Copenhagen Analysis

Slide 1: 

President Obama's efforts at the hyped climate conference resulted in a flimsy, non-binding agreement that pleased few. The Daily Beast on how it might have cost us dearly.

Slide 2: 

THE DEAL A Consensus "Scientific View” But no real framework for meeting the goals. BBC The deal brokered in Copenhagen and "recognized"—though not approved—by the attending nations is not legally binding, but it represents the first agreement between the U.S. and other major carbon-producing nations to work together to keep global temperatures within a manageable range. The accord acknowledges "the scientific view" that temperatures should rise no more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit), but provides no framework for meeting that informal goal, merely asking countries to put together carbon-cutting pledges by next February. It also promises $30 billion in aid for developing nations, and sets a goal of $100 billion by 2020 to aid poorer countries affected by global warming. Finally, the accord promises that its implementation will be reviewed by 2015, 18 months after the next scientific assessment of climate change.

Slide 3: 

Environmental activists were deeply disappointed with Obama's performance at the summit. "Obama has taken the mandate that progressives worked their hearts out to give him, and used it to gut the ideas that progressives have held most dear," writes famed environmentalist Bill McKibben in Mother Jones. "The ice caps won't be the only things we lose with this deal." Meanwhile, a melee ensued outside, where over a thousand protesters were arrested; at one point the demonstrators tried to use giant air mattresses to bridge a moat and gain access to the delegates. FURY IN THE STREETS Over 1,000 Protesters Arrested Liberals, climate activists enraged by conference's lack of action. The Guardian

Slide 4: 

Leaders of many developing nations were angry that they were excluded from talks finalizing the climate agreement. But those countries could soon find themselves with an even smaller role in such negotiations—the powerful bloc of developing nations formed to fight for their interests in climate talks is starting to fall apart, say insiders. The G-77, actually made up of nearly 130 countries, has long juggled the competing interests of vastly diverse economies. But the fault lines have been growing since Copenhagen kicked off. The tiny island nation of Tuvalu found itself battling China, and other African countries were miffed by a deal between Ethiopia and France. Before the conference ended, the president of the Maldives predicted the G-77 would break up. WEALTH GAP Poorer Nations Lose Clout Cracks in negotiating bloc at summit. The New York Times

Slide 5: 

It's not just protesters who were underwhelmed by the summit. Leading climate scientists say that without a legally binding deal, it will be impossible to prevent global temperatures from rising high enough to have a severe impact on the planet. In 2007, a Nobel-winning U.N. science panel warned that if temperatures climbed by 2 degrees Celsius, we would pass a point of no return and runaway climate change would occur. Since then, the globe has warmed by 0.7 degrees Celsius. "Strictly speaking, it is a disappointment. We expected more," a French scientist told Reuters. "What we have seen is the diverging interests of nation states and the planet." Others pointed out that the accord lacked specifics to analyze and, most critically, it set no "peak year" after which emissions would decline TOO LITTLE, TOO LATES Scientists Lament Lost Chance Watered-down plan puts us on a path to environmental destruction. Reuters

Slide 6: 

EMPTY RHETORIC? Little of Substance Accomplished Leaders go home with few binding promises to do much of anything. The New York Times The deal left many unhappy in Copenhagen. Europeans now have the only binding carbon controls in the world, and poorer countries—including the low-lying island nations that will disappear completely this century—complained they were left out of important negotiations. The accord Obama agreed to with leaders from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa failed to meet the extremely modest expectations that had been set for the meeting—most importantly, there is no 2010 goal for brokering a binding agreement. How the deal's provisions will be implemented remains uncertain, and there is no firm commitment to hard targets for lowering carbon emissions in the short- or long-term.

Slide 7: 

POLITICAL FALLOUT Did Obama Sell Us Out? Promises that will cost the U.S. billions of dollars—but get little in return. The Wall Street Journal The Wall Street Journal grimly surveys the results of the megahyped summit and offers a withering evaluation. "The previous 12 days of frantic sound and pointless fury showed that there isn't anything approaching an international consensus on carbon control. What Copenhagen offered instead was a lesson in limits for a White House partial to symbolic gestures and routinely disappointed by reality." The conference was supposed to create legally binding limits on carbon output, but heavy polluters like China and India declared in advance that they'd refuse any deal that hurt their economic growth. All they promised to do was to talk for another year, and at a high price: up to $100 billion in foreign aid, mostly supplied by the United States.

Slide 8: 

Blame the Smug Climate Warriors by Thaddeus Russell

What Copenhagen changed : 

What Copenhagen changed With 110 world leaders present and a single issue on the agenda, there has never been a meeting like this. The countries that brokered the text, the US, China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the EU, also reflects a world in which the balance of power has significantly changed in the last 20 years. At a fundamental level, the conference redefined the debate between countries in terms of awareness of climate science and support for action. There is no longer any question that climate change is central to the political thinking of every country on the planet. Public awareness has also massively increased. The vast campaigns run around the world in the run-up to Copenhagen by governments, NGOs and business and the media coverage of the issue and the summit have made addressing climate change widely understood and discussed from the pubs of rural England to the bars of Beijing. The other very important change is that green growth is now the prevailing economic model of our time. The idea that addressing climate change is bad for business was buried at Copenhagen. Countries from both developed and developing worlds have announced low-carbon economic plans and are moving forward.

What it did not change : 

What it did not change That combination of political will, economic direction and public pressure was not enough to overcome the concerns over sovereignty that many countries have in the context of international law. The final decision reflects the fact that many countries only want to be answerable to themselves. They will co-operate, but not under the threat of legal sanction. There is no quantified aggregate target for emissions reduction such as the 50% by 2050 that was in early drafts - as it stands, targets are yet to be announced and they may be at the low end of what was promised, locking in ever greater emissions. The reference to transparency in the text is significant as it will mean that for the first time actions by countries can be assessed globally, but there is no verification of the actions undertaken in the developing world unless they are paid for by the developed world. Also, there is very little detail on any of the elements it does mention.

Slide 11: 

? Individual Family Community Nation Region World DISTANCE TIME Today Next Year 4 years 25 years 100 years 1000 years