The Guardian – COP15 conf - cccpmovementorg by tyndale

VIEWS: 9 PAGES: 37

									guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 15.54 GMT
John Vidal and Jonathan Watts in Copenhagen


Copenhagen closes with weak deal that poor
threaten to reject
Non-binding accord limits temperature rises but includes no emissions targets

The UN climate summit in Copenhagen has formally closed with a deal many countries admit
falls far short of the action needed to tackle global warming.

The non-binding accord, which the US reached with key nations including China and Brazil,
"recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does not
contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

US officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement" but even Barack Obama said: "This
progress is not enough.

"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go."

It is up to national parliaments to adopt the accord, after which signatories will be obliged to take
measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and start preparing to help poor countries adapt to
climate change. The intention is for a full legal agreement to be signed within a year.

Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, said the agreement was a "vital first step" and
accepted there was a lot more work to do to get assurances it would become a legally binding
agreement. He declined to call it a "historic" conference. "This is the first step we are taking


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 1 of 37                    Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
towards a green and low-carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all
first steps, the steps are difficult and they are hard.

"I know what we really need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but it
disappointed African and other vulnerable countries that had been holding out for deeper
emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected all
references to 1.5C in past drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly the
earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.

Last night it was unclear whether the accord would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full
plenary session. The talks were on the verge of collapse with the Danish prime minister, Lars
Lokke Rasmussen, bringing his gavel down to abandon the meeting. But early this morning the
UK climate secretary, Ed Miliband, successfully intervened to salvage the deal and the accord
was formally recognised by the UN.

The accord achieves much wider acceptance by nations that global warming must be limited to
an increase of less than 2C. It preserves the Kyoto protocol for now. The attempt to kill Kyoto
dominated Copenhagen and the resulting furore used up days of precious time, contributing to
the ultimate weakness of the accord. The deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to
adapt to climate change from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year by 2020 – but no details were
given on its source.

No specific targets for greenhouse gas cuts were stated, meaning no action to keep temperatures
under a 2C rise was set. There was no deadline for the conclusion of the climate talks, despite
many leaders saying previously that six months to a year should be the maximum delay.

Negotiators will now work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance –
but without strong leadership the chances are that it will take years to complete.

Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chair of the G77 group of 130 poor countries, compared the
proposed deal to the Holocaust.

"[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the
economic dependence of a few countries. It's a solution based on values that funnelled six
million people in Europe into furnaces."

Di-Aping's comments triggered immediate protests and calls to withdraw his remarks. Sweden
called them "absolutely despicable" and Ed Miliband condemned what he called the "disgusting
comparison" which he said "should offend people across this conference whatever background
they come from".

In the final plenary session a Venezuelan delegate cut her palm and asked if she had to bleed to
have her points heard. "You are witnessing a coup d'etat against the UN," she said.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 2 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
It is unclear how many states will sign up to the accord. The European Union, Japan, the African
Union and the Alliance of Small Island States all urged delegates to adopt the plan, but many
Latin American countries and Sudan are known to be vehemently against it.




guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 00.47 GMT
John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg in Copenhagen


Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen
ends in failure
Deal thrashed out at talks condemned as climate change scepticism in action

The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement in Copenhagen tonight,
falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of
tough negotiations to come.

After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama
and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen
accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but does
not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This
progress is not enough."

"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added.

Gordon Brown hailed the night as a success on five out of six measures.

In a press conference held after the talks broke up, Brown said the agreement was a "vital first
step" and accepted there was a lot more work to do to get assurances it would become a legally
binding agreement. He declined to call it a "historic" conference: "This is the first step we are
taking towards a green and low carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like
all first steps, the steps are difficult and they are hard."

"I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night
it was unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session. The


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                  Page 3 of 37                Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
deal aims to provide $30bn a year for poor countries to adapt to climate change from next year to
2012, and $100bn a year by 2020.

But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries which had been holding out for deeper
emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected, all
references to 1.5C in past drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly, the
earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.

The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce
deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission
reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded.

Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he
condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental
agreements. He said developing countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving
towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together".

This was a not-so-veiled reference to the row over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and its
legal distinction between developed and developing countries. Developing nations saw this as an
attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. Many observers
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 work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance –
but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete.

Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed US global leadership: "The time has come for us to get
off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to Copenhagen."

But the US president also said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather
constraints in Washington".

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, said the
deal had "the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change
scepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated
any difference between him and Bush."

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. Ed Miliband [UK climate
change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit." It is now
evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the
one on display here in Copenhagen."

Lydia Baker of Save the Children said world leaders had "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."



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 4 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
The Guardian, Saturday 19 December 2009
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent


Obama emerges from climate talks with
slender pact and bruised stature
US president urges decisive action on climate change, but shows no sign that Washington will
take such steps itself

Barack Obama emerged from the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit last night having
salvaged an agreement for action on global warming – and his own reputation as a politician who
can bridge the most challenging of political divides.

After 15 hours of negotiations, an exhausted looking Obama said he managed to secure a deal on
climate change incorporating America's three main goals of emissions cuts, financial aid for the
poorest countries, and a measure of accountability for emissions pledges from developing
countries.

But he acknowledged the skimpy 2.5 page draft produced at the end of his effort was not the
comprehensive agreement he had come to Copenhagen for.

"I think it is important that instead of setting up a bunch of goals that just end up not being met,
that we get moving," he said. "We just keep moving forward."

Obama's hectic day of negotiations began immediately on his arrival in Copenhagen, when he
encountered what he described as a "fundamental deadlock" between rich and developing
countries.

Much of that was a product of the deep resentment at America for its emissions reductions target:
a 17% reduction over 2005 levels by 2020. That offer too was conditional on Congress passing
climate change legislation. In the final days of the summit, a more vexing issue emerged over
America's demands that China and other rapidly emerging countries offer an accounting of their
actions to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama emerged last night claiming to have wrung an important concession from China and
India to offer a fuller accounting of its emissions reductions.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 5 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
"The truth is that we can actually monitor a lot of what takes place through satellite imagery and
so forth," he said.

The reassurances are crucial for American domestic political consumption, where there is
concern about losing economic ground to China and India in the transition to a clean energy
economy. It did not seem at first that the president would be capable of breaking down the divide.
Obama's eight-minute speech to the summit was viewed as a huge disappointment.

Although he called for bold and decisive action, Obama – who had been skittish at going to
Copenhagen in the first place – offered no sign that Washington was willing to take such steps
itself.

There were no further commitments on reducing emissions, or on finance for poor countries,
beyond Hillary Clinton's announcement that the US would support a $100bn global fund to help
developing nations adapt to climate change. He did not press the Senate to move ahead on
climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.
Obama did say America would follow through on his administration's clean energy agenda, and
would live up to its pledges.

But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a
palpable sense of disappointment in the audience. He warned African and island countries that
the alternative – of no agreement – was worse.

Obama's lacklustre speech proved a frustration to a summit that had been looking to him to use
his stature on the world stage, and his following among African leaders, to reach an ambitious
deal.

But by the end of the day, after Obama spent hours closeted with Chinese, Indian, South African
and Brazilian officials, he managed to pull the situation back from the brink.

In his press conference, Obama held up the results of his deal-making as a sign that the era of
American isolation under George Bush was over, and that he had returned the country to a
position of leadership.

The day of diplomacy also allowed him to reassert the political skills which have not been seen
to best advantage in the US during the struggles over health care and Afghanistan. "The time has
come for us to get off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek. That is why I came to
Copenhagen today," he said. "I believe that what we achieved in Copenhagen is not going to be
the end, but rather the beginning."




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu               Page 6 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 01.29 GMT
John Vidal in Copenhagen


Rich and poor countries blame each other for
failure of Copenhagen deal
Wealthy nations accused of bullying tactics to get developing countries to sign 'death warrant'

The blame game over the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks started last night with countries
accusing each other of a complete lack of willingness to compromise.

