“Doth protest too much”. The ageless quote from Shakespeare’s Hamlet comes to mind when assessing world leaders response to the Copenhagen climate conference.
Lashings of praise have been heaped upon the Copenhagen Accord from Obama, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Kevin Rudd and other world leaders. It has been described as a “meaningful agreement”, “a great step forward” and “significant and positive”.
What would an agreement deserving of this kind of praise look like? The world needs a comprehensive global response that will deliver a safe climate, that is a minimally change climatic system that can support humanity to meet our needs.
Consequently the bulk of the world’s civil society groups have argued that a global agreement must be fair, ambitious and binding. This framing has also been adopted by the bulk of the world’s countries, as well as many businesses and local and regional governments.
Fairness in this context acknowledges that the world’s poor, who have contributed the least to the problem, are likely to suffer the most from climate change impacts. A Pacific delegate said to me some days ago, “we don’t want to ask for help, but we have to, we will not be able to address the impacts on our own.”
Indeed, the predicted impacts for Pacific Islands are substantial, including salt-water intrusion on cropping lands and fresh water sources, coral bleaching, and diminishing fish stocks.
The Copenhagen Accord does promise $US 100 billion a year by 2020 aimed at helping poor countries reduce emissions and adapt to impacts. However, this is half the amount needed and it is unclear what mechanisms would be used to ensure that the funds are distributed fairly and accountably.
One of the stickiest aspects of negotiations has been the level of ambition that countries are willing to bring to the table. The Accord affirms a commitment by nations to keep warming below 2 degrees, however essential 2020 emission reduction targets have not been included.
While 2 degrees may have been considered an appropriate global ambition some years ago, as our understanding of the science has improved, this number has been widely discredited.
At 2 degrees warming we can expect to see severe, including substantial reductions in Australia’s agricultural capacity, increased bushfires and the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists now recommend that global warming be limited at 1.5 degrees of warming to prevent the worst impacts.
This number is backed by 112 countries, and numerous international luminaries, including Sir Nicolas Stern and Al Gore.
Further, there is no evidence that this Accord would give us any chance of staying below two degrees. Indeed, leaked documents from the negotiations last week revealed that the targets currently put forward by nations would likely see a three degree rise in global temperatures causing devastating impacts across the globe.
The Accord is merely a political statement, rather than a legally binding treaty. While it may have been impossible to finalise a treaty in Copenhagen, what was needed was a concrete pathway to enshrine it agreement in international law within the next 6-12 months.
The lack of ambition coupled with no timetable for a treaty demonstrates the gaping hole between what the science demands and political will of key countries, including Australia. So from all three criteria the Accord could hardly be described as meaningful.
However, while the agreement is very inadequate, it cannot be used as an excuse to do nothing, to wait and see. Conversely it increases the urgency with which Australia needs to create a domestic response to climate change.
We are the world’s most vulnerable developed country to climate change and consequently our fate will be determined by the strength of the global response. In 2009 nature has loudly rung the warning bells for Australia with its devastating heat wave, fires, floods, dust-storms and record breaking temperatures.
Australia needs to demonstrate that we are willing to do our fair share and build trust into the UN process. Australia would not be leading, but following the myriad of countries already capitalising on the green economy and getting on with the job.
While the US and China may be lagging in their international commitments, both economies are rapidly making leaps and bounds in renewable energy.
Significantly, at this conference more countries than ever before have been emboldened to speak out about their grave concerns for their nations. Small island nations have been particularly vocal as warming beyond 1.5 degrees is likely to see whole nations swallowed up by the sea.
The President of the Maldives, a nation that’s highest point is four meters, put it starkly, “For us, this is more than just another meeting, this is a matter of life and death.”
One reason that countries have felt confident to express their concern is that they now have the support of a growing international movement of civil society.
People around the world have begun to realize that climate change is not just about Polar bears and ice caps, it threatens people’s lives and livelihoods.
That is why 90,000 Australians from all walks of life march in the streets during the UN talks at the Walk Against Warming, it is why thousands of Australians sent heart felt letters of support to Pacific governments and is why my organization the AYCC has grown from 5000 to 52,000 members in the last 12 months.
Ordinary Australians, and ordinary citizens world wide, are beginning to realise that our political leaders will fail unless we refuse to let them.
This deal struck over the weekend might make for a good photo opportunity to help global leaders to save face but it has failed to create the fair, ambitious and binding agreement the world needs.
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision
RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented