So, what REALLY happened in Copenhagen?

The fifteenth meeting of the UN Conference of the Parties (COP 15) on climate change was incredibly chaotic and disorganized to the point of calling into question whether future climate negotiations will be held under the auspices of the UN or subject to consensus agreement from 192 nations. The Copenhagen Accord was reached in closed negotiations amongst five countries and presented on “take it or leave it” terms.

The bottom line is that the Copenhagen meeting, and the personal intervention of President Barack Obama, produced no binding agreement, no required future negotiations or deadlines for reaching a binding agreement, no enforcement mechanisms for individual country pledges of greenhouse gas (ghg) reductions or intensity improvements and no net global reductions.

(Editorial Cartoon from David Horsey)

The U.S. kept the talks alive only by making a last minute offer that they would work with other developed nations towards a goal of providing $100 billion a year by 2020 to help developing nations with adaptation and mitigation.

The office of the Prime Minister of Sweden called the Accord “a disaster.” Tim Jones, climate policy officer of the World Development Movement termed it “a shameful and monumental failure” and a deal “devoid of real content.” Friends of the Earth described it as “abject failure” while Greenpeace said that it had so many loopholes that it was a fraud and Copenhagen should be labeled a “climate crime scene” and surrounded by yellow tape. The World Wildlife Foundation said it would cost millions of lives.

In a parallel universe, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said “it can be a catalyzing moment” while Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said it was a “breakthrough.” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) described it as “a vital first step.” The two environmental groups in U.S. Cap – NRDC and Environmental Defense – lauded the Accord as “the first steps toward true transparency and accountability in international climate agreement” and a sign that “the big countries are moving in the right direction.” In other words, those vested in getting a bill out of Congress described the Accord as an important push towards binding agreements and international verification.

Strong supporters of moving cap and trade to adoption in 2010 are seeing the glass half full; those who are more skeptical or worried about the negative economic impact or unfair competition from abroad see the glass half empty.

Information provided by
Nebraska Rural Electric Association's grassroots coordinator, James Dukesherer.