S-e-S Redux: Copenhagen?

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 19 Dec 2009 07:21

...
At a news conference before heading home, Obama called the framework a "meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough."

The proposal does not set overall emissions targets or deadlines, let alone establish a legally binding treaty, which had been the expectation for Copenhagen months ago.

...
...The president said there was a “fundamental deadlock in perspectives” between big, industrially developed countries like the United States and poorer, though sometimes large, developing nations like China and India.
...

Obama brokers a climate deal, doesn't satisfy all

...
..
The agreement, which also includes India, South Africa and Brazil, requires industrial countries to list their individual targets and developing countries to list the actions they will take to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts. Obama called that an "unprecedented breakthrough."

"We have come a long way, but we have much further to go," he said.

If the countries had waited to reach a full, binding agreement, "then we wouldn't make any progress," Obama said. In that case, he said, "there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking one step forward, we ended up taking two steps back."

...

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 19 Dec 2009 16:07

{rant deleted}

kasthuri · Post by **kasthuri** » 19 Dec 2009 18:12

Drama at Copenhagen

U.S. President Barack Obama walking uninvited into a meeting of Prime Ministers of China and India and Presidents of Brazil and South Africa proved to be a key moment for striking of a political deal to salvage the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

With hopes fading of a summit draft, in fact, it was a dramatic turn of events last night, which led to a breakthrough when all seemed lost.

Several key world leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to turn back from the airport to huddle straight into a meeting at the Bella Centre in what was the last ditch effort by Mr. Obama to hammer a deal.

Mr. Obama was keen for a one-to-one meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

It was no less a surprise for Mr. Obama, himself, and the White House team in Copenhagen when he went into a late afternoon bi-lateral meeting with Mr. Wen to find that three other world leaders were already there in the room — Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma.

Now is our chance: Obama

Later, U.S. officials said “The only surprise we had, in all our history was...that in that room wasn’t just the Chinese having a meeting...but all four countries that we had been trying to arrange meetings with where indeed all in the same room...The President’s viewpoint is, I wanted to see them all and now is our chance.”

Mr. Obama and his team appeared to be taken aback at this as the U.S. President had scheduled a last-minute bilateral meeting with the Chinese Premier, followed by a joint meeting with the Indian, Brazilian and South African leaders. But, it appeared that the Chinese, Brazilian, Indian and South African leaders wanted to meet him together, rather than in separate sessions.

Apprehending that the Copenhagen Summit has almost headed towards a dead end, Mr. Obama postponed his scheduled departure for the U.S. and told his advance team that he wanted to meet the Chinese premier separately; followed by a joint meeting with the India, Brazilian and South African leaders.

Chinese team’s initial reluctance

The Chinese team, initially reluctant, told the White House officials that most of the team were already on the airport, while Mr. Wen was in his hotel, getting ready to leave.

When they called Indian team, they were told that Mr. Singh is at the airport. This happened around 4 p.m. local time.

“I think they thought the meeting was done. I think they thought there wasn’t anything left to stay for, in all honesty,” a senior administration official said. And, when they called Brazil, White House was told no meeting without India, as they knew that Singh was on his way back.

Mr. Zuma agreed as he did not had the latest information about Mr. Singh.

“Brazil tells us that they don’t know if they can come because they want the Indians to come. The Indians were at the airport. Mr. Zuma is under the impression that everybody is coming,” a senior Administration official said. And when Mr. Zuma came to know that Singh was at the airport, he also backed out of the meeting.

If they (India and Brazil) are not coming I can’t do this,” Mr. Zuma told the White House.

Meanwhile, the White House received a call from the Chinese team that Mr. Wen wanted to move the bilateral meeting from 6.15 p.m. to 7 p.m. local time.

Mr. Obama, who was personally involved in all these, agreed to the Chinese request and instead went into a huddle with the European leaders, which lasted for about 45 minutes.

Before leaving for his bilateral meeting with Mr. Wen, Mr. Obama had last minutes talks with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“The President is beginning to leave. He spends time right before he leaves, this would have been right before 7:00 pm, the President is talking with Chancellor Merkel and Gordon Brown about going for this bilateral meeting with Premier Wen, that they had rescheduled for 7:00 pm,” the official said.

