文章 Articles

What happened at Poznan?

Recent climate-change negotiations in Poland ended on a bitter note. Why was so little agreed, and what can be done? Tan Copsey reports.                    

Article image

Expectations for the recent United Nations-led climate-change talks in Poznan, Poland, were relatively low, due to political inertia and economic woes. Even so, it was surprising quite how little was achieved. A number of key issues that were on the agenda at Poznan must now be cleared up prior to the conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December 2009. Worse still, negotiations ended on a bitter note, with recriminations from developing countries about financing for climate-change adaptation.

The negotiations also exposed a discontinuity between the scientific understanding of global warming and countries’ willingness to act. There was much talk of a “green new deal” as a means of simultaneously addressing economic recession and climate change. However, there was little evidence that developed countries believed in their own policies to reduce emissions, with most arguing for much smaller targets than the 25% to 40% reduction below 1990 levels suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

In a speech on the final day of the conference, former US vice president Al Gore said “many still seem not to feel the appropriate sense of urgency that should cause them to demand the emergency measures that the scientists have so clearly told us governments must take.” Gore endorsed a global stabilisation target for concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases at 350 parts per million, which is significantly lower than the 450 parts per million suggested as a target by the IPCC. Current projections suggest that concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to rise well beyond this point, leading to potential temperature rises of 3°C to 5°C. This would lead to terrible consequences for humanity and throw the piecemeal efforts at Poznan into stark relief.

What actually happened?

The talks culminated with the announcement of a fund to help the poorest countries adapt to climate change. Money will be raised through a levy on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the UN arrangement that allows rich countries with greenhouse-gas reduction commitments to invest in emissions reduction projects in developing countries. Current estimates put the value of the fund at US$80 million. This figure should rise significantly between now and 2012, but it will fall short of the billions of dollars that the UN says developing countries will need. Reactions from these countries were not positive. Senior Indian negotiator Prodipto Ghosh said: “This is one of the saddest moments I have witnessed. In the face of the unbearable human tragedy, that we in developing countries see unfolding every day, we see callousness, strategising and obfuscation.” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), defended the decision not to provide more money to developing countries, stressing that the idea was not, “abhorrent to industrialised countries”, but that “politically this was just not the time to do it”.

Deforestation was another sticking point. The talks about Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) inched forward. But there was controversy, as a provisional agreement failed to mention indigenous rights, took no strong position on biodiversity and did not include peatlands, which are large carbon sinks. It is also still not clear whether “net” or “gross” emissions will be assessed: a “net” approach would make it possible for some countries to continue chopping down existing forests and replacing them by planting new trees. Such a process would lead to large-scale loss of habitat and biodiversity.

Reform of the CDM also stalled, with disagreements on a number of fronts, notably over whether or not to include credits derived from future projects that capture and store emissions of carbon dioxide.

Why was so little agreed?

The conference was affected by events almost 900 kilometres away in Brussels, where the European Union negotiated its own climate agreement up until the final day of the meeting. The package of targets and policies that emerged was weak and unambitious. The EU committed itself to a 20% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 from 1990 levels, but allowed significant scope for reductions to include carbon credits purchased from outside of Europe. The agreement also took a soft line on polluting industries and the growth in emissions from eastern Europe.

The United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, all members of the loosely aligned “Umbrella Group” of nations, also played an obstructionist role in negotiations. The US was in no position to make firm commitments at a time of political transition, while Canada, Japan and Australia were wary of committing themselves at a time when their own emissions are rising dramatically. Canada was awarded the “Colossal Fossil” prize by the Climate Action Network – a grouping of over 430 non-governmental organisations – for consistently blocking progress toward an agreement on emissions reduction targets. The country also insisted that a reference to indigenous rights be removed from the agreement on deforestation and cancelled the appearance of a Nobel Peace Prize-winning Canadian climate scientist at the last minute.

In contrast, developing countries provided some of the few tangible outcomes from the conference. Brazil announced its own plan to significantly reduce deforestation in the Amazon rain forest, while Mexico, South Korea and South Africa all announced national plans to reduce emissions. However, the largest developing countries, China and India, are not yet willing to commit to targets to reduce emissions. Chinese representatives instead expressed disappointment at the unwillingness of developed nations to meet their own commitments or to take seriously developing country proposals on technology transfer, finance, adaptation and capacity building. The gap between the positions of developed and developing nations may have widened at Poznan.

