The Copenhagen Climate Conference Daniel Bodansky January 2010 Organization

 Background on science  Development of the international climate change regime  Copenhagen Conference

Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927)

GHG Concentrations Increasing

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have increased from 280 ppm in pre-industrial times to 387 ppm in 2007, the highest in 650,000 years The Earth Is Warming

•IPCC 2007 •“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal” • Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature (since 1850) •“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely [i.e., >90% probability] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic concentrations.” Sea Levels Are Rising Glaciers Are Retreating

Posterze Glacier, Austria Grinnell Glacier, Glacier National Park, 1987-2004 1910-1997 Arctic 1979 sea ice is thinning

According to NASA study, 2003 Arctic sea ice has been decreasing at a rate of 9% per decade since 1970s The Northwest Passage is opening … And the Future Looks Even Warmer IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007): Main Findings

 “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”  11 of the last 12 years are among the 12 warmest years on record  “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”  “Anthropogenic warming and sea- level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were stabilized.” Projected Impacts of Global Warming

 Extreme weather events more intense  Increased and floods  Coastal flooding and erosion  Corals harmed by  Warmer temperatures > coral bleaching  Acidification > shell dissolution)  Increased malnutrition, deaths due to heat waves, floods, storms Some Regions Impacted More than Others….

 Africa “one of the most vulnerable continents”  75-200 million people exposed to water stress by 2020  Agricultural production “severely compromised”  Small islands: erosion, storm surges  Asian mega-deltas: Risk of flooding  Poor communities especially vulnerable due to limited adaptive capacity … But Even Rich Societies Vulnerable

Heat wave in Europe in 2003 claimed 35,000 lives Development of the International Climate Change Regime

1988 1992 1997 2001 2005 2008 2012

IPCC Framework Kyoto Marrakech Kyoto Kyoto first ???? established Convention Protocol Conference entry commitment (UNFCCC) into period force

Scientific Non-binding Binding Agreement on assessment aim emissions Kyoto rules target Negotiating Constants

Major Blocs Basic positions

 EU  Binding emission reduction targets

 US  Concern about economic costs  Maximum flexibility  Domestic choice of policies and measures  Market mechanisms ()  Developing country participation

 G-77  No emission targets for developing countries  Financial and technological assistance Framework Convention/Protocol Approach

 Framework Convention/Protocol approach allows states to proceed incrementally

 Framework Convention adopted in 1992

 Establishes general system of governance, but no binding targets

, 1997

 Binding emission targets for developed countries: fixed reductions from 1990 baseline for 2008-2012 “commitment period” Where Are We Now?

 Kyoto Protocol came into force in 2005  Development of carbon market But ….

 Kyoto targets cover only about ¼ of global emissions  Kyoto first commitment period ends in 2012 Bali Action Plan, 2007

 Recognizes that “deep cuts in global emissions will be required”  Launched “comprehensive process” with four pillars:  Mitigation  Adaptation  Finance  Technology  Tentative end date was supposed to be Copenhagen Post-2012 negotiating tracks

 Two working groups  Convention process: Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperation Action (AWG-LCA) – Bali Action Plan  Kyoto process: Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) Long-term vision

 Temperature change goal:  2° or 1.5° increase?  Concentration goal  350, 450 or 550 ppm?  Long-term emissions goal  Global: 50% reduction by 2050?  Developed countries: 80% reduction by 2050?  Date for peaking of emissions by developing countries? Mitigation: Developed country targets

 Continuation of Kyoto with second commitment period targets?  Stringency / comparability of effort?  National target numbers  Compared to what base year  EU target: 20% below 1990 levels  US: 14-17% below 2005 levels  International or national accounting?  Kyoto Protocol: international accounting  US: “in accordance with national law” Mitigation: Developing country actions

 Types of actions  Autonomous actions  Supported actions  Issues  How should national actions be reflected in international agreement?  Listing in registry or schedule  Verification?  National  International Adaptation Finance

 How much money?  From what sources?  Appropriated funds vs. automatic mechanisms (set asides, levies)  Public vs. private  Governance  Who decides? Forestry (REDD)

