Presented by

Reflections on Copenhagen

Jennifer A. Smokelin, Esq. [jsmokelin@reedsmith.com]

Reed Smith LLP

Vanessa Schweizer [vjs@andrew.cmu.edu]

Global Regulation of GHG 1.  UNFCCC (1992)

  common but differentiated responsibility   all anthropogenic sources of GHG

2.  Kyoto Protocol (1997)   major distinction between the Protocol and the

UNFCCC: Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so

  average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

  Annex 1/Annex B countries only ones with reduction commitments

UNFCCC: After Kyoto Protocol 1.  As of October 2009, 187 nations have signed and ratified (green)

the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. But there is a problem:

2.  TWO questions: Why didn’t US sign? Answer: China. How do you resolve the fact that US not party to KP but party to UNFCCC? Answer: Bali Action Plan

Bali Road Map (2007): by 2009 implementation of the UNFCCC through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2012, by addressing the so-called “pillars” :

  A shared vision for a long-term global goal for emission reductions.

  Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change.

  Enhanced action on adaptation.   Enhanced action on technology development and

transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation.   Enhanced action on the provision of financial resources

and investment to support action on mitigation and adaptation and technology cooperation.

2009: COP 15 in Copenhagen

1.  COP 15 was, by the numbers, the largest COP ever: over 100 heads of state and over 35,000 registrants for an event center that can only hold 15,000.

  1997 - COP 3, where the Kyoto Protocol was adopted, had 11,000 registrants.

  secondary precious-metal badge system a la Willy Wonka (silver, gold, etc) to restrict access, mostly for non-governmental organizations, the second week.

  The numbers underscore the unprecedented convergence of public opinion and politics (and perhaps over-optimism) on this issue.

COP 15 in Copenhagen

1.  In the Bella Center   Conference Parties – 192 member nations   Press   Stakeholder Groups: In the early days of the climate change

convention process certain groups were particularly active and initiated systematic channels of communication with the UNFCCC secretariat and the Parties. This resulted in the acknowledgment of “constituencies” or stakeholder groups.

  recognized IPOs, TUNGOs, ENGOs, RINGOs, BINGOs, LGMAs   provisional (pending resolution of status before COP17) YOUNGOs,

Women and Gender   BINGOs – Jennifer [discuss role]

2.  Other groups converged on Copenhagen as well   Carnegie Mellon received an invitation to a student workshop

being hosted by the University of Copenhagen. CMU was eager to extend this opportunity to a small student delegation - Vanessa [discuss role]

  Photos

The view outside the Bella Center

Hopenhagen: FUTURE CITY

Public installa,ons 

Le0: The Law School of the University of Copenhagen Right: An ar,st’s rendi,on of UN “climate jus,ce” 

“Social Change Not Climate Change” March December 12, 2009

“Social Change Not Climate Change”

Klimaforum: The People’s Summit

Photo credits: Left, top: Mark Knudsen. Bottom right: Peter Kristensen. Courtesy http://www.klimaforum09.org/Photos-for-the-press

Will Steffen, science adviser to the Australian Federal Government, addressing student delegates 

Three lessons learned, posted on East Asia Forum (Dec. 20, 2009):

(1)  “[M]anaging the global commons is really complex and difficult…. We are nowhere near having the institutions and governance arrangements necessary to build effective stewardship of the climate system.”

(2)  “[W]e are paying a big price for not dealing effectively with equity issues, which is coming back to haunt us…. [H]umanity will never be able to act as an effective steward for the global commons until these persistent inequities are significantly reduced or eliminated, once and for all.”

(3)  “[T]he enormity of the risk we are taking [with the climate system] has not really sunk in yet.”

After COP15: the Copenhagen Accord 1.  What did they get after Copenhagen?

  The Copenhagen Accord 2.  Fundamental accomplishment of COP15 was the Copenhagen Accord,

an agreement negotiated by only five countries and outside of the UN process which lays out the high level agreements in principle of the largest GHG emitters that are not party to the Kyoto Protocol: China, USA, and India.

