Rice University logo
 
Top blue bar image Experiences from COP15
Rice takes on Copenhagen
 

Nopenhagen: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Part I

img_27011

Above, America is awarded one of the shameful “Fossil of the Day” distinctions from Avaaz.org for thwarting  negotiations. Note the Sen. Inhofe dollars. Witty.

Let’s start with the Bad, shall we?

Copenhagen did not end in a fair, ambitious, binding agreement, nor anything even near it. The meager three page “Copenhagen Accord” Barack Obama hashed out with leaders from China, India, Brazil and South Africa failed to meet even the most modest expectations of the conference, and stood as an almost mocking testament to those who urged the necessity of securing binding treaty by 2010. The US president calls the accord “an unprecedented breakthrough” but most believe it is laughably little too late. We came here to save the planet and instead, it seems, we saved face.

So what exactly did we get? The UN officially “took note” of the accord instead of formally approving the document, meaning countries can decide whether or not to sign on. It neither commits parties to midterm/longterm emissions targets nor sets any goals for completing a binding treaty. Such ambiguity leaves the future of the accord’s implementation uncomfortably uncertain. In an addendum, countries will commit to their own nationally-determined reduction goals, including the US’s 4% (1990 baseline) by 2020 — which pales in comparison to the EU’s 20% by 2020.  Informally, the accord alleges a target of global worldwide temperature rise no more than 2 degrees Celsius, but with no binding measures in place, continued business-as-usual could result in a 4 degree rise in the next century. The accord will now undergo months, if not years, of further revisions with hopes of ending in a binding political agreement. Even the REDD mechanism got shelved at the close of the COP15, despite hopes that the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation plan would be something all leaders could and would agree upon. As far as financial assistance measures go, the agreement incorporates the EU-US commitment to mobilize 100 billion USD annually until 2020 for developing nations to adapt to and mitigate climate change, but remains vague as to how these funds will be controlled, monitored and distributed.  Most significantly, the accord makes not mention of future negotiations or a pathway to a legally-binding treaty with global cuts. If this truly is an “important first step” as some have called it, I wonder how many first steps it will take for us to actually start the race to save the planet.

The atmosphere in Copenhagen is one of resounding disappointment. As we were watching the plenary session live from KlimaForum, the President of Brazil received thunderous applause after his final speech calling for a Christmas miracle; Obama’s lackluster performance and inability to bring decisive action to the table was met with a muffled “boo.” Personally, I was upset in his press conference when, trying to downplay the importance of a legally-binding treaty, he stated: “Kyoto was legally-binding and even that fell short.”  Kyoto fell short because the largest economy in the world and the highest GHG emitter (US!) decided not to sign on – what kind of impetus did that give anyone else to follow its provisions?

When it was apparent nothing was coming out of the COP, the Twittersphere exploded with anger: “I was born in 1992. You have been negotiating all my life. Do not tell me you need more time.” “A tweet can hardly capture the disappointment I feel with the Obama administration.” “COP15 ends an utter failure. I am sick to my stomach.” “COP15 is a colossal pile of fudge with a very hard and nasty rock hidden at its center.” “Sometimes I am so naive. Really believed that the world leaders were more interested in the future of our planet than moneymaking.” “Looking my kids in the eye on Monday when I get home will be hard.”

I am back in the United States, returning home for the holidays to a town where few care about the Copenhagen proceedings, and probably fewer accept anthropogenic climate change. Coming off a high from the civic engagement, passion, debate, and knowledge I encountered at Copenhagen will make for a difficult transition; however, my town represents an American demographic reality in regard to the climate change issue. My next step? Overcome temporary despair and inaction induced by the Copenhagen outcome. Second, remain an advocate for the earth by talking and listening to others, understand their doubts, concerns, and skepticism surrounding the issue of climate change, as well as continuing to reduce my ecological impact, and encouraging others to do the same.

Comments are closed.