All this happened at the Bella Center — the venue of the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change.

And as Mr. Obama was entering the room for his bilateral with Mr. Wen, he and the entire White House was surprised to see the Chinese Premier having meeting with Dr. Singh, Mr. Zuma and Mr. Lula.

“We weren’t crashing a meeting; we were going for our bilateral meeting. We found the other (India, South Africa and Brazil) people (leaders) there,” a senior Administration official said.

No chair for Obama

And when Mr. Obama entered the meeting room, there was no chair for him. Mr. Obama himself was reported as saying that there aren’t any seats. This is also reflected in some of the pictures of the meeting which shows that there are no chairs.

Mr. Obama said, “No, no, don’t worry, I am going to go sit by my friend Lula,” and said, “Hey, Lula.” Walks over, moves a chair, sits down next to Lula. The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, sits down next to him.

Then the meeting started, at about 7:00 pm local time and concluded at about 8.15-8.20 p.m. local time.

Presumably taken aback by the Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian meeting, without their knowledge, a senior administration official later said: “I will assume that their meeting was to get their ducks in a row. Because at this point, certainly our impression was that a number of these people were either at or on the way to the airport.”

And all this while Chinese officials, told the White House that it was going to be a bilateral meeting and did not give an impression that all these leaders were also in the same room.

“President’s viewpoint was I’m going to make one last run. When it appeared we couldn’t get the Chinese earlier in the day, the President said, well, if we can’t get the Chinese then let’s get the next three (India, South Africa and Brazil) that are — absolutely they’re working as a team. They’ve got similar interests, there’s no doubt about that,” the official said.

“Again, the only surprise we had, in all honesty, was we did not know at 6.15 p.m., when we moved our meeting from 6.15 p.m. to 7.00 p.m., that in that room wasn’t just the Chinese having a meeting about their posture going into the 7.00 pm meeting, but in fact all four countries that we had been trying to arrange meetings with were indeed all in the same room,” the official said.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 19 Dec 2009 18:56

Full text of the Copenhagen Accord document
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/E ... accord.pdf

nithish · Post by **nithish** » 19 Dec 2009 22:26

Copenhagen: Obama's 'meeting' help clinch deal

It was high drama {snip - repeated from above, thanks}
The agreement calls on industrialised nations to set their emission targets by February, 2010 and also asks the developing countries to do the same.

In the contentious area of Monitoring, Verification and Reporting (MVR), it provides that unsupported actions could be subject to assessment only by domestic institutions but adds a new provision for international consultations and analysis without impinging on national sovereignty.

On the finance side, it provides USD 100 billion for long-term funding for developing countries and USD 30 billion for short-term, which would go to the poorest and most vulnerable.

The accord requires industrial countries to list their individual targets and developing countries to outline the actions they are willing to take to cut emissions by specific amounts.

Many of the African and Latin American countries attacked the document, saying it was not acceptable.
Sudanese delegate Lumumba Stanislas Dia-ping, who chaired the Group of 77 and the bloc of 130 poor nations, compared it to Holocaust. "It is a solution based on values, the very opinion that funnelled six million people in Europe into furnaces," he said.
Calling the draft deal the worst in the history of climate negotiations, he said that it asked Africa to sign a "suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries."

The tense negotiations at one stage saw Britain, France and Australia expressing reservations on the Indian position relating to emission cuts, mitigation targets and finance.
"I think in the meeting that we had, unfortunately the French President (Nicolas Sarkozy) and British Prime Minister (Gordon Brown), many of them did not seem appreciative of India's point of view. ... Either they were not properly briefed or they chose deliberately to be oblivious of what we are doing," Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said after the meeting.
"I tried my best, a couple of moments there were some sharp exchanges between me and President Sarkozy. But I must say Chancellor (Angela) Merkel (of Germany) was very supportive of India, President Obama was very supportive of India."
But, the Indian side did have some problem with Brown and Sarkozy and also twice with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Ramesh said.

