MY TAKE

Chair of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action on Sunday night. photo: ENB

From my perspective, the last day of talks began r-e-a-l-l-y slowly. If day one and two were about country’s delegations airing their views on Copenhagen and how to move forward over the course of this year, Sunday was about bringing it all together into clear mandates to plan and act upon.

I woke up early, made my way to the conference center, grabbed the daily program and started to wait.

Morning was filled with closed meetings of various negotiating blocks, each working to align positions internally in order to give them more clout the formal sessions. This UNFCCC process creeps forward by consensus only, and all 175 countries who came to Bonn had to agree on some key procedural decisions before the end of the day. With so many different cultures, different states of development and different political and economic interests – consensus can be really hard.

Well apparently, that consensus was escaping this group, so the big formal deciding meeting was postponed. Then it was postponed again.

Finally, at 5PM – same time the Bonn Climate Change Talks were scheduled to end – we gathered in the large plenary hall and began. The Secretariat staff handed out a 2-page text for a basis to talk through and negotiate the procedural points in question. Countries then proceeded to argued about obscure differences in wording for the next 6+ hours.

I won’t say it wasn’t interesting or even entertaining at times – it was, but I’ll spare you the play to play. Catch the re-run here if you’re as big a dork as I am. Instead, I want to share just a few highlights:

Papua New Guinea seemed to own the mic. Led by a striking and articulate woman with an Italian accent and red pants (fashionably breaking from the rest of the group, I might be a bit smitten), she gave a valiant effort and made some progress in her push for PNG’s positions. Louis Hand, the Aussie’s lead lady (also known for her occasional fashionable breaks), drew analogies to a threesome and cocktails in an effort to draw interest for one of her proposals …Saudi’s shut her down on the basis that their culture frowns on both. The Saudi’s, often suspected of trying to slow the talks from progress generally, offered to help the chair move things along. The whole room laughed, they’re negotiator said “No, I’m serious”, and proceeded to give the breakthrough suggestion. Also notable, the Chair of the session accidentally and repeatedly insulted Russia, who perhaps offered some of the most hopeful suggestions for compromise throughout the night – needless to say, they weren’t pleased.

The US wasn’t particularly notable in our interventions. Jonathan Pershing showed his frustration only once, angered by agreements apparently made informally that fell apart on the floor. Our delegation shared potato chips with the Brits… possibly feeding Venezuela’s neo-colonial suspicions. Generally, Pershing was eloquent and efficient, steering clear of the more creative forms of delivery and the drama occasionally introduced by other negotiators over the course of the night.

The lack of creativity and drama seems almost un-American compared to the culture I know and love; but as we continue to wait for serious solutions to climate change and as the talks stalled into their 6th and 7th hours, (or 16th year, for that matter), I have no complaint. That said, Grenada was the highlight of the night when they reminded all of us that what we’re trying to save in this process – our environment, our security, our hope of living & maybe even thriving together on this planet, our humanity – is indeed something beautiful. Thanking the Chair for her efforts and wishing well everyone present, she closed with a poem on behalf of the small island states most vulnerable to climate change.

Next time Dr. Pershing, perhaps you too could close with a poem.

=======================
GRENADA’S CLOSING STATEMENT

Madame chair
Among our serious work here comes some levity
Aosis thanks all for having shown flexibility
Particularly revealing compromise and sensibility
For without flexibility what is the real possibility
That there would have been the necessary credibility
Among 192 in this perennially deliberating assembly
In pursuit of climate equitability viability and sustainability
So we bid you all safety with your chosen method of transportability
As you return to families and national diversity
Only to again be released for 2010 climate change conferring productivity
I said levity
But I am not showing creativity
mainly because I am not pursuing mental agility
or fruitility
But I am just avoiding none creative destructability
Thank You

=======================
THE OFFICIAL UNFCCC TAKE / PRESS RELEASE ON OUTCOMES OF THE WEEKEND (PDF):

Climate change negotiators agree on intensified UNFCCC negotiating schedule for 2010

(Bonn, 11 April 2010) The first round of UN climate change talks since the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at the end of 2009 concluded Sunday in Bonn with agreement to intensify the negotiating schedule in order to achieve a strong outcome in Mexico at the end of the year.

In addition to the negotiating sessions already scheduled for 2010, governments decided at the Bonn April meeting to hold two additional sessions of at least one week each.

The additional sessions will take place between the 32nd session of the UNFCCC Convention subsidiary bodies from 31 May to 11 June 2010 and the UN Climate Change Conference in Mexico from 29 November to 10 December 2010.