The G77 group of 130 developing nations blamed Obama for "locking the poor into permanent
poverty by refusing to reduce US emissions further."

"Today's events are the worst development for climate change in history," said a spokesperson.

Pablo Solon, Bolivian ambassador to the UN, blamed the Danish hosts for convening only a
small group of countries to prepare a text to put before world leaders. "This is completely
unacceptable. How can it be that 25 to 30 nations cook up an agreement that excludes the
majority of the 190 nations."

But rich countries said that developing countries had wasted too much time on "process" rather
than the substance of the talks. An epic stand-off over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol's legal
distinctions between developed and developing countries and their obligations to cut their
emissions caused a huge delay to the negotiations.

But Martin Khor, director of the South Centre, an intergovernmental think tank for developing
countries said, "Developing countries are very disappointed because they've invested a lot of
time in the documents they're negotiating here."

Politicians from all corners of the world were blamed widely for not setting ambitious enough
targets to counter climate change. "They refused to lead and instead sought to bribe and bully
developing nations to sign up to the equivalent of a death warrant. The best outcome now is no
deal," said Tim Jones, climate policy officer from the World Development Movement.

China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, blamed a lack of trust between countries: "To meet the
climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build
consensus, make vigorous efforts and enhance co-operation."

But indigenous Bolivian president Evo Morales blamed capitalism and the US. "The meeting has
failed. It's unfortunate for the planet. The fault is with the lack of political will by a small group
of countries led by the US," he said.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 7 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Even veterans of previous environmental negotiations were disappointed. "Given where we
started and the expectations for this conference, anything less than a legally binding and agreed
outcome falls far short of the mark," said John Ashe, chair of the Kyoto protocol talks.




guardian.co.uk, Saturday 19 December 2009 01.47 GMT
Allegra Stratton in Copenhagen


Gordon Brown hails Copenhagen success
despite widespread condemnation
Angela Merkel expected to announce a conference in Germany to deal with monitoring
emissions targets — a major stumbling block in talks

The UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen broke up last night with Gordon Brown hailing the
night a success on five out of six measures but most observers united in damning the meeting a
grave disappointment.

Last night, the talks wrapped up with countries agreeing that rather than using Copenhagen to
announce how they would curb their carbon emissions, instead over the the "next few weeks"
they would publish their targets and another meeting would be convened to discuss the legality
of the measures agreed.

Europe's pledge to move from 20% to 30% — trumpeted as likely all week — failed to
materialise suggesting that the European leaders believed the outline agreement on offer not
sufficient to merit the higher commitment.

"It is not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change, but it's an important first step ... No
country is entirely satisfied with each element," said a US official.

The deal said little on the major sticking points of the last few days — whether or not the US or
China and other heavy polluters were serious about curbing their emissions.

In a press conference held at 11pm immediately after talks had broken up, Brown himself said
the agreement was just a "vital first step" and accepted that there was a lot more work to do to
before it could become a legally binding agreement. In questions afterwards he declined to call it
an "historic" conference.



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                  Page 8 of 37                    Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
He said that one of the outcomes of the day's negotiations was that Angela Merkel would be
announcing shortly a conference in Germany to deal with the issue of monitoring emissions
targets. This body would be tasked with developing the most effective means of monitoring
whether a nation is cutting its emissions without intruding on its sovereignty - a major stumbling
block in this week's negotiations.

Brown said: "This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low carbon future for the
world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps are difficult."

"I know what we rally need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

However Brown brushed off a suggestion that Europe hadn't gone from 20% to 30% in its
carbon emission target because of the paucity of other agreements on the table.

Instead he said it was the first time so many countries had come together to agree a 2C target by
2050.

NGOs gathered in Copenhagen were severely disappointed. Senior climate change advocacy
officer at Christian Aid, Nelson Muffuh said: "Already 300,000 people die each year because of
the impact of climate change, most of them in the developing world. The lack of ambition shown
by rich countries in Copenhagen means that number will grow."

Kate Horner from Friends of the Earth said: "This is the United Nations and the nations here are
not united on this secret back-room declaration. The US has lied to the world when they called it
a deal and they lied to over a hundred countries when they said would listen to their needs. This
toothless declaration, being spun by the US as an historic success, reflects contempt for the
multi-lateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize winning President."

Tim Jones, climate policy officer at the World Development Movement said: "This summit has
been in complete disarray from start to finish, culminating in a shameful and monumental failure
that has condemned millions of people around the world to untold suffering."




The Guardian, Saturday 19 December 2009
Suzanne Goldenberg, Allegra Stratton in Copenhagen


Copenhagen summiteers talked for two
weeks – then the deadline passed

   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu               Page 9 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Wen Jiabao and Barack Obama thrash out accord as Brown

The world leaders invited to dine by Queen Margrethe supped on turkey and mushy peas, and
were serenaded by the Danish Royal Life Guards bands playing George Harrison's Here Comes
the Sun.

But the bands also played Here's That Rainy Day – which, by the end, began to seem more apt.

By 10pm on Thursday, leaders from about two dozen of the world's biggest economies had left
the dinner to return to the hangar-like convention centre to try to strike a deal on climate change
which their negotiators had been chasing unsuccessfully for nearly two weeks.

It was not what any of them had planned. The Copenhagen summit had been meticulously
conceived by its Danish hosts to produce a streamlined agreement. By the time the prime
ministers and presidents began arriving, negotiators were supposed to have produced a draft
agreement. All the leaders were meant to do was give their assent. Instead, they walked into an
epic struggle over the shape of a future world economic order.

Would rapidly emerging powers such as China see their growth stunted by controls on
greenhouse gas emissions? Would African countries and low-lying states, who say they face
annihilation if global warming exceeds 2C, get the technology and financial assistance they need
to safeguard their future?

The battle was fuelled by Denmark's strategy of putting the bigger countries in charge of
shepherding the rest of the world to a deal – a departure from the United Nations consensus-
based process.

The tensions were heightened even further with the leak of a Danish draft text which suggested
the major economies were trying to circumvent the Kyoto protocol – with its important
protections for poor countries – in favour of a new action plan. African countries and small
island states accused industrialised countries of trying to hijack the talks.

Denmark accused the poor countries of being deliberately obstructive.

China and America, the two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, were in a stand-off about demands
that they give a full accounting of emissions cuts.

The arriving leaders soon learned they would have to roll up their sleeves. This would require
much more than a signature.

"I should say, a little bluntly, to all of you that I am a little bit frustrated," Brazil's president Lula
da Silva told the summit.

He complained that prime ministers and presidents were stuck in the convention centre until 2am,
and said that the marathon negotiating session – joined by major economies including Britain,
China, India and Japan, with the least developed countries represented by Ethiopia and Grenada



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                   Page 10 of 37                    Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
– reminded him of the long nights of bargaining with business executives when he had been a
union leader.

It was even worse for environment ministers and negotiators from industrialised countries who
stayed on, but were kept waiting for several hours while negotiators from developing countries
talked among themselves. By 7.30am yesterday, with negotiators still stuck on the first page of a
draft text, they too decided to call it a night.

Enter Barack Obama. All week long, negotiators at Copenhagen have been expressing hope that
he would harness his personal charm and authority as leader of the world's biggest economy to
ease the divisions between rich and poor, and old and new superpowers. Air Force One touched
down in Copenhagen at around 9am yesterday, and Obama immediately went into a huddle with
18 other world leaders.

Amid a sense of rising dread, the UN machinery moved ahead, opening the gathering of world
leaders which was supposed to be a showcase for a global action plan to keep the world from
warming beyond 2C.

The air of desperation was palpable. "I implore you," said Ban Ki-Moon, the UN secretary
general, pleading with world leaders to find a way out of the chaos. Exercise your conscience, he
said. They held the fate of future generations in their hands. "It will be your legacy for all time."