However, he said, after the meeting these leaders stated that they respected Singh and knew what a "great Prime Minister he is and what good job India is doing."
During the meeting, Singh said that there was no question of making India's unilateral commitments internationally legally binding.
"We will reflect them in an international agreement in a suitable way but we are not going to take any internationally legally binding commitments. That is simply not on the cards," Ramesh quoted Singh as saying, adding that Obama appreciated Singh's statement.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 20 Dec 2009 01:07

kasthuri wrote:Drama at Copenhagen
U.S. President Barack Obama walking uninvited into a meeting of Prime Ministers of China and India and Presidents of Brazil and South Africa proved to be a key moment for striking of a political deal to salvage the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

WSeveral key world leaders, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to turn back from the airport to huddle straight into a meeting at the Bella Centre in what was the last ditch effort by Mr. Obama to hammer a deal.

Mr. Obama was keen for a one-to-one meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao.

It was no less a surprise for Mr. Obama, himself, and the White House team in Copenhagen when he went into a late afternoon bi-lateral meeting with Mr. Wen to find that three other world leaders were already there in the room — Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma.

.

Mr. Obama, who was personally involved in all these, agreed to the Chinese request and instead went into a huddle with the European leaders, which lasted for about 45 minutes.

Before leaving for his bilateral meeting with Mr. Wen, Mr. Obama had last minutes talks with German Chancellor, Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

“The President is beginning to leave. He spends time right before he leaves, this would have been right before 7:00 pm, the President is talking with Chancellor Merkel and Gordon Brown about going for this bilateral meeting with Premier Wen, that they had rescheduled for 7:00 pm,” the official said.
Presumably taken aback by the Chinese, Indian, South African and Brazilian meeting, without their knowledge, a senior administration official later said: “I will assume that their meeting was to get their ducks in a row. Because at this point, certainly our impression was that a number of these people were either at or on the way to the airport.”

And all this while Chinese officials, told the White House that it was going to be a bilateral meeting and did not give an impression that all these leaders were also in the same room.
]

Reading between the lines , China has manouvered to take the leadership role Vis-à-vis USA. The first sign of the decline of Western power and rise of Asia : European poodles are finding their real place and it wil be very interesting to watch post 2025 power equation on intenational stage.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 20 Dec 2009 01:08

Now that the summit has concluded, I would vote to change the name of this thread. This hasn't been any kind of S-e-S Redux.

We held fast and were, along with China, the primary developing world force at the summit. We ensured that the lukewarm 'deal' (there had to be some piece of paper after all, just to save everyone's face) contained nothing egregious. Further, we drove our agenda and got people around, despite various hurdles like the surreptitious Danish draft, and the OASIS countries being hardballed into splitting the G-77 bloc. Demanding adherence to the Kyoto framework (which neither we nor China are not party to) was a very good negotiating position.

Obama attempted to meet Wen and MMS separately because his $100 billion financing offer was contingent on the MRV requirement, which neither China nor India agreed to. The Chinese simply got around the possibility of him pushing them behind closed doors by having the rest of the BASIC bloc in the room when he showed up. It's fairly obvious from Lula and Zuma's statements that they were the junior members of th BASIC group, since they declined to talk when neither Wen nor MMS was around.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Dec 2009 06:20

I would vote to change the name of this thread. This hasn't been any kind of S-e-S Redux.

I agree. I still think Jairam Ramesh made an early mess by making an ill-conceived statement early, and cannot see how that helped India's negotiating position. In the end, however, the unity between the BASIC seems to have held, though with some serious damage, in the face of the onslaught from the crooks.

Pls suggest threat titles based on ur reading of the Copenhagen outcome. Note that the African nations still claim to be mad, because the $30B short-term US baksheesh is a drop in the bucket, and the "North" has still reneged on Kyoto. The Oiropean aim is still to slap tariffs on imports from nations that are not "transparent" or "not on track to meet their announced goals". And that is where Ramesh's premature declaration hurt India.

