Warming

We are being told that a productive meeting at Copenhagen is generally perceived as being crucial to the credibility of the global campaign on climate change (but there are those like me, who dispute the science behind the global warming hysteria and feel this matter is being overblown). There have been media reports that the first week has seen slow progress. Rich and poor apparently repeatedly clashed over the need to reduce greenhouse gases, with Africa and the small island states threatening to walk out unless the developed nations committed to deeper cuts. (How very political this whole process has become).

It has been reported that many of the exchanges among delegates were bad-tempered, thus souring an event that is supposed to be a vehicle for better global co-operation.

He Yafei, China's vice minister of foreign affairs was reported to have said he was "shocked" at USA climate change negotiator Todd Stern's statement that China did not need any American money. "It's not just about the US and China, it's the whole international community," he was quoted as saying , insisting that climate change was historically the fault of the West (my, my when there is serious money on the line and you can fool someone else to pay up - how convenient it is to play the blame game). He Yafei was also quoted as saying that, " The US is a developed country and China is part of the developing countries. To tackle global climate change we need to work together." (like we will work together as long as those " dumb " Canadians and Americans foot the bill).

This is very instructive you know - seems this Copenhagen show has to do more with politics and money and the transfer of wealth than about the crusade of saving the planet.

The framework for a possible "Copenhagen Protocol" has been said to call for cuts for developed nations of between 25 and 45 per cent by 2020, and calls on rich nations to pay the poorer countries to reduce their emissions (but is Canada so rich when our government is deeply in debt and ordinary citizens are up to their neck in debt ?)

There is also the question of making the agreement enforceable in law. Britain has already suggested that a further summit will be necessary in six months' time to address this issue. (Yes indeed how on earth can such a deal be enforced or even enforceable and especially enforced fairly ? )

A draft proposal published at the climate-change summit Friday for the countries in the Kyoto Protocol, the only international greenhouse-gas reduction treaty, calls for five years to be added to Kyoto, taking it to 2017. Canada fiercely resists any extension of the treaty.

Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002, when the Liberals with Jean Chretien as Prime Minister were in power. But the Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper have argued that the targets agreed to by Canada are impractical. Canada wants Kyoto to lapse in 2012, partly for fear of having to pay non-compliance penalties if it remains intact.

Canada supports the launch of a new treaty that would be signed by all 192 or so participating countries at the Copenhagen conference, including the United States, which did not ratify Kyoto. “We should be seeking a single, legally binding outcome,” Michael Martin, Canada's chief climate-change negotiator, said at a press conference. “That's a view supported by many parties, but certainly not all of them.”

When Canada signed Kyoto, it agreed to reduce emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. Canada's emissions have instead soared, partly due to the rapid expansion of the energy-intensive Alberta oil sands. Ottawa's new proposed target is 3 per cent from 1990 levels, far less than most developed countries.

The draft proposal to extend Kyoto is seen as a concession to the developing countries, which argue that the world's wealthy countries are chiefly responsible for the carbon emissions that in their judgment threaten to raise global average temperatures. Mr. Martin, however, points out that the industrialized countries covered under the Kyoto Protocol account for less than 30 per cent of total global emissions. Kyoto, he says, is deeply flawed and should not be replaced after it expires in 2012.

A second draft proposal published Friday December 9, 2009 called for the wealthiest countries to make far steeper emissions cuts than they have already pledged. The plan proposes that those countries, including Canada, the United States, Britain and Japan, jointly reduce greenhouse gases by at least 25 per cent from 1990 levels by 2020. Current proposed reductions range from 10 per cent to 17 per cent, with deeper reductions by 2050.

The gap between the developed countries' proposals and the targets in the draft sets the stage for negotiations that promise to be fractious, and time may be running out to get a deal. The goal of the negotiators is to have an agreement in place no later than Thursday December 17, 2009, when more than 100 heads of state and government, arrive in Copenhagen to endorse a new climate-change agreement the next day. “I think we're heading to a high-noon scenario,” said Dave Martin, Greenpeace Canada's climate and energy director.

The Friday December 9th draft contains no details on another issue that threatens chaos at the summit – how to pay for climate-change adaptation and mitigation measures in the developing countries. The Commonwealth countries have proposed a “Quick Start” fund valued at $10-billion (U.S.) a year for three years starting in 2010. Friday the European Union offered to contribute $3.5-billion a year for short-term funding. Separately, France and Britain have floated the idea of a small tax on international financial transactions, called a “Tobin tax,” named after the American economist who proposed the idea in the 1970s.

The developing countries are highly unlikely to sign a climate-change deal unless more funds are committed. Canada supports a short-term fund, but no money is officially on the table. The decision on how much Canada will pledge will be made by Mr. Harper and Jim Prentice, the Environment Minister, when they arrive in Copenhagen towards the end of the summit.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC (second and final week)

The Conference was basically a giant failure, but the leaders in the final hours got together and put together a document where they could save face, and declare some sort of victory. Basically all they agreed to was to talk more. There was massive disappointment by many. The agreement signed is non-binding.

