Just hours ago printers started running wild in Copenhagen with the leaking of tightly held negotiating text that rich countries have been writing. In summary: it’s bad news for the climate – but the good news is it’s far from locked in. There is no mention of the 25-40% reductions that scientists say are required, and nothing is legally binding.
For some time now a small group of rich nations, known as the ‘commitment circle’ have been meeting in secret to develop their version of what the Copenhagen Agreement should look like.
The text is designed to be a basis for the high level negotiations that begin next week, and is seen by developing nations as an attempt by rich nations to bully them into signing a weak deal that calls for sacrifices from the poor while locking in higher emission rights for countries that contributed most to creating the problem of climate change.
One of the key principles behind the Kyoto protocol is that of ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. That is, the principle that those who created the problem (rich nations) should be the ones to fix it. The draft negotiating text departs from this principle, instead decreeing that rich countries should be able to emit more per person in 2050 then poor nations (by almost double).
As I’ve previously written (see my post below), targets, finance to support developing countries reach these targets (and adapt to the realities of climate change) and a legally binding agreement that locks in action would make for a successful outcome.
On targets and mitigation, the draft text includes:
- a recognition of the need to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels (important, and positive)
- a 2020 peak year for global emissions, which scientists say will be too late for the climate
- a 50% by 2050 global emissions reduction targets (woefully inadequate)
All of this takes place with the context that even a stronger approach would still leave the world with substantial climatic damage locked in, and even odds that warming will exceed 2 degrees, leading to even more extensive destruction of natural systems across the globe.
On finance, as I’ve previously written, we know the world must commit to both short term ‘start-up’ finance, as well as long term, predictable, year by year finance (see blog post below for more information on this).
The draft text only discusses short-term ‘start up’ finance and doesn’t make commitments to long term finance at the levels we know we need. What’s incredibly worrying though is the text’s suggestion that finance for developing countries should be managed by the world bank and tied to developing country actions (similar to the often criticized strict conditions put forward by the International Monetary Fund).
And finally on the legal form of the agreement, the negotiating text throws out the Kyoto protocol and at only 13 pages in length offers no guide on how developed countries would be held to account for their emissions reductions. Instead, it reads more like one of the many UN multilateral agreements that the world has signed where nations leave promising to act but never actually do anything serious.
Now while it is clear the draft negotiating text is woefully inadequate, this early in the process Copenhagen is rescuable – but only if countries like Australia walk away from the ‘commitment circle’ text. Penny Wong needs to swiftly rebuke the draft negotiating text and quickly move on to pushing for a much for substantive agreement.
There’s still hope that we’ll walk away solving dangerous climate change – but only with a massive shift in ambition from world leaders like Kevin Rudd. Particularly because this is the text of just a few rich nations in the ‘commitment circle’.
UPDATE: The UNFCCC have just put out a media release. It reads: “This was an informal paper ahead of the conference given to a number of people for the purposes of consultations. The only formal texts in the UN process are the ones tabled by the Chairs of this Copenhagen conference at the behest of the Parties.”
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Transparency policy not so candid in practice
Transparency’s all the rage these days. And accountability. Politicians and public servants promise… Read more
Most commented
The talk of the town
- What voters really think of Tony Abbott's religion 216
- Why there is no International Man’s Day 182
- Token ceremony openings must be brought to an end 88
- The Senate protects us from bad government 84
- Don’t bring your kids and other supermarket rules 67
- Ignore water, ignore women 66
- Why stop at binning welcome to country and prayers 61
- A lower voting age risks a lower voting standard 47
- Why are people so unkind, to Lada Gaga 41
- Yes to housing affordability, but don’t take my home 41
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Don't bring your children and other "rules" of supermarket shopping. Got a gripe or two of your own? Add to my list: http://bit.ly/dBWydm
What voters really think of Tony Abbott, great piece by Nic Christensen & Tina Tek: http://bit.ly/bvLWSz#thepunch
Gentle jabs to the ribs
Breaking news: Something is going on
Is this the greatest ever send-up of 24-hour news? Warning: contains strong language and hilarity. From… Read more
51 comments
Show oldest | newest first