By Mere Takoko
Getting closer to a solution on climate change has become the most ambitious goal of the decade thanks in no small part to yet another failure of multilateralism. After nearly two weeks of political protests, hobnobbing and bankrupt arguments the display of heroics expected from global leaders such as Barack Obama was undeniably absent at the gathering of Titans that was the Copenhagen summit on climate change.
Out of the ashes of the dismal outcome of the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference came a very vague and equally toothless document on curbing greenhouse gas emissions. In a shocking display, talks ended with an ill-fated Copenhagen accord that imposes no real obligations, sets no binding emission targets and no specific actions by anyone.
Sound like your last failed relationship? The inconvenient truth of the matter is that Copenhagen was little more than a power struggle between two players. The new geo-political map that emerged included China leading a caucus of rising powers on one side and the United States on the other. The big losers on the newly drawn atlas, Europe, were left to rubber-stamp the deal alone with other leaders. It is no wonder that a mere 30 countries have actually signed the accord to date.
Gordon Brown commented that talks were “held to ransom” by some countries opposed to a deal, while the Swedish Prime Minister’s office dubbed it “a disaster.” “It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future,” said Ian Fry of Tuvalu. Amidst the turmoil, the ominous speech delivered by President Obama – who heralded the Copenhagen accord as a “breakthrough” – served little more than to add fuel to the fire of an increasingly critical press machine.
The “one country that possessed the unique power to change the game, didn’t use it,” reported Naomi Klein of the Guardian. “If Barack Obama had come to Copenhagen with a transformative and inspiring commitment to getting the US economy off fossil fuels, all the other major emitters would have stepped up.”
From Hero to Zero, the man charged with the dubious role of rescuing the troubled negotiations was condemned despite his attempts to quell global expectations by announcing the U.S. would cut emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 and support a $100 billion fund to assist developing countries to reduce emissions.
“Barack Obama’s speech disappoints and fuels frustration,” screamed one headline. “Copenhagen’s failure belongs to Obama,” shrieked another.
The general debacle that was Copenhagen not only signalled an end to the international media’s honeymoon with the popular President, but also an end to China lurking in the shadows of the global order. In recent years, China has built a number of key alliances with Brazil, South Africa and India. These so-called ‘Basic’ countries provided the steam behind China’s insistence that industrialised country targets, which previously were to be cut by 80 per cent by 2050 and the global target of 50%, be taken out of the deal.
China, which announced a target to reduce carbon intensity by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels, also refused to accept international monitoring of its emissions levels. The United States retaliated by arguing that China’s emissions target was too low. Even with the new target, its emissions will almost double by 2020 insisted U.S. negotiators who pointed out that Congress would refuse to commit to a deal unless China committed to a more ambitious target and agreement to international monitoring.
With diplomats from both the United States and China trading public accusations, talks quickly escalated into a power struggle between the two. Becoming increasingly wary of each other, each side was criticised by the media for consciously averting any move that could potentially give the other a strategic or economic advantage.
New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman commented: “The Chinese basically said ‘We promise not to go over the speed limit, but we want no police, no courts, no stoplights, no real transparency on their carbon emissions. And President Obama is saying, ‘if you think I can get that through the U.S. Congress – that China promises to be good on carbon – well, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.’”
The stark lesson of Copenhagen is that the biggest emitters were neither willing nor able to commit to making a real and immediate reduction of their reliance on fossil fuels. Overshadowing the triumphant fact that more than 130 leaders attended, the highest number ever to attend multilateral talks, the outcome that has been met with dismay by climate change campaigners and journalists alike.
Antonio Hill, Oxfam’s climate change adviser, said: “The Copenhagen accord is hugely disappointing but it also reveals how the traditional approach to international negotiations, based on brinkmanship and national self-interest, is both unfit for pursing our common destiny and downright dangerous.”
As the dust slowly settles on the stormy two week long meeting of minds and madness, a more ambitious plan is underway to resume talks in Mexico City in November. Until then civil society has been left to re-shake the dice and hope for the best outcome. As we near the tipping point of the 2020 deadline, climate change remains a game of political chance.
Loading...
