CPh v13: Not Exactly A Wrap Up, but Final Bits From The New Ground Zero


{ via Carl at the MS Stubnitz , now ported in CPh }

As we write this there are reports that there are about 20-30 (?) people remaining in jail and there are a few sites to keep an eye on all that… if you have any footage regarding police abuse they will need such things for putting pressure on + negotiating for their release, get in touch with ((i)) Dk:


Note:  We are not advocating FBook – and BEWARE the corporate data-miners – just informing the channels that came our way, there’s many other sites, but we don’t have time to list here.

Updates : 11 people were released today including 2 indymedia activists from Rostock (one of whom still faces charges). Two different reports say there are still 11 and 6 climate justice activists being held. And in the states, Democracy now reported (22.12) there are still 4 Greenpeace workers being held.

What follows is the wrap up from the official Bizness, we will come back over the next days and provide an XLt analysis from the OUter view. Final Bits from Tina’s Reports:
BRAVo!! + Mucho Respex!!!

Part 1 : The Final Wrap :

Dear all,
Here’s the final wrap up from Copenhagen.

Last night, the U.S along with Brazil, China, India and South Africa worked together and came up with the “Copenhagen accord.” Although the UNFCCC’s 193 countries, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon put it in today’s press conference, “would take note of” the Copenhagen Accord,” it’s not a legally binding agreement. It is not a protocol. In fact, it is an accord that side-stepped the UNFCCC process for working towards and agreeing upon a document.

In a backroom deal, made after the United States allegedly burst in on a meeting between Brazil, China, India and South Africa, five nations drew up an accord. In other words, the entire consensus process of the UNFCCC was put into question, to put it diplomatically, or utterly disregarded.

Frustrating is the U.S. posturing that this accord is “a deal” or “an agreement”, terminology suggesting that is something more than hot air.

The press conference President Obama held last night before hopping on to Air Force One back to the D.C. summed up well some of the spin I anticipate his administration and the U.S. media will try to put on events at Copenhagen and on the accord.

Given the side-stepping of the UNFCCC process, the barging in on negotiating countries, it is the height of arrogance, for Obama to shift the blame as he did throughout his press conference on a variety of issues but mainly seeking to shirk U.S. responsibility and to pass the buck, well, that is, the lack of buck to developing countries, esp. China and India.

Obama stated that that what was unique about Copenhagen is that  “large emerging economies have begun for the first time to open up to taking on responsibility for limiting growth of greenhouse gases.” It is, however, the United States, first, that needs to learn to open up to taking on responsibility, legally binding responsibility, that is monitorable, researchable and verifiable.
And for him to argue that “we need more work, more confidence building between emerging, the least developed countries and developed countries before another legally binding treaty can be signed,” is appalling.

Perhaps if the United States had come forward with the suggested emissions reductions of 20-30% of 1990 by 2020 and of 80% by 2050; more substantive and binding commitments on short-term and long-term aid; and with a willingness to sign on a legally binding treaty, it would have helped build this type of confidence.

How can President Obama possibly think that signing NO agreement, crashing a meeting between four heads of state, drawing up an accord with four nations, in a process parallel to the UNFCCC process, for an accord that is not legally binding, and that lacks all specifics on the three main issues – 1. emissions; 2. funding; and 3. monitoring – is a gesture that will build trust?!?!

His press conference Friday night was appalling. He argued that the U.S. “worked with many countries to establish consensus.” How is a backroom accord drawn up by five countries a sign of working with many countries to establish consensus?

He stated, too, in his press conference: “And I think it’s important to be able to stand in the shoes of all the different parties involved here. In some ways the United States was coming with a somewhat clean slate, because we had been on the sidelines in many of these negotiations over several years.”
How on earth could he deem the U.S. to have a clean slate? Shirking responsibilities and standing on the sidelines does not mean one has a clean slate! It means one has been slacking and has some catching up to do!!

Obama also stated: “It’s not enough just for the developed countries to make changes. Those countries are going to have to make some changes, as well — not of the same pace, not in the same way, but they’re going to have to do something to assure that whatever carbon we’re taking out of the environment is not just simply dumped in by other parties.”

