Climate accord at a glance for you
COPENHAGEN: The following are the broad contours of the accord reached by the United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa and several other countries at the U.N. climate talks—along with current elements in place earlier:

Emissions
The deal does not commit any nation to emission cuts beyond a general acknowledgment that global temperatures should be held along the lines agreed to by leading nations in July. There are no overall emissions targets for rich countries.

The already agreed-upon emission cuts fall far short of action needed to avoid potentially dangerous effects of climate change. These cuts are to be made by 2020:
—U.S., a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels (or 3-4 per cent from 1990 levels).
—China, a cut of 40 to 45 per cent below “business as usual,” that is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output.
—India, 20 to 25 per cent cut from 2005 levels.
—European Union, 20 per cent cut from 1990, and possibly 30 per cent.
—Japan, 25 per cent cut from 1990.

Verification
—Countries are to list actions taken to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts.
—Method is agreed upon for verifying reductions.
—Developed nations already covered by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (the U.S. is not included) will have their emissions cuts monitored and will face possible sanctions if they fail to meet them.

Funding
—Wealthy nations will raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods. This is contingent on a broader agreement, including some kind of oversight to verify China’s emissions of greenhouse gases.
—Short-term funding of roughly $30 billion over three years beginning in 2010 to help developing countries adapt to climate change and shift to clean energy. — AP

Hearing the cries of distressed trees
Ardeshir Cowasjee of Karachi Dawn writes the following in his Sunday column dated 20 December 2009:

Earlier this month, no less a man than the chief justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who so ably led the bench hearing the constitutional petitions challenging the NRO, rendered praise unto Karachi’s city nazim, Mustafa Kamal. In a news item in the national press on Dec 2 (‘SC seeks report on tree-felling in Lahore’):

‘The Supreme Court on Tuesday sought a detailed report till Dec 21 on cutting of trees due to extension of the Canal View Road Project in Lahore from the provincial environment secretary and the director general.

‘A three-member SC bench, comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan and Justice Tariq Parvez, was hearing a suo motu case initiated against the cutting of trees.’ The project costing Rs 3 bn involved the felling of 1,844 trees along 14 kilometres of the canal bank. The news item ended:

The chief justice then observed that the government in London did not go for expansion of its roads merely to preserve its heritage. ‘How such a project of huge cost is in favour of the country in the current economic situation,’ the chief justice said. ‘See Karachi, how a young nazim has excellently worked,’ the chief justice said, adding the authorities of Lahore should go to Karachi to see his excellent work. Lamenting the strategy of cutting trees for expansion of roads, Imrana Tiwana said instead of making transport system efficient, trees are being sacrificed to expand the roads. The court adjourned the hearing for Dec 21.

To revert to 2008 and a news item of July 4 (‘Mustafa Kamal launches Green Karachi project’):

After chopping down thousands of trees in the city in the past couple of years, City Nazim Syed Mustafa Kamal on Thursday announced that his administration would plant several hundred thousand trees by the end of the year.’ Mustafa appealed to Karachi’s citizens for help and he ‘said that despite these initiatives the tree-planting campaign needed active participation from common citizens as they have the responsibility of protection and preservation of this natural asset.

He said that the cutting of trees had been completely banned in the city and anyone who would be seen cutting a tree would be arrested.

That was then. On Dec 14, 2009, Shehri, our environmental NGO, had to address a letter to Nazim Kamal under the heading ‘Cutting of trees on Sharea Faisal’. It read: ‘We learn that certain departments of the city government are planning to cut trees on the green belts at the sides of Sharea Faisal between FTC and Karsaz Road. Perhaps they are not aware of the following facts:

(a) On July 3, 2008, as was widely reported in the press the next day, you promised the citizens of Karachi a Green Karachi, promised to plant over 100, 000 trees, and placed a ban on the cutting of trees in the city stating that anyone who cut trees in Karachi would be arrested. (b) Earlier this month, the chief justice of Pakistan, while stopping the cutting of trees along the Canal Bank Road in Lahore … held you up as an example of a mayor who undertook projects whilst being mindful of the environment.

It would be a criminal act, especially during the days of the Copenhagen conference on climate change, to cut trees that actually absorb carbon dioxide and reduce the prospects of global warming. We request you to ensure that this philistine act is not carried out.

A copy was forwarded to the chief justice of Pakistan who has the capacity to hear the cries of distressed trees, the cries of souls lost and not found, and of many others. So far the trees still stand.

