Five Days in Barcelona
The one week conference in Barcelona is now over. It has been stimulating, discouraging, overwhelming and fascinating. We came here wishing to be a fly on the wall but left feeling more like a beetle on the hallway floor trying to grasp strands of information as the delegates ran by. The entire five days has been a battle between the developing countries trying to pin down the developed counties on their commitments to reduce emissions and the developed countries trying equally hard to appear to be cooperative without actually making commitments they can't keep.
The developing countries feel that a shift occurred at the pre-meeting in Bangkok and now accuse the developed countries of trying to kill Kyoto and replace it with something less binding. Part of the problem is that the US is not bound by the Kyoto Protocol (the Senate never ratified it) and the parties have been trying to figure out how to bring the US along without requiring it to ratify the protocol.
The negotiated solution is referred to as a "patch" -- an agreement that without joining Kyoto the US could be treated as a complying party by developing internally commitments that the KP parties would regard as equivalent to the KP parties commitment under Kyoto. According to the developing countries, in the second week of the Bangkok meeting "certain" developed countries bound by the Kyoto Protocol began to explore the possibility of shifting their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to the deal being offered to the US. The developing countries see this as trading in a legally binding commitment for a kiss and a promise.
The first day of the Barcelona Conference, the Group of 77 plus China protested this shift in approach and the Africa Group announced its intent to boycott if there was not an appropriate response. And Tuesday, true to their word, the Africa Group sent their delegates into the working group meetings demanding that all KP tracts except the one working on the commitment of developed nations to reduce emissions be cancelled until the developed nations came through on their commitments (referred to as "the numbers). This resulted in a shut-down of all KP working groups on Tuesday with the unfortunate result that we NGO observers were completely shut out of the KP process while the parties negotiated informally. Late Tuesday afternoon it was announced a compromise had been reached in which all working groups would resume meeting, but that 60% of the time would be devoted to the numbers.
Wednesday through Friday, the battle continued with the developing countries trying to get the numbers down on paper and the developed countries agreeing to do so, but hedging their responses. The outcome is that for the most part conservative commitments have been made (the EU is an exception in that it is quite aggressive in its commitments) and the developing countries argue that these commitments do not represent any progress since Kyoto.
The bottom line is that while the science indicates that we need to come up with a plan to hold the projected temperature rise to a maximum of from 1.5 (350ppm) to 2 degrees centigrade (450ppm), the commitments being produced do not approach either of these goals.
At the closing plenary we heard many powerful and compelling arguments from developing nation delegates pointing out that while negotiations are stalled the least developed nations including many small island states are suffering tremendous devastation and if nothing is done will soon disappear from the planet.
The behind the scenes word is that no treaty will be negotiated at Copenhagen and the best that can be achieved in the time available there is a political agreement to frame further efforts to negotiate a treaty following Copenhagen. But the developing countries and some developed nations (particularly the EU) continue to push for more. My guess is that both sides are trying to manage expectations, with the developing countries doing everything they can to put pressure on the developed countries to do something spectacular at Copenhagen, and some of the developed nations trying to lower expectations without creating the appearance of being resistant.
It is clear to us that in terms of the substance of addressing climate change related problems, the U.S. is a major obstacle. We are not proposing targets that will likely get the world to a place where the climate change will be held to a tolerable level, and we are not making it easy for others to work with us. The primary reason we are not is that the American people are not interested in nor supporting efforts to mitigate climate change. The US Senate is currently debating what to support in relation to climate change. Most of the delegations here feel the U.S. will not commit to any binding agreement. The rest of the world holds us responsible for creating the problem, and would like to see us accept a major responsibility for fixing it.
In terms of the processes being used here (the MEANS) and those that might be used to get actual solutions on the ground, everyone is trying to use peaceful means, but their processes are still quite laborious and not making the best use of the knowledge about collaborative governance and environmental conflict resolution. Mediators Beyond Borders is making its first appearance at a United Nations process, and is learning how it can be in a position to help transmit this knowledge. We all have a lot of work to do.
The developing countries feel that a shift occurred at the pre-meeting in Bangkok and now accuse the developed countries of trying to kill Kyoto and replace it with something less binding. Part of the problem is that the US is not bound by the Kyoto Protocol (the Senate never ratified it) and the parties have been trying to figure out how to bring the US along without requiring it to ratify the protocol.
The negotiated solution is referred to as a "patch" -- an agreement that without joining Kyoto the US could be treated as a complying party by developing internally commitments that the KP parties would regard as equivalent to the KP parties commitment under Kyoto. According to the developing countries, in the second week of the Bangkok meeting "certain" developed countries bound by the Kyoto Protocol began to explore the possibility of shifting their obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to the deal being offered to the US. The developing countries see this as trading in a legally binding commitment for a kiss and a promise.
The first day of the Barcelona Conference, the Group of 77 plus China protested this shift in approach and the Africa Group announced its intent to boycott if there was not an appropriate response. And Tuesday, true to their word, the Africa Group sent their delegates into the working group meetings demanding that all KP tracts except the one working on the commitment of developed nations to reduce emissions be cancelled until the developed nations came through on their commitments (referred to as "the numbers). This resulted in a shut-down of all KP working groups on Tuesday with the unfortunate result that we NGO observers were completely shut out of the KP process while the parties negotiated informally. Late Tuesday afternoon it was announced a compromise had been reached in which all working groups would resume meeting, but that 60% of the time would be devoted to the numbers.
