiting their own emissions.
Some environmental organizations argue that the House bill would cut US emissions by only a fraction of what is necessary. Others support the cap-and-trade bill as a step in the right direction. Business and industrial groups are also divided. The Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers oppose the House bill. But Pacific Gas and Electric, a major California utility, supports the legislation, and withdrew its membership from the Chamber of Commerce as a result. The Senate is considering its own bill.
2) On September 30, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it is preparing new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities. The regulations would require these facilities to provide proof that they are using the best technology to curb emissions, or else suffer penalties. The rule would apply only to facilities that emit at least 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. Such companies are reportedly responsible for nearly 70 percent of US greenhouse gas emissions.
According to the New York Times, major industries and utilities are working closely with Congress to ensure that a climate bill would circumvent such EPA regulations by substituting the cap-and-trade system.
President Obama said earlier that he prefers "a comprehensive legislative approach to regulating emissions and stemming global warming, not a piecemeal application of rules." But he has authorized the proposed new EPA regulation because it "could goad lawmakers into reaching an agreement. It could also provide evidence of the United States' seriousness as negotiators prepare for United Nations talks in Copenhagen in December…." (New York Times, 10/1/09)
Before you answer the two questions think about the following questions to organize your thinking:
1. What questions do students have about the reading? How might they be answered?
2. Did the Copenhagen Climate Conference achieve its stated purpose? Why or why not? Whatever your answer, how do you explain such very different assessments of the conference as that by the president, who called it a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough, " by Carl Pope, who hailed it as "a historic--if incomplete--agreement, and Nicole Granacki, who called Copenhagen "a climate crime scene"?
3. Why do you think that the world leaders at Copenhagen did not achieve a binding agreement? What specific evidence can you cite for your opinion?
4. What actions are the US Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency proposing? What concerns do American industries have about these actions? Environmental groups?
further research:
