Please visit the new home of Majikthise at bigthink.com/blogs/focal-point.

« Stupak aide schemed with McConnell staffers over health bill | Main | Dispatch from the war on Christmas: Dogtivity »

December 20, 2009

COP15: Obama's high handed pseudo-deal

Barack Obama declared victory and went home. Too bad it was in Copenhagen and not Kabul:

Late on Friday night, President Barack Obama announced that an agreement had been reached, establishing a minimalist accord that would not set a firm schedule with hard-and-fast targets for reducing emissions. But after Obama held a press conference to declare semi-victory—"this is going to be a first step"—and jetted back to Washington, European officials said nothing was in the bag. [Mother Jones]

That evening, Obama sat down with the leaders of four major emerging economies: Brazil, South Africa, India, and China. A Brazilian diplomat who attended the meeting told Kate Sheppard and David Corn of Mother Jones that the major sticking point was international verification of emissions. The U.S. and China had been at odds over verification throughout the summit.

A bit of background: The U.S. won't act on climate change unless China does. China agreed to reduce emissions, but balked at international monitoring. Earlier in the summit, China's foreign minister implied that he was willing to scuttle the talks over verification. Understandably, the U.S. isn't prepared to commit to anything based on China's unverifiable promises. So, the summit was paralyzed for days while the world's two biggest emitters fought over verification.

According to the Brazilian diplomat, Obama floated a new phrase during the eleventh-hour negotiating session: "examination and assessment" of emissions. It was language China could live with. 

Unfortunately, as Sheppard and Corn explain, the draft that came out of the meeting was extremely weak in other ways. The non-binding agreement contains no specific emissions targets and no hard and fast promises of climate aid to developing countries.

The draft sets the goal of somehow raising $100 billion a year for climate aid by 2020. It doesn't say who's going to contribute what, or when. Developing countries know that such vague promises are all but meaningless.

Worse, the draft struck all references to a maximum temperature increase of 1.5 degrees and substituted "less than 2 degrees." This is a life and death distinction for many small island states and low-lying countries. Negotiators wrangled for days over the maximum temperature increase. With a stroke of a pen, Obama's side deal erased hard-won concessions for developing countries.

Obama announced that a deal had been struck and left for D.C.. But it wasn't his deal to strike. The COP in cop15 stands for Council of Parties. By any reasonable standard, a deal at Copenhagen means a deal adopted by the 192-member COP.

COP rules say that any deal has to be adopted by unanimous vote. So, by preemptively declaring victory, Obama basically handed his 12-page document to the world and said "Here, sign this."

As Sheppard and Corn explain, the last-minute meeting was an end run around Europe and the developing world:

The Obama agreement was a sly maneuver. The United States sidestepped the official proceedings and found a way to separate major developing nations from poorer ones—while skating past European desires for a more comprehensive and binding agreement. Though European negotiators first declared they were not on board, as the final evening of the summit entered the wee hours, Europe conceded. At a 2:00 a.m. press conference, dour-looking European leaders announced their unhappy support. "This accord is better than no accord, but clearly below our ambition," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. "We have to be honest."

So, it's hardly surprising that other countries balked when they were asked to vote for the Obama Accord, which they had no say in drafting. Can you imagine a better way to piss off a roomful of negotiators who have been sweating blood for two weeks than by rewriting the whole deal behind closed doors?

In the end, the COP merely "noted" the agreement instead of adopting it.

It's great that the U.S. and China were able to move forward on verification. That's a major diplomatic achievement for Obama. The Obama Accord could even pave the way for a stronger agreement next year.

Yet, by trying to hype a solid side deal as the Copenhagen Accord, Obama reinforced the stereotypes that have stymied climate change negotiations to date. Throughout cop15, developing countries have complained bitterly that the developed world is ignoring them.

By overselling the agreement Obama confirmed suspicions that the accord is just a figleaf to cover a failed summit.

There is a silver lining here. If conservatives hear that Obama pissed off smaller, weaker countries in Copenhagen, they'll want a treaty for sure.

Comments

“There is a silver lining here. If conservatives hear that Obama pissed off smaller, weaker countries in Copenhagen, they'll want a treaty for sure. “

No matter who the US president is, he/she would have to get a treaty past congress, an institution thoroughly infested with environmental vandals and energy industry whores. You're probably right in figuring that passing a treaty may depend on which group our brilliant GOP solons detest more: the Nasty Little Dark People nations or the Eurosnob/Dirty Fucking Hippie coalition.

Climate change and and healthcare reform, shall we call these two victories or two debacles?
Two for two or two for naught? In the words of Louis Armstrong:

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto
Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off.
"

I think we'll be okay if we put a disclaimer on all U.S. climate policy: Many countries were insulted and degraded in the making of this treaty.

In times like these, my cynicism overfloweth. No countries will be insulted and degraded in making of this comment: They will simply disappear in silence … down the drink into a maelstrom of nationalist self-interest ... without a tear or a wink.

anybody has the actual document with signatures on it?

My suspicion, the meeting was total and complete failure. It produced nothing but a "draft".

basically, same as before the meeting, plus bunch of press nonsense about "we did something. we will try harder next time."

Sorry my President went along with Obama. But I hear that if Zuma hadn't signed on, the President of Ethiopia was standing by. And maybe if he had balked, the King of Swaziland could have handled it . . .

The truth is that the only outlet for a number of the smaller and more vulnerable nations is to band with the remainder of the world after the US and the PRC in the hopes of coercing the larger powers.

If those people would just crack their eggs at the same end we do, all of this strife could be avoided.

anybody found the document yet?

I only found the danish text

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change

The non-binding agreements and ineffective accords of Copenhagen will do little to address climate change around the world. Obama's appearance and bullying did little to bring consensus or promote cooperation.

But if you’re interested in global energy standards, check out http://www.greencollareconomy.com. It has hundreds of case studies on emerging green technology and emissions standards. It's also the largest b2b green directory on the web.

Before we go and credit or overcredit Obama with single-handedly destroying the deal, read this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

I yearn for Ralph Nader and Florida in 2000. The two parties are really no different from one another. Obama is a crytofascist, a Chamberlain, he is actually channeling Cheney. We were misled! What we need eight more years of Republican rule to instill a clearer vision upon ourselves. Only then can we be so chastened to finally achieve an ultra pure nirvana without compromise. And, perhaps in the process, the Republicans can again rule in the Senate and the House.

The comments to this entry are closed.