In the last two weeks, Belize, Burundi, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Nigeria, and Timor-Leste have associated with the Copenhagen Accord. Tunisia, already associated, submitted actions. Venezuela has reiterated that it will not associate. See Who’s On Board With the Copenhagen Accord.

Delegates are meeting in Bonn this week and next for a UNFCCC intersessional, spending much of their time discussing the new discussion draft produced in the LCA negotiating track. The draft contains various pieces of the Copenhagen Accord.  In some cases, the new text lists options both from the Accord and previous versions of the LCA text.  For example, the global temperature goal is listed in brackets with corresponding choices of 1, 1.5 or the 2 degrees Celsius goal in the Accord. The design of this discussion draft will likely be looked upon favorably by countries who did not associate with the Accord or who were not completely happy with the Copenhagen outcome.  Countries who participated heavily in the Copenhagen process will likely be less favorable to this version of the draft text.  Look for a more formalized version of the LCA negotiating text to be released by the chair early the week of June 7.

Christiana Figueres of Costa Rica has been appointed by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to succeed Yvo de Boer as executive secretary of the UNFCCC. Shortly after her appointment, Figueres spoke to how some Latin American countries rejected the Copenhagen Accord. “What they were bringing out, with which I completely agree, was that the process that was used to come to the Copenhagen Accord was a process that was not as inclusive as it should have been or as transparent as it should have been. They were fully correct about that assessment in that moment,” she said. Figueres went on to say the Accord is a “a big step forward for all participating countries, but a small step for the planet.”

Futures Magazine speculates that the Copenhagen Accord “will evolve into a multilateral agreement backed by the largest emitting nations, with financial carrots and sticks for developing nations to take on obligations of their own.”

New Publications

UNEP released the new report, The Outcomes of Copenhagen: The Negotiations and The Accord, ahead of the negotiations in Bonn. The publication evaluates the outcomes of the Copenhagen conference, including how provisions in the Copenhagen Accord may be inserted into formal negotiating tracks.

A new International Institute for Sustainable Development PowerPoint gives the state of play of international climate negotiations and describes ways to muster funding to help developing countries cope with climate change.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics describes the Copenhagen conference, evaluates the resulting accord, and discusses key issues moving forward. Author Trevor Houser argues that despite the chaos in Copenhagen, the accord is a “significant step in addressing global climate change.”

Warwick McKibbin and others with The Brookings Institution released a new report that provides a comparison of likely emission reductions and economic efforts required to meet the Copenhagen Accord’s targets. Using the G-Cubed model of the global economy, the researchers formulate a no-policy baseline projection for major world economies and then model the Copenhagen Accord’s economy-wide commitments, with a focus on fossil-fuel-related CO2.

A Pew Center for Global Climate Change report summarizes the main provisions of the Copenhagen Accord and of the draft core decision texts carried forward from Copenhagen in the AWG-LCA working group.

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change also published an 11-slide deck describing the pledges under the Copenhagen Accord as of May 24, 2010.

Ecofys releases a report that evaluates the likelihood of achieving the 2 degrees Celsius climate goal. The authors found that emissions reduction pledges of countries around the world could add up to 70 percent of the reduction that is needed. However, the authors stress that the actual reductions will most likely not be achieved with the current pledges.

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development released an issue paper that touches on how agriculture and food security should be addressed via the Copenhagen Accord.

Jennifer Morgan, Director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute, authors this 23-slide deck on what is in store for international negotiations going forward.

Country Developments

Africa. Reverend Canaan Phiri, President of the Fellowship of Christian Councils of Southern Africa (FOCCISA) said his organization opposes Copenhagen Accord. Phiri said he was worried that the agreement was overshadowing the important outcomes of the two negotiation tracks under the UNFCCC.

Australia. The Australian government has committed around $350m in the financial years 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 to assist developing countries mitigate the impacts of, and adapt to, climate change. This falls short of the $450-$600m of ‘new and additional’ funding the government has promised under the Copenhagen Accord.

Australia. Australia’s climate chief defended the outcomes of Copenhagen, arguing the summit was not a failure as some critics claim. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency secretary Martin Parkinson said that, while progress was not as great as many hoped in Copenhagen, “significant gains have been made.” He reiterated that the Copenhagen Accord included “historic achievements” such as commitments by developed and developing nations to limit global warming to two degrees.

Australia. Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions have started creeping up again after a dip caused by the global financial crisis, a trend that would see the nation overshoot its Copenhagen Accord commitment by a large margin.

ALBA. Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba urge developed nations to take on bigger emissions cuts and criticize the new LCA negotiating text for over-emphasizing the non-binding Copenhagen Accord.

Canada. Liberal MPs criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for rebuffing UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s plea to prioritize climate change at the G8 and G20 Summits to be held in Canada later this month. “Why does Stephen Harper refuse to see the connection between the environment and the economy?” asks Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae. “Stephen Harper is isolating Canada on a world issue that we can’t afford to ignore.”

Denmark. The Embassy of Denmark published a statement that concludes “the Copenhagen outcome, although falling short of expectations, provides a basis on which to work further. The aim should be a comprehensive, balanced, and uniform legally binding agreement in 2010, in line with the level of ambition dictated by science.”

France. The French government released a statement ahead of the UN climate talks in Bonn that touched on the Accord. It said the intersessional “should allow us to reaffirm our determination to swiftly implement the Copenhagen Accord, i.e. make progress on all tracks of the negotiation based on the guidelines provided in Copenhagen by the Heads of State and Government. France, together with its European partners will present, on the sidelines of the discussions, certain projects initiated within the framework of fast start financing. For the record, our contribution for the three-year period 2010-2012 amounts to €1.2 billion out of the €7.2 billion planned by the EU. The Copenhagen Accord, which represented key progress, will now benefit from the support of 129 States and should become fully integrated into the UNFCCC.”

France and Africa. King Mswati III of Swaziland, speaking at the 25th Africa-France Summit in Nice, urged all countries to adhere to the Copenhagen Accord in order to pave the way to the next major Summit in November. “Needless to say, the $30 billion USD pledged to finance early action … will go a long way towards the goal of a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against the 1990 levels of 2050.”  In the final declaration of the summit, the parties “underscored that the Copenhagen Accord on climate change marked a first step towards the conclusion of a comprehensive agreement in Cancun at the end of 2010.”

Germany. At the opening segment of the Carbon Expo conference in Cologne, Dr. Norbert Rottgen said in the “framework of the Copenhagen Accord the industrialized countries have so far proposed an emission reduction of 19 percent at most,” as opposed to 25 to 40 percent scientists say is required in order to avert dangerous climate change.

India. India released a report on India’s greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory earlier this week showing a 30% fall in energy intensity per unit GDP, demonstrating that India may be on its way to achieving its Copenhagen Accord target of reducing emissions intensity by 20 to 25 percent from 2005 levels by the year 2020.

India. Senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi voiced concerns that the Copenhagen Accord would affect the sovereignty of India and serves the interests of developed nations. “The words – international consultation and analysis – that figure in the accord amount to a sort of monitoring of the situation related to emissions … we should not accept it,” he told reporters.

Indonesia. The president of Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono urged world leaders to support the Copenhagen Accord. “We have different views with regard to what has happened in Copenhagen, but apart from that it gave a clear message that we must maintain the momentum,” Yudhoyono said at a conference on climate and forests.

Japan. Takashi Hongo, Special Advisor to the Japan Bank for International Cooperation, presented a PowerPoint presentation that outlines Japan’s commitment to mobilize finance to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to climate change.

Malaysia. The Consumers Association of Penang and Sahabat Alam Malaysia urges the government to reject the Copenhagen Accord. Their association specifically condemns the document as being drafted in a “non-transparent and undemocratic manner.”

New Zealand. New Zealand has reportedly not budgeted the $44 billion they agreed to contribute under the Copenhagen Accord. The prime minister said he does not know why the sums are missing from the budget and continued to insist that an emissions trading scheme rollout would not be deferred.

Tuvalu. At the Bonn negotiations, AOSIS member Tuvalu stated that it does “not support language from the Copenhagen Accord on so-called Green Funding. We do not consider it appropriate to include any Copenhagen Accord language, as this does not represent a consensus decision.” US Climate Envoy Jonathan Pershing responded that “many here say that the Copenhagen Accord has no standing but the LCA does. Unfortunately, that’s not true. The version of the LCA that we are working on is not one others have signed onto. It doesn’t reflect an agreement. It doesn’t have any standing.”

United Kingdom. Economist Nicholas Stern spoke positively about the Copenhagen Accord at the Hay Festival in late May. “Life is full of ups and downs. People didn’t see, because it was so chaotic and acrimonious, that the Copenhagen Accord turned out to be a strong platform for going forward. It was much less fragile than many of us feared. The submissions to Copenhagen now cover 120 countries, and 80% of emissions. If everybody delivers, it will give you emissions levels in 2020 that are the same as we have now. And we’ll have peaked. That’s really worth having.”

United States and China. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking on May 23 at the Strategic and Economic Dialogue in Beijing, said the Copenhagen Accord must now be implemented “with balanced commitments that are reflected in the ongoing negotiation.”

United States and Mexico. President Barack Obama and President Felipe Calderon released a joint statement reaffirming their shared commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the importance of a successful outcome in Cancun.

United States and India. During a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations, William Burns, U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs, said the United States and India share “common ground on climate change, and the Copenhagen Accord could not have happened without leadership at the highest levels from India.”

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: April 28
2. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Round Up (May 14)
3. The Future: Where Does the Copenhagen Accord Fit In?

German Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted the Petersburg Climate Dialogue earlier this month, urging environmental ministers from some 45 countries to “find a basis for trust” before the next UN summit. Merkel pointed out that the voluntary pledges currently registered in the Accord put Earth on track for a 3.5 C or even a 4.0 C jump by 2100.  Outgoing UNFCCC Chair Yvo de Boer acknowledged at the summit that countries “remain divided” about the role of the Copenhagen Accord in future negotiations (Yvo’s statement). During the summit Bangladesh called upon developed countries to quickly disburse ‘fast track’ funding as committed under the Copenhagen Accord.

The German paper Der Spiegel released an “accidental” audio tape recording that captured conversations of negotiations between Heads of State in the hours before BASIC country representatives and President Obama forged the Copenhagen Accord. The recording made obvious stark divisions between leaders in the room, such as China and India representatives’ unwillingness to agree to binding C02 reductions or include long-term emission reduction targets an agreement.

At talks in Oslo on May 27, rich nations are likely to promise $5 billion to protect forests in developing nations. The funds are part of the wider goal of raising almost $30 billion for 2010-12 in quick-start funds under the Copenhagen Accord.

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh held a press conference where he spoke about the Copenhagen Accord at length, including the issues of “transparency” and the legal nature of the agreement. Ramesh said he thought that in terms of the Copenhagen Accord, securing a legally binding agreement was actually of greater importance to the Europeans than to the Americans, since the Accord was not binding on any party. Ramesh said the difficulty on this point was that Obama had to explain the lack of bindingness to the Europeans. Ramesh also recounted the negotiating session between President Obama and leaders the major emerging economies that agreed to the Copenhagen Accord. Jairam Ramesh recounted that as the accord was signed China’s top climate change negotiator, Xie Zhenhau, twice shouted and thumped the table. “What did he say?” asked U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who was also in the room. “He’s congratulating us,” Obama deadpanned. Ramesh said he never figured out why Xie was upset, but speculated the Chinese negotiator thought the “Americans were not fulfilling their part of the bargain.”

New Publications

US Climate Action Network has released a new report on innovative finance options that the United States can support. Investing in the Future: Options for Climate Finance the U.S. Can Support report discusses five innovative mechanisms and provides recommendations for overcoming the perceived challenges associated with each mechanism. All of these financing options could become viable ways for the U.S. to meet its commitments under the Copenhagen Accord.

An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) PowerPoint outlines the challenges and opportunities for the steel industry post-Copenhagen. Challenges include rapid acceleration of CCS, switching to lower carbon fuels like natural gas, and financing transformation.

A new Australian NGO report contends that while the Copenhagen climate summit it not achieve all of its objectives, policy actions and investment in low-carbon technologies continue apace. Researchers with The Climate Institute found that since October 2009, no less than 154 new policy announcements have been made globally. On the back of clean energy measures in national stimulus packages global investment in clean energy are projected to reach US$200 billion in 2010.

Two climate change researchers have warned that the goal of limiting global temperature rise below 2 degrees C spelt out in the Copenhagen Accord will be a “Herculean” task. In the report, The Copenhagen Accord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and available avenues, the researchers outline three steps that must be taken simultaneously to avoid passing a dangerous theshold for our climate: (1) stabilize CO2 below 441ppm by 2100, (2) reduce black carbon and ozone pollution and (3) reduce short-lived GHGs such as methane.

Country Developments

African Union. African delegates are expressing skepticism that developed nations will meet the financial commitments under the Copenhagen Accord. At the opening of an African Union meeting in Addis Ababa African leaders vowed to derail efforts to craft a binding global treaty if the $30 billion in ‘fast-start’ funds was not delivered. Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said that at the climate summit in Cancun “we need to refine our strategies in concentrating especially on the implementation of the financial commitments of Copenhagen.” At the meeting Deputy Chairperson of the African Union Commission underlined that African member states should endorse the Copenhagen Accord but also “put African priorities in a correct order.”

