The Copenhagen Climate Conference Daniel Bodansky January 2010 Organization
Background on climate change science Development of the international climate change regime Copenhagen Conference Greenhouse Effect
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 greenhouse gas 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 droughts 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 (emissions trading) 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
Kyoto Protocol, 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 deforestation 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, China, possibly US EU: 20-30 reductions below 1990 levels US: 14-17% below 2005 levels China: 40-45% decrease in carbon intensity India: 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 Green Climate Fund 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