An AP Stanford University poll suggested how much or, rather, how little Americans were willing to pay. While three quarters of respondents said they would support action to address climate change, fifty-nine per cent said they wouldn’t support any action if it increased their electricity bills by $10 a month.[49]
Obama then expressed irritation at Wen Jiabao’s absence. ‘I am very respectful of the Chinese here,’ Obama said, addressing He Yafei, ‘but I also know there is a premier here who is making a series of political decisions. I know he is giving you instructions.’
That rebuke was as nothing as to what the president said next. Obama turned to Sarkozy. ‘Nicolas, we are not staying until tomorrow,’ he said. ‘I’m just letting you know, because all of us obviously have extraordinarily important other business to attend to.’
He Yafei reacted coolly, as well he might, for Obama had just told him all he needed to know. Obama wanted an agreement. ‘I am saying that, confident that, I think China is as desirous of an agreement as we are,’ Obama had told the meeting. Saving face was Obama’s objective. Any agreement would do.
Now the Europeans were not only isolated. They had been crushed. For them, climate change was an existential issue. There could be no more important business than saving the planet. Obama wanted a deal with China and India more than he was willing to use the collapse of the talks to try to isolate the duo and force them to concede.
‘I heard President Sarkozy talk about hypocrisy,’ He Yafei said in his perfect English. ‘I think I’m trying to avoid such words myself.’
He then asked for the meeting to be suspended for a few minutes for some consultations. It was around 4pm.
The meeting did not reconvene.
According to the conference schedule, the closing plenary was meant to have started at 3pm and be over by 6pm. An hour after it was due to have started, there was still no agreement. The explanation was simple: there was no agreement because there was no agreement.
Events then took a bizarre turn. In an account given to journalists travelling back with the president on Air Force One, Obama wanted one more try. He decided to meet directly with the leaders of the BASIC group. The president’s advance team was told that Singh was already at the airport; the Brazilians didn’t want to meet without the Indians there. Zuma, according to this account, also cried off. ‘If they’re not coming, I can’t do this.’[50] Wen’s team then came on the line to say the Chinese were ready to meet Obama.
Obama’s team then went to find a room for the meeting, only to find they could not get in. ‘We’ve now figured out why we can’t get into that room: because that room has Wen, Lula, Singh and Zuma,’ the official said. ‘They’re all having a meeting.’[51]
Obama decided to go in.
‘Mr Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready? Mr Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?’ Obama cried.[52]
‘I’m going to sit by my friend Lula,’ as an aide to the Brazilian president gave up his chair.[53]
They spent eighty minutes working on a text. The outcome was the Copenhagen Accord.
‘I don’t think anything like this has ever happened, and I’m not sure whether something like this will ever happen again,’ Yvo de Boer commented in what must be the understatement of the conference.[54] Speaking to journalists in Berlin, Merkel swore she would not risk the same humiliation again.[55]
She was as good as her word. Of the European leaders, only Norway’s Jens Stoltenberg attended the next COP in Cancún.
* Before becoming UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon had been South Korea’s foreign minister, a country which was a major beneficiary of Kyoto in being a highly industrialised non-Annex I nation.
* Excerpts from the recording can be streamed at http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692861,00.html
[1] Gordon Brown, ‘Copenhagen must be a turning point’ in the Guardian, 7th December 2009.
[2] Richard Ingham, ‘Walkout heighten failure fear for climate marathon’ AFP, 14th December 2009.
[3] John Vidal, ‘Rich nations accused of Copenhagen “power grab”’ in the Guardian, 9th December 2009.
[4] John Vidal and Dan Milmo, ‘Copenhagen: Leaked draft deal widens rift between rich and poor nations’ in the Guardian, 9th December 2009.
[5] IISD, Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 450, 9th December 2009, p. 4.
[6] Draft Copenhagen Agreement – the ‘Danish Text’ via http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change
[7] ‘China Climate envoy criticises rich nations’ AFP, 10th December 2009.
[8] IISD, Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 459, 22nd December 2009, p. 19.
[9] ibid., p. 27.
[10] ‘“Death of Kyoto would be the death of Africa”: AU’ AFP, 15th December 2009.
[11] Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 456, 16th December 2009, p. 1.
[12] ‘Battle of the texts looms at UN climate talks’ AFP, 10th December 2009.
[13] Brian Winter, ‘China lashes out at US at climate conference’ in USA Today, 12th December 2009.
[14] ‘“Developed Countries Have Not Delivered”: Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei on Climate Change’ in the Wall Street Journal online, 13th December 2009.
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid.
[18] ‘Rich nations have “historic responsibility” for environment: Pope’ AFP, 15th December 2009.
[19] Earth Negotiations Bulletin Vol. 12 No. 459, 22nd December 2009, p. 26.