China sank the "one-on-one" SEQUENCE (note: BO was going to talk "one on one with China", THEN with the "others" ) in order to deflate the scam where the rest would be told that China had agreed to something. China's style is to agree to EVERYTHING, then simply does nothing. So this was an excellent move, and I would say that BO came off dripping egg from his face because that particular snake-oil scam fell flat. It was QUITE a statement about the world's faith in present-day America that the BASIC leaders decided on that last-minute strategy, telling their aides to tell the Americans that they had all left for the airport. Exposed the scam thoroughly.

Ramesh's statements about the nastiness of the Poodles, OTOH, is very illuminating.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 20 Dec 2009 12:07

The alleged "rant" might be deleted by mods,but facts remain true though! The world's worst polluters tried and failed to keep their erstwhile colonial serfs in a new pact of slavery based upon a climate control regime and were foiled by the "BASIC" nations.The G-77 must take their concerted stand even further with economic reform and dump the IMF,World Bank and set up new financial institutions that will provide the poorest nations on the planet genuine economic help to help lift them out of their miserable existence.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Dec 2009 12:22

The G-77 must take their concerted stand even further with economic reform and dump the IMF,World Bank and set up new financial institutions that will provide the poorest nations on the planet genuine economic help to help lift them out of their miserable existence.

Interesting thoughts but may take a while (a decade+ at least) to fructify.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Dec 2009 14:15

To a very large extent, the "poor nations" are to blame for their predicament, and catering to their status quo is not going to help anyone, least of all them. Slash-and-burn cultivation does not help, nor do smoke-belching thermal power plants that ignore all basic safety and health considerations.

The Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism was a deal that we could all live by. it would have dragged a lot of "poorer countries" kicking and screaming into the 21st century and made life much better for their people. It would also have made them competitive in the world economy. Which is why the West has decided to scuttle Kyoto, even as they mouth platitudes about it.

Obama's "deal" is that they want to count the development money as baksheesh and not free-market Carbon Credits. This sets the clock back 40 years. The "aid" from the US will go the usual way of "aid" from the US - into the Generalissimos' and middlemen's pockets.

G77 can only rant. They are not going to bring about a "better world".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Dec 2009 23:26

Agree with N^3. While it wasn't a sellout it sure was retreat from the earlier position. Mr Ramesh's premature statement didn't help much.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 21 Dec 2009 00:19

While there was miscommunication within the Indian ranks just prior to the conference, if the reference is to Ramesh's statement about a 20-25% carbon intensity reduction, then I see little or nothing wrong with it.

The reason is that the dynamics of India's engagement in forums like this has changed now. We cannot be a reactive refusenik while simultaneously aspiring to leadership. It will take time for the MEA to reorient themselves to such a foreign policy view, which partly explains the initial internal 'revolt' before Copenhagen. All Ramesh did was throw out a number; everyone had been expected to put something on the table, as in poker. The important thing was to ensure that there was neither a binding agreement nor the MRV requirement, which they did.

Regarding the earlier carbon credit system vs the lumpsum offers at Copenhagen, I don't see this as something the developing countries lost out due to their actions. The lumpsum offers would not have been made if the developed nations didn't find it beneficial for themselves. It was the easiest way to persuade the OASIS and weaker economies to split the G77 - offer money outright, tie it to various MRV requirements and capital/technology control regimes they were disinclined to oppose.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 21 Dec 2009 07:00

MMS speech at Copenhagen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz7b-AvREtQ

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 21 Dec 2009 07:51

Sunita Narain is impressive and articulate..Her interviews are worth watching. She talks abt how badly Global Warming will affect India.
"Climate Change is a real issue but the Western Countries caused this and need to pay".She calls Copenhagen the worst conference. She says the "breakdown in Copenhagan is because US wants to dismantle the Kyoto Protocol. India and China will be scapegoated". There is massive pressure to fix the deal.
"The rich nations want a deal where they have an agreement of pledge and review. US needs to cut 40%"

Please watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSk7UVSu ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cqmFym_E3o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x221HwqmReU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwDJNYaR ... re=related

A quote
You(US) are putting 20 times per year more co2 in the atmosphere that your brothers and sisters in India. You've taken up all of their space for co2. And you Americans WANT TO FREEZE THIS RATIO.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 21 Dec 2009 09:35

Rhetoric aside, these are the compulsions that I see on different nations.