The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) invited its Chair to prepare, under her own responsibility, a text to facilitate negotiations among Parties, in time for the May/June sessions in Bonn.

“At this meeting in Bonn, I have generally seen a strong desire to make progress,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “However, whilst more meeting time is important, it is itself not a recipe for success,” he cautioned.

The UN’s top climate change official called on governments to overcome differences, and work for greater clarity on what can be decided in the course of 2010 in the UN Climate Change negotiations.

“We need to decide what can be agreed at the end of this year in Cancún and what can be put off until later,” he said.

According to Mr. de Boer, negotiators must tackle three categories of issues in the course of this year: issues which were close to completion in Copenhagen and can be finalized at the UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún at the end of the year; issues where there are still considerable differences, but on which the Copenhagen Accord can provide important political guidance; and issues where governments are still far from agreement.

“The UN Climate Change Conference in Cancún must do what Copenhagen did not achieve: It must finalize a functioning architecture for implementation that launches global climate action, across the board, especially in developing nations,” said Yvo de Boer.

“Specifically, negotiations this year need to conclude on mitigation targets and action, a package on adaptation, a new technology mechanism, financial arrangements, ways to deal with deforestation, and a capacity-building framework,” he said.

Yvo de Boer also referred to the necessity for high level political guidance at the appropriate time: “We must seek political guidance where and when needed,” he said.

The first round of UN Climate Change Talks in Bonn in 2010 (9-11 April) was attended by more than 1700 delegates from 175 countries

Among those who couldn’t make the trip was our beloved American, Ben Jervey. Ben, as it turns out, found some paid work. He like the rest of the trackers, volunteered in his Adopt a Negotiator role. This time he wouldn’t be able to make the trip. Since I’m from the States and planned to be in Bonn coordinating, I’ve decided to do my best to track the US delegation in Ben’s stead.

Today is the first day of official negotiations. and the first official negotiations since last December. There’s a lot of sorting out to do – which is what we expect over the next three days of talks.

We left Copenhagen with an accord that saved the talks from utter collapse, but not from falling dangerously short of our objectives to addressing climate change. Whilst more than 120 world leaders were in attendance, the accord was hashed out in series of small, closed door meetings with only a few of those leaders participating. And since being agreed – it’s future remains uncertain.
…

For a great synopsis leading into today’s meeting, check out the audio from this blogger/ media call that I participated in last night.

So here’s what I know going into this. The accord notably agreed:

As a shared goal to curb global warming:
- Countries will work together to keep global warming as far below 2 degrees as possible, with opportunities to re-evaluate the effects of temperature rise, possibly aiming the limit at 1.5 degrees

To get there:
- Countries submitted voluntary emissions reduction targets

To fund the costs of adaptation and mitigation vital to vulnerable developing countries in the face of changes in the climate happening now and unavoidably happening in the future:
- Developed countries collectively pledged $ 30 Billion in short-term finance in the period 2010 to 2012, in long term, $100 Biillion per year by 2020, which is money that would be both public and private, bilateral and multilateral.

To find the money needed to deliver these long-term funding commitments:
- A high level panel was established to study opportunities to raise these funds.

To support projects in developing countries on adaptation, mitigation and capacity building:
- The establishment of a Copenhagen Green Climate fund

All of this is important and substantial, but we have a long long way to go. While in Bonn, thesse are the things, so far, that I’ll be watching for action or discussion on:

We don’t know: how this accord will fit into the two negotiation tracks that have long been established. We don’t know where this money comes from – whether it’s in addition to or competition with aid that’s already been allocated by developing countries to fight poverty and support economic development.

We do know: that the voluntary commitments made by countries are voluntary and still fall far short of enough to actually keep us below 2 degrees of global warming; that there are loopholes in many of the policy mechanisms beling proposed to deliver these emissions reductions, getting us even further from what science tells us is necessary; that $100 Billion dollars, according to expert analysis from development and environmental organizations and the scientific community alike, is not enough to fund what’s necessary in adaptation and mitigation funds….

So in just a few hours time, we start to get answers to all these questions and unknowns. We’ll see what the appetite for bold action to address climate change is like after the negotiations – whether negotiators were as crushed as us activists and advocates following the process. We’ll learn more about the work plan for 2010, leading up to the next Conference of Parties, which takes place in Mexico this coming December -and which countries are positioning themselves as constructive or obstructive players in the process.

It’s going to be an interesting next few days. I’ll keep a close eye on the US Delegation and try to understand my countries position and role in all of this. If you have specific questions that you want me to answer – comment below or send me a message.