 REDD: Reductions in emissions from and forest degredation  Means of encouraging  Financial assistance  Carbon credits Legal Form

 Amendment of Kyoto with new targets for developed countries + new agreement covering countries without Kyoto targets  US  Developed countries  New agreement replacing Kyoto The Copenhagen Conference

 Attended by > 100 heads of state/government  Very little progress in formal negotiations  Last minute negotiation of political deal by world leaders How to analyze the climate negotiations I

 Normal analysis: Climate change a prisoners’ dilemma  States have no incentive to take national action  Only willing to act if part of international action, where national actions reciprocated by others How to analyze the climate negotiations II

 In practice, the opposite  Actors at various levels have acted unilaterally  States of US  Some businesses  National policies: EU, , possibly US  EU: 20-30 reductions below 1990 levels  US: 14-17% below 2005 levels  China: 40-45% decrease in carbon intensity  : 20-25% decrease in carbon intensity  But very difficult to internationalize Why was Copenhagen so hard?

 Developed-developing country remains intractable  Consensus rule allows small group to play spoiler role  China has little interest in international action  General lack of trust  Poor chairing by Danes Developed/Developing Country Differentiation in the Climate Regime

 Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities: potentially flexible  But UNFCCC established static list  Annex I countries: developed countries  Non-binding emissions aim  Extra reporting requirements  Non-annex I countries: developing countries  Berlin Mandate/Kyoto Protocol  Expressly excluded new commitments for developing countries  Developing countries coudn’t even voluntarily accept commitments Projected Emissions of GHGs in 2025

Historical Contributions to Global Warming, 1890-2000

Contributions to global warming in year 2000 based on the "Kyoto gas" emissions in the period 1890 - 2000. Source: CICERO 2006 Usual pattern of climate change conferences …

Last day (or First two weeks night!)

Small “friends of the chair” group meets in private to Yada, yada, Formal hammer out compromise yada meetings … but when in Copenhagen, do not do as the Danes

 Small group insisted on sanctity of formal process  Objected to legitimacy of any smaller meetings organized by Danish Presidency  Rejection of Danish compromise text  Refusal to participate in smaller meetings Copenhagen Accord

 Political not legal agreement  Aspirational goal:  Limit temperature increase to 2° C  Review by 2015  Mitigation: Process for countries to register mitigation pledges  MRV: International consultation and analysis  Finance: Collective commitment of $30 b in public and private finance by 2012 to address developing country needs Copenhagen Accord: Mitigation

 Developed countries  Economy-wide emissions targets for 2020 listed in Appendix  Developing countries  National mitigation actions listed in Appendix  Registry of actions for which support sought Copenhagen Accord: Finance

 Fast start financing for 2010- 2012  Collective commitment of $30 billion  Goal of $100 billion/year by 2020  Mix of public and private funds  New Copenhagen  High Level Panel to study potential sources of revenue Bringing the Copenhagen Accord into the UNFCCC process

 Broad support for Copenhagen Accord  Agreed by leaders of > 20 countries, including all of major economies  Endorsed by UN regional groups (Africa, Latin America, Asia)  But small group able to block adoption by COP  Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua  “coup d’etat” against UN  Argued that Copenhagen Accord lacked transparency, illegitimate  COP merely “took note” of Accord The Future of the Copenhagen Accord

 Copenhagen Accord claims to be “operational immediately”  But needs implementation  Registration of actions in appendices  Creation of:

 Green Climate Fund

 High Level Panel to study sources of funding for 2020 finance goal

 Technology Mechanism

 Mechanism to address deforestation  Elaboration of guidelines for review of developing country reports  COP “took note” of CA, but did not adopt it Assessing the Copenhagen Accord

 Positive  Calls for emission pledges by all of the world’s major economies  International “consultation and analysis” of national actions  Significant new financial assistance  Negative  Formal/legal status unclear  No timetable for developing binding agreement Lessons from Copenhagen

 Breakdown of G-77 as negotiating group  Rise of China  Problems with consensus rule in UNFCCC process  Ability of small group of obstructionist states to block adoption of Copenhagen Accord  Cynical use of “legitimacy” arguments