Climate accord betrays the vulnerable

By Bhaskar Goswami
20 Dec 2009

Obama with EU leaders at Copenhagen (photo courtesy: Telegraph)


The climate deal hastily put together by the BASIC countries and the USA gives license to the rich countries to continue polluting the planet, thereby rewarding them instead of imposing penalty for their climate crimes.

Crunch times call for desperate measures. This time round, it demanded trusting politicians for reaching a deal on climate change. Well, they did reach a deal but not one on saving the climate but on betrayal of climate justice. The clinically depressing document has reaffirmed that none of the political leaders landed at Copenhagen with a heart to do good.

After burning midnight oil, some hung-over from feasting at the Danish Queen’s do, and some sober heads produced a please-the-rich-countries draft. It allows these countries to continue polluting, ensures that some, if not all, vulnerable island nations will submerge, and postpones a deal by a year till a meeting at Mexico happens next November. By that time, citizens of Tuvalu, Kiribati and Maldives, among others, would be on their knees desperately seeking rehabilitation and citizenship in distant nations.

The deal is a document drafted by developed countries in consultation with India, China, Brazil and South Africa – the BASIC bloc. It is a reflection of how farcical norms rule the roost at multilateral negotiations, be it the WTO, WIPO or, in this case, UNFCCC. The UN has completely failed to uphold democratic norms and has instead allowed itself to be dictated by countries that control its purse strings.

The UN Secretary General said that the “finishing line is in sight”. For the island nations and billions of farmers in the developing world, this finishing line translates to an endgame for their livelihood and culture. President Obama calls it a “meaningful” agreement that will serve as a roadmap to future wherein all countries will have to figure out how best to serve the cause of the planet. Sorry Mr. President, what the deal does is to uphold the right of the mighty United States to continue polluting the planet.


But then President Obama presides over a nation that is unwilling to pay heed to his personal calls to reduce emissions. The US Congress and Senate have steadfastly blocked all attempts to put in place a climate change and emission control regime, so he might be a bit hamstrung. Nothing similar of this nature prevails in the case of the EU where, barring Poland, most nations were open to undertake deeper emission cuts. But then, once the US set the trend, why would the EU volunteer to shoulder the burden of its transatlantic brethren?

What about the other major polluters – China and India? Both can vie with each other when it comes to flaunting weak environmental norms – some of the so-called banana republics have a better record of protecting the environment than these two. Here’s a rain check on what the Indian delegation is peddling as a pyrrhic victory engineered by the BASIC bloc:

Emission Cuts: The US gets away with 14-17% reduction on 2005 levels i.e. 3-4% of the 1990 levels; EU, Japan and Russia agree to predetermined 1990 level cuts (Europeans now are the only binding carbon regime in the world). Target for 2050 suddenly goes missing from the text! Further, these emission cuts are not binding.

Temperature: Cap at 2 degrees. So what if more than 100 nations (a majority, if it were ever put to vote at UNFCCC) wanted it capped at 1.5 degrees or the fact that many island nations will go under at this higher level of temperature increase.

Peaking of Carbon Emission: No dates set. This is to please the BASIC bloc at the expense of the rest of the developing economies. Don’t believe it? Well, this is how the text goes: “We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries”. Can anything get vaguer than this?


Finally, the Moolah! Don’t read much into the $100bn announcement by Hillary Clinton; she herself is not sure how and where from this money will be raised in the first place. While promises of climate adaptation funds have been made in the past and gone undelivered, this deal is offering $30 billion over the next three years. Now, was this not what Gordon Brown was working on for the past few days at Bella Centre? Brown must realise that while he may have achieved partial success in leading the revival of the world banking system, climate change is an entirely different ballgame. A closer look at the annexure reveals that not only the contributions of Japan, EU and US do not add up to $30 billion, the US’ offer is a paltry $3.6 billion!

Ostensibly on Clinton’s announcement, the text says, “Developed countries set a goal of mobilising jointly $100bn a year by 2020 to address needs of developing countries.” Nicely put, but exactly how many US’ corporations will stand to benefit from this?


President Obama along with the BASIC bloc lackeys turned the negotiations into a wrestling bout. Not only will the US be legally allowed to continue polluting the planet, they will not have to pay any significant penalties for it either. The industrial domination of rich countries will continue while the planet will pay the price for it.

December 2010, Mexico City is where this sell-off deal will be granted legitimacy. This is yet another multilateral deal that overlooked the legitimate demands of more than 100 developing countries and muzzled dissent. Democracy was never at play during the two weeks of COP 15 negotiations and a deal brokered between the US and four BASIC bloc nations was thrust on the world as a consensus. Thankfully, even with a fractured coalition, the G77 refused to endorse the deal.

Yet again India played up to the politics of rich nations and deserted the developing countries. It actively participated in allowing an eraser to be run over unresolved issues in square brackets of the text. Today it stands responsible for the cracks in the G77 and at a later date may have to pay a heavy price at other multilateral platforms of negotiations, especially the WTO. While Jairam Ramesh and Mamohan Singh might gloat over their achievement at this disastrous summit, the truth is otherwise and the world knows. By endorsing this deal, India has sleepwalked into a global disaster.

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.