Wednesday through Friday, the battle continued with the developing countries trying to get the numbers down on paper and the developed countries agreeing to do so, but hedging their responses. The outcome is that for the most part conservative commitments have been made (the EU is an exception in that it is quite aggressive in its commitments) and the developing countries argue that these commitments do not represent any progress since Kyoto.
The bottom line is that while the science indicates that we need to come up with a plan to hold the projected temperature rise to a maximum of from 1.5 (350ppm) to 2 degrees centigrade (450ppm), the commitments being produced do not approach either of these goals.
At the closing plenary we heard many powerful and compelling arguments from developing nation delegates pointing out that while negotiations are stalled the least developed nations including many small island states are suffering tremendous devastation and if nothing is done will soon disappear from the planet.
The behind the scenes word is that no treaty will be negotiated at Copenhagen and the best that can be achieved in the time available there is a political agreement to frame further efforts to negotiate a treaty following Copenhagen. But the developing countries and some developed nations (particularly the EU) continue to push for more. My guess is that both sides are trying to manage expectations, with the developing countries doing everything they can to put pressure on the developed countries to do something spectacular at Copenhagen, and some of the developed nations trying to lower expectations without creating the appearance of being resistant.
It is clear to us that in terms of the substance of addressing climate change related problems, the U.S. is a major obstacle. We are not proposing targets that will likely get the world to a place where the climate change will be held to a tolerable level, and we are not making it easy for others to work with us. The primary reason we are not is that the American people are not interested in nor supporting efforts to mitigate climate change. The US Senate is currently debating what to support in relation to climate change. Most of the delegations here feel the U.S. will not commit to any binding agreement. The rest of the world holds us responsible for creating the problem, and would like to see us accept a major responsibility for fixing it.
In terms of the processes being used here (the MEANS) and those that might be used to get actual solutions on the ground, everyone is trying to use peaceful means, but their processes are still quite laborious and not making the best use of the knowledge about collaborative governance and environmental conflict resolution. Mediators Beyond Borders is making its first appearance at a United Nations process, and is learning how it can be in a position to help transmit this knowledge. We all have a lot of work to do.
7 Comments
-
Comment by Leonora on November 11, 2009 at 4:02pm - Thank you for your very thoughtful, honest, and disturbing report. Historically, the US has avoided signing certain treaties, but has gone ahead and worked to fulfill the commitments anyway. Do you think somehow the US is counting on new technology to reduce CO2? Even if the US public keeps themselves distracted to avoid facing the obvious hand writing on the wall, I just can't imagine that anyone, including policy makers, who has children/grandchildren can simply ignore the science. They must have a Plan B. Otherwise it amounts to writing a will to our descendants that leaves them a blistered land and a lifeless ocean unable to support human life. What a legacy. What a conclusion to a majestic evolutionary journey of life on our beautiful blue and green planet. This must not happen! I agree with you, we certainly do have a lot of work to do, and quickly.
-
Comment by William L Hallmark on November 12, 2009 at 4:24am - We probably should be more hopeful. The US administration is being careful not to upset the current negotiations in the Senate on the cap and trade bill. I think they will be extremely cautious until the cap and trade legislation becomes law. Then, hopefully they will move aggressively. Unfortunately, that does not fit very well with the timing of COP 15 and Obama's expected appearance at the conference. Could a miracle occur? Could the legislation become law in time for the conference? We are told "no" -- do not expect a final bill until April.
-
Comment by Leonora on November 12, 2009 at 6:00am
- So, maybe that is our "Plan B"? If so, would be a grand way to celebrate Earth Day this coming April - with an aggressive national campaign for CO2 reduction. Wouldn't it be good if the US could signal to the rest of the world what we have in mind. Then perhaps everyone could feel more hopeful.
-
Comment by jack martin on November 19, 2009 at 5:11pm
- One factor giving pause to US policymakers is the fact that the KP does not make allowances for the different rates of population growth among the signatories. The US has by far the fastest rate of population growth of any developed country - nearly 3 million persons per year. As CO2 production is closely tied to population size, efforts to reduce emissions are countered by the population growth. Per capita emissions have been declining in recent years while overall emissions have risen because of population growth. Meanwhile, European Community countries have constant or dropping populations, which makes it easier for them to undertake reduction commitments. A realistic approach to the US untertaking and meeting a commitment to CO2 reduction should include a realistic focus on how to stabilize the US populaton - or better yet, reduce it.
-
Comment by Janet Williams on November 20, 2009 at 3:30pm - Thank you for your efforts and reporting back to us.
-
Comment by William L Hallmark on November 29, 2009 at 12:59pm
- Yes, Jack is right. We all need to address the growth in population which is driving global warming. But we have not heard this argument articulated, probably because shifting to a population based system would enable China and India to justify a huge carbon footprint. Still, it is a problem for the US that among the developed nations who are bearing the brunt of the effort (and rightly so since we created the conditions), we are the one which is growing in population. But then we are also the one who has the largest per capita footprint.
-
Comment by HASTINGS EBAI on December 1, 2009 at 11:46am - I am very much pleased with your report.I pray policy makers do their best.
Add a Comment
 |
 |
and the Foundation for Global Community. To join them as a sponsor or ally click here.
© 2009 Created by Beyond War
You need to be a member of Beyond War to add comments!
Join this network