WILD

The Politicians Take the Stage in Copenhagen

One day remains in the UN’s climate talks in Copenhagen. Negotiators have been working around the clock in a desperate race against time to resolve outstanding issues and rise above the many controversies that have wracked these talks. From the secret Danish proposal, which to the dismay and anger of developing countries has continued to hover in the background of the negotiations, to the sometimes violent demonstrations outside the Bella center, to the eviction of NGOs from the negotiating process – a disgrace, all the more so in the country where the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters was signed less than a decade ago – these sessions have been anything but smooth. All the while, negotiators have held out hope that the imminent arrival of environment ministers followed by heads of state would help break through the many impasses that have stalled these talks.

But on the two most important points, the amount of emissions reductions countries will commit to, and the amount of finance that will be made available to developing countries, progress has been insufficient, and the hope of a last minute breakthrough was fading. A leaked document from the UNFCCC’s Secretariat indicated that the level of emissions reductions promised by countries in these negotiations wouldn’t prevent a dangerous rise in average temperature of 2°C – in fact, it would lead to an average increase in temperature of 3°C, a social and environmental disaster. And although the $100 billion USD in funding per year from 2020 onwards that developed countries are offering to raise for developing countries is a major step in the right direction, even that sum would fall well short of what’s needed.

Of course, there has been progress in Copenhagen, and if this had been a negotiating session with less lofty expectations, participants would probably be fairly happy with the results. One area of progress has been on a mechanism for protecting forests in developing countries, referred to as “reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation” or “REDD+”. This mechanism will likely generate agreed upon text, and just as importantly, some financial commitments. It will likely be presented as one of the key outcomes of the sessions in Copenhagen.

But even the $3.5 billion USD in fast-start financing over three years that has been pledged for this mechanism by developed countries is far below what it should be – at least $10 billion USD and ideally in the $25 billion USD range. And much more could have been done to protect forests immediately without waiting for a REDD+ mechanism to be implemented. Peru’s commitment to end deforestation by 2020 provides the kind of leadership and vision that have been sadly lacking until now in Copenhagen. And the fact that developed countries are manipulating the accounting rules for emissions from their own forests, while asking developing countries to submit stringent verification procedures on REDD+, is deeply disappointing. It’s fair to say the hypocrisy of this approach has not gone unnoticed.

The sad truth from a wilderness perspective is that right now, the Copenhagen outcome seems to be a partial success for forests and other ecosystems in developing countries, combined with a very unsatisfactory result for wilderness areas in developed countries. And if we don’t get an aggressive set of global emissions reductions targets, it won’t matter anyway because many of the forests and other intact ecosystems we should be protecting will likely dry up and burn, or otherwise deteriorate.

Copenhagen was a step forward, and the 110 or so politicians lining up to take the stage today will have some good news to share. But unless a miracle takes place over night, Copenhagen will not produce the hoped for historic breakthrough, and the overall result will be disappointing. What needs to happen on the last day in Copenhagen is one of two things. A commitment by negotiators to work through the weekend and into next week until they can hammer out a better result. Or a commitment to regroup and reconvene in six months to finish the job. Greenwash and hyperbole from the politicians are unacceptable, and most people who care about the planet’s future will find any attempt at greenwash deeply insulting and inflammatory.

Post your Comment here

Comments are the sole responsibility of their authors. WILD is not responsible, nor will be held liable, for blog comments. WILD reserves the right to delete any comment that is abusive, profane, rude, or considered spam.