What happens next?

In the climate-change community, all eyes are on the incoming administration of US president-elect Barack Obama. Obama has said that the US will re-engage in the negotiating process under his leadership. US senator John Kerry suggested at the conference that his country would commit to reducing emissions by 80% by 2050. In the short-term, the country is likely to focus on a more modest goal of returning American emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. This would mean a cut of 15% from current levels, but it is unclear if that will be a strong enough signal for developing nations to begin to reduce their own emissions.

Many argue that the relationship between the US and China will determine the success of global efforts to reduce emissions. It may be that once he is president, Obama will need to commit to deeper cuts and directly engage with China on climate-change issues, including the all-important quartet: technology transfer, finance, adaptation and capacity building.

Countdown to Copenhagen

2009 will be a busy year for negotiations. Meetings will be held in Bonn, Germany, in late March and June, when a draft text of the Copenhagen agreement will be produced. The UNFCCC has agreed to postpone discussions about new emissions reduction targets to this point, allowing the US to devise a new policy. UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon has also suggested an additional two meetings take place. The Copenhagen conference itself has been put back a week and there was discussion at Poznan of extending the process further to accommodate an additional meeting in 2009.

If an agreement is not reached in Copenhagen that includes deeper cuts in emissions across the developed world, serious questions will be raised about the UNFCCC process and its ability to deliver results. After disappointment in Poznan, negotiations in Copenhagen must not fail.

Tan Copsey is development manager at chinadialogue

Homepage photo by Oxfam International

 

 

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

从现实主义角度看

气候谈判的背后是全球化背景下对资源的重新分配,美欧希望借此继续保持对后起的发展中国家的领先地位,主要表现为国际规则主导权和技术上的优势。

see it through a realistic eye

resources re-allocation is what behind the climat negotiation against a backdrop of globalization. by conducting the negotiation, America and Europe hope they will continue a leading position to late-rising developing countries, being represented by the domination in international rules and the technological advantage.

translated by Ming Li

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

经济危机不是借口

经济危机不能成为忽视保护环境的借口。环境问题是一个复杂的系统性问题,我们不能指望特定的国家来解决它,我们需要共同努力。

Economic crisis should not be an excuse

Economic crisis should not be an excuse for not protecting the evironment. And
as this is an intricate systematic problem, we can't calculate on specific countries to solve it. It needs us to work together. (Yi Chen,Beijing)

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

经济向前才是正道

对,没有借口不保护环境。经济危机就是因为我们从生态上与钱财上向未来借钱而产生的结果。迄今为止,在气候问题上争来争去,有个认识一直就为人所忽视,即这是个错综复杂的系统问题,没有过也不能够靠常规的线性思维来解决。目前为止,所有气候解决之“道”只是提出了限制经济系统有害产出的控制办法。国家间因世界正沉陷于混乱而资源不断减少而争执,而这样的思维于此争执中是有所缺憾的。我们需要关注的是经济系统而非气候症状,没必要象驾个破车,控制不住要往后退那样来操作我们的经济,我们能相当便捷地换档,让经济向前,创造真正的财富,扩大生态生产力,吸附掉空气中的碳物质,在历史上第一次满足全人类的需要。中国的国家循环经济规划是解决之道,如果能避免西方的焚毁之错,则可领导全球。 詹姆士·格雷森 www.blindspot.org.uk

本评论由Ming Li 翻译

economics going forwards

Yes, there is no excuse for not protecting the environment. The economic crisis is caused by borrowing from the future, both ecologically and financially. What has been missing so far in climate debates is awareness that it's an intricate systemic problem, that has not and cannot be solved with conventional linear thinking. All climate 'solutions' so far are controls designed to limit unwanted outputs from the economic system. This creates a scarcity mentality where nations squabble over diminishing resources in a world submerging in mayhem.

We need to focus on the system of economics rather than the symptom of climate. There is no need to run our economies like vehicles of destruction, driving backwards out of control. We could rather simply and quickly change gears and make economics go forwards, creating real wealth, expanding ecological productivity, taking carbon out of the air and meeting the needs of all people for the first time in history.

The Chinese national plan for circular economics is key and could provide global leadership if Western blunders such as incineration can be avoided.
James Greyson
www.blindspot.org.uk