Surprise! Canada satisfied with weak climate deal

Posted on 19. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada, bits | View Comments

I have been struggling throughout the day to find out the status of the talks and discover some inkling of the ultimate end result. Fingers twitching, toes tapping, and nerves on edge, we trackers watched for any signals from the tightly closed group of world leaders parked less than 2 kilometers from our make-shift office. Given the high-level nature of the discussions, access to the Bella Centre today was severely restricted, with even the most elusive negotiators waiting in the hallways while their heads-in-chief met behind closed doors.

Ministerial addresses continued throughout the day. President Obama dissapointed many with a lacklustre address that lacked concrete details. In contrast, President Lula of Brazil gave a barn-burning speech that offered real commitments and indicated the willingness of Brazil to finance others. Mid-morning, US President Obama met with a tight circle of world leaders for more detailed discussion – Canada was not present on that list. Later, when the countries broke for lunch, Prime Minister Harper did have a quick chat with President Obama.

In the early afternoon, Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez demonstrated their resistance to the closed turn in the negotiations, arguing that “there are no first or second class people, or first or second class nations”. Tuvalu pointed out that they continue to be excluded from discussions and they have yet to be presented with a concrete draft text for discussion.

Across Copenhagen, Canada received a colossal ‘Fossil Of the Year’, our third year in a row, the satirical award granted to the country that does the most to obstruct the climate negotiations. The awards presentation was particularly lively, with colourful video footage featured on CBC news. Along the same vein in Canada, the Globe and Mail revealed that an MP in British Columbia is dismissing climate change science to concerned constituents.

In the afternoon, Obama delayed his flight home to meet with Brazil, India, China, and South African heads of state. Emerging from this meeting, he spoke to a press conference at around 10:30pm in the Bella Centre. Here he announced a deal with these four major emerging economies that has left many baffled – ostensibly this kind of brokerage would be key to establishing a foundation for a good agreement. Unfortunately, there are many troubling indications about the deal as presented. It is not legally binding, it does not include any concrete targets, and it does not set a timeline to reach a final agreement.  Ultimately, it sidelines the multilateral process of the UN and excludes many of the nations that have the most at stake, including the least developed countries and small island states. These countries have yet to see a concrete text, a concern they have been raising all week as they remain outside the privileged circles of consultation.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has indicated his satisfaction with the deal as it sits. In many ways, Canada could not be more content. Their confident repetitions of low expectations have materialised almost perfectly. During a CBC interview today, it would seem Harper is trying take credit, for “what the Conservative government has been saying for four years is now the underpinning of this agreement”, namely that it must involve all economies (even at the risk of no substance, it seems). Furthermore, Harper stresses that Canada will continue to harmonize with the US – arguably a one-sided claim given that Canada was not present during any high-level consultations convened by Obama.

However, not all is decided. The entire UN assembly has yet to meet in the plenary, and it is possible that the G77 may block this agreement. The European Union has also yet to respond. Many countries have very legitimate concerns with the abandonment of the multi-lateral process and the hard work of many delegations over the past two days, and two years. It’s all still up in the air.

In the meantime, hopes are frustrated here in Copenhagen. The current proposals on the table do nothing to prevent the spectre of dangerous global warming, in fact they lock the world into a 3 degree rise, as revealed in a leaked negotiation text from the secretariat this morning.

More is expected and must be delivered.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa

Canada’s speech to the ministers

Posted on 18. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada, Uncategorized, bits | View Comments

While Harper was in Copenhagen tonight, he declined to present Canada’s speech to the plenary (unlike many other world leaders), and sent Environment Minister Jim Prentice in his stead.

There is nothing startling in this speech, and it includes many of the positions already identified in previous positions. It continues the language of synchronising Canada’s efforts with the US, and maintaining a one-track approach (implying a new agreement rather than the Kyoto Protocol). Far as I can tell, there are no concrete tragets identified, no new financing commitments, or reference to emerging science.

You decide what you think!