The following material was basically downloaded from the internet. I was not there at Copenhagen, and like most of you must rely upon the reporting of others.

Comments displaying disappointment are plentiful from NGOs and scientists in the early aftermath of the UN conference in Copenhagen.

“What we have after two years of negotiation is a half-baked text of unclear substance. With the possible exceptions of US legislation and the beginnings of financial flows, none of the political obstacles to effective climate action have been solved,” Kim Carstensen, Leader of global conservation organization WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, states in a press release.

Under the Copenhagen Accord, the countries that sign on will need to declare their national emissions targets. Their measures will be subject to international consultations, but if a country falls short this will have no consequences as the accord isn’t legally binding.

When leaders from USA, China, Brazil, India and South Africa sat down together Friday night to draft the Copenhagen Accord which on Saturday became the outcome of the UN conference on climate change, it marked a process that was quite different from the normal procedures of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Despite the deep disappointment of many who helped create it, the Copenhagen accord will stand as a first attempt to bring the biggest greenhouse gas polluting nations, the United States and China, into a political deal to curb soaring global emissions.

By the end of next month, rich nations, including Australia, must lodge their 2020 targets to cut emissions under the accord while the big emerging polluters, including China, India, Brazil and Indonesia, have agreed to list the voluntary measures to curb theirs.

''We have sealed the deal,'' the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, said. ''This accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning.''

The accord was formally recognized by the UN conference in Copenhagen in its closing session even as some of its smaller members condemned its lack of ambition.

The deal was struck after a marathon round of negotiations between 26 world leaders, including the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, which almost collapsed several times as it was progressively watered down by China and the US.

The exhaustion on the faces of the European leaders was matched by the disappointment when they finally faced the media at 2am on Saturday. The Swedish Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, acting as President of the European Union, and Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, had just given their grudging agreement to the flimsy document, just several pages long, that was supposed to guide the world in its fight against climate change.

''Let's be honest and say that this is not a perfect agreement. It will not solve the climate threat,'' Mr. Reinfeldt said as the last draft of the accord was running off the photocopiers.

He admitted that throughout the long day and night all hope of an ambitious politically binding agreement had been crushed by China and the US. ''We have been fighting not to go backwards,'' he said.

Yet in those early hours of Saturday, the Europeans, along with Mr. Rudd and his British counterpart, Gordon Brown, faced the media one after the other to defend the accord that environmental groups and many small, vulnerable nations were calling a catastrophe.

''This represents a significant global agreement,'' Mr. Rudd insisted. His Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, stood beside him looking shattered, whether from exhaustion, disappointment or a combination of both was unclear. By then, Senator Wong had been in negotiations for 24 hours, working through the gritty details of the deal.

Mr. Rudd had to acknowledge the accord's obvious flaw: the emissions cuts promised in the document, even at their most ambitious, failed to match the promise of avoiding dangerous climate change.

''A huge amount of work still remains to be done,'' he conceded. ''But the alternative, which we confronted, staring into the abyss at midnight last night, [was] these negotiations collapsing altogether and throwing back all progress that has been reached in recent times in global climate change action.''

Almost two hours earlier, before Mr. Rudd, Mr. Brown and the Europeans had emerged from their final leaders' meeting, the US President, Barack Obama, had announced the accord to the travelling White House press corps as he prepared to fly out of Copenhagen.

A reporter queried the President's departure before the draft was finalized. ''Does it require signing, is it that kind of agreement?'' The President replied vaguely: ''You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there's actually a signature - since, as I said, it's not a legally binding agreement, I don't know what the protocols are.''

But Mr. Obama quickly added: ''I do think that this is a commitment that we, as the United States, are making and that we think is very important.'' Then he raised his hands. ''All right. Thanks, guys.'' And briskly he left for Air Force One.

Mr. Obama had been in Copenhagen for less than 14 hours.

In that time, he had done a deal with the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, that steamrolled over the UN climate negotiations. The US and China had wrested control of the strategic decision-making from the Europeans. Any future climate change agreements will be dictated by their joint level of ambition.

After almost two weeks of debate, where minister after minister, and leader after leader, had spoken passionately about the threat facing the planet, after all the mass protests, the pleas, the prayers and the promises, what had emerged was not ''the grand bargain'' called for by Mr. Rudd, but the weak compromise so many had predicted.

The Copenhagen accord lacks legal force. In the last hours of the conference on Saturday, nations agreed only to ''take note'' of the agreement.

But despite all the criticism, the last two weeks cannot be seen simply as a failure. For all its many flaws, the summit brought together 119 world leaders who acknowledged for the first time that climate change is one of the greatest economic and security challenges facing the planet.

