Eyes of the world relied on Copenhagen – but it didn’t deliver

“It was not what we had hoped for or wanted,” sums up the outcome of Cop15.
If you are a supporter of the environment you will be sadly disappointed at what our world leaders were able, or not able, to do after two years of planning, two weeks of face to face talks, and a cost of £130 Million - if not more - to bring together 193 nations under the UN Copenhagen Climate Change Conference and Summit.
On the other hand, if you think the rich nations can live without the environment and compensate for a changing climate then these talks won’t mean much at all, but could have threatened your lifestyle and income – especially if you happen to be the owner of a Texan oil or Russian gas well.
There has probably been no other meeting of world leaders in history with so much at stake – namely the very survival of our biosphere or life support system – and yet the whole event was vandalised by denials, self interests, political game play and arguments to render the negotiation process virtually null and void. A “weak agreement” led to no agreement at all but a “note to ....” say countries outside that agreement wouldn’t block it. No country was satisfied with what had been achieved.
One wonders if we have reached a point in human history when no united international decision or consensus can ever be made or achieved by such a diverse and combatant group of nations. Talk in the US is that world government was being imposed through the UN, and even that the communists’ are behind the green movement and trying to topple capitalist nations. It makes me think the “Age of Stupid” is alive and doing very well, thank you, but among the intelligent thinkers what has the United Nations really achieved with Copenhagen, and what are the chances of any better legally binding deal being done in Bonn or Mexico next year?
What was achieved?
Firstly, I was impressed at how all the nation delegations agreed that man is responsible for rising CO2 levels and the incontrovertible science that greenhouse gases trap heat around the Earth causing the climate systems to change and the cost of adaptation must be met. A “new level of ‘geopolitics’ has arrived,” said the commentators.
a) A general agreement that we must limit the rise in temperature to 2 degrees C on 1990 levels or the future for most significant life forms will be under threat. This limit does not, however, avoid some drastic changes to the world map and where people will be able to live in future. The less developed countries or small island states, who are suffering most from sea level rise and drought, wanted that level to be fixed at 1.5C. This could, after the next scientific assessment, become the real target.
b) Agreement was reached about the need for saving the rain forests and to do this tropical countries would be given billions of dollars not to cut down trees.
c) $100 billion to be given annually by rich nations to those suffering most by climate change by 2020 was supported, but not fixed. The poor countries wanted $200 billion with signatures.
d) A Climate Accord was drafted and agreed to by a group of leading nations, but nothing binding.
e) Politicians said “Real progress” had been made.
The world’s communities were watching and reading the news to find out what was decided and finally feeling the urgency and seriousness of the position we have now arrived at. My only reservation was that this news was confined, on British television at least, to News bulletins and not on the BBC or ITV main programme schedule, as for example with coverage of election night. Those who are late night telly watchers would have seen an interesting range of documentary climate focussed programmes across the channels. Sky News had the most consistent TV news coverage, in my view.
What wasn’t agreed?
a) Finally, it was only agreed to “take note of the Climate Accord,” rather than endorse it.
b) No legally binding deal, or treaty; something everyone was disappointed at not reaching. China and India have problems in accepting any deal that limits their growth. There is also dispute about how the world can verify what each nation state is achieving in reduced emissions.
c) Decisions over Targets for mitigating or reducing the rise in C02 levels – 20% or 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 – on 1990 /2005 levels, could not be agreed by all nations so a treaty was not agreed.
d) The NGOs and least or less developed countries said it was a “failure, with no deal agreed.”
Although the conference venue looked more like a Swedish Ikea store on TV, with open plan gourmet cafes, plastic chairs and bright colours, rather than a place were serious deals must be done, I think it had the look of somewhere influenced by creative people, which should have produced positive results. However, if I were a resident of the Danish capital, I would be fairly worried now that my city will be dubbed the place that failed the world!
Even more worrying is whether Mexico City will now become Copenhagen’s failed twin in December 2010?
Can we stand yet another year of indecisive action by the world, while poor countries most affected by climates suffer and while animals and plants, humans and communities die, because nations are reluctant to make the change before the climate makes it for everyone?
It seems to me that our ‘relationship’ with the Earth is seriously in danger now of breaking down. Political processes and world leaders have been found wanting on what are the most important decisions which affect mankind and all life.
Many people seem to distrust the science and will argue against taking action without any real evidential knowledge. We are not married or sufficiently wedded to the principles of “for better or for worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part we will love, cherish and protect our environment and home planet and do whatever it takes to live in harmony with nature.” Maybe making these vows, and signing a pledge or ‘Earth Marriage’ certificate of commitment for the rest of their lives, is something people might like to do together and symbolically perform in their communities?
Oh, and for anyone who still thinks people can live in cities and avoid the excesses of climate change without ever needing to change their lifestyle – then think carefully about why we need a stable natural environment to support our food and water supplies, provide foundations for economies, or simply to live happily and not in fear of frequent climate disasters causing damage and destruction to the places we live in.
Divorce from the environment – our environment – is not an option since we cannot live on Earth and survive without functioning ecosystems and planet based climate control.

Paul Lund
23.12.09