Now Obama is supposed to speak w/ Chinese President Hu Jintao who’s in Beijing (on the phone, I assume), and then going to meet again with the Danish presidency (Prime Minister Rasmussen) and someone from China all together later this evening.

That’s all I’m getting from the inside.

“Obama offered only ultimatums to those countries most impacted by global warming; accept our terms or we will block funding to help you survive the crisis we caused but for which we still refuse to take responsibility.”

“Notably, in an apparent conscious renunciation of one of the most fundamental principals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Obama replaced the phrase ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ with the new phrase ‘common but differentiated responses.’ In short, under Obama, the U.S. apparently refuses to accept its unique responsibility as the largest cumulative greenhouse emitter on the planet.”

“Given Obama reaffirmed his position that the U.S. would commit to cutting carbon dioxide emissions by only 3% below 1990 levels by 2020, any deal announced in Copenhagen can not in any rational sense of the word be deemed a ‘success.’ The IPCC estimates that CO2 reductions of 25-40% below 1990 levels are needed by 2020 to avoid greater than 2 degrees of warming, while cuts of over 45% are likely needed to get on a trajectory for the only scientifically and ethically credible target of 350 ppm.”

“For the U.S. to put on the negotiating table a take-it-or-leave-it proposal that, by all reasonable and rational accounts would result in the death or displacement of millions of people and the extinctions of hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of species, is unacceptable. It’s hard to image Obama the Candidate endorsing such position. But Obama the President is, when it comes to actual actions on climate, far closer to President Bush than Candidate Obama. The U.S. and the world need Candidate Obama to reemerge.”

Count Friends of the Earth as being less than impressed:

“President Obama’s rhetoric is empty. The U.S. has failed to significantly improve upon the weak position it brought to these talks.

“This speech appears to be more of a face-saving exercise for President Obama than an attempt to unite countries around a truly planet-saving agreement.

“The United States came to these negotiations with a weak position, and now appears to be attempting to take the rest of the world down to our level. It simply must do better.”

WWF President and CEO Carter Roberts in response to President Obama’s speech before the UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen:

“In coming to Copenhagen at the critical final stage of this two-year process, President Obama outlined the building blocks of a deal and expressed his conviction that work still needs to be done. He has put an emissions target on the table and pledged his commitment to long-term climate financing – both critical pieces of a final deal.‪

“But that’s not enough to knit together the world community at this pivotal hour. As the President has said numerous times, all countries need to stand behind their commitments and agree to make those commitments transparent.

“That applies to the US as well. The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the President to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority. The ultimate test of his leadership will be engaging the Senate and delivering action in Congress early next year.

“The world’s future hangs in the balance. At this critical hour, the ‘fierce urgency of now,’ of which Dr. King spoke so about eloquently, is ringing loudly.”‪

President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met for 55 minutes in a room at the Bella Center, and “made progress,” a White House official said. That meeting broke up a little after 1:35 p.m. Copenhagen time.

The official called the discussion “constructive,” and said that the two men touched on all of the three issues which Mr. Obama raised during his speech: emissions goals from all key countries, verification mechanism, and financing.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Wen asked their negotiators to get together one-on-one after the meeting, as well as with other countries, “to see if an agreement can be reached,” the White House official said.

Asked if the two had achieved a breakthrough, the official said “they took a step forward and made progress.”

He said that the hope is to reach an agreement today.

He changed the word “agreement” from his prepared speech to “framework I just outlined,” possibly because of lack of progress in the talks?

Also–this was in the script, but an interesting change from common language: he said “common but differentiated responses” not “responsibilities”?  Possibly an effort to allay developing country concerns that they have “responsibilities,” and to imply the need for actions rather than obligations?

Also–the speech had said “pieces” of an accord “are clear,” but when delivered Obama said, “should now be clear.”  Were they close to a deal and it fell apart?

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

______________________________

_________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 18, 2009

Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery

Copenhagen Summit

Copenhagen, Denmark

December 18, 2009

Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.

###

Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International Climate Policy Advisor:

“For the first time the US has publicly stated support for a long-term global funding for developing world adaption and mitigation to climate change. Citing a figure of $100 billion per year by 2020 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has signlalled that the US position on climate can be moved.

“However, Clinton failed to provided specifics on how much the US would contribute to this fund. Without details regarding how and from where the funds will come, this may  become yet another incentive to increase US offsets.

“The finance announcement today cannot be allowed to paper over or ‘greenwash’ any shortcomings in the final outcome of the Summit. Greenpeace is disappointed that Secretary Clinton failed to announce any increase in US emissions reduction targets. She also continued to resist and duck calls for a legally binding agreement, announcing instead that the US wants an operational accord in Copenhagen and a politically binding agreement in 2010.