African Union and Japan. Katsuya Okada, Japan’s Foreign Affairs Minister, spoke about climate change and the Copenhagen Accord at the second Tokyo International Conference on African Development, held in Tanzania on May 3. The minister said it was “regrettable” that the Accord was only take note of by the UNFCCC negotiating tracks and called the document an “important step towards the formulation of a legal document.” Katsuya also commended the African Union for endorsing the agreement in February and encouraged all member states to make submissions to the UNFCCC endorsing the Copenhagen Accord. “I understand that 33 African countries have made such submissions so far and I expect this number will be further increased in the near future.”

Bolivia. At a news conference at U.N. headquarters on May 8, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that rich nations are using more than their share of the atmosphere by emitting too much carbon pollution. Morales bitterly complained that the voluntary emissions-cutting pledges of the U.S.-brokered Copenhagen Accord are inadequate.

Canada and European Union. After an EU-Canada Summit in Brussels, Canada released a statement that, among other things, addresses the Copenhagen Accord. The released noted that “integrating the agreements contained in the Copenhagen Accord into the UNFCCC negotiating texts will be critical to advance the negotiation for the United Nations Climate Change Conference at the end of 2010.”

Canada. Jim Prentice, Canada’s Minister of the Environment, wrote an op-ed in The Toronto Star that told readers to “rest assured” about Canada’s role in the UN climate talks. “[Canada's] constructive engagement [in the UN climate negotiations] will continue in 2010 as we work to implement the Copenhagen Accord, an agreement that is a significant breakthrough in the global effort against climate change.”

Cambodia. Cambodian prime minister Samdech Hun Sen outlined his countries’ commitments under the Copenhagen Accord at the 16th ASEAN Summit held in Hanoi on April 8. “Cambodia has been committed to the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord,” said Samdech, and is piloting a project in the framework of Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. We must give high priority to climate change mitigation and adaptation in the process toward a climate-resilient ASEAN Community. “

China. China will impose a carbon tax on industry starting in 2012 to curb carbon dioxide emissions, a Chinese-language business newspaper reported on May 11. In their pledge under the Copenhagen Accord, the Chinese goverment had vowed to cut “carbon intensity” – the amount of carbon pollution emitted to create a unit of economic value – by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. While recent improved economic activity may make meeting those targets more difficult, Chinese premier Wen Jiabao claimed that he is willing to use an “iron hand” to close down the most carbon-intensive factories and ensure the Copenhagen targets are met.

European Union and China. During a visit by the European Commission to China, the two parties established a ministerial-level mechanism of dialogue and cooperation on climate change and restated their support for the Copenhagen Accord.

Grenada and Japan. Grenadian environment minister Michael Church recently held bilateral discussions with the Government of Japan that touched on international finance. Senior Japanese officials indicated that they were ready to disperse $15 billion into the Hatoyama Climate Fund, which is part of the country’s pledge under the Copenhagen Accord climate fund.

India. India’s submission to the UN reiterates their view that the Copenhagen Accord is an “input to the [United Nations] negotiations,” as opposed to the basis of negotiations. India’s environmental minister Jairam Ramesh also recently said that he didn’t expect much to come out of negotiations at the next major UN summit. “We may have a political statement in Mexico, in Cancun, we may have a little more detailing of the Copenhagen accord… but if you ask me whether we will have an international agreement in Cancun, the answer is no.”

Indonesia. Indonesia is expected to get international funds amounting up to $3 billion from the ‘fast-start funding’ rich nations committed to under the Copenhagen Accord. “Through the Advisory Group on Financing, the finance minister and Goerge Soros reported Indonesia can get US$3 billion in 2012 including funds from Norway,” said Rachmat Witoelar, the executive chairman of Indonesia’s Climate Change National Council.

Japan and India. At the fourth meeting of the Japan-India Energy Dialogue, the nations reaffirmed their determination to collaborate closely in negotiations under the UNFCCC towards an agreed outcome at COP16. Their ministers spoke of the progress made between the two countries on energy efficiency, renewable energy, coal and power generation. They also said that they both welcomed the Copenhagen Accord.

Nigeria. Nigeria may soon clarify its stance on the Copenhagen Accord. When unveiling a new national strategy for curtailing erosion in the North African country, Nigerian Minister of Environment, Mr. John Odey hinted that the ministry had recently concluded a stakeholders consultation exercise on the implementation of the Copenhagen Accord and plans to set up a national steering committee to address strategies for its implementation.

Spain. Spain became the first country to make a significant contribution to the Adaptation Fund developed under the Copenhagen Accord. The country offers €45 million to help fortify developing countries from the ill effects of climate change, becoming the first country to make a significant contribution to the Adaptation Fund outlined in the Copenhagen Accord.

Tuvalu. Tuvalu Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia criticized the Copenhagen Accord, claiming that it favored the United States over small island countries like Tuvalu. “We will maintain our position not to be part of the Copenhagen accord,” the prime minister said, comparing the agreement to a “death certificate” for his people. Ielemia also blamed the United States for the lack of progress in Copenhagen, asserting that President Obama cobbled together the pact purely for “domestic political reasons.”

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: April 28
2. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: Bonn Edition
3. The Future: Where Does the Copenhagen Accord Fit In?

In the last two weeks, Barbados, Mozambique, Uganda and Ukraine have associated with the Copenhagen Accord. San Marino, which had already associated, submitted actions. See Who’s On Board With the Copenhagen Accord.

Current Copenhagen Accord emission reduction pledges could lead to warming far higher than the agreement’s 2 degree Celsius goal, according to research by Potsdam Institute. Published in Nature magazine last week, the authors contend that there is a 50 percent chance warming will soar to 3 degrees Celsius or more by 2100. The article also predicts that the Accord’s pledges will allow for a 10-20 percent overall increase in emission by 2020.

The People’s Climate Summit in Bolivia, originally prompted by the lackluster outcome in Copenhagen last year, attracted 142 nations and more than 15,000 people. Eighteen working groups met during the summit which ultimately produced a series of documents, including the Cochabamba Accord. A direct response to the limited pact agreed to by President Obama and BASIC leaders in Copenhagen, the Cochabamba Accord calls for leading industrial nations to cut emissions by 50 percent by 2020.

UNEP has released an interactive graph comparing how countries are progressing towards a low carbon economy. The 2010 Climate Competitive Index indicates that, despite the uncertainty surround international climate negotiations and gaps in performance and accountability, one third of countries have made significant strides towards low carbon economic growth since the Copenhagen Accord was forged – with the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany and Australia at the top.

Ministers from the four major emerging economies – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – met April 25-26 to discuss international climate policy. In their statement the group said that political agreements outlined in the Copenhagen Accord “should be translated into the official negotiating texts” under the two UNFCCC negotiating tracks. They also noted that “small groups can make a contribution in resolving conflicts,” and called for a legally binding agreement no later than South African-hosted COP in 2011.

Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd announced he’s putting plans for a domestic cap-and-trade system on ice until 2013. Rudd had committed the country to a 5 percent emission reduction target (below 2000 levels) by 2020 under the Copenhagen Accord. The prime minister says that he still stands behind that pledge, but wants to wait until after governments identify their commitments post-2012.

On April 5 KPMG, an international financial services firm, released a 44-page white paper on how the Copenhagen Accord could affect business operations and trade.

Otarian, a new vegetarian restaurant chain in New York City, claims that if every American ate their “Otarian Carbon Saving Combo meal” instead of a meat equivalent, the United States would meet 26.5% of its “Copenhagen Accord commitment.”

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: Bonn Edition
2. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Round Up (May 14)
3. The Future: Where Does the Copenhagen Accord Fit In?

• Margaret Mukahanan-Sangarwe, the Chair of the Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) negotiating track, was given leeway by delegates at the Bonn talks last weekend to prep text ahead of the June intercessional “under her own responsibility.” While there had been debate about whether she could draw from the Copenhagen Accord, the Chair indicated she would use “whatever text [is] appropriate,” according a NRDC Switchboard blog article.
• Bolivia’s chief delegate Pablo Solon said that Denmark, in addition to the United States, has cut off climate aid to his country. Denmark has not officially linked aid with acceptance of the accord, but a draft Danish government aid plan presented on March 19 forecasts a shift in most of their development aid to Africa.
• In an interview with The Progress, Angelica Navarro, another Bolivian delegate, claims the Copenhagen Accord allows for up to a 4 degree Celsius increase in global temperatures.

• Quamrul Chowdhury, lead negotiator for 49 least developed nations, said members of the United Nations would likely agree to enshrine a “significant portion” of the Copenhagen Accord into negotiating text, according to Business Week article.
• The Centre for European Policy Studies released a literature review on the Copenhagen Accord. The 18-page report found that most analyses of the pact regarded it as a “stepping-stone” in the right direction, but found that the agreement’s vagueness was a major shortcoming that would hamper implementation.
• Yvo De Boer told youth in Bonn that the Copenhagen Accord could be a useful instrument if used as a reference your “back pocket” rather than “stapled to your forehead,” according to a Tweet by a Tufts University student.
• Reporter John Vidal of The Guardian published a leaked document that apparently outlines the United States’ “strategic communications objectives.” Among them was to “create a clear understanding of the CA’s [Copenhagen Accord’s] standing and the importance of operationalizing ALL elements.” US deputy climate envoy Jonathan Pershing denied knowledge of the email but said the Copenhagen Accord was a “package” and the United States is “not prepared to see a process go forward in which certain elements are cherry-picked.” When questioning Pershing at a press conference (webcast), Vidal didn’t indicate the source of the leak, but shared that the email was “found on a computer screen in some European capital left by someone… somewhere.”
• Rainforest Action Network featured the Copenhagen Accord on their video blog, Greenwash of the Week.
• Forty-one percent of the United States’ pollution-reduction commitment under the Copenhagen Accord can be met through regional carbon markets by 2020, according to a new analysis by Point Carbon.

Heard other new developments of importance? Please let us know!

– Rhys Gerholdt (rgerholdt@climatenetwork.org)

Related posts:

1. The Future: Where Does the Copenhagen Accord Fit In?
2. US: Copenhagen Accord Not A ‘Casual Agreement,’ Cuts Detractors’ Funding
3. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: April 28

As if to underscore their point, the Washington Post reports today that two countries that have rejected the Copenhagen Accord were stripped of funding to help cope with the consequences of climate change. The U.S. State Department had originally slated $3 and $2.5 million in climate aid for Bolivia and Ecuador, respectfully. After reassessing their budget, the State Department reallocated the aid away from the two countries.

“There’s funding that was agreed to as part of the Copenhagen Accord, and as a general matter, the U.S. is going to use its funds to go to countries that have indicated an interest to be part of the Accord,” said U.S special climate envoy Todd Stern in an interview with the Post. Interestingly, Stern clarified that this policy test is “not categorical,” leaving the door open for some small island states and other vulnerable countries to securing funding even if they don’t associate.

Some experts in the US NGO community say the United States’ hard line could backfire in a negotiating process already rife with distrust.  ”If you want to build confidence, this would not be the way to do it,” said David Waskow, climate change program director, Oxfam America. “[E]specially in light of the fact that we haven’t yet passed a climate change bill. “

Alden Meyer, climate change director, Union of Concerned Scientists, indicated that withholding funds could be perceived as unfair, considering the United States’ contribution to global warming. “To cut off adaptation aid to countries suffering the impacts of climate change that are largely the result of past emissions from the US and other industrial countries risks making them look like the bad guys in a morality play. It is not a strategy that is going to play well in the developing world.”

Prior to the U.S. intervention at today’s plenary, Venezuela and Bolivia railed against the Accord and urged delegates to set it aside. The agreement represents “the economic interests of the few which are standing in the way of a broad, democratic agreement,” Venezuelan delegate Claudia Salerno told negotiators. “No one should congratulate themselves for this.”

Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuala are members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), an organization of eight socialist governments in Latin and South America that has denounced the Accord since its inception on December 18, 2009.

– Rhys Gerholdt

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: April 28
2. Copenhagen Accord: What’s Hot This Week
3. The Future: Where Does the Copenhagen Accord Fit In?

The future of the Copenhagen Accord is far from clear. The uncertainty stems from the legal nature of the agreement.  The two tracks of the U.N. climate negotiations, the KP and LCA Ad Hoc Working Groups, adopted parallel decisions to only “take note” of the agreement. This leaves the commitments and provisions outlined in the Copenhagen Accord – such as “fast start” funding, REDD, and mitigation targets – squarely outside of the UNFCCC formal process.

That means that the U.N. can’t act on them yet. As countries submit letters associating with the Accord  many of them reiterate that the Accord is not a legal document. India, for example, stated “the Accord is only an input into the two-track negotiations. The Accord is not a new track of negotiations or a template for outcomes.”

In Bonn, delegates are faced with a difficult diplomatic puzzle. How can they merge  the Accord, which some nations abhor, with the UNFCCC process, which has been supported by nearly 200 nations? And delegates need to develop the foundation for this year’s negotiations while reinvigorating the Kyoto Protocol and LCA negotiating tracks.

The following captures the latest developments relating to the Accord.

