COP15 turns into a climate con

By Bhaskar Goswami
Copenhagen, 17 Dec 2009

With rich countries refusing to accept emission reduction targets, the chances of a meaningful climate deal at Copenhagen are now almost over.

Hillary Clinton offered too little, too late and with too many conditions (photo: AP)
Climate negotiators tried reaching consensus on key issues by burning midnight oil at cold Copenhagen but the draft texts with unresolved issues in 102 square brackets refuse to melt away. As was predicted right from the beginning, the chances of a climate deal at COP 15 are now more or less dead.

However, two notable developments took place before Heads of States assemble at Copenhagen:

1. The US finally came out of self-induced coma (till now it was banking upon Australia, Japan and India to defend its interests) and announced that developed countries will not agree to emission cuts and instead, emerging economies like India and China must undertake binding cuts.

2. Before stepping down, the controversial Danish Chair at the talks, Connie Hedegaard, dropped a bombshell: emission reduction targets for rich countries will not be decided at COP 15!

In that case, what exactly are we negotiating at COP 15?

There is more. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is reportedly putting his head together with Mexico and Australia to come up with a fresh draft that would be "agreeable" to all parties. This is despite the fact that Australia is overtly batting for protecting the interests of developed countries and has been demanding undue concessions from developing countries.

Possibly unnerved by allegations of promoting the interest of rich countries, Denmark today refrained from tabling the much talked about "Danish Draft II".

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is on his way to Copenhagen and his pre-flight announcement offers some indicators of what lies in store: India will be willing to do more than cut emission intensity provided developed countries are willing to provide financial and technological support to their developing counterparts! Must sound like music to the ears of developed countries.


Finally, the writing on the wall is clear: negotiators have failed to deliver and therefore COP 15 moves into the political arena. Now begins the give-and-take business of diplomacy wherein climate change takes the backseat while a handful of silver here or a trade-incentive there will determine the future of our planet.

The first country off the block on this "for-a-few-pieces-of-silver" campaign is UK and Prime Minister Gordon Brown is actively interacting with developing countries on working out a financial deal to help them reduce emissions. It's a different matter that the amount being offered through his initiative by the rich countries ($10 billion a year) is less than what some of them alone spend on energy efficiency.

The US does not wish to be left out from the party and Hillary Clinton announced this morning a $100 billion grant by 2020 to help poor countries combat climate change. Not only is this way short of UN's estimates of what is required, the fine print reveals that bulk of it comes from already committed grants. That the package is aimed at promoting business opportunities for US corporations becomes clear from the proposal emphasising on expanding carbon markets. Also, there is not a word on cutting emissions or opening new windows for aid. Surely, developing nations want Clinton to do and deliver more than merely smile patronisingly during her presentations.

That the package is aimed at promoting business opportunities for US corporations becomes clear from the proposal emphasising on expanding carbon markets.
Instead of the sham being played out at Bella Centre for the last ten days, it perhaps would have been a better bet to put Barack Obama, Manmohan Singh and Wen Jiabao in a room to thrash out a deal. Given Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's past record of egging his delegates to toe the US' line at WTO and other multilateral negotiations, the two-to-one majority (with Australia or the UN standing in as a referee) would have yielded a deal and every delegate could go home swearing that it was their effort that made the rest of the world agree to a "just" deal.

That has not happened and by tomorrow - the last day of COP15 - what is most likely is that the rich nations will be allowed to offset their emissions instead of reducing them, which is ridiculous. Even if an outright deal on this line is not achieved in the next 24 hours, the 6-month roadmap kept under wraps by the EU will ensure that this is quietly put it in place. While the venue will shift from freezing Copenhagen to a warm Mexican city in 2010 for ratification, a deal to ensure that rich countries continue to pollute the earth will in any case be legalised.

As it is, the most ambitious targets offered at the conference are barely sufficient to combat climate change. Copenhagen would be known for a farce where leaders talked about talking and yet did not talk anything meaningful. The level of mistrust that prevails will never be overcome easily.

US delegates who were earlier arrogantly talking about how Obama will step in and change the outlook of the talks are playing it down now. And if tomorrow Obama shakes his head and expresses sadness because a deal failed to materialise, there are no prizes for guessing the eventual loser in the blame game - India. This is despite the Indian leadership bending backwards to accommodate US' unwarranted position. At Copenhagen, India is looked down as a lapdog of the US and it sure is embarrassing.

The negotiators might have failed, but that does not prevent them from making a final effort at conveying that they tried hard before their political masters take over tonight.

The UK has unilaterally proposed to halve its emissions by 2020 by increasing cost of energy and levying "green" taxes. This sounds good but in order to make these cuts meaningful, they must be to the tune of at least 42 percent with zero offsets, which is unlikely to happen. The EU has expressed its willingness to enhance emission cuts from 20 to 30 percent from 1990 levels by 2020.

Japan has proposed a 25 per cent cut while Australia has offered cuts between 11 and 33 per cent. The only spoiler is the US with its offer of a 4 percent cut from 1990 level. No wonder developing countries are crying foul. From Copenhagen it is apparent that our leaders don't lead. Instead, they follow greed.