[20] ibid., p. 19.
[21] ‘Merkel says news from Copenhagen is “not good”’ AFP, 17th December 2009.
[22] Chris Otton, ‘Little hope for last day of UN climate summit’ AFP, 17th December 2009.
[23] Michael Casey and Seth Borenstein, ‘Obama, Wen offer no new emissions cuts at summit’ AP, 18th December 2009.
[24] Jon Snow interview with author, 27th March 2012.
[25] Michael McCarthy, ‘China holds the world to ransom’ in the Independent, 18th December 2009.
[26] Hillary Clinton, ‘Remarks at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ 17th December 2009 http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133734.htm
[27] ibid.
[28] Stephen Power, Guy Chazan, Elizabeth Williamson and Jeffrey Bell, ‘Showdown at Climate Talks; Obama Jets to Denmark, US Backs $100 billion Annual Aid to Clinch Carbon Deal’ in the Wall Street Journal online, 18th December 2009.
[29] Clinton, ‘Remarks at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’.
[30] Gordon Brown, Speech to COP 15, 17th December 2009 http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15_hls/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4155
[31] Angela Merkel, Speech to COP 15, 17th December 2009, http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15_hls/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4172
[32] Nicolas Sarkozy, Speech to COP 15, 17th December 2009 http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15_hls/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4180
[33] Courtney Weaver, ‘Greece rating cut deepens banks’ gloom’ in the Financial Times, 9th December 2009.
[34] Jonathan Pershing speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC, 13th January 2010 http://csis.org/event/post-copenhagen-outlook
[35] Jon Snow interview with author.
[36] Jonathan Watts, ‘Blair tells world to get moving as time runs short for deal’ in the Guardian, 14th December 2009.
[37] Barack Oba
ma, ‘Remarks by the President at the Morning Plenary Session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference’ 18th December 2009.
[38] ibid.
[39] ibid.
[40] ibid.
[41] Manmohan Singh, Speech to the UNFCCC Plenary, Copenhagen, 18th December 2009 http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15_hls/templ/play.php?id_kongresssession=4277
[42] Wen Jiabao, Speech to the UNFCCC Plenary, Copenhagen, 18th December 2009.
[43] ibid.
[44] Tobias Rapp, Christian Schwägerl and Gerald Traufetter, ‘The Copenhagen Protocol: How China and India Sabotaged the UN Climate Summit’ Spiegelonline, 5th May 2010.
[45] Mark Lynas, ‘How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room’ in the Guardian, 22nd December 2009.
[46] This and other quotes from the meeting are taken from the streamed audio or text http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,692861,00.html
[47] Lynas, ‘How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room’.
[48] Jim Tankersley, ‘Dueling demands await Obama at talks’ in the Los Angeles Times, 17th December 2009.
[49] Dina Cappiello and H. Josef Hebert, ‘Analysis: Obama won’t break new ground at summit’ Associated Press, 16th December 2009.
[50] Stephen Collinson, ‘Chaos greets new climate pact’ AFP, 18th December 2009.
[51] ibid.
[52] ibid.
[53] Charles Babington and Jenifer Loven, ‘Obama raced clock, chaos and comedy for climate deal’ AP, 19th December 2009.
[54] ibid.
[55] ibid.
33
Aftermath
Nothing except a battle lost can be half so melancholy as a battle won.
Duke of Wellington, 1815
The first requirement of statesmanship is a sense of reality – Disraeli rather than Gladstone; Bismarck rather than Napoleon III; Nixon rather than Carter. At Copenhagen, the Europeans did not comprehend the entrenched positions of China and India. Barack Obama did. Having concluded an agreement with the BASIC Four, Obama did what many advise American presidents finding themselves in intractable overseas entanglements. He declared victory and left.
At 10.30pm, Obama held a press conference to announce a ‘meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough’.[1] It was, the president claimed, the first time in history all major economies had come together to take action on climate change. ‘OK, thank you very much everybody, we’ll see some of you on the plane.’[2]
It was over. Obama couldn’t get out of Copenhagen fast enough. He had, as he’d told the Europeans, more important business to attend to.
On the flight back, the president secured the sixtieth Senate vote for his healthcare legislation. ‘After a nearly century-long struggle, we are on the cusp of making healthcare reform a reality in the United States of America,’ Obama exulted.[3]
Climate change was a priority for Obama. It just wasn’t the most important. In his June 2008 speech on winning the Democratic nomination, the first thing people would be telling their children wasn’t about the slowing of the rise of the oceans and the healing of the planet. It would be about when America started providing care for the sick.[4]
There was one breakthrough. Malta became the first non-Annex I party to attain Annex I status in the history of the convention.* If it was a miracle, it wasn’t a divine agent but Malta’s Zammit Cutajar to whom the credit belonged.
