Is that the sun we see?The mood was markedly improved on the final day of the Barcelona climate talks, as delegates, observers, and non-governmental organizations all brushed off the pessimism that dominated much of this week and announced that there is still hope for a global deal at the Copenhagen COP15 summit.
News that the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee had advanced the Kerry-Boxer climate bill forward—coupled with revelations that some progress was made in Spain on several key issues during the closed-door meetings between nations—offered a ray of hope for a binding agreement to emerge in December.
Representatives from the United Nations, European Union, G-77, and even the laggard United States all confirmed that a fair, ambitious, and legally binding global agreement is still absolutely possible to achieve next month.
However, all agreed that the United States must come to Copenhagen with specific answers about how it will join the global fight against climate change. The major obstacle remains America’s unwillingness to put specific numbers on the table on an emissions reduction target and a dollar figure for its contribution to global financing to help poor nations adapt to climate-change impacts and build low-carbon economies.
U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer confirmed Friday that he believes “the United States can commit” to a specific emissions reduction target in Copenhagen.
“There was a number in President Obama’s election pledge, there is a number in the legislation that passed through the House of Representatives, there is a number in the draft legislation that the U.S. Senate will be considering early next year,” de Boer said.
Even without a finalized bill from Congress, Obama could deliver “a number which would not be alien” to what the Senate and House have in mind, de Boer noted. That would pave the way for all parties to put numbers on the table and potentially reach a global deal in Copenhagen.
However, Alf Wills, lead negotiator for South Africa and spokesman for the G-77 group of developing nations, warned Friday that major industrialized countries must not greenwash such a deal if negotiators fail to produce a strong, binding agreement based on the science.
“We look forward to Copenhagen with optimism, but we will not accept a weak, greenwash deal,” Wills said.
“Without sound and deep emissions reductions, it doesn’t matter how much money is made available. Our lives, our economies, our lands and forests will be devastated,” said Sudanese negotiator Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, who heads the G-77-plus-China group.
“It would be a failure unforgivable and unforgettable,” he said.
Speaking of failures, at the U.S. delegation press conference this afternoon, I asked U.S. deputy climate change envoy Jonathan Pershing what effect, if any, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Denial) might have on the process in Copenhagen, and whether GOP intransigence is hurting Obama’s ability to come up with a firm number on U.S. emissions reductions.
Pershing responded that the U.S. delegation traveling to Denmark will include “a wide variety of members of Congress as well as their staff,” from both parties, as is the tradition in international negotiations.
“They are engaged with us in discussions about what they think will be effective, but U.S. policymaking on the international arena and negotiations is in the purview of the executive branch, and will remain that way,” Pershing told me.
It is promising to hear Pershing confirm that the Obama administration isn’t going to let GOP shenanigans control the U.S. position on international climate policy. But there is no doubt in the minds of the delegates wrapping up the Barcelona talks today that the continued momentum of the Kerry-Boxer Senate bill over the coming weeks could mean the difference between failure and success in Copenhagen.
While finding agreement between 192 countries is admittedly not an easy task, there is no more important issue for world leaders to address this century. Climate change does not recognize national borders, and will threaten the national security and economies of all nations if left unchecked.
President Obama and other world leaders must now use every remaining minute this month to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen. Adios, Barcelona, thanks for the hospitality.
Can I get your number?
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end 2
Brendan DeMelle is a freelance writer and researcher focused on energy and climate. He has served as Research Associate for Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, researcher for Laurie David and StopGlobalWarming.org, and others throughout a decade of nonprofit advocacy work. Follow his Twitter feed at @bdemelle.
Related Stories
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
N2sustain Posted 9:32 am
07 Nov 2009
on climate / energy.
1. Suggest climate/energy communication and outreach be focused on jobs. Don’t just talk—demonstrate. Take part of remainder of TARP funds and partner with business owners in 4 -5 parts of the country to retrofit shuttered
factories to produce windmill parts, geothermal compressors, solar, etc. Publicize the heck out of showing how people are being put back to work.
Back to work is the key phrase.
2. Don’t blame President Obama re: climate and lack of leadership. He can’t do anything without Congress acting. And that means convincing enough business people and Republicans that energy and climate legislation means creating jobs and putting people back to work. Recent International Climate
Action Day exhorted Obama to “show leadership.†That distracts from real factor of delay==congressional Republicans and “Blue Dog Democrats.â€
I agree it’s unfortunate that President Obama has taken on so much at one time such as healthcare and education. Jobs/finance, and energy/climate should have been first, and that is enough to confuse folks.
President Obama could use more advise from professional marketing and public relations folks to help sell these issues. While we understand the complex interrelationship between jobs, energy, climate, heathcare and future security—it is because we do a lot of reading, and we’re probably not facing imminent job loss. For many citizens, they must focus on getting by day-by-day. If you throw too much at them, especially with level of spending, you run risk of losing public support. Keep it simple, and only a couple of big things at a time, and tie it all to creating jobs today.
3. Cap-and-trade, carbon tax, and Copenhagen.
Option 1: Get some sort of cap-and-trade passed with emission targets listed so that the rest of the world will see some action and commitment from the U.S. and follow suit. Then, take 2010 to review carbon tax, and reworking cap-and-trade to make it more verifiable, less giveaway.
Option 2: Ask Copenhagen for extension of six months, hope that we can get cap-and-trade passed. What is likelihood we will get it done in six months what with Republican delays, and possible declining support from American people. If it takes more than six months, what is possibility of rest of countries losing public will while their governments wait for American Republicans.
Option 3: Scrap existing cap-and=trade, start over debating carbon tax versus cap-and-trade. Hope that we can do it in six months, which given how long it took to work on cap-and-trade. If it takes longer than six months, say another year or so, what do we lose in deforestation, extraction, and possible Republican takeover of Congress and the White House, plus loss of public will in other countries?
I think I vote for Option 1 = but would appreciate group=think.
N2sustain
Permalink
Dave from Canada Posted 3:10 pm
07 Nov 2009
I hope nobody is naive enough to think that targets and timelines will be enough. Because they certainly won't be.
Canada (to pick one country) has had targets and timelines, and simply failed to meet them. Didn't actually try.
What is needed is multilateral policy change, i.e. global carbon pricing (whether from carbon tax or cap-and-trade).
Anything else isn't going to cut it.
Permalink