But the leaders seemed incapable of thinking of the global good.

Instead, the second fissure of this summit – China v the industrialised countries – opened up
even further. China's premier, Wen Jiabao, defended its record in trying to limit pollution, and
accused the industrialised countries of not doing enough.

Obama declared: "The time for talk is over." He acknowledged that the leaders were still far
from a deal. "At this point, the question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart;
whether we prefer posturing to action."

The atmosphere was so tense that the world leaders decided to skip the scheduled "family
photograph".

The break between the industrialised world and developing countries seemed complete. And then
Obama and Wen stepped back from the brink.

Soon after their combative public speeches, the two men sat down for a 55-minute meeting. The
White House said the talks were "constructive" and – in a departure from usual protocol –
released a photo of the two men.

Gordon Brown and other leaders began conducting their own outreach efforts to the developing
countries. Lower level negotiations continued, including a round between US and Chinese
officials.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 11 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Meanwhile, negotiators who for nearly two weeks had failed to produce a suitable working draft
went into overdrive, spinning out six different versions of a text by 6pm. They ranged in scale of
ambition from the very weak, with all pledges wreathed in conditionals, to the expansive, with a
commitment to put an even stricter cap on warming, a limit of 1.5C.

"It's an uphill struggle. It always has been," said Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary. "We
are at a critical stage and are happy to keep going. It's a very important moment for the world."

But the president thought he should have another go himself with Wen. Unfortunately, it seemed
as if the Chinese leader was on the way out of the building, having given up on the summit.

At 4pm, White House officials were told that the Chinese delegation had already started leaving
for the airport, and that India's prime minister, Manmohan Singh, had also left the Bella Centre.

But Wen was still in the building however, and Obama called a meeting for 5pm. After much
shuffling, it was finally scheduled for 7pm.

Obama walked in the room calling out from the door, "Mr Premier, are you ready to see me? Are
you ready?"

Wen was – and so it transpires – were the leaders of India, South Africa, and Brazil who had also
decided to sit in on the meeting.

"I think it's safe to say they did not intend to have that meeting with four of them, they intended
to have that meeting with one," White House officials briefing reporters travelling on Air Force
One said.

Ninety minutes later, the leaders began emerging. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh,
waved to reporters, and said: "We've got a deal."

Obama with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, by his side walked quickly past the row of
waiting television cameras. "Do we have a deal?" a cameraman shouted. Obama did not answer,
but Hillary Clinton bared her teeth in a grin.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 12 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 23.30 GMT

Polly Toynbee


Gutless, yes. But the planet's future is no
priority of ours
While Copenhagen may fall far short of the deal we need, leaders know voters are not prepared
to change their lifestyle

Despair is not acceptable, but it may be inevitable. Social democrats are the world's optimists,
knowing human destiny is in our own hands if we have the will to change. Leave pessimism to
the world's conservatives, ever fearful of the future and yearning for a better yesterday. But today
optimism feels impossible. The chance of world leaders preventing a more than 2C increase in
temperature looks vanishingly small.

Politics is being weighed in the balance and found wanting. The writing is on the wall. The
leadership required within and between each nation is heavier lifting that the weak machinery of
governmental power can manage. Most leaders in Copenhagen were out ahead of their people.
Most understand the crisis better than those they represent, promising more sacrifice than their
citizens are yet ready to accept – while no doubt praying for some miraculous technological
escape. This is the way the world ends, in communiques expressing insufficient commitment.

But it's no use just blaming pusillanimous politicians. They should frighten their countries
witless with the inconvenient truth – but there is a limit to how far ahead of their people any
leader can go, elected or not. NGO protesters make much-needed noise, but they wouldn't have
to if most people were already with them.

Consider the political problem here in the country we know – then multiply it by the world's 193
sovereign states, all with their own internal rivalries and external foes. The question is whether
governments have the power and consent to do the draconian things required. It is hard not to
despair.

Britain's pollsters find people don't list climate change among their top concerns. Many think the
science is still in dispute. Why wouldn't they when the maverick billionaires who control most of
our press keep pumping out climate change denial day after day? The Mail, Express and
Telegraph are unrelenting: "100 reasons why global warming is natural"; "EU and UN bosses
have embraced environmentalism because it gives them the chance to undermine the nation
state". Ian Plimer, Richard Littlejohn, Lord Lawson and Christopher Booker churn out denial.
This week the Taxpayers' Alliance adds its own dose of Copenhagen poison, with tendentious
allegations of green "rip-off" taxes costing £26bn. So how do you persuade only averagely
interested voters that the mighty weight of scientific opinion believes calamity is almost certain?


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 13 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
News editors yawned as Copenhagen failed: the good news that everyone can fly BA over the
Christmas period knocked it off the lead. "Heavy snowfall causes disruption" took top slot above
global warming talks yesterday on the BBC. So bored was the BBC with Copenhagen that an
injunction not to give children watered-down wine knocked the talks off the top all Thursday.

Walk around any supermarket noting the vegetables from Africa and South America. Feel the
open fridges freeze you in the heat of the warm emporium, and it's blindingly obvious that all
this is not sustainable. Not the flying, not the city warmth billowing out so my geraniums no
longer die in winter, nor the cars, nor the Christmas squandering and the sheer excess
everywhere. Our grandchildren will not live like this – if they and their children survive. But
cutting back looks beyond the power of politics.

If politicians ask voters, "Do you sincerely want the planet to survive?" the answer is by no
means obvious. Eat, drink, fly and be merry, hope for the best, cling to the comforting deniers.
Imagining three generations ahead is a stretch. If voters cared about people drowning in
Bangladesh, more aid would have been sent decades ago. If 20 million climate refugees arrive in
boats, fend them off.

Incoming Tory candidates when polled want less not more green action and less foreign aid.
Hillary Clinton can promise £100bn a year by 2020 – but the OECD reckons that £23bn of the
£50bn promised by rich to poorer countries at Gleneagles in 2005 will now never be paid.
Cameron talks a bit green but with no sign of green taxes. Ed Miliband's seriousness has been
admirable, saying openly that energy prices must rise. But Labour wasted most of its 12 years
doing virtually nothing: neither Blair nor Brown as chancellor gave climate any priority.

Look how hard it is to persuade our own country to change its ways. There are plentiful solutions.
Energy prices should rise to make renewables profitable – but credits would have to go to half
the population who couldn't afford to heat their homes. Personal carbon trading was briefly
promoted by David Miliband when in charge of environment, until slapped down by Chancellor
Brown. That would be fair and transparent, giving every citizen a carbon quota to spend as they
choose on heating, flying or driving.

The well-off could buy unused carbon quota from the half of the population that never flies, so
money passes from richer to poorer. The price would rise every year, as the quota shrank to limit
emissions. Sensible, fair and redistributive, it would be easy to implement with plastic cards for
energy and transport bills, compared with wartime rationing of everything all done on paper. But
it would require a gigantic collective will to action and a will to redistribute to make it happen.
No country as unequal as the UK, let alone the US, can have a collective will when citizens'
interests are diametrically opposed to one another. Inequality between and within nations may be
the death of us.

Fixing the climate is not a practical conundrum, it is a purely political problem. We could build
the windmills, the solar, the nuclear and whatever it takes to be self-sustaining with clean energy
for ever if we wanted to. But enough people have to want to change how they live and spend to
make it happen. So far they don't, not by a long chalk. What would it take? A tidal wave
destroying New York maybe – New Orleans was the wrong people – with London, St Petersburg



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 14 of 37                 Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
and Shanghai wiped out all at once. But cataclysms will come too late for action. Just pray for a
scientific wonder or that Lord Stern is right and the market can fix it, as green technology
becomes more profitable than oil and coal. As things stand, politics has not enough heft nor
authority. It would take a political miracle to save us now.