China spoke of a ‘positive’ result, though not of a breakthrough. ‘All should be happy.’[5] Happiness was in short supply in the Bella Center. Jon Snow saw eager young men and women in NGO T-shirts in tears. Copenhagen ended ‘more dramatically badly than any conference I’ve ever been to’, Snow – who had covered every major summit from the Reagan-Gorbachev meetings – recalled. It was meant to have been the great moment. ‘This was going to be it.’ Instead it turned out to be the moment when all the wind went out of the climate change negotiations.[6]
Denmark’s Rasmussen had the thankless task of trying to get the Accord approved by the COP plenary. The session started at 3am on Saturday. It was a rocky ride, lasting nearly thirteen hours. Tuvalu, one of the most vocal small island states, could not accept the Accord, despite the offer of financing. To do so would ‘betray our people and sell our future, our future is not for sale’.[7] Saudi Arabia’s delegate declared Copenhagen ‘the worst COP plenary’ he had ever attended. It was evident there was no consensus and the parties were simply restating their positions.[8]
Speaking for the G77, Lumumba Di-Aping compared the proposed deal to the Holocaust. ‘[This] is asking Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact in order to maintain the economic dependence of a few countries. It’s a solution based on values that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces.’[9]
Di-Aping’s remarks were immediately condemned by the UK, Norway, the EU and others. They hadn’t objected when Gore made the comparison at Bali two years earlier or when the world’s most famous climate scientist, James Hansen, called coal trains ‘death trains’.[10]
The NGOs went into over-drive, demonstrating how they had lost the plot. ‘By delaying action, rich countries have condemned millions of the world’s poorest people to hunger, suffering and loss of life,’ said Nnimmo Basey, chair of Friends of the Earth. ‘The blame for this disastrous outcome is squarely on the developed nations.’[11] Kumi Naidoo for Friends of the Earth denounced the Accord as a ‘betrayal of the poor’ and blamed the conference failure on racism. Why was there such a lack of urgency? ‘Is it because of the colour of their skin’ of those in the front line of climate change, Naidoo asked?[12] It was a question better addressed to Beijing and New Delhi rather than Berlin and Paris.
As the plenary session wore on, Ethiopia, on behalf of the African Union, supported the Accord. Tuvalu then backtracked and decided to betray its future, suggesting that it be adopted as a ‘miscellaneous document’ of the COP. The UK proposed adopting the document as a COP decision. Opposition from Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela and two or three others prevented consensus. At 10.35 on Saturday morning, it was proposed that the COP ‘take note’ of the Copenhagen Accord. Parties could signify their (non-legally binding) support for the Accord by being listed in an appendix.
Hours of procedural wrangling followed. Late on Saturday morning, the COP finally decided to ‘take note’ of the Accord. ‘You sealed a deal,’ Ban Ki-moon told exhausted delegates – only they hadn’t.[13] ‘We will try to have a legally binding treaty as soon as possible in 2010,’ Ban promised reporters.[14]
There wasn’t a treaty in 2010. Or in 2011.
The institutional gulf in the Accord separating Annex I nations from the rest was laid bare in the respective appendices for both groups. Appendix I listed each Annex I party’s quantified emissions target for 2020. In Appendix II, there was a list for unquantified mitigation actions by developing country parties. In Attachment B of the Danish Text, there had been an additional column for the quantified impact of each action in units of millions of tons of CO2 equivalent. In Appendix II of the Accord, it had disappeared. Obama’s warning that it would be a hollow victory unless developing country commitments were ‘measurable, reportable and verifiable’ turned out to be exactly that. The actions might be reportable and even verifiable, but they were no longer measurable.
Out too went any specified year when global and national emissions should peak. The Accord’s aim was to achieve a peak as soon as possible
recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that a low-emission development strate
gy is indispensable for sustainable development.[15]
There was just enough in the Accord to keep the whole negotiating process going indefinitely and provide cover for European governments to continue with their global warming policies. Everything could go on much as before. And, if the scientists and the IPCC were right, it would mean unabated global warming.
Angela Merkel put on a brave face. ‘It is a first step toward a new world climate order, nothing more but also nothing less,’ she told the Bild am Sonntag.[16] What was needed, Merkel thought, was ‘a UN environment organisation that could control the implementation of the climate process.’[17] Quite how that could come about, she didn’t say.
Nicolas Sarkozy was closer to the mark. The deal was the only one that could be reached after the summit had revealed deep rifts. The UN process of moving forward by consensus of one hundred countries was not workable. Although China was a permanent member of the UN Security Council, if India were too, ‘it would be far easier to get her to shoulder a greater proportion of her responsibilities’, Sarkozy said. ‘Seeing a system like this makes it blindingly obvious.’[18]
The Age of Global Warming: A History Page 54