Melting of Ice Caps and Geopolitical Factors
The following is excerpted from Daniel Stone, Newsweek Web Exclusive, 17 December 2009:

Scientists have declared that both of the world's ice caps are in perilous states; the Arctic is more vulnerable than the Antarctic because of added climate volatility at the top of the planet.

In his new book, After the Ice, Alun Anderson makes the insightful case that consequences cast too far into the future ignore geopolitical factors of today. Water where ice once stood changes global trade routes and national-security calculations, especially between countries like the U.S and Russia, whose icy relationship used to be separated by the expanse of the great Pacific. Just this summer, for example, the sea above Russia opened to international commercial shipping as the ice melted.

Anderson's key insight isn't his call to action (we should prevent further melting to save the planet, etc.); it's his astute observation that we haven't thought much about how to manage human activities in the region: oil rigs that bleed petroleum may be too distant for clean-up assistance; cruise ships perusing iceberg-filled seas may not be reachable in time by rescue vessels. The solution isn't as simple as plunking down new naval bases as a safety net for new commerce and military activity. The climate and seclusion of the Arctic simply make any large-scale development impossible.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/216989

Daniel Stone | Newsweek Web Exclusive | reported 9 October 2009:

The Antarctic has problems of its own; last month researchers discovered the continent's largest glacier melting four times faster than initially projected. But of the two poles, the Arctic is more volatile. The smallest changes in global climate can affect millions of square miles of open sea there, since it has a smaller ice cover than its South Pole counterpart. It's also a territory of immense interest to the U.S. Just days before President Bush left office this past January, he signed a directive ordering further study of the Arctic region and the natural resources it might offer. "High levels of uncertainty remain concerning the effects of climate change and increased human activity in the Arctic," the directive said, encouraging skeptics who claim that climate change is still a debatable proposition. In Alaska, Steiner was incredulous, and he has since recommended to Obama administration officials to change the directive. (The White House Council on Environmental Quality submitted a report to the president last month highlighting the urgency of Arctic issues.)

...

The Hindu writes editorially (21 December 2009):

It is arguable that in the state of play at Copenhagen, the developing nations had little room to ensure drastic emissions reductions by developed countries without risking the total collapse of the summit. The U.S. came with no offer of enhanced commitments nor were the others willing to bring this issue to the fore. From the ranks of the developed countries, there was no attempt to stand up to American high-handedness, typified by Mr. Obama’s take-it-or-leave-it speech wherein he mangled the well-known UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” into a new formulation of “common but differentiated responses.” The later lament of the European Union that the Copenhagen Accord missed out on ambitious emission reduction targets need not be taken seriously. The political challenge before the BASIC Four, especially India and China, is to redefine the task of drastic emissions reduction globally, led by the developed nations, in a manner that refuses to counterpose the global public good to the development imperative. Climate laggards in the developed as well as developing world need to be pushed aside in a dialogue that has both the scientific case and the ethical imperative in focus. This demands a stronger display of political will that goes beyond firm negotiating stances and forces all major players in mitigation action to do their due share for humanity.