This is the best this here writer can come up with regarding an accurate and up to date copy of the final agreement coming out of Copenhagen.

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers and other heads of following delegations present at the United Nation Climate Change Conference 2009in Copenhagen (List of Parties)

In pursuit of the ultimate objective of the Convention as stated in its Article 2,

Endorsing decision x/CP.15 on the Ad Hoc working group on long term cooperative action and decision x/CMP.5 that requests the Ad Hoc Working Group on further commitments of Annex one parties under the Kyoto Protocol to continue its work.

1. We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasize their strong political will to combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Recognizing the scientific view that the increase in global temperature ought not to exceed 2 degrees and on the basis of equity and in the context of sustainable development, the Parties commit to a vigorous response through immediate and enhanced national action on mitigation based on strengthened international cooperation.

Ambitious action to mitigate climate change is needed with developed countries taking the lead. We recognize the critical impact of climate change on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects and stress the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation
programme including international support.

2. We agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Amendment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperatures below two degrees Celsius, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the basis of equity. We should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries and that low-emission development is indispensable to sustainable development.

3. Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is a challenge faced by all Parties, and the potential impact of response is a challenge faced by all countries. Enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to insure the implementation of the Convention by enabling and supporting the implementation of adaptation actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing States and Africa.

We agree that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries.

4. Annex I Parties commit to implement, individually or jointly, the quantified economy-wide emission targets for 2020 to be submitted in the format given in Appendix 1 by Annex 1 Parties to the Secretariat by 31 January 2010 for complication in an INF document. Annex 1 Parties that are party to the Kyoto Protocol will thereby further strengthen the emission reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol. Delivery of reductions and financing by developed countries will be measured, recorded and verified in accordance adopted by the Conference of the Parties, and will assure the accounting of such targets and finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement mitigation actions including those to be submitted to the secretariat by non-Annex 1 parties in the format given in Appendix 11 by 31 January 2010 for compilation in an INF document consistent with article 4.1 and article 4.7 and in the context of sustainable development. Mitigation actions subsequently taken and envisioned by non-Annex 1 parties, including national inventory reports shall be communicated through national communications consistent with article 12.1 (b) every two years on the basis of guidelines to be adopted by the Conference of the Parties. These mitigation actions in national communications or otherwise communicated to the Secretariat will be added to the list in Appendix 11. Mitigation actions taken by non-annex 1 parties will be subject to their domestic measurement reporting and verification the result of which will be reported through their national communications every two years. Non-Annex 1 Parties will communicate information on the implementation of their actions through national communications with provisions for international consultation under clearly defined guidelines that will insure that national sovereignty is respected. Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support will be recorded along with relevant technology, financing and capacity building support. Those actions supported will be added to the list in Appendix 11. These supported nationally appropriate mitigation actions will be subject to international measurement, reporting and verification in accordance with guidelines adopted by the Conference of the Parties.

6. We recognize the crucial role of reducing emissions from deforestation, and from forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emissions by forests and agree on the need to provide positive incentives to such actions through the immediate establishment of a mechanism including REDD-plus, to enable mobilization of financial resources from developed countries.

7. We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote, mitigation actions. Developing countries especially those with low emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low emission pathway.

8. Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to enable and support enhanced action on mitigation, including substantial finance to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest deregulation ( REDD-plus) , adaptation, technology development and transfer and capacity-building, for enhanced implementation of the Convention.

The collective commitment by developing countries is to provide new and additional resources including forestry and investments through international institutions approaching USD 30 billion dollars for the period 2010-2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and Africa.

In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered through effective and efficient fund arrangements with a governance structure providing for equal representation of developed and developing countries. A significant proportion of such funding should flow through the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

9. To this end a High Level Panel will be established under the guidance of and accountable to the Conference of the Parties to study the contribution of the potential sources of revenue, including alternative sources of finance, towards meeting this goal.

10. We decide that the Copenhagen Climate Fund shall be established as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention to support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation including REDD-plus, adaptation, capacity-building, technology development and transfer.

11. In order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decide to establish a Technology Mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.

12. We call for an assessment for the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015 including in light of the Conventions ultimate objective. This would include consideration of strengthening the long-tern goal referencing various matters provided by science including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.

This here writer is deeply opposed to and skeptical of the plan being put forward at Copenhagen. Under Canada's present undemocratic system, and antique constitution our federal government does have the power to sell the country out, lock us into long term extremely costly treaties and allow unelected outside powers like the UN to gain control over our country, and we the tax payers and voters have no say. This is very unfair and undemocratic.

Why not create our own homegrown environmental solutions that are workable, practical, and which still support and nurture our economic well being, and especially solutions we are in control of and can change and fine tune to suit our needs - not the needs of foreigners ?

Canada is a huge, cold, sparsely populated nation, and cannot be compared to places like Denmark or Sweden. Canada in square miles is roughly 232 times bigger than Denmark !!!