“The inadequate US emissions reduction target of 3% by 2020 (at 1990 levels) and continued resistance to support a legally binding agreement remain major blockages to a successful outcome.

“President Obama must deliver both when he arrives on Friday.”

WWF President and CEO Carter Roberts

“Secretary Clinton’s 100 billion dollar surprise breathes new life into the sputtering negotiations. It bridges the needs of the developed and developing worlds and changes the game in these global talks. All that remains is an agreement between the US and China about how they will define transparency, and a commitment by President Obama to make climate legislation his top priority for the new year.”

Mithika Mwenda, coordinator of the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance

“Climate change is already killing people in Africa and this commitment is simply insufficient to tackle the climate crisis. These are not commitments that will break the deadlocked negotiations, just more of the same from an administration that clearly does not understand the scale of the problem.”

KEVIN KNOBLOCH, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

“Secretary Clinton’s announcement – to join the effort to raise money
for an international fund – sends the strongest signal yet that the
United States is willing to step up its commitment to getting a deal
here at Copenhagen. This could help break the deadlock that we’ve seen
in these talks over the last 10 days. Her announcement gives ministers
something to work with.

“Countries have been urging the United States to put an emissions target
on the table and contribute funds to help developing countries cope with
climate change. The United States has now done both. President Obama is
unfortunately constrained by pending legislation, which sets a
short-term emissions target that is still too low, but at least is a
start. We also need more clarity on how much of the $100 billion
Secretary Clinton called for will be public financing as opposed to
private sector flows, what share of that public funding the U.S. will
contribute, and where that money would come from.

“We support the United States putting public dollars on the table and
money from the sale of emissions allowance in a cap-and-trade program.
We also support the president’s initiative at the G-20 summit in
Pittsburgh in September to phase out fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.
Funds freed up from elimination of these subsidies should be channeled
to promotion of clean energy technologies, both in developing countries
and in the United States.

“Secretary Clinton has improved the chances for success here in
Copenhagen with her announcement today. President Obama must now come to
Copenhagen prepared to work with other leaders to seal the deal.”

Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke

The Secretary has proposed real money to help some of the world’s most vulnerable people and protect forests. It has reenergized the talks here. What’s needed now is a meaningful agreement that delivers effective action on climate change. That means commitments to cut carbon emissions in a clear and transparent way.”

Erich Pica, President of Friends of the Earth U.S

“It’s good to see the United States finally talking about putting longer term funding on the table to solve the climate crisis, but the proposal announced today looks like a shell game. The amount falls far short of what the United Nations says is needed. Inadequate funding will condemn the poorest to languish in poverty while the world suffers from climate chaos. In addition, loans and private investments must not substitute for public money, and it is unclear how much of this package is public.”

JoDee Winterhof, CARE’s vice president for policy and advocacy:

Secretary Clinton’s $100 billion announcement brings new hope — and new momentum — to negotiations that have life-and-death implications for the world’s poorest people. But financing alone is not a silver bullet. It must be coupled with a plan to ensure funding reaches the most vulnerable populations, in a way that gives them full and effective participation. We urge the U.S. and other parties to get that critical work done in these final two days and continue negotiating in good faith.”

Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute of the Center for Biological Diversity:

“The U.S. may finally have pledged to help pay for more lifeboats, but without committing to meaningful emissions reductions, President Obama is still steering the Titanic directly toward the iceberg.”

Andy Atkins, Executive Director of Friends of the Earth

The US is finally waking up to its responsibility to provide money for developing countries – but this proposal must be judged on the cold details, rather than warm words.

“The proposed $100 billion fund is well short of UN estimates needed to properly tackle climate change – and too much of this money currently comes from repackaged aid money and a massive expansion of carbon markets.

“This is a dangerous strategy which risks a double whammy of financial and environmental catastrophe.

“To effectively tackle both climate change and poverty, the US should offer significantly higher cuts in emissions in line with what the science demands, and ensure that funding developing countries is new cash from public sources.”

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president, National Wildlife Federation:

“Secretary of State Clinton’s announcement today sets up an important moment for the world that for the first time offers a clear path forward to cut pollution, protect tropical forests and provide humanitarian aid to those in harm’s way.

“As the world’s leaders converge tomorrow, they have an historic opportunity to break through years of stalemate.

“President Obama continues to show his leadership on climate change at every opportunity. His personal engagement is needed now more than ever, and he is coming to Copenhagen at just the right time.”