  The Copenhagen Accord is a first-time-ever agreement with regard to some sort of GHG reduction by non-Kyoto parties, particularly China and the US.

  offers $30 billion a year in financial support to poor countries with “balanced allocation between mitigation and adaptation”, growing to $100 billion by 2020, as the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

3.  The Copenhagen Accord technically “hits” all pillars of the Bali Action Plan (no mention of “binding” or “enforceable” in BAP).

Copenhagen Accord However, there is much the Copenhagen Accord fails to do.

Substantive Failures   The Accord would allow global GHG emissions to rise

past 2020 and would put the world on a course for a warming of nearly 4 C by 2100.

  Accord is weak and lacking in so many key details (lacks any global emission targets and any enforcement mechanism for the national climate commitments) – that many worry it will undermine progress to control climate change by failing to give a much-needed clear signal to governments, markets and investors about the need to reduce GHG emissions.

COPENHAGEN ACCORD Legal Failures: From a legal standpoint, the path from the

Copenhagen Accord to a binding protocol under the UNFCCC is less than clear.

  how and when an agreement negotiated by only five countries and outside of the UN process will become binding under the UNFCCC.

  Convention was unable to adopt the Copenhagen Accord as a final decision (mostly due to Party resentment at what was viewed as a “back room” deal)

  at the final plenary session, the new COP president Philip Weech (Bahamas) found an elegant way to operationalize the Copenhagen Accord by “noting” it in a two line decision and gavelling it through.

Copenhagen Accord Fun Facts

Despite failures, Copenhagen Accord is gaining some momentum

1.  To date, 95 countries have officially agreed to “associate” with the Accord, with certain emitters (arguably key emitters) also including emission reduction actions in their statement to the UNFCCC.

2.  Some big global emitters have signed on to the Accord – US Climate Action Network (USCAN) indicated countries representing 80.8% of global emissions are in accord with the Copenhagen Accord.

Copenhagen Accord: Still More Fun Facts

1.  Developed Nations: Vastly different reduction commitments among Annex I nations bode ill for long-term success.

  EU (with 12% global GHG) committed to a 20-30% reduction from 1990 levels,

  US (with 16% of global GHG) committed to a 17% reduction from 2005 levels – roughly 4% below 1990 levels.

  Canada, US’s largest trading partner, agreed to a 17% reduction from 2005 levels – roughly .25% increase from 1990 levels

  Kyoto commitments?

Copenhagen Accord: More Fun Facts 1.  Developing countries

  China (with 16% of global GHG) pledged by 2020 a 40-45% reduction and India (with nearly 5%) pledged a 20-25% reduction in GHG intensity, a measure of GHG emissions per dollar of GDP.

  GHG intensity reductions cannot accurately be represented in terms of reductions on a 1990 base year due to wide variation in GDP projections so it is impossible to gauge such a commitment against other nation – which raises trade leakage concerns and domestic political unpopularity

  Brazil (with a little more than 6% of global GHG emission) and a few other nations have pledged reductions not in absolute terms or in terms of GHG intensity, but on a “Business as Usual” (BAU) model, which is a commitment to reduce emissions from the most plausible projection of the future GHG emissions if climate-friendly emission reductions were not taken. In the case of Brazil, which has pledged a 36-39% reduction on a BAU model, this actually translates to an increase of between 2-7% in GHG emissions from a 1990 baseline.

  No Kyoto commitments (non-Annex I) but stringent enough?

What does the Accord mean?   On the positive side, it did bring the major players into

the mix, hit the Bali Road Map “pillars”   But the Accord’s role is unclear under the UNFCCC

given the soft and differing commitments and the continuing work of the two working groups trying to hammer out the post-Kyoto agreement.

  US View: Todd Stern Press Conference 2.16.10: http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/stern-holds-briefing-copenhagen-accord

  Editorial   We’ll need more than “from each according to ability/to each

according to need” scheme to create a fair, ambitious and binding agreement to solve the climate crisis. Science thoughts?

If we have time: What’s Playing on the Domestic Stage?

1.  US developments for Climate Bill   “energy only” in 2010 or sights on

comprehensive bill in 2011 after COP16 in Cancun?

2.  GHG regulation under CAA – is it possible and what will it look like?

  challenges to Endangerment Finding