In Short: Copenhagen Accord Updates

• Last week Andrew Light and Sean Poll at the Center for American Progress created an interactive world map based on commitments made under the Copenhagen Accord so far. They claim that while Copenhagen Accord pledges would not keep temperatures from rising above 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, the pledges could hold us to a 3 degree rise rather than a 4.8 degrees business-as-usual trajectory.
• Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, said he did not expect the Copenhagen Accord to become the basis for ongoing negotiations, but rather a way to reinvigorate formal UNFCCC negotiations.  “I don’t think the Copenhagen Accord will become the new legal framework,” said De Boer.
• Indonesia is urging negotiators not to ignore the Copenhagen Accord during the climate talks in Bonn, Germany this week, saying otherwise countries would have to start from scratch to reach a binding treaty. “For Indonesia, the Copenhagen Accord is one of the stepping stones to reach an agreement in Cancun, Mexico,” said Indonesian chief negotiator Rachmat Witoelar.
• Bharrat Jagdeo, president of Guyana, says that “very little work” has been done to secure the $10 billion in “fast start” financing pledged in Copenhagen. He also claimed that since money from the Accord must go to the most vulnerable countries, under World Bank guidelines Guyana should be the first to receive some of the resources.
• India Times reports that Margaret Mukahanan-Sangarwe, the new chair of the LCA-AWG track, put out an informal note outlining issues the working group should consider which excluded how the Copenhagen Accord will be worked into the negotiations. “The lack of specifics leaves the door open for yet another round of unresolved negotiations,” states the article.
• On March 30, the UNFCCC published reports that summed up the outcomes of the Copenhagen climate summit, including the text of the Copenhagen Accord and a list of the 112 Parties (111 countries and the European Union) that have indicated support for the Accord.
• A Deutsche Bank report released last month contends that the Copenhagen climate summit catalyzed climate policies around the world. In January 2010 the world saw nearly 300 climate policies introduced, nearly double those announced a year before. They suspect this upward trend will continue in 2010, especially when approaching COP 16 in Cancun.

Recent Submissions to the Accord

To date, 122 countries, including the 27-member EU, have engaged with the Accord, representing 83.79% of global emissions. 5 countries will not engage with the Accord, representing 0.58% of global emissions. 65 countries have yet to respond.

Recent submissions include:

• Afghanistan associates (April 7)
• Jamaica associates (April 7)
• Vietnam associates (April 4)
• Chad is supportive (April 1)
• Gambia associates (April 1)
• Lebanon is supportive (March 25)
• Argentina submits actions (March 25)
• Burkina Faso associates (March 23)
• Swaziland associates (March 23)
• Guinea associates (March 22)
• Tonga associates (March 18)
• Eritrea associates (March 17)
• Cook Islands will not associate (March 16)
• Algeria associates (March 16)
• Zambia associates (March 16)

Visit Who’s On Board With the Copenhagen Accord for profiles of these countries and additional analysis of the Copenhagen Accord.

– Rhys Gerholdt

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: April 28
2. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: Bonn Edition
3. US: Copenhagen Accord Not A ‘Casual Agreement,’ Cuts Detractors’ Funding

COPENHAGEN — Seven countries, led by the tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, this morning declined to accept the Copenhagen Accord that was reached late last night. But in a procedural move designed to put the agreement into effect, the conference decided to “take note” of the accord instead of formally approving it.

Photo: J. Carl Ganter/Circle of Blue

NGO experts explained that the decision by the other nations who are parties to the conference to “take note” enables the accord to become what the United States and other supporting nations call “operational,” even though it has not gained formal United Nations approval.

Negotiators continued to work  to clean up last details but the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference appeared as though it would conclude later today.

The final stages of the Copenhagen climate conference have produced a range of responses, though none were expressions of celebration. Ban ki-Moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, called the accord reached last night “hopeful” and urged the 193 nations that gathered here to transform its basic provisions into a legally binding treaty. “It’s just a beginning. It will take more than this to tackle climate change. It is a step in the right direction,” he said.

The UN secretary general said he would press world leaders to complete a legally binding treaty next year. Supporters of the Copenhagen Accord have until January 31, 2010 to announce their commitments to cut emissions.

Summed up, perhaps, the Copenhagen Accord is tantamount to a global prenup. The marriage agreement is still to come.

Download Copenhagen Accord, "taken note" by UNFCCC on December 19, 2009

Negotiated by U.S. President
The Copenhagen Accord was negotiated by President Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and the leaders of Brazil, India, and South Africa. It attracted support from the European Union and most other world leaders. Though the accord encompassed all of the significant measures that most nations said were needed to respond to climate change. But it includes steps that many climate scientists and diplomats consider insufficient to keep global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, a level thought by many world leaders to be manageable.

The Copenhagen Accord contains these provisions that President Obama called a start to global action to solve climate change:

1. A commitment by developed nations to invest $30 billion over the next three years to help developing nations adapt to climate change and pursue clean energy development.

2. A provisional commitment by developed nation to develop a long-term $100 billion global fund by 2020 to assist developing nations respond to climate change and become part of the clean energy economic transition.

3. Establishing a goal to pursue emissions reductions that are sufficient to keep the rise in global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius.

4. Pledges by nations to commit to concrete emissions reductions, though the specific levels of reduction were not set.

5. A general goal to subject participating countries to international review of their progress under the accord.

6. Providing diplomatic space for the United States and China to work together to solve climate change.

7. A commitment to complete an assessment of the effectiveness of the accord in reducing emissions by the end of 2015.

8. Measures to conserve the world’s forests.

Night of Controversy
The events leading up to making the accord operational followed a long night of controversy in which Tuvalu, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, and three other nations opposed its provisions, arguing that it did not go nearly far enough to solve the climate crisis. The smaller nations also objected to the process that produced the accord, in which the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa negotiated with 20 other nations. President Obama, who arrived early on Friday morning, put the full measure of his influence and prestige behind the work to reach the accord.

Critics of the accord called it completely inadequate to respond to the dire threat posed by climate change. Cuban delegates accused the United States and its new president of “behaving like an emperor” and claimed that the draft was a “gross violation principle of sovereign equality.”

At 10:30 p.m. Obama held a news conference and appeared visibly spent. “Today we’ve made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen,” he said. “For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.”

The president added: “Because of the actions we’re taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions. We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change. And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way.

“These three components — transparency, mitigation and finance — form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen. Throughout the day we worked with many countries to establish a new consensus around these three points, a consensus that will serve as a foundation for global action to confront the threat of climate change for years to come.”

Dramatic Turns Over Last 30 Hours
What a final 30 hours its been here in Copenhagen. For much of the afternoon yesterday and well into the evening the cold and dark seemed to settle more deeply today on this city of 1.2 million. Here in the Bella Center, as the day turned to night without an agreement to cool the planet that most people expected today, the meditation and prayer rooms were noticeably more busy. After months of work this year, and 12 days of negotiation at the UN Climate Change Conference, it looked for much of the day as if 120 heads of state might actually leave Denmark without any agreement at all. Certainly there are fossil fuel industry board rooms in Houston where such an outcome would be celebrated.