1. Europe: "Global Warming" was a sexy notion to win funding for the "soft" sciences, and for extensive luxury travel for European "experts". Then it was to translate to tariffs to control trade and subsidize European products. Just like "ISO 9001" etc. and "Ozone Depletion" before it.

2. The scheme was mooted in the late 80s/early 90s, when the distribution of world trade and industry was vastly different. The Americans gradually realized that the Europeans saw this as a way to push out American products from the European marketplace, so backed out citing "unacceptably high economic costs". The big change that rationalized this, was the shift of production to China. Cutting emissions drastically in the US would have the effect of an avalanche, moving all smokestack / assembly line industry 100% out of the US and into China / developing nations.

3. Europeans went ahead, because the Kyoto Protocol justified a lot of investment in Eastern Europe, addressing some of their major socio-economic dangers. In fact, Eastern Europe /FSU nations are the only ones that are now well AHEAD of their promised cutbacks, thanks to the Clean Development Mechanism etc.

But as the deadline for the next stage came around, the economy is in the tank. Unemployment is running extremely high in much of Europe, and the social welfare treasury is rapidly emptying. European products are grossly unable to compete in the world market, because (a) China and India are marching ahead and (b) US is not subject to the emission controls.

So Europeans are under the hammer and want to back out of Kyoto commitments. If they agree to the needed cuts, their remaining industry will also avalanche down to China and India. Hence the hostility towards China and India, and demands for BASIC to adopt large commitments (these commitments are unrealistic, so the Oiropeans will simply use their "intrusive inspection" habits to declare China and India in non-compliance and slap huge tariffs).

American senators saw through this early, and said

to the notion of some European bureaucracy dictating what US companies should or should not do, and setting quotas.

Now the economic pit has united Europe and US against BASIC.

As for the nations facing inundation, nothing is going to save them, short of a massive project to increase ice cover (or reflective mylar cover) at the North Pole, reflecting large amounts of sunlight back, and causing cooling of the Greenland icecap, freezing a lot of ocean water there. Alternatively, nations should find ways of bringing huge amounts of water into the land and putting it under land. I don't see these happening, whatever quotas are imposed on emissions.

It may be many orders of magnitude cheaper to dredge and dump millions of tons of seabed soil and rocks on these islands and raise their seawalls by 20 meters. That is doable with a fleet of dredgers and earth-moving equipment.

African nations are also facing tariffs and bans on economic development, so they are mad.

But the real solution, esp. for India, is to really leapfrog these incremental pains and adopt solar and biomass hydrogen generation on a massively distributed basis, and just REALLY move away from burning imported petroleum or domestic coal. THAT is really doable, and the net result will be that India can truly advance to become a superpower, freed of oil imports and the whole carbon scam.

Wait for the Oiropeans to "discover" that WATER VAPOR in the atmosphere is what killed life on Venus and wiped out the amoebosaurus oiropathacus beeyessus on Earth.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 21 Dec 2009 09:42

actually china is leap frogging into solar power research, technology and production engineering -
eg: Applied Materials solar power research center in Xian, China.

"The longer we in the United States wait, the farther ahead China will be, and it will be harder for us to catch up," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke warned recently. "If we don't get our act together, we're going to be watching the capital, the businesses and the good-paying jobs end up someplace else. And 10 to 15 years from now, we're going to be saying, 'How did Shanghai become the Silicon Valley of clean energy?' "

china is also up up on wind energy.
--

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 360072.cms Obama’s securitymen pushed aside their Chinese counterparts as they shepherded him into the room. The Chinese retaliated by bringing in their TV crews and keeping the Americans out. But after that tense start, the meeting proceeded peacefully, according to Indian sources present in the room.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 21 Dec 2009 10:49

Could a Global Monitoring System Be Used to Track Chinese CO2 Emissions?

Haha, sounds like an attempt to replicate NPT's international monitoring stations!