The Guardian, Saturday 19 December 2009
Editorial


Copenhagen climate conference: The grim
meaning of 'meaningful'
Like businessmen who insist a deal is legit, politicians protesting they have done something
"meaningful" arouse suspicions that the opposite is in fact true. And "meaningful" was about the
best word the spin doctors could muster in respect of the agreement of sorts that was brokered in
Copenhagen late last night.

The climate change summit had three big tickets on its agenda: emissions, financial assistance
and the process going ahead. And on each of these counts the accord – which was effectively
hammered out not by the whole conference, but rather by the US, India, China and South Africa
– fell woefully short. There was no serious cementing of the positive noises on aid that had
emerged earlier on in the week. On emissions, a clear-eyed vision for the distant future was
rendered a pipe dream by outright fuzziness about the near term. And most alarmingly of all,
there was no clear procedural roadmap to deliver the world from the impasse that this summit
has landed it in. Outright failure to agree anything at all would have been very much worse, but
that is about the best thing that can be said.

The course of the summit as a whole – which moved from bold rhetoric, through blame games to
eventual grudging concessions – was neatly epitomised in Barack Obama's flying visit. The
newly-crowned Nobel laureate opened his brief speech in near-identical terms to those we
recently deployed – in common with 56 newspapers worldwide – in a shared editorial which
called on global leaders to do the right thing.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu               Page 15 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Stating climate change was a frightening fact, the president pronounced his determination to act.
Soon, however, he broke his own rhetorical spell by following his eloquent overture not with a
magnanimous announcement, but with some none-too-subtle pointing of the finger at China. He
may have been technically accurate in implying that it nowadays emitted more than the US, but
this cheap point distracted from the reality that much of China's – in any case low – per-head
emissions are incurred in serving western consumers.

Later on he stood back from the brink. First, by conceding some language on monitoring
emissions which addressed China's concerns about sovereignty, and secondly – at a late-night
press conference – by making a nod towards UN scientists who have this week been warning that
the offers tabled so far would set the mercury surging by a catastrophic 3C.

Obama's singular failure to raise the American game no doubt reflects his having one eye on the
Senate, whom he still needs to persuade to enact his climate laws. Other leaders, however,
proved equally unable to transcend parochialism when the crunch came.

China's premier Wen Jiabao used his own speech to harry the developed world to make good on
the cash it has pledged to the poor, an important demand but one that would have carried more
force if it had been married to the explicit acceptance that China will soon have to find the means
to prove to a sceptical world that it will curb its emissions as it promises.

Throughout the evening, Europe seemed bent on clinging to its trump card of increasing its
emissions offer from a 20% to a 30% cut, refusing to think beyond the horse-trading that has
been failing the climate for years.

Only two years ago, the world's leaders swore this would be the summit to build a new carbon
order. The threadbare agreement thrashed out last night has not even laid the foundations. The
progress on financial assistance over the fortnight is welcome, but with much of the money
earmarked for climate adaptation, the global community is left resembling an alcoholic who has
decided to save up for a liver transplant rather than give up drink.

It is a sad tribute to collective failure that the all-important question at the end of Copenhagen is:
what happens next?




The Guardian, Saturday 19 December 2009
Jonathan Watts




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 16 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
What was agreed at Copenhagen – and what
was left out
National leaders and sleep-deprived negotiators thrashed out a text late last night that could
determine the balance of power in the world and possibly the future of our species. The list
below gives a breakdown of the key points:

Temperature

"The increase in global temperature should be below two degrees."

This will disappoint the 100-plus nations who wanted a lower maximum of 1.5C, including many
small island states who fear that even at this level their homes may be submerged.

Peak date for carbon emissions

"We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as
possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries …"
This vague phrase is a disappointment to those who want nations to set a date for emissions to
fall, but will please developing countries who want to put the economy first.

Emissions cuts

"Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy-wide emissions
targets for 2020 as listed in appendix 1 before 1 February 2010."

This phrase commits developed nations to start work almost immediately on reaching their mid-
term targets. For the US, this is a weak 14-17% reduction on 2005 levels; for the EU, a still-to-
be-determined goal of 20-30% on 1990 levels; for Japan, 25% and Russia 15-25% on 1990 levels.
The accord makes no mention of 2050 targets, which dropped out of the text over the course of
the day.

Forests

"Substantial finance to prevent deforestation; adaptation, technology development and transfer
and capacity."

This is crucial because more than 15% of emissions are attributed to the clearing of forests.
Conservation groups are concerned that this phrase lacks safeguards.

Money




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 17 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
"The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources
amounting to $30bn for 2010-12 … Developed countries set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn
a year by 2020 to address needs of developing countries."

This is the cash that oils the deal. The first section is a quick financial injection from rich nations
to support developing countries' efforts. Longer term, a far larger sum of money will be
committed to a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. But the agreement leaves open the questions
of where the money will come from, and how it will be used.

Key elements of earlier drafts dropped during yesterday's negotiations:

An attempt to replace Kyoto

"Affirming our firm resolve to adopt one or more legal instruments …"

This preamble, killed off during the day, was the biggest obstacle for negotiators. It left open the
question of whether to continue a twin-track process that maintains Kyoto, or whether to adopt a
single agreement. Europe, Japan, Australia and Canada are desperate to move to a one-track
approach, but developing nations refused to kill off the protocol.

Deadline for a treaty

"… as soon as possible and no later than COP16 …"

This appeared in the morning draft and disappeared during the day; it set a December 2010 date
for the conclusion of a legally binding treaty. The final text drops this date, but small print
suggests it will still be next year.




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 18.47 GMT
John Vidal, Allegra Stratton and Suzanne Goldenberg


Hopes for strong deal at Copenhagen appear
slim as stumbling blocks remain
Delegates hold out for prospect of weak political treaty that falls short of expectations as talks
continue through the evening




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                  Page 18 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Hopes for a strong deal on climate change appeared slim tonight with countries so far failing to
agree on fundamental issues and blaming each other for the descent towards a humiliating end.

Last-ditch efforts by the UN to get the 120 world leaders to at least commit to targets on
temperature rises, emissions cuts and deadlines to finalise the treaty appeared gloomy, barring a
late-night change in positions. With the talks stretching into the evening, some delegates held out
the prospect of a weak, political agreement emerging, but on that would fall far short of
expectations at the start of the two-week meeting.

The day saw successive versions of a draft agreement circulated with each version becoming less
ambitious, until the evening when a slight increase in ambition was detected. Only weak, long-
term aspirations for an overall global emissions cut of 50% by 2050 and an 80% cut by 2050 for
rich countries appeared to be agreed by all. These commitments, and a pledge to keep
temperature rises below 2C, were assumed to be givens at the start of the summit.

Officials suggested Gordon Brown would convene a smaller group of countries and ask them to
sign up to a "plan B". This might include the proposals for a $100bn fund for climate protection
which the prime minister had first proposed. There was a "good deal of agreement surrounding
it" he said.

An official said a plan B was possible because "there are not thousands of variables in this
[negotiation], there are a handful. It is only the 2050 target and the issue of how to verify
[emission cuts countries pledge]."

The two most serious stumbling blocks were demands from rich countries that developing
countries should peak their emissions within a few years, and that the legally binding Kyoto
protocol should be abandoned before a new legal treaty was in place.

By evening, no commitments were being sought for any of the major areas of dispute, such as a
mid-term 2020 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union's plan to raise its
pledge from a 20% cut to 30% cut in emissions by 2020 was being blocked, dashing hopes of
prompting a series on increased offers from other nations. One version of the text even dropped a
deadline for reaching a legally binding treaty by the end of 2010. At the start of the week Gordon
Brown was insisting that six months was the maximum acceptable delay.

A financial package intended to raise billions of dollars to help poor countries to adapt to climate
change and develop green technology was also in doubt as rich countries declined to guarantee
the money, simply affirming that they "supported a goal of mobilising $100bn by 2020".