But less than two hours before midnight word circulated through Bella that agreement had been struck, though the significance of the various measures is not, at this writing, crystal clear. The final text, negotiated by the United States, China, India, and South Africa has not been completed, though negotiators were assigned by heads of state to complete that task tonight.

NGO climate experts also cautioned that the agreement has not been made final, and that many other countries have not signed off on its provisions. The European Union, which scheduled a news conference before midnight, abruptly cancelled the event, and then held it later in the night. And just after midnight Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chair of the G77, the international alliance of developing nations, held a news conference and lashed the deal.

Fierce Criticism
Di-Aping said the agreement would hurt developing nations and “lock people of the developing world in poverty.” He said the financial terms, $10 billion annually provided by developed nations to developing nations each year through 2012, “was nothing compared to the risks.” And he accused the United States, with the assistance of Denmark, of essentially strong arming poor nations into accepting the measure. Di-Aping indicated that “if one country doesn’t agree to this agreement, then there is no deal.”

According to American NGO experts and President Obama the deal reached by the United States and the four  other nations aims at 1) limiting carbon emissions so that global temperatures do not exceed 2 degrees Celsius, 2) committing nations to concrete emissions targets, and 3) subject participating countries to international analysis of their commitments. In its essence, the agreement’s structure is consistent with what President Obama outlined to heads of state and delegates early this afternoon.

It also is the first agreement to provide diplomatic space for the United States and China to work together to tackle global climate change.

The deal is not legally binding, though the president said it was a “first step” toward developing a much stronger binding agreement. He did not say when that might occur, and wasn’t clear tonight whether negotiating a legally binding treaty was possible within a year. “I am supportive of such efforts,” he said. “This is a classic example of how if we just waited for that then we would not make any progress.”

Representatives of international climate advocacy organizations were critical of the deal, asserting that it was not nearly strong enough. Ricken Patel, executive director of Avaaz.org, greeted the deal this way: “The so-called Copenhagen Accord is an historic failure, representing the collapse of international efforts to sign a binding global treaty that can stop catastrophic climate change. Perhaps most telling, while leaders themselves recognize that this agreement is insufficient, they have set no deadline or even date to complete it.”

American NGOs Supportive
American environmental leaders were more supportive, asserting the agreement was a step that strengthened American and global action to limit carbon emissions and accelerate the vast economic transition built on a new foundation of clean energy development.

“The world’s nations have come together and concluded a historic—if incomplete—agreement to begin tackling global warming,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. “Tonight’s announcement is but a first step and much work remains to be done in the days and months ahead in order to seal a final international climate deal that is fair, binding, and ambitious. It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible.”

“Today’s agreement takes the first important steps toward true transparency and accountability in an international climate agreement,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “The sooner the U.S. speaks through Senate legislation, the sooner we can set the terms of engagement for talks to come.”

President Obama avoided being specific about a timetable for making the agreement more robust and binding. “We strive for more binding agreements over time,” said the president.

“This is going to be hard,” added the president, who indicated he would leave Copenhagen immediately. “It’s going to be hard within countries and it’s going to be hard between countries.”

Keith Schneider, an environmental journalist, is media and communications director at the US Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord Weekly Roundup: April 28
2. The Future: Where Does the Copenhagen Accord Fit In?
3. Copenhagen Accord: What’s Hot This Week

COPENHAGEN — On the day that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up in Copenhagen to say that the U.S. would contribute to a global clean energy and climate action fund that could grow to $100 billion in spending by 2020, Senator James Inhofe also appeared in Copenhagen.

Earlier this month, the Oklahoma Republican and one of Capitol Hill’s fiercest critics of climate action, told reporters that he would travel to Copenhagen with a “truth squad.” Its express mission: dispute climate science and disrupt the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which ends tomorrow.

But the weight of urgency to meet tomorrow’s deadline and the intense diplomacy now occurring around the clock transformed the roar of perceived fact that Inhofe planned into a politically diminishing squeak. Briefly circled this morning by a group of reporters inside the Bella Center’s media center, Inhofe looked  uncomfortable as he accused the news media here of “being on the far left,” asserted that climate science was “debunked,” and promised that the chance of the Senate approving a proposed climate and energy bill was “zero.”

Weak Appearance
Inhofe’s conservative allies in government and the media are certain to describe his visit as a heroic act of political principle – confront the lions of climate action in their own den and all that. But a more significant outcome of Inhofe’s three-hour Copenhagen visit could be the political consequence it may produce in Washington.

The Oklahoma Republican, who steadily elevated his career to national significance – in the model of former Alabama Governor George Wallace — through calculated confrontation and rhetoric strategically calibrated to excite and inflame, miscalculated every aspect of his trip here.

The timing was wrong. The audience was not receptive. And Inhofe’s message was a blur for foreign reporters – Senate politics, hijacked emails — and old news for American journalists.

Indeed, there was real news to report. The United States started the day here with a surprising commitment to help finance a $100 billion climate and energy fund, the first time the U.S. has formally recognized the magnitude of the investment needed globally. Clinton did not specify how much the U.S. would commit or its schedule, but did say that it was predicated on the Chinese allowing the world to measure and verify carbon reductions there.

The Chinese followed later in the day – no surprise — with assurances that it would be much more open and transparent in reporting progress on commitments it made last month to reduce carbon emissions.

A Day of Progress Ignores Oklahoma Senator
The climate negotiations, fraught with disagreement and slow progress for almost two weeks, clearly seemed to open up after both announcements. NGO experts close to the delegations said the talks were starting to move with more pace. The chance that the 192 nations here would reach a deal on climate change that makes a difference came into clearer focus. In other words, there is little space today in the momentous global conversation on climate and the economy for a whiny American senator from the Great Plains.

Inhofe, in short, left Copenhagen looking weak. No doubt, the Congressional delegation that also arrived here today, led by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, took note.

Inhofe’s revealing performance capped a tough week for free market conservatives in Copenhagen. Early in the week several meetings on climate science and the stolen emails, including one organized by Americans For Prosperity, an activist organization financed in part by coal and oil interests, attracted tiny audiences of less than a dozen participants. The stolen emails, flogged by Sarah Palin and the right as evidence of a conspiracy to cook the science on warming, were ignored in Copenhagen. Instead negotiators vigorously defended the scientific consensus on the causes of climate disruption and its consequences.

Oklahoma’s Favorite Son in DC
It’s too early to tell, of course, what effect Inhofe’s visit to Copenhagen will have on his standing in Washington. It’s almost certainly not going to injure his stature in Oklahoma.

Named a senator in 1994, to replace Senator David Boren, who resigned to assume the presidency of the University of Oklahoma, Inhofe has won with strong margins three times, the latest in 2008 by gaining 57 percent of the vote.