Here is some paraphrased text of his speech:

Canada’s National Statement at COP15

COPENHAGEN, Denmark – December 17, 2009 – We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement. We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth. An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.

Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.

A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.

To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.

It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.

And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.

Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.

Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.

Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.

Sticky issues for Canada: the right to develop, the Kyoto Protocol and major emerging economies

Posted on 16. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada | View Comments

It is a flurry of non-activity here at the Bella Centre today. Chief Negotiator Michael Martin had a briefing as usual this morning. When I asked Mr. Martin if Canada had 1) specific elements they want to see in the negotiating texts, and 2) what they would be satisfied to see, he re-iterated Canada’s position so far. Mr. Martin answered that this would ideally be a single agreement, although the outcome of this conference will likely not be legally-binding, as there is considerable discussion still to be done. However, Canada continues to work towards a comprehensive “set of commitments”. As I understand it, Mr. Martin is referencing Canada’s recent dismissal of the concept of differentiated responsibility, as enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, and seeks instead a global plan that includes all major economies (while it still stresses the national circumstances of a country like Canada).

When I followed up with the question of whether Canada would like to see more specific elements in the text included, for example GHG emissions reductions targets, a goal such as 350 PPM goal, or adaptation financing, Mr. Martin answered that Canada has not changed its position and for many these specific targets remain the subject of great debate.

Now, the current negotiating position (as outlined in this position paper), does respect the goal of maximum 2 degree C warming. However, both the document and Mr. Martin are careful to frame this in reference to global emissions not rising to dangerous levels. Thus, Canada supports a global reduction to ensure maximum 2 degrees temperature change, yet has been quiet on translating this to national commitments. Instead, Canada supports a 2020 target of 3% below 1990 levels, which is far below the national targets that the IPCC has recommended to prevent catastrophic global warming (25-40% reductions). From what I can gather, the rational for this approach is that Canada is an energy superpower, and as such as increased license to continue with rising emissions. These are the unique national circumstances often referred to in government statements. The logic depends on global reductions worldwide absorbing and counter-acting the rise in Canadian emissions.

That’s a rather swaggering negotiating position, and it makes other countries nervous. In response to arguments like these, developing countries are defending the Kyoto Protocol tooth and nail in order to protect against the burden of emissions reductions falling on them. They may have good cause for concern. This tension inspired Maclean’s magazine to explore why “suddenly the world hates Canada“.

And battle lines are drawn. It seems that this is going to be a sticking point. Should rich countries take responsibility for the emissions they have piped into the atmosphere for over 100 years? Do poor countries have the right to develop? And forget the history for a second, what does the atmosphere say?

Today in the high-level, Australia spoke on behalf of the Umbrella group of nations – representing ‘rich’ countries that are not part of the EU. Canada is part of this negotiating block. The language in their statement referenced binding commitments on all major emerging economies, which is a far cry from the principles in the Kyoto Protocol. This makes sense, as Canada has already made it clear that they no longer support the Kyoto Protocol track.

The EU’s statement delivered by Sweden was more nuanced. They did recognize that “we will never succeed without important contributions from the emerging economies, which must reduce emissions significantly compared to business as usual”. However, they framed their discussion in the context of development and alleviating poverty. They discussed billions in broad and fast-track adaptation funding (“ready to commit to fast start funding with at least 7.2 billion Euro (10.6 billion dollar) for the years 2010 to 20). They cited their own goals to protect the 2 degree threshold, and reduce emissions by up to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. They called on both the US and China to take leadership. From the US, they expect “as from all developed counties, a legally binding economy-wide commitment to reduce emissions.” From China, they expect, “binding actions”. This was refined phrasing, avoiding a lot of hidden mines (binding actions are a lot different than binding emissions targets), and refreshingly honest.

I wonder what they expect from Canada.

More speeches will be coming in throughout the evening (till after midnight according to the schedule). In the meantime, negotiating sessions are indefinitely on hold.

Much love from Copenhagen,

Rosa