FOCUS

Copenhagen Fiasco

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculties! In action, how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! In the beauty of the world, how like a paragon of all animals!" Man failed to live up to these words at Copenhagen. As a journalist puts it, "Petty politics, self serving negotiators and the lack of flexibility bred mistrust and suspicion turning "Hopenhagen into Hopelessshagen" – not, of course, without contribution by the media. Although Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, called the closing statement ‘meaningful’ and an ‘essential beginning’, most people termed the Copenhagen Accord as a "monumental failure". However the truth lies between these two distinctly different versions of the conference.

Copenhagen or Kobenhavn in Danish, which means ‘merchants’ harbour’, is a Scandinavian hotspot. It is the capital of the world’s happiest country, and was a fishing village in the days of the yore. In recent years, it became an important place to discuss global issues. This time round it was host to heads of governments keen on saving the world from global warming resulting from inevitable growth and uninhibited consumption. Global think tanks zeroed in on this beautiful city attracted as much by its salubrious climate as by the cause they wanted to further. An important reason for the city’s inviting climate is the use of cycle by almost 1/3rd of its residents. So, to begin with, we in India should spare some thoughts for this poor man’s humble mode of transportation to make our environment richer.
For 12 days, global decision makers sat through to chart-out an action plan, to reduce emission of greenhouse gasses the world over - the developed and the developing 192 countries. The United Nations Climate Change Conference opened with high hopes on 7th Dec. What followed and how it concluded, however, left a sinking feeling of an opportunity lost; and good intentions of meaningful dialogue reduced to political bickering.
When the game was up and the hour of reckoning came Macbeth’s famous words echoed, "Life is a walking shadow, a poor master, a tale told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury signifying nothing". Indeed, after all the sound and fury, the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen ended with glowing words and little promise.
"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason, how infinite in aculties! In action, how like an angel! In apprehension how like a god! In the beauty of the world, how like a paragon of all animals!" Man failed to live up to these words at Copenhagen. As a journalist puts it, "Petty politics, self serving negotiators and the lack of flexibility bred mistrust and suspicion turning "Hopenhagen into Hopelessshagen" – not, of course, without contribution by the media. Although Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary General, called the closing statement ‘meaningful’ and an ‘essential beginning’, most people termed the Copenhagen Accord as a "monumental failure". However the truth lies between these two distinctly different versions of the conference.
The Conference opened in the backdrop of the consensus amongst experts on the grave dangers if global warming rises beyond 2 degrees celsius in the next fifty years. Melting glaciers caused by warming, leading to rising sea levels, flood, storm etc. were of concern brooking immediate actions. In the event, the fact that the Conference did not arrive at even a semblance of an action plan is a reflection on mans selfishness put neatly as ‘national interest’, which truly means, the interest of the rich countries.
Urging for a deal on cutting carbon emissions, the top UN weather expert, Michael Jarraud warned that "we are in the hottest decade". It is true that people who do not live in Sub-Saharan Africa or on small islands, like those of Philippines, or along vulnerable coasts can hardly grasp the consequences of global warming. The threat of climate change is a disaster on slow motion, hitting the poor in poor countries first, then by the younger generation in general and finally by the generations that follow. "How old will you be in 2050?" read some of the banners being waved by young activists in Copenhagen as they waited for their elders to rescue the planet. Reportedly, inside the conference venue, the elders were engaged in one-up-man-ship, as competing groups worked at cross purposes.
Lack of transparency in the discussions and preparations of proposals was the hallmark of this ill-fated Conference. Even as the Conference began, Denmark, the conference chair, reportedly leaked to the press, an early draft of a compromise deal, which sought too much commitments from the developing countries while leaving the rich nations off the hook. The proposal cleverly overlooked the Kyoto protocol, which aims to cut green-house gas emissions by getting countries to accept legally binding targets timetables attached. Kyoto was a millstone on the rich countries’ necks because it divided the world into developed countries requiring them to cut their emissions, and developing countries, which are not. When rich countries ratify the protocol they have to commit to reduce their emissions by a stipulated percentage below a date they choose, which is in most cases 1990. For example Britain committed for 12.5%, Japan for 6% and so on.
However, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 20% since Kyoto was signed in 1997. The plan did not work well enough. Many dirty industries migrated from rich countries to poor countries like China, India etc. The world’s biggest emitter, America did not ratify the protocol. Australia, the world’s highest emitter per-capita ratified it only two years ago. Many countries failed to cut emissions. Canada’s rose by 27% and Spain’s by 57% over 1990. Rich countries wanted a way out of Kyoto, and the Copenhagen Chair, Denmark readied the offering even before the conference began!
The leak snowballed into a major controversy with Sudan’s Lumumba Stanislaus Di-aping, the chairman of the Group of 77 developing countries, stating that "It is a suicide pact for Africa" and called the draft "the single most disturbing document". He made it clear that, "G 77 members will not walk out of this negotiations", "but we will not sign an unequitable deal", he added. The question going round at Copenhagen was, if the seeds of discord and eventual collapse of the Conference was already sowed by this missive. It is alleged that the so-called ‘Danish text’ was actually drafted by a group of chosen industrialised nations, in consultations with US, UK and Denmark. Writing in ‘The Guardian’ (which was the beneficiary of the leak), John Vidal wrote "that the draft text hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations". Media played its sinister role of ‘playing it up’, by asking at a press conference questions like "Now will you walk out of talks?" or "In what situation will you consider walking out?", and gave ideas impromptu. Perhaps influenced by such suggestions, some negotiators from African nations did eventually walk out. This led to the halt of talks for two days. In fact, Jessica Cheam, of the ‘Straits Times’ of Singapore did comment. "There was also the media and NGO’s ‘knee-jerk’ reaction to all sorts of rumours that flew around the conference, not to mention their tendency to pounce on any piece of bad news. The result was an atmosphere of antagonism. I was forced to contemplate, as a journalist, the media’s role in the negotiations. Did we merely add to the ill will, breeding suspicion among the countries?"
