How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

Here’s what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China’s game

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

Source: Guardian

Pope to Copenhagen: Saving Environment as Crucial as Fighting Terrorism

Benedict XVI’s message for the Catholic Church’s annual World Day of Peace on Jan. 1 does not mention the Copenhagen Climate Summit by name, but the target audience could not have been more obvious, nor the framing of his appeal more loaded for both foes and critics of global warming.

At the very top of the 3,800-word document, titled “If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation,” the pope says the preservation of “creation”– that is, the natural environment that is a gift from God –”has now become essential for the pacific coexistence of mankind.”

“Man’s inhumanity to man has given rise to numerous threats to peace and to authentic and integral human development — wars, international and regional conflicts, acts of terrorism, and violations of human rights. Yet no less troubling are the threats arising from the neglect — if not downright misuse — of the earth and the natural goods that God has given us.”

That’s a powerful linkage, and as Vatican-watcher John Allen noted, the title of the document was a deliberate play on the motto of Benedict’s predecessor, Pope Paul VI, who said “If you want peace, work for justice.”

The framework of “environmental protection-as-security issue” is not one you’ll see either side in the climate wars citing very often, though it could have appeal to neo-cons who tend to be global warming skeptics. Unfortunately, they will likely be put off by other aspects of the document.

For example, Benedict takes climate change and its human-based causes as fact, and his message clearly reinforces his growing reputation as the “green pope” who presents sharp challenges to those who do not support efforts to curb greenhouse gases and sweeping measures to protect rain forests and other natural resources.

He argues, for instance, that economic development must include safeguards for the environment, even if they are costly, and he calls for “a world-wide redistribution of energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to them.” Moreover, “technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency.”

Solar power is crucial to averting environmental catastrophe and developing a just world, Benedict writes, while nations must also work for “progressive disarmament and a world free of nuclear weapons.”

Source: Politics Daily

Q&A: The Copenhagen climate summi

The Copenhagen climate conference COP15 resulted in a document called the Copenhagen Accord. It was hammered out by a small group of countries – including the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas polluters, China and the US. The conference as a whole did not adopt the accord, but voted to “take note” of it.

Was the summit a success?

This depends on your point of view.

On the positive side, the Copenhagen Accord, for the first time, unites the US, China and other major developing countries in an effort to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol did not achieve this – it imposed no obligations on developing countries to restrain the growth of their emissions, and the US never acceded to it. The accord also says developed countries will aim to mobilise $100bn per year by 2020, to address the needs of developing countries.

On the other hand, the summit did not result in a legally binding deal or any commitment to reach one in future. The accord calls on countries to state what they will do to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but these will not be legally binding commitments. Furthermore, there is no global target for emissions reductions by 2050 and the accord is vague as to how its goals – such as the $100bn of funds annually for developing countries – will be achieved.

What are the key points of the Copenhagen Accord?

• A commitment “to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2C” and to achieve “the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”

• Developed countries must make commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and developing countries must report their plans to curb greenhouse gas emissions to the UN by 31 January 2010

• New and additional resources “approaching $30bn” will be channelled to poorer nations over the period 2010-12, with an annual sum of $100bn envisaged by 2020

• A Copenhagen Green Climate Fund will be established under the UN convention on climate change, to direct some of this money to climate-related projects in developing countries

• Projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries will be subject to international monitoring if they are internationally funded

• Programmes to provide developing countries with financial incentives to preserve forests – REDD and REDD-plus – will be established immediately

• Implementation of the accord will be reviewed in 2015 and an assessment will be made of whether the goal of keeping global temperature rise within 2C needs to be strengthened to 1.5C

Which countries backed the accord?

The essential points of the deal were brokered by US President Barack Obama with representatives of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Mr Obama also consulted with the leaders of France, Germany and the UK. Most countries at the conference gave it their support, but some countries were resolutely opposed, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba.

Why did the Copenhagen summit take place at all?

The majority of the world’s governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world.

Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind’s influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures.

In 2007, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.

The Copenhagen talks marked the end of that two-year period.

Why is a new global agreement needed?

The Copenhagen talks sat within the framework of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992.

In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol.

But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC.