The lack of ambition and near total absence of commitment from the leaders is a bitter
disappointment for the British prime minister, Gordon Brown, and the UK government which
has led worldwide efforts to forge an ambitious, legally binding global agreement to stop the rise
in carbon emissions by 2020 and reduce them dramatically in the following 30 years.

Negotiators will now continue to work on individual agreements like deforestation, technology,
finance but without strong political leadership it could take years to complete.



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 19 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Hopes that Barack Obama would deploy his authority as the leader of the world's largest
economy — and his political charisma — to try to broker a last-minute deal were also frustrated.
A visibly angry Obama told world leaders that it was past time for them to come to an agreement.
"The time for talk is over," he said.

But Obama did not offer any new pledges of action — either in increased emissions cuts or
clarity on America's contributions to a climate fund for poor countries. He also held the line
against China, saying America would not yield on the vexed issue of measuring and verifying
emissions cuts promised by developing countries.

"I don't know how you have an international agreement where you don't share information and
ensure we are meeting our commitments," he said. "That doesn't make sense. That would be a
hollow victory."

Chinese premier Wen Jiabao was said to be very offended by Obama's speech, in which the
president made a point of reminding the delegates that America was the only second largest
polluter - after China.

Wen told the summit that developed nations had failed to live up to their Kyoto protocol
promises and have now set new emissions targets that fall considerably short of the expectations
of the international community.

"It is important to honour the commitments already made and take real action," he said in a
defiant speech. "One action is more useful than a dozen programmes. We should give people
hope by taking credible actions." However, late in the evening Obama and Wen were expected to
talk again.

The dismal mood inside the conference centre reflected the failure to deliver the strong political
deal promised by leaders. Yesterday was originally the deadline for a legally binding treaty.
Hopes of that vanished months ago, but reaching political agreement in all the major areas in
Copenhagen was seen as essential.




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 16.45 GMT
Suzanne Goldenberg, John Vidal and Allegra Stratton in Copenhagen


Copenhagen heading for meltdown as
stalemate continues over emission cuts

   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                  Page 20 of 37               Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
UN fails in last-ditch efforts to get world leaders to commit to a maximum 2C rise as draft texts
get weaker

The UN climate summit reached a weak outline of a global agreement last night in Copenhagen,
falling far short of what Britain and many poor countries were seeking and leaving months of
tough negotiations to come.

After eight draft texts and all-day talks between 115 world leaders, it was left to Barack Obama
and Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, to broker a political agreement. The so-called Copenhagen
accord "recognises" the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2C but did
not contain commitments to emissions reductions to achieve that goal.

American officials spun the deal as a "meaningful agreement", but even Obama said: "This
progress is not enough."

"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he added.

The deal was brokered between China, South Africa, India, Brazil and the US, but late last night
it was still unclear whether it would be adopted by all 192 countries in the full plenary session.

The agreement aims to provide $30bn in funding for poor countries to adapt to climate change
from next year to 2012, and $100bn a year after 2020.

But it disappointed African and other vulnerable countries who had been holding out for far
deeper emission cuts to hold the global temperature rise to 1.5C this century. As widely expected,
all references to 1.5C in previous drafts were removed at the last minute, but more surprisingly,
the earlier 2050 goal of reducing global CO2 emissions by 80% was also dropped.

The agreement also set up a forestry deal which is hoped would significantly reduce
deforestation in return for cash. It lacked the kind of independent verification of emission
reductions by developing countries that the US and others demanded.

Obama hinted that China was to blame for the lack of a substantial deal. In a press conference he
condemned the insistence of some countries to look backwards to previous environmental
agreements. He said developing countries should be "getting out of that mindset, and moving
towards the position where everybody recognises that we all need to move together".

This was a not-so-veiled reference to the epic row over whether to ditch the Kyoto protocol and
its legal distinction between developed and developing nations. Developing nations saw this as
an attempt by the rich world to wriggle out of its responsibility for climate change. Many
observers 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 work on individual agreements such as forests, technology, and finance –
but, without strong leadership, the chances are that it will take years to complete.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 21 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Obama cast his trip as a sign of renewed US global leadership. "The time has come for us to get
off the sidelines and shape the future that we seek; that is why I came to Copenhagen," he said.
But he said he would not be staying for the final vote "because of weather constraints in
Washington".

Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of 130 developing countries, was
scathing: "This deal will definitely result in massive 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.

"It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between
him and Bush."

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."Ed Miliband [UK climate
change secretary] is among the very few that come out of this summit with any credit. It is now
evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the
one on display here in Copenhagen."

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."




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 18.12 GMT
Suzanne Goldenberg and Allegra Stratton in Copenhagen


From dinner to desperation: The 24-hour
race for a deal in Copenhagen
The Copenhagen climate change summit had been meticulously planned to produce a
streamlined agreement. Instead, it turned into an epic struggle over the shape of a future world
economic order



he world leaders invited to dine by Queen Margrethe supped on turkey and mushy peas, and
were serenaded by the Danish Royal Life Guards bands playing George Harrison's Here Comes
the Sun.


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 22 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
But the bands also played Here's That Rainy Day - which may in the end prove more apt. By
10pm on Thursday night, leaders from about two dozen of the world's biggest economies had left
the dinner to return to the hangar-like convention centre, trying to strike the deal on climate
change that their negotiators had been chasing unsuccessfully for nearly two weeks.

It was not what any of them had planned. The Copenhagen climate change summit had been
meticulously planned by the Danish hosts to produce a streamlined agreement. By the time the
prime ministers and presidents began arriving, negotiators - led by a select group from the major
economies - were supposed to have produced a draft agreement. All the leaders were meant to do
was give their assent.

Instead, leaders walked into an epic struggle over the shape of a future world economic order.
Would rapidly emerging economies like China see their growth stunted by controls on
greenhouse gas emissions? Would African countries and low-lying states who say they face
annihilation if the warming of the atmosphere exceeds 2C get the technology and financial
assistance they need to safeguard their future?

The battle was fuelled by Denmark's strategy of putting the bigger countries in charge of
shepherding the rest of the world to a deal - a departure from the United Nations consensus-
based process.

The tensions were heightened even further with the leak of a Danish draft text, which suggested
the major economies were trying to circumvent the Kyoto protocol - with its important
protections for poor countries - in favour of a new action plan.

African countries and small island states accused industrialised countries of trying to hijack the
talks. Denmark accused the poor countries of being deliberately obstructive. China and the US -
the two biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions - were in a stand-off over demands to
provide a full accounting of emissions cuts.

The arriving leaders soon realised that they would have to roll up their sleeves. This would be
much more than a 'sign and initial' job. "I should say a little bluntly to all of you that I am a little
bit frustrated," Brazil's president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, told the summit.

He complained that prime ministers and presidents were stuck in the convention centre until 2am.
"To submit heads of state to certain kinds of discussion like the one we had last night - I haven't
seen such a meeting in a long time."

He said the marathon negotiating session - joined by major economies like Britain, China, India
and Japan - with the least developed countries represented by Ethiopia and Grenada - reminded
him of the long nights of bargaining with business executives when he was a union boss.

It was even worse for environment ministers and negotiators from industrialised countries who
stayed on to talk, but were kept waiting for several hours while negotiators from developing
countries talked among themselves. By 7.30am, with negotiators still stuck on the first page of a
draft text, they too decided to call it a night.



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                  Page 23 of 37                    Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Enter Barack Obama. All week long, negotiators at the Copenhagen summit have been
expressing hope that Obama would harness his personal charm and his authority as leader of the
world's biggest economy to ease the divisions between rich and poor, and old and new
superpowers, and come to a deal.

Air Force One touched down in Copenhagen at around 9am yesterday morning, and Obama
immediately went into a huddle with 18 other world leaders. But there was one significant
absence. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese premier, sent his vice minister for foreign affairs, He Yafei, in
his place.