Excerpts: TIME Obama's Climate Compromise Leaves a Bitter Aftertaste By BRYAN WALSH, Saturday, Dec. 19, 2009 The deal appeared to be in doubt for much of Friday morning, after a small group of countries including Cuba, Sudan, Bolivia and Venezuela worked to block the accord. They complained that the deal brokered by Obama and his interlocutors lacked specific emission-reduction targets, and only included a vague pledge to attempt to keep global warming from rising above the upper safe limit of 2 degrees celsius. The dissenters also attacked the climate finance for poor countries promised in the deal — around $30 billion for the period to 2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020 — as far short of the needs of the nations hardest hit by global warming. Perhaps most of all, they were angry because the deal was struck behind closed doors by a handful of powerful nations, and then presented to the rest as a fait accompli. "This events of tonight represent the worst development in climate change negotiations," said Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, Sudan's ambassador to the U.N. and the lead negotiator for the G-77 group of developing nations. "The deal is nothing short of climate change skepticism in action." (…) The compromises involved in getting even a deal that delegates could only agree to "take note of" may have stripped it of much of its operational significance. The accord contains no deadline to draft a legally binding treaty, no emissions-cut requirements, and only the vaguest reference to helping countries cut back on deforestation — a goal that many had hoped might be one of the few concrete achievements from Copenhagen. The Europeans, still the only bloc of nations with truly binding carbon caps, were unhappy, hoping for a far stronger agreement. "There is light and there is shadow," said German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a strong proponent for ambitious climate action. "The only alternative to the agreement would have been failure." (…) Outside the Bella Center as delegates departed, a small group of protesters against the deal carried photos of Obama, with the words "climate shame" across his forehead. That may not be how many had expected the summit to conclude, but it may have been the only ending that was possible. ****** THE OBSERVER, Sunday 20 December 2009 China blamed as anger mounts over climate deal Jonathan Watts and John Vidal in Copenhagen Robin McKie and Toby Helm An outbreak of bitter recrimination has erupted among politicians and delegates following the drawing up of the Copenhagen accord for tackling climate change. The deal, finally hammered out early yesterday, had been expected to commit countries to deep cuts in carbon emissions. In the end, it fell short of this goal after China fought hard against strong US pressure to submit to a regime of international monitoring. The Chinese prime minister, Wen Jiabao, walked out of the conference at one point, and sent a lowly protocol officer to negotiate with Barack Obama. In the end, a draft agreement put forward by China – and backed by Brazil, India and African nations – commits the world to the broad ambition of preventing global temperatures from rising above 2C. Crucially, however, it does not force any nation to make specific cuts. (…) The accord was formally recognised after a dramatic all-night plenary session, during which the Danish chairman was forced to step aside, a Venezuelan delegate cut her hand, and Britain's climate and energy secretary, Ed Miliband, salvaged the deal just as it appeared on the verge of being rejected. The tumultuous events concluded a fortnight of fraught and sometimes machiavellian negotiations that saw a resurgent China link forces with India, Brazil and African states to thwart efforts by rich nations to steamroller through a binding treaty that would suit their interests. Although hailed by Obama, the deal has been condemned by activists and NGOs, while the European commission's president, José Manuel Barroso, admitted he was disappointed after EU attempts to introduce long-term targets for reducing global emissions by 50% by 2050 were blocked. Last night Miliband was being credited with helping to rescue the summit from disaster. He had been preparing to go to bed at 4am, after the main accord had been agreed, only to be called by officials and warned that several countries were threatening to veto its signature. Miliband returned to the conference centre in time to hear Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping comparing the proposed agreement to the Holocaust. He said the deal "asked Africa to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries". A furious Miliband intervened and dismissed Di-Aping's claims as "disgusting". (…) "This accord is not legally binding, it's a political statement," said Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International. "This is a disaster for the poor nations – the urgency of climate change was not really considered." Dame Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's chief executive, agreed. "World leaders in Copenhagen seem to have forgotten that they were not negotiating numbers, they were negotiating lives," she said. [I am unable to adjust this format. Paulette]

Karachi Dawn writes editorially (Monday, 21 Dec, 2009) the following:

Arranged at great cost and bearing a huge carbon footprint, the Copenhagen round was dead on arrival given what had transpired in Singapore over a month ago. It was acknowledged at the time by leaders attending an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, which also featured US President Barack Obama, that time had run out on securing an obligatory climate change framework at Copenhagen. The Danish prime minister, who as host of the Copenhagen conference dashed to Singapore to attend a special meeting, concurred. As such there was little chance that the developed world and developing countries would somehow pull together and miraculously agree on emission caps that can slow down global warming. Copenhagen was always going to be an acrimonious talk shop, and that is precisely what we got.

Yes, a select group of countries came up with an ‘accord’ that is not obligatory and was simply ‘noted’ by other delegates in a final resolution. Indeed, it is questionable whether the so-called deal even enjoys UN endorsement. Warming caps have been agreed upon but how these are to be achieved remains a mystery. Substantial funds have been promised to developing nations to help them cope with the fallout of climate change but this pledge too is short on detail. What we have been told, in effect, is that there is no option right now other than going about business as usual and subjecting the planet to a slow death. And yes, then we’ll talk some more in Mexico in November 2010.

The unkindest cut for many developing countries is that they will be hardest hit by climate change even though their emission levels are negligible on the global scale. Take the case of Pakistan. Our contribution to global warming is almost irrelevant, yet we are already facing the reality of erratic weather that is playing havoc with an agro-based economy. Sea levels are rising and vast swathes of arable land have been lost to intrusion, for reasons of climate change as well as reduced flows downstream of Kotri. Our glaciers are melting at a rapid rate, which means inundation in the medium term and ultimate drought. It must be accepted, sooner than later, that there is no Planet B. A global solution needs to be found.

Here are two comments on the Copenhagen Accord reported by guardian.co.uk:

---

Fuqiang Yang, director of global climate solutions, WWF International:

The negotiations in Copenhagen ended without a fair, ambitious or legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this, what emerged was an agreement that will, at the very least, cut greenhouse gases, set up an emissions verification system, and reduce deforestation. Given the complexity of the issue, this represents a step forward.