His primary financial support comes from the fossil fuel industries whose climate science-denying interests he vigorously advances. Since 2000, according to Oil Change International, the coal and oil industries have contributed $1.13 million to his campaigns. Oklahoma is the number three producer of natural gas, the number six producer of crude oil, and is home to seven big coal-fired power plants, according to the Energy Information Administration and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

And Inhofe’s role as one of President Barack Obama’s most aggressive opponents appears as secure as any in the Senate. Just 34 percent of Oklahoma’s voters supported the president in the 2008 election. Only Wyoming disapproved of the president more.

Keith Schneider, an environmental journalist, is media and communications director at US Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org

Related posts:

1. Sen. Inhofe Gets Perfect Score from Big Oil
2. Final Week of Copenhagen and the Last Act is Far From Clear
3. At Copenhagen Climate Conference, Science Facts and Deceit at Odds

COPENHAGEN – Like all spellbinding human drama the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which today entered its second and last week, represents the accumulated chapters of an urgent script – the fate of the planet.

©2009 J. Carl Ganter/Circle of Blue

Everybody in every corner of the world has a stake. Island nations, some of them starting to be swamped by rising seas, want huge cuts in climate warming gases to save increasingly fragile economies and cultures. Arid nations already challenged by deeper and longer droughts – from the Sahel of Africa to Australia – see action on the climate as essential to preserving their ability to produce enough food.

Rich nations see the advantage of a new clean energy economy that produces technology and jobs to achieve reductions in climate-changing emissions. And the small group of senators and representatives with outsize fury, expected to arrive here this week from the United States to contend there is no climate change at all, have staked their reputations on disrupting the momentum for meaningful action that is building here.

A Week To Go
Still, seven days into the Copenhagen conference and with just five days to go, there is no clear consensus among negotiators or activists with NGO organizations about how this momentous drama will end.

The big narratives that are converging here break down like this. Developing nations seek large cuts in carbon emissions – 30 to 45 percent from 1990 levels by 2020 – and big investments by rich nations to finance their low carbon economies. The European Union has pledged somewhat smaller reductions in emissions targets by 2020: 20 percent below 1990 levels, and 30 percent if other wealthy nations reach agreement. The EU has indicated publicly that it is willing to spend $3 billion to $4 billion annually over the next few years to help developing nations, but it is unclear whether this is new money or simply redirected development aid.

Japan’s new Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said earlier this year that his country’s emission reduction target is 25 percent below 1990 levels and the country is willing to invest substantially in a global fund for developing nations.

But arguably the biggest story is what the rest of the world will do here with the clear positions made public by the United States.

There are just two U.S. numbers that really make a difference.

Targets and Audiences
The first is “in the range of 17 percent” below 2005 levels, which is how much carbon the Obama administration says it will agree to remove from U.S. emissions by 2020. The second is $1.4 billion annually, which is how much the United States indicates it is willing to contribute over the next few years to a global climate change fund for developing nations.

The president and his lead negotiators in Copenhagen, Todd Stern and Jonathan Pershing, have made clear there is not much room to move either number up. In order for the U.S. to stay in the final agreement, the climate pact must incorporate emissions and finance targets close to what the U.S. says it will accept.

Or is there wriggle room? This week the Energy Information Administration, a unit of the Department of the Energy is expected to announce that U.S. emissions dropped eight percent last year. Last week Environment America published a report that found state climate change policies alone will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 536 million metric tons by 2020, about seven percent of United States 2007 emissions. The two studies could put pressure on the administration to increase its emissions pledge.

Though many nations and writers disagree, from the perspective of a journalist who’s written extensively for years about environmental politics and economics, the American commitment to rolling back carbon emissions represents a momentous political achievement for the administration. If it happens here, and there is still no assurance that it will, it nevertheless would be the start of the U.S. transformation to a clean energy economy and a renewal of the country’s traditional role at the head of the class as a leader in responding to a global environmental threat.

Still, the U.S. commitment to reducing carbon “in the range of 17 percent” is nowhere close to what needs to be done, according to the science of warming. It’s a start. And because of that the pressure from developing nations may prompt the U.S. to commit to a bit larger target – say 20 percent reductions below 2005 levels, the same target contained in a climate and clean energy proposal under consideration in the Senate. Or the United States can commit more money. But Obama aides have made clear the increases will not be much more.

On long-term targets, the proposed U.S. cut in emissions are 80 percent by 2050, which is largely consistent with what scientists say is necessary over the long run to keep global average temperatures below two degree Celsius.

The largely peaceful march on Saturday, attended by 60,000 to 100,000 people according to several estimates, is one more piece of the cultural and political saga that has unfolded here. While the global mainstream media focused on the 968 people who were detained by police, and barely noted that just 19 were held for investigation, the message of the march was received loud and clear inside the Bella Center. The world is calling for more aggressive action than the United States is close to considering.

There are other players, too, in this drama that could alter how the U.S. approaches the conference’s final day. While most of the attention here is focused on the emissions pledges of large developed countries, developing countries have pledged their own actions to reduce carbon. The Obama administration must be able to demonstrate to its domestic political opponents that U.S. climate action here will not put American industry at an economic disadvantage with the large emerging economies – most notably China.

So here is what the breakthrough moment is shaping up to be at the Copenhagen conference — whether the world will accept the U.S. targets. If the world insists that Obama bring more ambitious targets and greater financing, the U.S. has given every indication that it would not be able to accept this new agreement.

Charm Offensive
Obama and his aides have launched a focused message campaign here to avoid that possibility. The administration established a U.S. Center, which has hosted cabinet secretaries and other top aides to talk about all that the United States is doing to combat climate change and accelerate the clean energy economy. Energy Secretary Steven Chu will be at the center on Monday. The Obama administration  also is making it plain here in public and private conversations that the president is fighting a ferocious counter attack from the fossil fuel industry and the allies it has funded in the Senate and House.

The aim of the charm offensive is to help delegates and NGO staffers absorb the lessons from what President Obama has achieved this year – from enacting a recovery bill in February that contains $110 billion for clean energy practices and technology, to deciding this month to regulate carbon dioxide as a threat to health under the Clean Air Act.

If Obama is successful in making this case and leveraging his ample storehouse of global goodwill the last chapter of the UN Climate Change Conference could also be the first scene of a new era in diplomacy, science and economics. The final chapter here could produce an international agreement that includes the United States and contains clear steps and a finance plan to cool the planet and heat up the global economy.

Keith Schneider, a journalist specializing in environmental policy, is media and communications director at the US Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen Accord: What’s Hot This Week
2. U.S. Charm Offensive at Copenhagen Climate Conference: Will it Work?
3. Climate Conference Embraces Copenhagen Accord

COPENHAGEN – Great social movements are about the intelligence and vision of individuals, and the compelling strength of crowds. Both have been in abundance throughout the first week of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, and especially today.