Amid the sense of rising dread, the United Nations machinery moved ahead, opening the
gathering of world leaders which was supposed to be a showcase for a global action plan to keep
the world from warming beyond 2C.

The air of desperation was almost palpable. "I implore you," said Ban Ki-moon, the UN-general,
pleading with world leaders to find a way out of the chaos. Exercise your conscience, he said.
You hold the fate of future generations in your hands. "It will be your legacy for all time."

But the leaders seemed incapable of thinking of the global good. Instead, the second fissure of
this summit - China versus the industrialised countries - opened up even further.

Wen Jiabao defended China's record in trying to limit pollution and accused the industrialised
countries of not doing enough.

Obama, in his highly anticipated speech, declared: "The time for talk is over." He acknowledged
that the leaders were still far from a deal. "At this point, the question is whether we will move
forward together, or split apart. Whether we prefer posturing to action."

But his eight-minute speech offered nothing new or concrete about America's actions on global
warming, and he was as indisposed to be conciliatory as China.

He, like France's president, Nicolas Sarkozy, also used the speech to take a shot at China for
refusing to bow to American and European demands to submit to inspections of its actions to cut
greenhouse gas emissions. "I don't know how you have an international agreement where you
don't share information and ensure we are meeting our commitments," he said. "That doesn't
make sense. That would be a hollow victory."

The break between the industrialised countries and China seemed complete. And then Obama
and Wen stepped back from the brink. Soon after their combative public speeches, the two men
sat down for a 55-minute meeting.

The White House said the talks between the two leaders were "constructive" and - in a departure
from usual protocol - released a photo of the two men.




  Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 24 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
The UK prime minister, Gordon Brown, and other leaders, began conducting their own outreach
efforts to the developing countries. Lower-level negotiations continued - including a round
between US and Chinese officials.

Meanwhile, negotiators who for nearly two weeks had failed to produce a suitable working draft
went into overdrive, spinning out six different versions of a text by 6pm.

They ranged in scale of ambition from the very weak - with all pledges wreathed in conditionals
- to the expansive, with a commitment to put an even stricter cap on warming, limiting it to 1.5C.

"It's an uphill struggle. It always has been," said Ed Miliband, the UK climate and energy
secretary. "We are at a critical stage and are happy to keep going. It's a very important moment
for the world."

Then at 7pm the White House announced that Obama and Wen - the two giants on this stage -
had gone into a second face-to-face meeting. Brown, meanwhile, was exploring the possibility of
sending Brazil's Lula as an emissary to broker an agreement between industrialised economies
and the developing world.

"I am not sure if such an angel or wise man will come down to this plenary and put in our minds
the intelligence that we lacked," he said. "I believe in God. I believe in miracles."

The summit needed one.




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 22.24 GMT
George Monbiot in Copenhagen


Copenhagen negotiators bicker and filibuster
while the biosphere burns
George Monbiot despairs at the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous
climate summit



First they put the planet in square brackets, now they have deleted it from the text. At the end it
was no longer about saving the biosphere: it was just a matter of saving face. As the talks melted
down, everything that might have made a new treaty worthwhile was scratched out. Any deal


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 25 of 37                 Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
would do, as long as the negotiators could pretend they have achieved something. A clearer and
less destructive treaty than the text that emerged would be a sheaf of blank paper, which every
negotiating party solemnly sits down to sign.

This was the chaotic, disastrous denouement of a chaotic and disastrous summit. The event has
been attended by historic levels of incompetence. Delegates arriving from the tropics spent 10
hours queueing in sub-zero temperatures without shelter, food or drink, let alone any explanation
or announcement, before being turned away. Some people fainted from exposure; it's surprising
that no one died. The process of negotiation was just as obtuse: there was no evidence here of the
innovative methods of dispute resolution developed recently by mediators and coaches, just the
same old pig-headed wrestling.

Watching this stupid summit via webcam (I wasn't allowed in either), it struck me that the treaty-
making system has scarcely changed in 130 years. There's a wider range of faces, fewer
handlebar moustaches, frock coats or pickelhaubes, but otherwise, when the world's governments
try to decide how to carve up the atmosphere, they might have been attending the conference of
Berlin in 1884. It's as if democratisation and the flowering of civil society, advocacy and self-
determination had never happened. Governments, whether elected or not, without reference to
their own citizens let alone those of other nations, assert their right to draw lines across the
global commons and decide who gets what. This is a scramble for the atmosphere comparable in
style and intent to the scramble for Africa.

At no point has the injustice at the heart of multilateralism been addressed or even acknowledged:
the interests of states and the interests of the world's people are not the same. Often they are
diametrically opposed. In this case, most rich and rapidly developing states have sought through
these talks to seize as great a chunk of the atmosphere for themselves as they can – to grab
bigger rights to pollute than their competitors. The process couldn't have been better designed to
produce the wrong results.

I spent most of my time at the Klimaforum, the alternative conference set up by just four paid
staff, which 50,000 people attended without a hitch. (I know which team I would put in charge of
saving the planet.) There the barrister Polly Higgins laid out a different approach. Her
declaration of planetary rights invests ecosystems with similar legal safeguards to those won by
humans after the second world war. It changes the legal relationship between humans, the
atmosphere and the biosphere from ownership to stewardship. It creates a global framework for
negotiation which gives nation states less discretion to dispose of ecosystems and the people who
depend on them.

Even before the farce in Copenhagen began it was looking like it might be too late to prevent two
or more degrees of global warming. The nation states, pursuing their own interests, have each
been passing the parcel of responsibility since they decided to take action in 1992. We have now
lost 17 precious years, possibly the only years in which climate breakdown could have been
prevented. This has not happened by accident: it is the result of a systematic campaign of
sabotage by certain states, driven and promoted by the energy industries. This idiocy has been
aided and abetted by the nations characterised, until now, as the good guys: those that have made
firm commitments, only to invalidate them with loopholes, false accounting and outsourcing. In



  Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 26 of 37                 Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
all cases immediate self-interest has trumped the long-term welfare of humankind. Corporate
profits and political expediency have proved more urgent considerations than either the natural
world or human civilisation. Our political systems are incapable of discharging the main function
of government: to protect us from each other.

Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest. It
was nice knowing you. Not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to
save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns.




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 16.29 GMT
Andy Duckworth


Ed Miliband in Copenhagen: 'We're happy to
keep going'
UK climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband, faces the microphones during a hectic afternoon
of negotiations at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 12.19 GMT
Suzanne Goldenberg, John Vidal and Jonathan Watts in Copenhagen


Copenhagen draft text reveals deal is still out
of reach
Three-page draft text obtained by the Guardian suggests the level of agreement reached so far at
Copenhagen is extremely weak

See the Copenhagen draft text obtained by the Guardian here
Read John Vidal's analysis of the Copenhagen draft text here


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 27 of 37               Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
A draft text, obtained by the Guardian, reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders
in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal.

The three-page draft suggests the level of agreement reached so far is extremely weak, after all-
night talks failed to bridge a bitter divide between rich and poor countries.

Negotiators are expected to work until moments before the official signing ceremony at 3pm or
later today, to try to produce a document that could be presented as the "operational" or
"politically binding" agreement leaders had promised to produce.

The draft says countries "ought" to limitglobal warming to 2C, but does not bind them to do so.
Rises of 2C and above are the levels scientists say would result in catastrophic consequences in
many parts of the world.

It does not give specific targets for emissions cuts or a peak year for global emissions but says
only that "deep cuts" are required and that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". However,
the text makes it clear that this subject is still under negotiation.

The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown –
in the early hours of this morning, proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next
scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.

