View previous stories
	Copenhagen global climate accord fails expectations by International Herald Tribune & agencies   Dec 2009   The outline of a weak global climate agreement was last night concluded in Copenhagen, but it fell far short of what many countries were seeking and leaves months of tough negotiations to come.   The deal - known as the Copenhagen accord - "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did not contain commitments to emissions reductions by countries to hit that goal.   Even US President Obama admitted, "This progress is not enough," he said, "we have come a long way but we have much further to go".   "Climate change threatens us all, therefore we must bridge all divides," he said. "The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future we seek. "That"s why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end, but the beginning."   The climate accord bitterly disappointed Africa and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far deeper emission cuts in order to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all references to 1.5C in previous versions of the agreement were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global emissions by 80% was also dropped.   The agreement also sets up a forestry deal which is hoped to significantly reduce deforestation in return for cash. It also lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the United States and others demand.   Britain"s climate change minister Ed Miliband has blamed China for blocking an accord on legally-binding emissions targets and a 50 per cent cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 at the Copenhagen summit.   Miliband admitted on Sunday that the results of the Copenhagen conference were "disappointing" but insisted that progress was made in the fight against global warming.   "The eventual outcome was disappointing. Efforts to give legal backing to the commitments in the Copenhagen accord met with "impossible resistance from a small number of developing countries, including China, who didn"t want a legal agreement", he said.   "If leading countries hold out against something like "legally binding" or against the 2050 target of 50 per cent reductions in carbon emissions - which was held out against by countries like China - you are not going to get the agreement you want."   Many observers also blamed the US for coming to the talks with an offer of just 4% emissions cuts on 1990 levels. The final text made no obligations on developing countries to make cuts.   Negotiators will now continue to work on individual agreements like forests, technology, finance but without strong leadership the chances are that it will take years to complete.   Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, was scathing: "This deal will result in devastation in Africa and small island states. It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It"s nothing short of climate change scepticism in action."   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. There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty."   "This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate", said a spokesperson for Friends of the earth.   Lydia Baker, Save the Children"s Policy Adviser said: "By signing a sub-standard deal world leaders have 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."   Andrew Hewett, executive director of Oxfam Australia issued the following statement.   “It"s hard to see how the Copenhagen Accord delivers justice to people in poor countries that are least responsible for climate change but suffer its impacts right now".   "The accord is an empty political statement, shredding two years of negotiations down to 2˝ pages of purely aspirational goals.   While it recognises the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be kept below 2 degrees, it does not set out a trajectory for achieving this.   In February, countries will list their emissions reduction targets, which will be voluntary. They will have little to do with climate science and everything to do with the political climate in capitals around the world.   If this is all the world can muster, we can expect a world that is 3.9 degrees warmer, year-round droughts in southern Africa, and water shortages affecting up to 4 billion additional people.   The promised $US100 billion a year by 2020, aimed at helping poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate, is less than half the amount needed. And the sad reality is the most vulnerable people will be lucky to get even a fraction of this amount, with rich countries likely to divert cash from existing aid commitments.   Nor is it clear how much will come from the public purse. But unless it does, there is no guarantee it will reach the right people in the right places. Crucially, the accord excludes the innovative revenue-raising mechanisms that could guarantee predictable flows of public money.   Developing countries were faced with an impossible choice between endorsing this inadequate compromise or watching the talks collapse.   Access to money was offered only to those countries that agreed to the accord. But the accord is not legally binding, nor does it set a timeline for reaching a legally binding agreement. It has as much chance of being honoured as a New Year"s resolution. We have no choice but to continue negotiating as soon as possible. A fair, safe and legally binding agreement must be reached in early 2010”.   Andreas Carlgren, the environment minister of Sweden, the country holding the rotating E.U. presidency, said that the Copenhagen climate summit meeting had been a “great failure” because other nations had rejected targets and a timetable for the rest of the world to sign on to binding emissions reductions.   “It was obvious that the United States and China didn’t want more than we achieved at Copenhagen,” Mr. Carlgren said at a news conference in Brussels. The obstacles created by those countries were “part of what we regretted,” he said.   The agreement finally patched together in Copenhagen set a commitment to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 Fahrenheit. The so-called Copenhagen Accord also promised $100 billion dollars in yearly payments by the end of the next decade to poor nations that risk bearing the brunt of the global warming fallout.   But the accord failed to provide a fixed payout plan for the money, and more important for the E.U. it did it not spell out crucial global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050.   The result was a bitter disappointment for European leaders, who had insisted, by offering to cut their emissions by 30 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels, that they could pry more concessions from China and the United States. In the end, that offer cut no ice with the Americans and the Chinese, who offered nothing new.
	Expanding Global Co-operation on Climate Justice by Mary Robinson & Alice Miller Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative   Dec. 2009   Neither the discussions leading up to the Copenhagen conference, nor previous conferences, have tackled the question of how nations can meet their human rights obligations relevant to the impacts of climate change say Mary Robinson and Alice Miller.   Excerpt: "Those monitoring the progress of climate change negotiations have realized the unfortunate fact that governments will not be agreeing final text in Copenhagen in December 2009. But the imperative for governments to reach a fair, ambitious and binding agreement to address climate change remains.   One piece of good news is that governments, civil society organisations and the private sector increasingly acknowledge the enormous human and social impacts — not just environmental impacts – that are resulting from climate change. What is missing, though, are concrete and forwardlooking binding commitments to frameworks, principles and practices that can constructively address these impacts. This article proposes some steps to get there.   Using the lens of climate justice, and incorporating principles and tools of human rights to guide policy and practical responses to climate change, is an essential aspect of climate change policy work at the global and national level.   Climate justice, moreover, is useful in evaluating the financial architecture necessary to support just and sustainable climate interventions. Ultimately, a justice and human rights framework can provide us with a compass to chart the course of climate change responses, and a set of tools that operate at all levels between and within nations.   But much work needs to be done — there is no set template for this process. Many organisations are exploring how to apply principles of fairness drawn from international human rights to the procedures, institutions and programmes being put in place as a response to climate change, whether in reference to the role of the Bretton Woods institutions, UN agencies, national governments, the private sector or civil society.   The climate change negotiations in Copenhagen constitute the 15th Conference of Parties (COP) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Neither the discussions leading up to the Copenhagen conference, nor previous conferences, have tackled the question of how nations can meet their human rights obligations relevant to the impacts of climate change, and how this relates to state obligations under the UNFCCC. We believe that the COP should mandate a process within the UNFCCC to support states in the development and implementation of policy that will meet human rights and social justice – as well as environmental justice – concerns.   There is an important opportunity to strengthen global alliances and a global movement to this end in the coming weeks and months, efforts that undoubtedly will expand between now and the 2010 COP in Mexico City.   For those who come to Copenhagen, advocating for more accountable international financing, more equitable distribution of burdens and benefits, and more open access to low-carbon technologies will be important. Equally critical, civil society must raise its voice to ensure that states take essential steps to guarantee an open, transparent and participatory process.   * Mary Robinson is President of Realizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative. Alice M. Miller is a Lecturer in Residence, and Senior Fellow at the Miller Institute for Global Challenges and the Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Visit the link below to access the report. Visit the related web page
	View more stories