Wearing polar bear costumes, red suits and dark glasses, black jeans and matching black tee-shirts, and carrying a multitude of colorful signs aimed at speeding the pace of negotiations and results – “Bla, Bla, Bla. Act Now,” “There Is No Planet B,” “The World Wants A Real Deal” – tens of thousands of people crowded into Parliament Square for a rally this afternoon, and thousands more joined them for a 4-mile march to the Bella Center to present negotiators with demands as potent as their numbers.

©2009 J. Carl Ganter/Circle of Blue

The swelling crowd, variously estimated by the police and organizers, as measuring between 50,000 and 100,000, was peaceful, insistent, and cold. Temperatures were just above Fahrenheit freezing, and a wind tugged at upturned collars. Those in attendance wore pins and badges and carried banners indicating they came from all over the world.

Ride From Australia

One demonstrator, Kim Nuygen, said he took 16 months to bike here from Australia. Most of those who attended today were young. A trio from Paris said they’d come to organize a film festival that next week features former Vice President Al Gore. A group of students from the University of Michigan said they wanted to see how theories of dispute resolution, climate science, and chemical engineering actually worked when subject to the vagaries of political ideology and social differences. Their conclusion: It ain’t pretty.

“I’d like to think that something good will come out of the next week,” said Aubrey Parker, a University of Michigan student who was raised in the Traverse City region. “But I’m a little pessimistic. There’s a lot of bureaucracy. A lot of countries have come here with plans that are not progressive enough.”

Marcia Lee, a 27-year-old graduate student in dispute resolution from Marquette University, in Wisconsin, said,  “I really wanted to see how negotiations work on the international scale. I just wanted to gather people’s stories and learn and understand what really breaks peoples hearts. If we can reach that heart level it is possible to start the conversation of how to heal that broken heart.”

When pressed about what she meant, Lee said:  “There are four elements that everybody needs: The need to love and to be loved. The need to belong, and to be of use. If we can reach people at that level then a lot of things that separate us are changed. There is a lot of overlap to being human.”

©2009 J. Carl Ganter/Circle of Blue

More Around The World
The Global Day of Action here coincided with thousands of other gatherings of climate activists around the world. Five thousand people demonstrated in New Delhi. Paris decorated its North Station yesterday and dispatched the Climate Express, which carried hundreds of people to join demonstrators in Copenhagen. Tweets from the demonstration in Melbourne reported 50,000 people in attendance.

The purpose of the Copenhagen rally, march, and the candlelight vigil that ended the day was to amplify that essential sense that young people brought here, the idea that there must be a better way, and to provide mass to the individual voices of concern that have made the planet’s changing climate the signature issue of this generation. Speakers at the large and noisy rally pointed out time and again there is a vast difference in perception and language between those marching today, and those inside the Bella Center, where negotiators from 192 nations are racing a December 18 deadline to reach agreement.

The Heart vs. The Numbers
Inside, for the most part, the ornate language of diplomacy joins with complex science to set an often confusing table for negotiating numbers. There are differing views among delegates about how much carbon should be removed from the emissions of industrial and non-industrial nations; 20 percent? 40 percent? 0 percent. And when: 10 years? 25 years? 50 years? How much should be invested to do that: $10 billion annually; $195 billion annually within a decade.? How many acres of forest need to be preserved? How should uses of land change? And can the world hold the level of warming to 2 degrees Celsius, an increased viewed by many here as manageable, or will the climate shift be 4 degrees or more by late in the century, a level thought to be a threat to the species?

Outside, in the streets of Copenhagen, the words and phrases shouted through loudspeakers and in the mix of song and music carried in the wind was of people facing urgent consequences of climate change, and calls for an end to delay. A woman from Ghana opened the rally with a story of how her village, economically robust at the start of the decade, and easily able to feed itself, had been under siege in recent years by killing floods that gave rise to plagues of mosquitoes. The two growing seasons that used to exist have been cut in half to an uncertain one. After the floods came droughts and then floods and erosion and an end to bountiful harvests. Sickness has brought unexpected deaths. She blamed the fluky weather and its sober consequences on climate change. Not once did she use a number to describe the compelling misfortune of her family and her village.

Vigil and a Plea Heard Globally
The plaintive and plain spoken messages seem to be heard inside the Bella Center. The march today concluded there with a vigil. Sails that demonstrators carried from Parliament Square were ceremoniously handed to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the conference’s organizers.

Early in the week, Tuvalu, the tiny Pacific Island nation of 12,000 residents, three of whom are here as climate negotiators, raised its voice to insist on faster action on climate that was legally binding for all nations. The proceedings slowed considerably, but did not stop, as the issues raised by a nation that lies four feet above sea level and understands that its fate will be determined by what happens in Copenhagen.

Indeed, the competition is fierce between developing nations that are the first to confront the immediacy of climate change, and the industrial nations that have varying levels of conviction about the consequences. Negotiators found a way later in the week to work through Tuvalu’s concern, at least temporarily, and draft texts of a final agreement were circulated on Friday and met greeted favorably by many nations. Environment ministers arrive this weekend to carry the negotiations closer to a final agreement next week, and the UNFCC is telling NGO representatives that a number of heads of state are planning to be in Copenhagen days earlier than planned.

That is an indication of the anticipation building here that something worthwhile will come out of these two weeks in December.  The Bella Center itself has gotten so jammed that its capacity of 15,000 people is close to being exceeded. The UNFCCC yesterday alerted participants that it will initiate a new system of issuing what it called “secondary cards” to keep the packed center from being too full. The new badging requirement will take effect on Tuesday.

“Fate of My Country”
As demonstrators and negotiators converged at the Bella Center at the march’s end today, the text was made public of a dramatic statement in the plenary session late in the week by one of Tuvalu’s diplomats. Circulated by NGO groups and read on hundreds of Blackberrys and IPhones, the clear-headed plea for action by one man from a little-known nation reflected the will of many of those who’ve come to Copenhagen.

“This is not just an issue of Tuvalu,” he said. “Millions of people around the world are affected. Over the last few days I’ve received calls from all over the world offering faith and hope that we can reach a conclusion on this issue.

“Madame President, this is not a media trip for me. I have refused to take media calls on this issue. As a humble servant of the government of Tuvalu, I have to make a strong appeal to you that we consider this matter properly.

“I woke this morning. I was crying. That’s not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands.”

Keith Schneider, a journalist specializing in environmental policy, is media and communications director at the US Climate Action Network. Reach him at kschneider@climatenetwork.org

Related posts:

1. Climate Conference Embraces Copenhagen Accord
2. Final Week of Copenhagen and the Last Act is Far From Clear
3. At Copenhagen Climate Conference, Science Facts and Deceit at Odds