A better world is possible - Global Commons Institute

Copyright Bruce Nixon 2010. All rights reserved. This electronic copy is provided free for personal, non-commercial use only.
www.brucenixon.com
Chapter 15 - After Copenhagen – Opportunities and Challenges March 2010
Acknowledgements I am indebted to the Schumacher College course – After Copenhagen – Opportunities
and Challenges, March 2010 and contributors including Ian Christie, Clare Short, Miriam Kennett, Alex
Randall and Lotta Hedström whose notes of his talk augmented mine. Thanks also to Alice Cutler’s article
Copenhagen Chaos published in Ethical Consumer March/April 2010; The International Institute for
Environment and Development (IIED) COP 15 - Review and analysis; the BBC Website and the Copenhagen
Accord Wiki.
What happened?
The chaotic UN Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen (COP 15*) 7 th to 18 th December, 2009, was a
huge disappointment, especially after all the hopeful worldwide campaigning by millions of citizens and
NGOs (* known as COP 15 because it is the 15th Conference of Parties since the first held in Berlin in 1992).
In the run-up to the summit, there had been a great spirit of optimism. Campaigns like Age of Stupid had
rallied thousands of people. Many hoped that COP 15 would lead to a legally binding international treaty
with corresponding targets and actions to limit global warming to 2c above pre-industrial temperatures. This
figure is widely regarded as the absolute minimum if disaster is to be prevented. However, during the
summit, small island nations and vulnerable coastal countries demanded a binding deal to limit emissions to
a level preventing temperatures rises above 1.5c.
But the demands of millions of campaigners were not enough.
The Copenhagen Accord
On the final Friday evening, after almost two weeks of little progress, an accord was drawn up by a core
group of twenty five heads of state, so-called “friends of the chair”, mainly from developed and leading
developing countries.
This meeting was held in secret in a room separate from the rest of the conference. The Copenhagen Accord
was based on a proposal tabled by a US-led group of five nations - including China, India, Brazil, South Africa
and the EU. Essentially it was a deal between the US and big emerging nations. The Accord is extremely
weak, with no legally binding targets or plans. China, heading towards becoming the dominant world power,
would not agree to anything that would jeopardise its economic development, largely based on abundant
coal, nor would it agree to verification. But it would fulfil its previously stated commitments. China’s position
tended to be supported by India. Europe wanted a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2020 and a deal with
legally binding targets. Brazil was prepared to make strong commitments. US President Obama had wanted
emission reduction targets by large emitters and internationally verifiable actions. However, he said that, if
they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress would have been made. Clearly he was also
constrained by what was possible to enact back home in the US House of Representatives and the Senate.
One commentator, present in the room, said that China wrecked the talks and China's Prime Minister Wen
Jiabao humiliated Obama by not attending himself, sending his deputy instead, and he aimed to put Western
nations in the wrong. However, it appears that he did not actually receive the invitation to this core group
meeting. China has since pledged to lower its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product
(GDP) by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. At the end of January Wen also wrote to UN
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, stating that China highly
commends and supports the Copenhagen Accord. It is better to keep an open mind and trust people’s
integrity.
195