This was, indeed, a breath of fresh air coming from a young journalist. It was not just those self seeking leaders, in the name of national interest but also media friends and of course the so-called social workers in these well paid NGOs, who have contributed to the end result.
As the report suggested, coming from Denmark, that the ‘UN was forced to curtail the number of NGO representatives in the last few days of the conference. But to take back a privilege that had already been given, caused further resentment. Reports informed that NGO’s demonstrated across the city and those inside the conference building disrupted the proceedings by shouting and creating scenes.
While it is true that the conference at Copenhagen did thrust environment issues on the mainstream agenda across the world, "It is difficult to find anything more positive to say about Copenhagen. The unwieldy, chaotic summit, roundly criticised by many of the leaders who attended it, resembled a road accident in slow motion, with the small car of hope and good intentions slamming into a wall of short sighted and self centered politics", writes Nirmal Ghosh, another journalist reporting from the Danish capital.
U.S. President Barack Obama was frank enough to admit that "disenchantment over the Copenhagen climate talk was justified". However, Mr Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN FCCC) has reportedly remarked that "All these finger pointing and recrimination could cloud fresh attempts at Mexico and hence should stop blaming each other for the weak outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks. Instead they should sit down together to move the process forward".
The non binding statement – crafted more to save face than planet earth -was the product of desperate efforts of some 2 dozen leading countries - just to save the 12 days’ UN sponsored marathon from collapsing.
The statement was ‘blasted’ by the European Union as a ‘Sino-US stitch-up which will do little to curtail global warming’. Sweden, the current EU President, called the summit a ‘disaster’, blaming both China and the US, the worlds two biggest polluters for the wreck.
Exposing the stark divide between rich and developing nations, Britain and China traded verbal blows over who was to blame for the outcome at the summit. Ed. Miliband, UK’s Climate Change and Energy Secretary specifically mentioning China noted that it had vetoed proposals calling for 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and an 80% cut by developed nations. He is reported to have stated that "China exercised its veto despite support for the proposal by a broad coalition of industrialised nations and the vast majority of developing nations". As against that, the Chinese representative signalled that ‘the country would continue to take a tough stance in climate talks, saying that the nations right to develop was at stake.’ Defending the chaotic outcome and vague prescriptions to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Obama, reportedly remarked in an interview "I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen. But it is essential that rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn’t too much backsliding from where we were".
UNFCCC, executive secretary Mr Boer stated that countries need to work together constructively towards a solution. "It is bad for the atmosphere, it is bad for the relationship among people that ultimately have a common goal to move forward".
"We will have to build on Copenhagen" Dr Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told NDTV after the conference. "We will have to make sure the accord moves quickly towards the status of a legally binding agreement and therefore I think the task for the global community is cut out", he had added.
The sentiments of the rich countries are appalling. But hiding beneath their words of moral high ground is the agenda to shift their burden of emission control on the poor countries. The world’s role call of emitters in 2007 is below:
Except China, the rich countries emit much too high green-house gas per-capita as well as total emissions. Backing out from Kyoto is the plan to rob poor Peter to pay rich polluting Paul. By trying to enforce uniform norms for emission cutting, the development of poor countries will be at jeopardy. In other words, poor countries cannot be asked to foot the bill for safeguarding the future generations of rich countries by remaining poor for ever. That is why India agreed to reduce carbon intensity (per capita emission) but not gross emission.
The way forward in Mexico is for equitable sharing of the burden.
But then for every disagreeable event or outcome, there are brighter areas holding hope. The summit did result in rich countries pledging $30 billion over the next 3 years to help poor countries adapt to climate change. This will be increased up to US $100 billion a year by 2012. Also, major polluters like US, India and China pledged emission reduction targets, although not legally binding.
Another bright spot has been the emergence of the voice of alternative energy, long a neglected stepchild of governments and ignored by fossil fuel and automotive giants.
As we end, a letter in the print media by one G.David Milton, deserves to be reproduced: Quote "The Copenhagen summit has come a cropper. World leaders have failed to measure up to the expectations. Rather than good sense asserting itself, the US once again asserted its supremacy in world affairs. The 11th hour deal sewed up with the BASIC countries is not enough, considering the magnitude of the problem. It is silent on equity, per capita emissions, even-handedness and historical responsibility of industrialized countries. The monetary incentive being offered to leaders of the South is like 30 pieces of silver to betray hundreds of millions of poor people. The saddest thing to have happened in Copenhagen is that the so-called emerging powers like India, China, Brazil and South Africa did not make a common cause with the poor but self-respecting countries like Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua on the demand for a fair share of the World’s resources. Nobody disputes the threat of climate change. It is occurring too quickly to permit a smooth adjustment or ambiguous solution. The international community should treat it as a global emergency and take unequivocal action" unquote.

With inputs from V.K.Talithaya