Document Analysis 101

Posted on 09. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada

Note: this article was written on Tuesday, December 8th, but was posted the following morning due to website problems.

Rosa gets intimate with her country’s discussion paper

There was drama today –supposedly a text has been leaked from the Danish government that would put the entire global consensus at peril. Because everything is still up in the air, we can’t include any details. But believe me, everyone’s talking about it.Outside of that, there were a few meetings today, nothing earthshattering. I caught sight of Chief Negotiator Michael Martin deep in conversation with the chief US negotiator Jon Pershing in the hallway.

But, until we can get into the heart of the leaked text controversy, let’s do something really interesting. Document analysis! Yippee.

Text intimacy

But seriously. On the Government of Canada’s Climate Change website, you will find a link to “Canada’s Positions and priorities @COP15.

Let’s take a look at this 5-page document. It’s important. During the public briefing this morning Michael Martin confirmed that it sums up the government’s negotiating position.

It begins:

The science is clear: urgent action on climate change is required. The impacts of climate change are evident, particularly in the Arctic. At Copenhagen, Canada will work constructively to achieve a global consensus on a legally-binding international climate change agreement that is fair, environmentally-effective and comprehensive.

So, to begin with… it acknowledges the science. This is a good start. And, it acknowledges that there are impacts from climate change. Check. But what does ‘comprehensive’ mean? Does that include a timeline? Any targets? We’re left wondering.

Moving on to Canada’s 5 key climate change principles, the first is to balance “economic prosperity and environmental protection”. I agree this is important… I did study economics. But should it really be the first priority? Maybe it could be the 2nd? or the 3rd? Considering these negotiations are about preventing dangerous climate change.

The second principle is “maintaining a long-term focus”, working towards 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050. But what does this mean? There is no baseline year. And what is the expectation for reductions by 2020? But maybe those goals are coming… later?

The third is to engage and seek commitments from “all major economies, in ways commensurate with respective responsibilities and capabilities”. Good, good, no comments there. Yet.

The fourth is to develop and deploy clean technologies, “stimulating innovation and the rapid and widespread deployment of low-carbon technologies”. Excellent! Has this started yet? Let’s get it on.

The fifth principle is to support constructive and ambitious global action, working collaboratively to achieve a “fair, effective, and comprehensive global climate agreement”. But by when?

At this point, the document outlines what a “Fair, Environmentally-Effective and Comprehensive” agreement would be. It acknowledges the 2 degree threshold! That is very important, this is the scientific standard beyond which runaway climate change is increasingly likely. Check.

Not all is golden, however. There are some red flags in this section:

All developed countries should make comparable economy-wide emissions reduction commitments for 2020, based on their mitigation potential and national circumstances, and subject to an agreed, transparent process of international review.

Are these reduction commitments quantifiable? Look at what they ask of developing countries below.

Developing countries, with the exception of the least-developed, should commit to nationally-appropriate mitigation actions that, at a minimum, lead to a substantial deviation from business-as-usual by around 2020, based on their mitigation potential and national circumstances.

These would be managed in a “new, legally binding agreement in the form of a listing or schedule of commitments” and be judged by international review. Interesting… we’re pretty tough on the developing countries. Not that that would be categorically bad, as long as it is fair and recognizes common but differentiated responsibilities – that’s UN lingo for “don’t screw us over”.

And the national circumstances thing, I’m not so sure about that. We’ve heard some shady suggestions under the rubric of national circumstances. Saudi Arabia argues that because they make all their money from oil, their ‘national circumstances’ mean they should be compensated financially for a shift to clean energy. It’s a strange slippery slope.

I do wholeheartedly agree with the transparent international review. They mention “measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions”, including third-party verification. Score! That’s a great point.

It deserves mention that they cite the “development of broad, nationally-appropriate, low-carbon growth plans consisting of robust efforts to educe emissions in the short-term and long-term national goals and pathways”. First, I love the word robust. Second, are Canada’s plans robust? I’m not so sure.

On the general side, the document mentions market mechanisms, particularly the carbon market, and the protection of intellectual property. It’s vague, so I still don’t know what to think. We have no cap and trade proposal yet. We have no concrete suggestions for the transfer of technology. It could well be benign, it could well be alarming. We’ll have to see.

Finally, there’s a fair bit of discussion on adaptation and on recognizing the need for new and ongoing financial flows. They suggest a fast-start funding for adaptation starting in 2010, and building to a level of $10 billion annually by 2012. It would be nice to see some concrete announcements on this, above and beyond the $100 million already announced (an amount criticised for being nowhere near enough).

So that’s it. Class dismissed. It was nice getting intimate with that text wasn’t it?

Please feel free to disregard my editorial comments. In fact, don’t believe anything I’ve said. Read the original yourself.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

(and many thanks to hand-model extraordinaire, Adam MacIsaac)

Tags: cop15, Michael Martin, position paper