As we arrived in Copenhagen December 9, something called a “Copenhagen Accord” was only a glint in the eye of climate negotiators representing more than 190 countries at COP15. Considered disappointing and vague, this Accord is better than “a total collapse” of negotiations many feared on the last day of the two-week conference. Actually, COP15 spilled an extra day into Saturday, December 19, with a still-unprecedented outcome and 115 bleary-eyed heads of state heading home. The point of the Green Detectives blog is to demystify key elements central to climate talks, and the Copenhagen Accord is now one of them. So here you go.
The Copenhagen Accord is a three-page document that:
Gives a January 31, 2010, deadline to developed countries like the US to commit to 2020 emissions reduction targets. It gives the same deadline to developing countries to outline their “mitigation” actions. Mitigation basically refers to tactics, such as preventing deforestation, which reduce carbon emissions. President Obama has already committed the US to a 17% reduction by 2020. We heard many countries were strongly disappointed he didn’t bring something new to the table during his Friday morning Copenhagen speech. Could the US have more robust emissions targets if a Senate climate bill should pass before January 31? See blog below for Kevin’s outlook on 2010.
Establishes a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund of $30 billion for 2010-2020 for adaptation and mitigation funds to developing countries from developed countries, and $100 billion per year by 2020. You can brush up on Adaptation and Climate Finance by watching our Green Detectives Decoder Videos.
Acknowledges REDD and Technology Transfer as viable mitigation tactics. You can also watch our videos on these two topics.
Cites the need to prevent a 2C rise in global temperatures and calls for an assessment of the implementation of the Accord in 2015, when negotiators could consider strengthening the long-term goal of preventing a 1.5C rise in temperatures.
Does not call for a legally binding agreement in 2010. This fell off the table in the 11th hour of COP15 and was a huge disappointment to many, especially countries like Tuvalu that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Is “noted by” but not an official agreement of the COP.
Has been calleda huge disappointment but does not mean more solid direction and traction will not be found by negotiators before the the end of the next COP meeting, slated for Mexico City in December 2010.
Is available for you to read for yourself on the UNFCCC Web site.
Two weeks. Five pages. Is this what the world had hoped for? Is it enough to prevent the 2C rise in global temps? Read the “Copenhagen Accord,” as posted on the UNFCCC Web site. It may not be the final document but you can get an idea of where final negotiations were headed today. Key pieces are consistent with feedback (revisiting items in January 2010) I received by an NGO whose husband had been inside Bella Center for 36 hours and arrived back to the hotel for some much-needed rest in early afternoon.
At roughly 5:40 a.m. CST time, President Obama told climate negotiators at the Plenary Session, “I don’t know how you have an international agreement without sharing information. That doesn’t make sense.” Obama followed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s address, and both the US and China seemed to say the same thing — we’ve got our act together, why doesn’t everybody else? Obama talked about America’s investment in a green economy, our renewed leadership in climate negotiations, and our collective $100 billion investment with other major economies in climate finance for poor countries. He said our move to a clean energy economy helps national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, that negotiators need to move from posturing to action, and that no country will get everything it wants: “There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.” It was roughly a 10 minute speech without once mentioning the word Kyoto — a big contingency point between rich and poor countries these past two weeks in Copenhagen. “We’re ready to get this done today but there has to be movement on all sides,” he said.
Transcript: Kevin just received full remarks from the State Department and they are pasted below:
Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
Copenhagen Summit
Copenhagen, Denmark
December 18, 2009
Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced at COP15 that by 2020 the United States will help raise $100 billion annually to aid poor countries with climate change. Clinton said this is contingent on all major economies contributing and helping to seal a climate deal with transparency from all parties.
Momentum is certainly building from President Obama’s cabinet here in Copenhagen with unprecendented US climate aid to developing countries practically growing by the day. Monday: Energy Sec Chu pledges $350 million in clean energy technologies; Wednesday: Ag Sec Vilsack pledges $1 billion in deforestation funds; Thursday: Clinton pledges $100 billion in climate finance; Friday: What will President Obama pledge? Watch our Climate Finance video to learn how our commitments fit into the big picture of climate negotiations. With heads of state in Copenhagen now, is this just the kind of commitment that will help alleviate tensions between poor and rich nations and make a climate treaty happen by tomorrow (or as negotiations likely spill into the weekend)?
Watch this Green Detectives Exclusive from COP 15: Obed Bapela, member of Parliament of the Republic of South Africa explained to me why the G77 walked out of climate negotiations today to protest wealthy countries avoiding the emissions reduction targets that came with the Kyoto Protocol.
As we’ve written before, climate negotiations are like a high stakes poker game. We predict the U.S. won’t budge when it comes to Kyoto, and that compromise will be met this week with wealthy nations ponying up billions to developing nations for climate finance, including technology transfer and adaptation. Back to climate poker, walk out, ante up. Who is calling whose bluff?
In the development of HIV drugs, cost of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or patents was a huge factor. When it comes to transfer of clean technologies, IPR is a factor of course but it’s a lot more complicated.
“There’s also capacity building, using the technology, the framework [being developed by climate negotiators], trade, energy policy,” said Matthew Bateson, Managing Director of Energy and Climate for the World Business Council for Sustainable Development at a COP15 debriefing today. “It’s an integrated discussion. You can’t isolate IPR as one issue.”
One way the WBCSD is involved in COP15 is through the Expert Group on Technology Transfer. Read more about climate secretary Yvo de Boer’s call to action to the international business community in our latest post on EnvironmentalLeader.com.
Be sure to see the quick videos on Technology Transfer and Climate Finance in the Decoder section of this Web site.
The majority of Americans have heard nothing about policies being considered to address global climate change, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. Kevin Tuerff and Valerie Davis, dubbed the "Green Detectives" by The Washington Times in 2008, recently reported from the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. We wrote about protests, positioning and the plan for 2010, now known as the Copenhagen Accord. What's it all mean? You can learn the language of climate change policy being debated by watching the videos in our Green Detectives Decoder.
Overview
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just 