I hasten to add that much of the hard work still lies ahead. The Copenhagen accord, the text that came out of the talks, leaves a long list of issues undecided. Among them are the emissions targets industrialised nations will accept, and how much climate finance they will offer.

The accord essentially allows countries to set their own greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals for 2020.

But I am optimistic, because the talks did achieve $100bn in aid from industrialised countries to poorer nations. China, as well, submitted to an emissions verification system under which all nations will report.

The accord also includes measures to help cut greenhouse gases and reduce deforestation, particularly in heavily forested developing nations such as Brazil and Indonesia.

These are big steps forward, and I think it is important to remember that there were achievements made in Copenhagen. There is still a great deal that needs to be done by China and all other signatories. Specific, binding targets are extremely important and need to be worked out. But we did see a move towards an agreement that could keep atmospheric Co2 levels from rising above dangerous levels.

---

John Prescott, climate change rapporteur for the Council of Europe:

I've read a lot about so-called Brokenhagen and the failure to get a legally binding agreement. Frankly we were never going to get one, just as we didn't get one at Kyoto, when I was negotiating for the EU.

What you need is a statement of principle. At Copenhagen this was a final admission that we cannot let temperature rise 2C above pre-industrial levels.And to get approval from 192 countries on this principle is remarkable, considering Kyoto dealt with only 47 nations.

The details and targets to meet that principle will be settled at COP16 in Mexico in 12 months' time. Until then, countries must show, as Ban Ki-Moon said, greater ambition to turn their backs on the path of least resistance.

Many of the countries have set out their own carbon action plans by 2020. So let's see them put those plans into action and put those figures in the annexes to the Copenhagen accord. The rest of the world will follow.

Copenhagen's achievements are an acceptance of the science (contested at Kyoto), an admission there will be global emission cuts, and an acceptance that there will have to be verification.

---

Outcome good, but not adequate: Pachauri

NEW DELHI: The outcome of the Conference of Parties at Copenhagen is “good” but not “adequate,” R.K. Pachauri, chairperson of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, said on Wednesday.

Talking to reporters here, he said the Copenhagen Accord provided a framework for working out a binding agreement, incorporating the details of the specific commitments by all countries, especially the developed nations. But it did not address the extent to which the developed nations would cut emission.

The Accord and its drafting brought into existence an entity, consisting of the large emerging economies, labelled BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). “It would be necessary for this group, in coordination with the U.S., not only to ensure universal acceptance of the Copenhagen Accord but also to carry forward the momentum that has been created for reaching a full-fledged binding agreement in Mexico,” he said.

However, a bigger challenge for the BASIC grouping was to take along the least developed countries, the small island states and the low-lying coastal countries, so that they did not feel isolated, Mr. Pachauri said.

A high-level panel would be established under the Conference of Parties to study the potential source of revenue, including the alternative sources of finance, for meeting the goal, Mr. Pachauri said. It was important for the BASIC grouping to ensure that such a group had leadership and participation from the developing countries.

He said the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol were sacrosanct for countries like India, and even if the new agreement went by another name, the essential features of the Kyoto Protocol must be preserved.

The Indian authorities must show concern for protecting the ecosystems of this planet and should not allow their words and actions to be interpreted as being only in India’s national interest, he said. Suggesting that the “peaking” year for all countries be pegged at 2015, Mr. Pachauri said that if an agreement was not reached by December 2010, the cost and human impact of climate change would be serious.

Rejecting the contention that India agreeing to “international consultation and analysis” in the Copenhagen Accord challenged its sovereignty, Mr. Pachauri said: “I don’t think the provisions of international consultations and analysis gives anybody the right to challenge anybody. It does not carry any weight.” “The term is so innocuous that it can’t be interpreted as a loss of sovereignty. I think our interest has not been touched in any way.

Moreover, the BASIC countries will stick together and won’t let anyone [including the U.S.] push them over this provision.”

White House Adviser David Axelrod had said: “Following the Accord, we will be able to review what India and China are doing on mitigation commitments. We are going to be able to challenge them if they do not meet those goals.”

A Comment from the Hindu
Looking beyond Copenhagen, one can anticipate an even thornier path for future negotiations. Despite its lack of official status, the Copenhagen Accord will undoubtedly interfere with official UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) negotiations for a legally binding agreement. Resolving this issue will not be easy since at its heart is the key dilemma of dealing with the United States on climate change. Unfortunately for the world, its foremost superpower is trapped domestically in a climate discourse that is short-sighted and parochial and yet seeks to impose this discourse on the entire globe. Engaging the United States for global climate action without allowing it to run away with the global climate agenda is a question that the nations of the world have yet to address adequately.