Cool Planet

By Brooks B. Yeager,
Senior VP of Policy for Clean Air-Cool Planet

The complexity of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen, at “COP-15”in the vernacular, is hard to fathom, unless you experience it first hand.  There are two major negotiating frameworks, two standing contact groups, and innumerable temporary contact groups, informal consultations, and caucuses.  There is the COP — the Conference of the Parties of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and there is the COP acting as the MOP — the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol.  There are two subsidiary bodies, one on science and technology (the SBSTA), and one on implementation (the SBI).

In a negotiation this sprawling and complex, it’s sometimes difficult to tell whether we’re making progress or going backwards.  Yesterday the plenary negotiation was brought to a screaming halt when the Group of 77 (G-77), the negotiating bloc of the developing countries, became embroiled in its own disagreements as to whether there should be a new legally binding agreement under the Convention to replace the Kyoto Protocol.  The champion of a new agreement?  Tuvalu, representing the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), understandably frustrated at Kyoto’s inability to turn the tide on global emissions of greenhouse gases.  Opposed?  China and India, which benefit from the Kyoto mechanisms without being obligated to target their own emissions reductions.

China has been particularly vehement in defending its position.   In fact, the Chinese are taking significant steps at home to increase their energy efficiency, including in the transportation sector, and to develop new lower-carbon energy technology.  But they don’t want to blur the legal distinction between the developed and developing countries that they gained in Kyoto.  Two days ago, the lead Chinese negotiator criticized Europe, Japan and the United States for putting forward “weak” targets for absolute emissions reductions over the coming decade.  Yet China resists subjecting its own energy intensity target to any international review at all.

But behind the strife and rhetorical flourishes, one does get the sense that a deal may be on the horizon.  What are the signs?

• India, once determinedly against making any climate commitment whatsoever, fearing that to do so would hinder economic development, has now embraced an effort to reduce the energy intensity of its economy, similar to the Chinese approach.
• President Obama switched his schedule to arrive late in the second week, the time when heads of state may need to put heads together to surmount the last hurdles to a compromise.
• The President and European leaders have pledged $10 billion per year in support for adaptation and low-carbon energy in developing countries, indicating their seriousness in attempting to bridge the financial gap that could have blocked progress.
• In an unprecedented move to demonstrate a broad national effort on climate, the White House has sent seven cabinet secretaries to do daily talks at the U.S. “center.”
• The Danes, as hosts of the COP, have circulated a negotiating text that appears to be a genuine effort to bridge differences between the EU and the U.S., though they took a fusillade of green criticism for doing so.

So the idea of a political agreement in Copenhagen, setting the stage for legally binding agreement later in 2010, still has legs.  The question is, will it be enough?