In particular, the Kyoto Protocol’s targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.

Negotiations therefore began on new treaty that was bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement, and the plan was that these would conclude in Copenhagen.

Why is climate change happening – and is it the same as global warming?

The Earth’s climate has always changed naturally over time.

For example, variability in our planet’s orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods.

According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change.

The principal cause is burning fossil fuels – coal, oil and gas.

This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which – added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth’s atmosphere – acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun’s energy and warming the Earth’s surface.

Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute.

Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world – “global warming” – this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on.

This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label “climate change” – sometimes more accurately called “anthropogenic (human-made) climate change”.

Will the Copenhagen deal solve climate change?

The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times.

In some parts of the world this is already having impacts – and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable.

Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed.

Source: BBC News

Solar power system in your home

When one looks at the initial cost of solar powering a home, many of us cringe at having to fork out to install the solar items that get us off grid either partially or completely.

A solar power system is an expensive home addition but it’s an extremely beneficial one, particularly given ESKOM’s price hike. If you don’t have thousands of rands to pay for these solar power systems up front, there are other ways in which you can pay for your home to be eco friendly…

One of the most obvious ways would be to apply for a loan for your residential solar power system. The problem with a loan is that the payments can be exorbitant and you could pay off a solar power system for years to come. A more economical alternative is to increase the bond on your home to include your solar system.

Getting finance for your solar power system might not be as difficult as you think. The most cost effective and economical way of financing solar power products like solar panels and geysers is to include it as part of your home bond. Bonds are long term loans and these loans can easily include your solar power products without increasing the monthly payment too much.

If you have a long term loan, one that will be paid off for the next 20 years or so, including your solar power system within your bond makes a lot of sense. In many cases, the monthly savings you will make from your solar power products will likely exceed the monthly bond payments for the system itself.

There are many benefits to using a solar power system in your home, and the payback is rewarding. solar panels and solar water heaters are only some of the solar power products available to install in your home. As electricity prices increase, so will your solar savings increase pro-rata.

Another great benefit that many of us overlook when installing a solar power system is that the solar system will increase the value of our home, especially in South Africa at a time when everyone is trying to find ways to avoid escalating electricity tariffs.

So, if you’re currently in the market for a new home, solar products such as a solar heater are that much more available to you through your bond. Certainly finances shouldn’t limit you from using a solar power system within your home.

Source: Urban Sprout

$100 Billion Opportunity

Here’s an opportunity to wisely spend some of the $100 billion that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promised at Copenhagen to cut the greenhouse gases of developing nations by aiding in the development of renewable energy infrastructure to by-pass fossil fuel dependence. (Previous story.)

Apparently one in four Chinese cities and seven out of 10 counties are without sewage-treatment plants, according to the People’s Daily. While there are many ways to treat sewage or municipal waste; one of the newest is the use of municipal solid waste to make renewable energy.

Converting waste to energy is done in several ways. One is making bio-gas from sewage (human or animal) to run gas-turbine driven electric power plants.

Another is to create a biofuel, such as that used by nearly every vehicle in Sweden’s fifth largest city Linköping. Greenhouse gas emissions there were reduced as much as 90% with the technology. It helped Sweden achieve a 9% below-Kyoto emissions cut with simultaneous 44% economic growth.

This presents an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone; by building the infrastructure in the developing world that uses municipal solid waste to make renewable energy. This would cut the greatest source of the rise expected in greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use in the next decades: from fast-developing nations like India and China.

The developed world evolved water treatment technologies well before our knowledge of climate change drove us to invent uses for municipal solid waste as a source of renewable energy with no greenhouse gas emissions.

But now, nations that do not already have any sewage treatment infrastructure in place are well placed to leapfrog the developed world, which is only just starting to tap into waste-to-energy from municipal solid waste, or sewage.

For all kinds of municipal waste-to-energy companies, this presents a huge opportunity. The developed world has pledged $100 billion to develop renewable energy in the developing world. As I noted here, that money is not charity – as it is incorrectly framed in most media reports (previous story), but it will go to the renewable energy companies from those nations that get there first. This waste-to-energy plant pictured is from a New Zealand company that has apparently already built numerous large facilities throughout Asia.

Source: Simplygreen