The push for a deal was dominated by the leaders of industrialised countries – including Barack
Obama. The White House said the US president joined the talks immediately upon his arrival in
Copenhagen this morning. China, South Korea, India, and Brazil were also included, but the
smaller developing countries were represented only by Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

The draft stipulates that developed nations "shall provide adequate, predictable, and sustainable
financial resources, technology and capacity building" to help developing countries adapt to
climate change.

"It's a salvage operation at this point so leaders got together and are cobbling together a political
text on what has already been agreed," said Alden Meyer, chief of strategy for the Union of
Concerned Scientists.

The draft includes the previously agreed proposal for industrialised countries to raise $10bn
(£6.2m) a year for three years to help poor countries adapt to climate change, between 2010 and
2012.

It also reaffirms a proposal to raise $100bn a year by 2020 for developing countries that Hillary
Clinton, the US secretary of state, endorsed on Thursday. However, Meyer cautioned: "Even that
is not going to be credible unless they give details." Issues include how much of the money
comes from public funds, how much from carbon markets, and crucially, whether it is additional
to existing aid funding.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 28 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
The draft provides scant details on the vexed subject of accountability for emission reduction
programmes. It says developing countries should report on emissions reduction actions every
two years, although other countries can ask for further evidence.

The rescue effort got under way at about 11pm last night when the group of world leaders left a
state banquet hosted by Queen Margrethe of Denmark and returned to the Bella convention
centre to get to work.

By the time the leaders left at 3am, they had the bare bones of a draft text – but remained a long
way away from the operational agreement world leaders had promised.

Greenpeace campaigner Joss Garman was criticial of the draft. "This declaration won't save the
planet. A so-called politically binding agreement is just a fancy way of saying 'trust me I'm a
politician'. The leaders have just hours left to end this farce but they still can. We need deeper
carbon cuts across the board - it's not complicated - but if they don't step up now this conference
will forever be branded the shame of Copenhagen," he said.

Despite the pared-down ambitions, hopes had not yet faded completely. "Most of the leaders are
willing to produce something meaningful, something that could be translated into a treaty in the
near future," said Seiichi Kondo, the ambassador of Japan. "The Danish government is trying to
capture them, but it is not easy."

With a comprehensive, detailed agreement now virtually impossible, the best that can be hoped
is that leaders will commit to the highest level of the ranges they have proposed. Europe has not
yet indicated if it will promise 20 or 30% cuts in emissions. Japan's pledge of a 25% cut is
conditional on other nations stepping forward first.

Kondo said the important role of the chair was to encourage everyone to go up to the ceiling
rather than stay on the floor, but this would require one of the major countries to take a bold step
forward. This seems unlikely. "I sense there is still a great deal of mistrust," he said.

The leaders have almost run out of time. The Danish organisers have shifted plans for today so
that more time is available for working level meetings in the afternoon. But many leaders are
scheduled to fly out late afternoon or early evening and developing nations say they want to
avoid late-night arm-twisting.




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 12.34 GMT
John Vidal




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 29 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Analysis: Copenhagen draft text
Weak on figures and targets, developing nations say in response to latest draft Copenhagen text

The draft agreement handed to 28 world leaders last night and worked on by ministers until 5am
was this morning being studied by developing countries who were not included in the group of
nations known as "the circle of commitment".

Their initial reaction was that it was not only weak on figures and targets, but that it could lead to
the collapse of the Kyoto treaty, the only global legal instrument requiring rich countries to cut
emissions.

The Kyoto treaty has been under attack from rich countries for many months by nations wanting
a single treaty at Copenhagen, but this has been strongly resisted by the majority of developing
countries. This running battle has dogged the talks and delayed negotiations in many areas.

One diplomat said: "Language in the text includes the phrases 'one or more legal instruments' –
this is a prelude to the collapse of the twin track system of negotiating. If they had wanted to
save the Kyoto treaty it would have needed two agreements and two outcomes."

Developing countries were also bitterly disappointed that in references to limiting future
temperature rises, it used the non-binding phrase "ought not exceed 2C", rather than "less than".

More than 100 countries have committed themselves to seeking emissions cuts that would hold
temperatures to 1.5C. Last night, a leaked paper from the UN secretariat, suggested that the
offers made by countries so far would lead to a 3C rise. "The danger is that this 2C figure
becomes the base of all future negotiations," said a delegate who asked to remain anonymous.

Countries believed to have been invited to work on the draft include Colombia, Indonesia,
Ethiopia, UK, Maldives, Grenada, Lesotho, Algeria, Bangladesh, India, China, South Africa,
Mexico and South Korea.

Other major reservations by poor countries who were not invited to work on the draft included:

• Reference to any money raised to help poor countries coming "under the guidance" of the UN,
rather than "under the authority of". This, they suggested would allow the World Bank to control
the funds – something the developing nations are intensely suspicious of.

• It appears to allow the US to continue to use 2005 as its baseline for calculating emissions
rather than 1990 as other rich countries do.

• The $100bn climate fund referred to would include money from developing countries.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 30 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Huge pressure will now be exerted by the US and others in the next few hours to adopt this draft.
"It will be almost impossible for the leaders of small countries to stand up and be the one to
reject it," said one observer.




guardian.co.uk, Friday 18 December 2009 09.23 GMT
John Vidal, Suzanne Goldenberg and Jonathan Watts in Copenhagen


Copenhagen climate summit: World leaders
work into small hours to forge face-saving
text
Negotiators work through night to draft political document as looming deadline makes
agreement virtually impossible

World leaders in Copenhagen were desperately trying to stitch together a face-saving political
statement on climate change this morning after failing to bridge a bitter divide between rich and
poor countries.

Negotiators were expected to work until moments before the official signing ceremony at 3pm
today, to try to produce a document that could be cast as the operational agreement leaders had
promised to produce at the Copenhagen summit.

But a two-page draft text, obtained by the Guardian, suggests the level of agreement reached so
far is extremely weak.

The draft says countries "ought" to limitglobal warming to 2C, but does not bind them to do so.
Rises of 2C and above are the levels scentists say would trigger catastrohpic consequences for
much of the developing world.

It does not give specific targets for emissions cuts or a peak year for global emissions but says
only that "deep cuts" are required and that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". However,
the text makes it clear that this subject is still under negotiation today.

The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders – including Gordon Brown – in the early hours
of this morning, proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN
meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.



   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 31 of 37                Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
The push for a deal was dominated by the leaders of industrialised countries – including Barack
Obama. The White House said he joined the talks immediately on his arrival in Copenhagen this
morning. China, South Korea, India, and Brazil were also included, but the smaller developing
countries were represented only by Ethiopia and Bangladesh.

The draft stipulates that developed nations "shall provide adequate, predictable, and sustainable
financial resources, technology and capacity building" to help developing countries adapt to
climate change.

It has abandoned the goal of limiting global warming to 2C a level of warming scientists say
would trigger catastrophic consequences for much of the developing world.

It also contains no targets from the industrialised or rapidly emerging countries to cut emissions.

"It's a salvage operation at this point so leaders got together and are cobbling together a political
text on what has already been agreed," said Alden Meyer, chief of strategy for the Union of
Concerned Scientists.

NGO Equitywatch said the draft also included the previously agreed proposal for industrialised
countries to raise $10bn (£6.2m) a year for three years to help poor countries adapt to climate
change.

It also reaffirmed a proposal to raise $100bn a year by 2020 for developing countries that Hillary
Clinton, the US secretary of state, endorsed on Thursday.

However, Meyer cautioned: "Even that is not going to be credible unless they give details."

The draft also provides scant details on the vexed subject of accountability for emissions
reductions programmes. It says developing countries should report on emissions reduction
actions every two years, although other countries can ask for further evidence.

The rescue effort got under way at about 11pm last night when the group of world leaders left a
state banquet hosted by Queen Margrethe and returned to the convention centre to get to work.

By the time the leaders left at 3am, they had the bare bones of a draft text – worlds away from
the operational agreement that world leaders had said they were going to produce at the summit.