Apologies … but he seems to be working with the assumption that the U.S. has made changes. What carbon are “we taking out of the environment” right now? What changes has the U.S. made to reduce emissions? None. So, it really does come down to the U.S. stepping up to the plate.

The trust that needs to emerge BEFORE a treaty can be signed, could actually come into existence with such a treaty. I need you to trust me before I stop beating you is essentially what the U.S. is saying to the developing and least developed nations. Sorry for the analogy but …. Abusive behavior does not build trust.

The technological breakthroughs that Obama stressed as being able to set “the goals we are looking for” might be part of the solution but a subsidy to green technologies alone without reductions in emissions will not suffice. There is no way around it: We need to reduce emissions.

It’s pathetic for him to argue that the U.S. “goals are actually entirely comparable with Europe’s.  On the front end they appear to be less, because frankly, they’ve had a head start over the last several years in doing things like energy efficiency that we care about.”  Why, for goodness sake, does he believe Europe had a head start? What advantage did it have over the U.S.? That it heard the warning bells
and decided that action was better than inaction?

When asked, in closing, who was going to sign the agreement, since Obama was heading back to D.C. last night, he replied: “You know, it raises an interesting question, … since, as I said, it’s a not a legally binding agreement, I don’t know what the protocols are.” Obama certainly does NOT know what the protocols are, either in terms of procedure or in terms of previous COP agreements (e.g. Kyoto Protocol). But it begs the question: If one flew in to CPH for one day to sign an internationally binding agreement on climate change, wouldn’t one take a minute
to sleuth out what the protocol is? Obama does not care. It leaves much of the blame for a lack of agreement at the feet of the U.S.

But it also raises vital questions about the UNFCCC decision-making process.

As John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, put it: “It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen.”

In other words, isn’t it the UNFCCC completely flawed as well?

And if the U.S. refuses to do its part to participate in multilateral agreements and to rein in climate change, and the UNFCCC process is so deeply flawed, what process will best resolve climate change, so vital to our very survival?

That is, given the complete failure of Copenhagen, how will the climate justice movement respond?


Part 2: The Copenhagen Accord

Dear all,

Friday night, the U.S, Brazil, China, India and South Africa drew up the “Copenhagen accord.”

Saturday, the 193 countries of the UNFCCC, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon announced, “would take note” of the non-legally binding accord.

The version of the Copenhagen agreement that the 193 nations approved had notable changes,mostly in the category of emissions. It also preserved the Kyoto protocol for now. (A copy of it is available on-line at the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/business/energy-environment/index.html)

The Copenhagen Accord, as it now stands, stipulates the following:


What the accord states: Parties will implement emissions targets for 2020 as listed in Appendix 1 by 2020.

What this means:  Nations set emissions targets and deadlines as they see fit.

No percentage specified.
No year on which levels are based indicated.
Nations can fill in the emission reductions and base year.

No indication for reductions by 2050.

What is needed: A reduction in emissions by 25-40% based on 1990 levels, by 2020. And then, a reduction in emissions by 80% by 2050.

What the accord states: To keep the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.

What is needed: A 1.5C limit as requested by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). The G77 also said that 2C increase equals 3C increase in Africa.

What the accord states: “Annex I Parties that are party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emissions reductions initiated by Kyoto.”

What is needed:  Preserving Kyoto and forcing U.S. to sign on, until new treaty is ratified.


What the accord states: It’s important to provide funding to help developing countries, small island states and Africa adapt. Does not specify amt. or date.

What the accord states: Short-term:     $30 billion 2010-2012
What is needed:         Short-term:     Indication of who is going to pay how much,
also whether public or private. The U.S. has pledged 3.6; the EU 11.

What the accord states: Long-term:      $100 billion by 2020
What is needed:   Long-term: G77 nations: $200 billion are needed by 2020


What the accord states: Reductions and financing measured, reported and verified in accordance with existing and future guidelines adopted by the  Conference of the Parties. Instead, nations can fill in what they will try to achieve.

What is needed:  A legally binding treaty for all nations with international monitoring.

re: Deadline. What the accord states: No deadline spelled out.
What is needed: Most had been hoping for an intl treaty here at Copenhagen in 2009. The morning draft called for a treaty by the end of 2010, but this disappeared from the later draft.

As John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, put it: “It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen.”

Leave a Reply