Live From Copenhagen: US national progress while talks delayed under more geopolitical maneuvering

The draw has been decided and I have been given one of the few secondary passes for Tuesday.   Thanks very much to Heike Schroeder and Diana Liverman (from Environmental Change Institute, Oxford) for their efforts in this regard.    By Thursday it is likely they will close the conference to all but a small number of observers.

In the afternoon, Steven Chu highlighted some promising new technologies such as liquid-metal building batteries…very interesting heating potential.  He said we won’t get the reductions needed without major infrastructure overhaul.   ‘It is often said today if Thomas Edison came back to look at our power plants he would recognize them.’  Lobbying for this is part of the US’s ongoing science presentations.   There were some very strong statements made from US policy makers and public officials in a WBCSD panel about US legislation.  With the coalition building efforts of Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman we are likely to see climate legislation, which would create a US based emissions market in the next year.  If not, the EPA will act independently to regulate emissions.  Gina McCarthy indicated that last week the EPA released an endangerment finding (years if not decades in the making) which gives it the authority to regulate air emissions since they endanger public health.  It is a prospect much grimmer to polluters than Congressional legislation.

I got some details from inside sources on the REDD draft text.  Several key goals have been achieved.  The first is the issue of rights, with a statement in the preamble something to the effect that the rights of indigenous peoples will be respected.  Safeguards have been built into the text at all levels for three key issues 1) carbon accounting and integrity 2) social safeguards to protect indigenous rights (in terms of involvement in REDD, and in having a positive impact from REDD) and 3)biodiversity safeguards to ensure that forest biodiversity is enhanced and ecosystem services are not degraded.   Markets will also be a component of the financing mechanism but will be coupled with other types of funds.  The downside is that the text has been watered down, and all ‘shall’ and ‘should’ statements have become ‘will encourage’ statements.  Nevertheless, in negotiations where disagreements over a few words can be crucial, the existence of all of the components is an excellent starting point.

Finally, conference negotiations were suspended again today.  After Australia reiterated its sentiment that is not possible to discuss a revised Kyoto framework when it is not clear the two tracks should remain, the G77 walked out and boycotted discussions for most of the day.  In a briefing to civil society, COP President Connie Hedegaard assured everyone that despite ‘the procedural issues’ things really are being accomplished behind closed doors.  She said we will have an agreement by the end of the week, and it will be two-track. In other words the architecture of the Kyoto Protocol will be maintained, as opposed to creating something altogether new.  She said that the time to act is now and pressure will never be higher.  It has taken years to get 110 heads of states around the negotiating table; this opportunity is too good to waste.  There is a valid point to this, but I am not certain whether it is based on positive past experience or just desperately hopeful.  There are certainly procedural issues delaying discussions, but determining what to do with the Kyoto Protocol is something far more fundamental.  What is becoming clearer is that the G77 have a very strong negotiating point in their alliance with China.  If the G77 walk away they can bring China and India with them and that is simply unacceptable.

I think what China is really after is financing from Annex 1 countries for other parts of the developing world, for example Africa, which is quickly becoming one of its major trading partners and source of raw materials.  If China boosts African economies (with other nation’s funds) it enhances their ability to purchase Chinese goods, and extends the resources it can extract from Africa.  The games about ‘developing status’ and domestic energy intensity reductions, but not international targets are really more about China giving itself ultimate flexibility, not about a failing concern for the global climate.  China understands the problem clearly, and would very much like to be a low-carbon, high-tech and energy efficient society.  It has far more to gain from these negotiations, in terms of technology access and international status, than to lose.  I think some sort of an adjustment of its obligations that satisfies the United States and other Annex 1 countries is absolutely possible, even under the existing Kyoto Framework.

Cheers,

Janelle Knox-Hayes

Advertisement