The Real Story Behind Obama's Copenhagen Deal
React
Follow
Special From Mother Jones, By David Corn And Kate Sheppard
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 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. And Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese
chairman of the G77 bloc of least developed nations,
claimed there was no deal. "What has happened today confirms what we
have 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 that
would be agreed to by some nations but not all? A convenient bypass of
international climate negotiations?
In
that short press conference, Obama noted that the pact had come
together during an evening meeting he held with the leaders of major
developing nations--China, Brazil, South Africa, and India. "Each
agreed," he said, "to list national actions and commitments with
international consultation and analysis under clearly defined
guidelines" and aim to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees
Celsius. But it wasn't that simple--or clear--according to a participant
in that decisive gathering, Brazil Ambassador Sergio Serra.
The meeting, which lasted more than three hours, was hosted by
Premier Wen Jiabao, and first began with Brazilian President Luiz
Inacio Lula da Silva, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and South
African President Jacob Zuma attending. About an hour into it, Obama
arrived, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The participants did
not deal with numbers or targets for emissions. Instead, the
conversation turned to the knotty matter of verification.
Throughout the summit, the United States, Europe, and Japan had been
pressing China, which has vowed to reduce the pace of its growing
emissions, to accept outside monitoring of its performance. China has
resisted, claiming it could audit itself. This remained "the most
contentious thing," Serra said. "The Chinese were very reluctant to
accept any kind of international supervision or international analysis
of the performance of their actions."
As the discussion continued, Obama dropped a term on the table:
"examination and assessment." This suggested direct monitoring of
Chinese emission curbs by outsiders. Chinese officials in the room
pronounced it unacceptable."We weren't that happy with it, either,"
Serra noted. So a new description--"international consultations and
analysis"--was worked out. A "consultation" is obviously less intrusive
than an "examination." But what does "international consultations and
analysis"--soon to be referred to as ICA--mean? Asked this, Serra
shrugged and said, "Ehhhh." He added, "The definition will be
negotiated by a panel of people. They will decide what it means, like
everything else." Obama promised to sell this not-well-defined ICA
phrase to the Europeans. He also told Wen and the others that he had
been 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."
Whether or not that title was presumptive, the draft document
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 a
way of salvaging something and paving way to another meeting or series
of meetings next year."
Announcing this agreement, Obama himself acknowledged a weakness
with the proposal: "With respect to the emissions targets that are
going to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficient
to get to where we need to get by 2050....There are going to be those
who are going to--who are going to look at the national commitments,
tally them up and say, you know, the science dictates
that 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 a
triumphant save or an act of self-interest. Environmental Defense Fund
head Fred Krupp and League of Conservation Voters president Gene
Karpinski high-fived each other in a Bella Center hallway. "Obama has
delivered the clear breakthrough we needed on climate change,"
exclaimed Jeremy Symons, a senior vice president of National Wildlife
Federation. By rounding up China and India, Obama has improved the
prospects for the climate change legislation pending in the
Senate--where foes of the bill have used these nations' absence from
previous accords as a justification for opposition. And until a bill
passes, Obama can't make good on his modest proposed reductions.
But not all the American environmentalists were celebrating. "This
is not a strong deal or a just one--it isn't even a real one," said
Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth US. "The actions it
suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are
extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people
around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a
destabilizing 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--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."
Even one of the diplomats who helped broker the deal was not
entirely pleased. Asked if this deal made Copenhagen a success, Serra
replied, "There is the perspective that with this agreement we may
reach a satisfactory and equitable result next year." Then he paused:
"The disappointment is still there."
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
Loading comments… 
First Posted: 3/26/10 Updated: 5/25/11