The final deal at the Copenhagen climate summit, which was convened to
develop a comprehensive international response to the threat of global
warming, came down to a behind-closed-doors conversation among some of
the most powerful people in the world about the difference between two
terms: "examination and assessment" and "international consultations
and analysis."
Then again, there may not have been a final deal. Late on Fridaynight, President Barack Obama announced that an agreement had beenreached, establishing a minimalist accord that would not set a firmschedule with hard-and-fast targets for reducing emissions. But afterObama held a press conference to declare semi-victory--"this is going tobe a first step"--and jetted back to Washington, European officials saidnothing was in the bag. And Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanesechairman of the
G77 bloc of least developed nations,claimed there was no deal. "What has happened today confirms what wehave been suspicious of that a deal will be imposed by United States,with the help of the Danish government, on all nations of the world,"he said.
This raised the question, was the Obama deal merely a side deal thatwould be agreed to by some nations but not all? A convenient bypass ofinternational climate negotiations?
Inthat short press conference, Obama noted that the pact had cometogether during an evening meeting he held with the leaders of majordeveloping nations--China, Brazil, South Africa, and India. "Eachagreed," he said, "to list national actions and commitments withinternational consultation and analysis under clearly definedguidelines" and aim to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degreesCelsius. But it wasn't that simple--or clear--according to a participantin that decisive gathering, Brazil Ambassador Sergio Serra.
The meeting, which lasted more than three hours, was hosted byPremier Wen Jiabao, and first began with Brazilian President LuizInacio Lula da Silva, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and SouthAfrican President Jacob Zuma attending. About an hour into it, Obamaarrived, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The participants didnot deal with numbers or targets for emissions. Instead, theconversation turned to the
knotty matter of verification.Throughout the summit, the United States, Europe, and Japan had beenpressing China, which has vowed to reduce the pace of its growingemissions, to accept outside monitoring of its performance. China hasresisted, claiming it could audit itself. This remained "the mostcontentious thing," Serra said. "The Chinese were very reluctant toaccept any kind of international supervision or international analysisof the performance of their actions."
As the discussion continued, Obama dropped a term on the table:"examination and assessment." This suggested direct monitoring ofChinese emission curbs by outsiders. Chinese officials in the roompronounced it unacceptable."We weren't that happy with it, either,"Serra noted. So a new description--"international consultations andanalysis"--was worked out. A "consultation" is obviously less intrusivethan an "examination." But what does "international consultations andanalysis"--soon to be referred to as ICA--mean? Asked this, Serrashrugged and said, "Ehhhh." He added, "The definition will benegotiated by a panel of people. They will decide what it means, likeeverything else." Obama promised to sell this not-well-defined ICAphrase to the Europeans. He also told Wen and the others that he hadbeen asked by the Europeans to push for the below-2 degrees level.
The resolution of that six-word dispute eased the
US-China deadlock that had paralyzed the summit, creating space for an agreement that may not be an agreement--christened the "Copenhagen Accord."
released is vague. It contains few specific numbers--beyond "recognizing
the scientific view" that a global temperature rise should be "below 2
degrees." It dropped language from an earlier draft calling for cutting
global emissions in half by 2050. The agreement urges developed nations
to implement reductions they have already pledged--without spelling out
those numbers or establish baseline years. Developing nations would
establish their own emissions curbs. (All these countries are supposed
to declare their reductions targets by February.) The China-friendly
verification provision rests on that vague "international consultations
and analysis clause." The agreement also incorporates the US-European
offer to help mobilize $100 billion a year until 2020 to help poorer
nations contend with climate change, and commits $30 billion for
short-term funding for related programs, such as deforestation
prevention--without providing details about these financial programs.
Most important, the draft says nothing about future negotiations and
any pathway toward a legally binding treaty incorporating global cuts.
"The result is not what we expected," said Serra. "It may still be away of salvaging something and paving way to another meeting or seriesof meetings next year."
Announcing this agreement, Obama himself acknowledged a weaknesswith the proposal: "With respect to the emissions targets that aregoing to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficientto get to where we need to get by 2050....There are going to be thosewho are going to--who are going to look at the national commitments,tally them up and say, you know, the
science dictatesthat even more needs to be done." But he contended that this
agreement--by encouraging all the major economies (developed and
developing) to commit jointly to emissions curbs--marked a "shift in
orientation" and insisted that he remained committed to seeking a
binding treaty.
US environmentalists split over whether Obama's move was atriumphant save or an act of self-interest. Environmental Defense Fundhead Fred Krupp and League of Conservation Voters president GeneKarpinski high-fived each other in a Bella Center hallway. "Obama hasdelivered the clear breakthrough we needed on climate change,"exclaimed Jeremy Symons, a senior vice president of National WildlifeFederation. By rounding up China and India, Obama has improved theprospects for the climate change legislation pending in theSenate--where foes of the bill have used these nations' absence fromprevious accords as a justification for opposition. And until a billpasses, Obama can't make good on his modest proposed reductions.
But not all the American environmentalists were celebrating. "Thisis not a strong deal or a just one--it isn't even a real one," saidErich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth US. "The actions itsuggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis areextraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for peoplearound the world who face increasingly dire impacts from adestabilizing climate."
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--whileskating past European desires for a more comprehensive and bindingagreement. Though European negotiators first declared they were not onboard, as the final evening of the summit entered the wee hours, Europeconceded. At a 2:00 a.m. press conference, dour-looking Europeanleaders announced their unhappy support. "This accord is better than noaccord, but clearly below our ambition," said European CommissionPresident Jose Manuel Barroso. "We have to be honest."
Even one of the diplomats who helped broker the deal was notentirely pleased. Asked if this deal made Copenhagen a success, Serrareplied, "There is the perspective that with this agreement we mayreach a satisfactory and equitable result next year." Then he paused:"The disappointment is still there."
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
US: Who Needs a Binding Climate Treaty?
At an off-the-record briefing in Copenhagen, a US climate negotiator claims second prize can be better than first.
Deal-Or-No-Deal Time in Copenhagen
With the US-China standoff dominating the climate summit, Hillary Clinton attempts a game-changer.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Already contributed? Log in to hide these messages.