Despite the pared-down ambitions, hopes had not yet faded completely.

"Most of the leaders are willing to produce something meaningful, something that could be
translated into a treaty in the near future," said Seiichi Kondo, the ambassador of Japan. "The
Danish government is trying to capture them, but it is not easy."

With a comprehensive, detailed agreement now virtually impossible, the best that can be hoped
is that leaders will commit to the highest level of the ranges they have proposed. Europe has not




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 32 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
yet indicated if it will promise 20 or 30% cuts in emissions. Japan's pledge of a 25% cut is
conditional on other nations stepping forward first.

Kondo said the important role of the chair was to encourage everyone to go up to the ceiling
rather than stay on the floor, but this would require one of the major countries to take a bold step
forward. This seems unlikely.

"I sense there is still a great deal of mistrust."

The leaders have almost run out of time. The Danish organisers have shifted plans for today so
that more time is available for working level meetings in the afternoon. But many leaders are
scheduled to fly out late afternoon or early evening. Developing nations want to avoid late-night
arm-twisting.




guardian.co.uk, Thursday 17 December 2009 10.34 GMT
Allegra Stratton in Copenhagen and agencies


Chances of a meaningful Copenhagen deal
fading, negotiators say
Mood at Copenhagen talks darkens with news that China is setting its sights on a purely political
– not legal – climate agreement

The chances of a meaningful deal emerging from the Copenhagen climate negotiations receded
overnight as reports emerged that the Chinese were now setting their sights on a purely political
agreement rather than a detailed text.

British officials acknowledged the mood continued to darken with one saying "the process is not
in great shape" and expectations of a draft text being produced this morning failed to materialise,
something Danish sources blamed on the Chinese position.

Gordon Brown also appeared to downgrade even his aspirations for a follow-up conference,
which many had been focusing on for months as it became apparent as early as October that
Copenhagen was only going to produce a political document rather than legal document.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, also struck a downbeat note in a speech she made to
parliament before travelling to Copenhagen. According to Reuters, she said that news of the
negotiations had not been good and she warned a failure to reach an agreement would be


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                   Page 33 of 37               Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
damaging. "The news that we've been receiving is not good," she said. "I must say very honestly,
that the United States offer to cut [CO2 emissions] by 4% compared to 1990 levels is not
ambitious."

In his speech at Copenhagen, Brown said nations should attempt to drive through legislation in
six months to one year, a slight delay on his previous ambition of six months. He urged countries
to: "Commit to turn this agreement into a legally binding instrument within six months to a year
as we build on the Kyoto protocol."

Aides said Brown's three-minute speech to the conference floor was going to be important in
focusing minds with a section calling on countries such as the US to move to "the highest
possible level of ambition for 2020" and also assuring developing countries that long funds
provided by developed countries to smooth transition to a low carbon future would not
necessarily come from existing aid budgets, as is the case in the short term. In his speech, he said:
"We must commit to additionality in our support so that we do not force a choice between
meeting the needs of the planet and meeting the millennium development goals."

With its mention of "additionality", the speech appears to be the first declaration of more public
funds being directed towards climate change, but an aide was unable to answer how Brown
would financially meet the pledge while government is cutting spending to reduce the budget
deficit.

His speech also contained words of assurance for the Chinese delegation concerned that any
promise they make to curb carbon emissions will require intrusive monitoring by other countries
around the world. He called for "transparency in accounting for both developed and developing
countries, including international discussion and without diminishing national sovereignty".

Brown said that the international negotiations should achieve:

• A long-term goal of a global temperature increase by 2050 of "no more than 2C".

• All developed countries moving to their "highest possible level of [emission cut] ambition for
2020".

• Developing countries committing to "nationally appropriate mitigation actions at their highest
level of ambition" achieving a significant reduction from "business as usual".

• Developed countries committing to immediate finance for developing countries starting from
Jan 2010, rising to $10bn (£6.2bn) annually by 2010.

• Long-term finance by 2020 the goal of $100bn a year "to come from private and public
sources".

• Committing additional funds after 2012 to ensure funds to developing countries do not simply
come from redirected aid budgets.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 34 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
• Transparency between countries "without diminishing national sovereignty".

• A commitment to turn this agreement into a legally binding instrument within six months to a
year, as "we build on the Kyoto protocol".




The Guardian, Friday 18 December 2009
Editorial


Copenhagen summit: Fighting for survival
If the dignitaries all stretch themselves to the limit of what they can accept, they could yet pull
off a meaningful agreement

Does the human race deserve to survive? It has been a tempting question to ask this week, as the
talks designed to prevent the rise in the planet's temperature developing into a life-threatening
fever ground to a standstill over what were – on the face of it – arcane procedural issues. The
middle of the final week of the Copenhagen conference was characterised by blame games rather
than dialogue, as negotiators engaged in a stale standoff about the rules for writing the first draft
of the text to haggle over. By yesterday morning almost all hopes of a deal had been scuppered,
but by the afternoon – as ever more leaders arrived – meaningful conversations were once again
taking place.

Dire as things are – with little achieved, with leaked documents revealing that current offers will
put the world on track for catastrophe, and with only hours left to run – they are not as grim as
they might be. The lost time has diminished the level of detail in any prospective agreement.
Hopes of a sealed treaty long since gave way to a rough but tough deal, involving all sorts of
binding commitments. Ambition could now slip further again, so that all that is agreed is a page
or two of warm words that do nothing to stop the world's warming. That, however, need not be
the case. So long as negotiators are prepared to sprinkle sufficient numbers in with the verbiage,
a short and snappy agreement could still pave the way for the dotting of Is and the crossing of Ts
in fresh meetings next year.

The chief grounds to be hopeful are that the rich countries have now recognised the need to work
hard to keep the poor at the table. The root cause of this week's (for now resolved) procedural
wrangling had been the west's failure to grasp this. Understandably preoccupied with the need to
end America's far-from-splendid isolation outside Kyoto, the Danish hosts prepared a draft text
that would have put every nation on the same footing by scrapping the protocol and starting over
again. The developing countries feared that the Kyoto principle of first-world responsibility was
in jeopardy. So the world's south stared the north in the eye, and the north blinked. The process


   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                 Page 35 of 37                  Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
will now continue on twin paths – a Kyoto path which the US will not walk down, and another
track on which all nations will tread. It will be messy and – at least for a time – will lock in US
exceptionalism. But it embodies the determination to prevent the American tail from wagging the
Copenhagen dog.

Determination, however, may not be enough. The chief grounds to be fearful are that no matter
what the world expects, and no matter what the Obama administration might wish to promise,
the American political system may prove unable to deliver. Despite the chair of the Foreign
Relations Committee pledging to get the legislation through, arcane filibustering rules provide a
few dozen senators with the facility to hold the world to ransom. The best way to seal a global
deal would be for the US to promise far deeper emissions cuts than the 4% below 1990 levels it
has pledged to so far; but the only way to seal a political deal within the US may involve not
budging too far from that figure.

The obstacles are formidable, and the odds remain long. But a late-breaking commitment from
Washington on financial assistance shows the spirit in which things must be done. The small
island states hankering to cap the temperature rises to 1.5C will, sadly, have to understand that
2C is the best they will get; Europe must unilaterally play the improved offer it is still keeping up
its sleeve; Beijing must provide a credible yardstick by which its boldly proclaimed intentions
can be assessed; and the Americans must respect Chinese anxieties about sovereignty, and
understand that they are in no position to lecture. If the assembled dignitaries all stretch
themselves to the limit of what they can accept, then they could yet pull off a meaningful
agreement. By doing so, they would prove that the human race does deserve to survive – and
also improve their collective credentials to lead it.




   Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu                Page 36 of 37                   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM
Office of Wilson C. Wy Tiu   Page 37 of 37   Printed 10.6.22 – 8:47:25 PM

								
To top