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 21 Dec 2009 13:18

Copenhagen climate summit: plan for EU to police countries' emissions

Gordon Brown is drawing up plans for the European Union to become a global warming "policeman", monitoring individual countries' compliance with carbon-cutting targets.

The plan emerged from the chaotic Copenhagen conference on climate change, which ended in acrimony any mistrust between world leaders.

The summit was unable to reach a substantive deal on cutting greenhouse gases because of a row over how countries would prove that they are honouring promises to cut their carbon emissions. China in particular objected to any external monitoring of its actions.

Mr Brown and French President Nicholas Sarkozy now are working proposals for a "European monitoring organisation" that will oversee every country's actions on emissions.

The plan emerged after US President Barack Obama suggested that monitoring could be done using spy satellites.

Mr Brown revealed the plan in the early hours of Saturday morning, shortly before leaving Copenhagen.

He said: “I will work with President Sarkozy for a European organisation that will monitor the transparency that is being achieved not just in Europe and our own countries, but in every country around the world.

oh yeah! How many countries have signed up?

He added: “We’re in favour of transparency; we’re in favour of looking at what’s happening not just in our country and our own continent, but around the world.

So am I in favour of transparency. Open the books of the IMF and the WB to global scrutiny!

“I think people deserve for there to be international reporting at the highest standards of what is being done.”

The prospect of EU monitoring may further antagonise China, but Western leaders have not hesitated to blame Beijing for the summit’s failure to agree to global emissions cuts of 50 per cent by 2050, or the decision not to make the Copenhagen accord legally binding.

Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, said on Sunday the conclusion of the summit was “disappointing” and openly blamed Beijing.
...

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 21 Dec 2009 22:37

Fallout of Copenhagen: Enter the New World Order. That's what they have been planning for YEARS, ever since the formation of the UN. Do not for a moment assume that we will be immune. People can be easily bought at higher levels. Bharat-rakshaks, take note!!
There'll be nowhere to run from the new world government -- Telegraph.co.uk

There is scope for debate – and innumerable newspaper quizzes – about who was the most influential public figure of the year, or which the most significant event. But there can be little doubt which word won the prize for most important adjective. 2009 was the year in which "global" swept the rest of the political lexicon into obscurity. There were "global crises" and "global challenges", the only possible resolution to which lay in "global solutions" necessitating "global agreements". Gordon Brown actually suggested something called a "global alliance" in response to climate change. (Would this be an alliance against the Axis of Extra-Terrestrials?)

Some of this was sheer hokum: when uttered by Gordon Brown, the word "global", as in "global economic crisis", meant: "It's not my fault". To the extent that the word had intelligible meaning, it also had political ramifications that were scarcely examined by those who bandied it about with such ponderous self-importance. The mere utterance of it was assumed to sweep away any consideration of what was once assumed to be the most basic principle of modern democracy: that elected national governments are responsible to their own people – that the right to govern derives from the consent of the electorate.

The dangerous idea that the democratic accountability of national governments should simply be dispensed with in favour of "global agreements" reached after closed negotiations between world leaders never, so far as I recall, entered into the arena of public discussion. Except in the United States, where it became a very contentious talking point, the US still holding firmly to the 18th-century idea that power should lie with the will of the people.

Nor was much consideration given to the logical conclusion of all this grandiose talk of global consensus as unquestionably desirable: if there was no popular choice about approving supranational "legally binding agreements", what would happen to dissenters who did not accept their premises (on climate change, for example) when there was no possibility of fleeing to another country in protest? Was this to be regarded as the emergence of world government? And would it have powers of policing and enforcement that would supersede the authority of elected national governments? In effect, this was the infamous "democratic deficit" of the European Union elevated on to a planetary scale. And if the EU model is anything to go by, then the agencies of global authority will involve vast tracts of power being handed to unelected officials. Forget the relatively petty irritations of Euro‑bureaucracy: welcome to the era of Earth-bureaucracy, when there will be literally nowhere to run.

But, you may say, however dire the political consequences, surely there is something in this obsession with global dilemmas. Economics is now based on a world market, and if the planet really is facing some sort of man-made climate crisis, then that too is a problem that transcends national boundaries. Surely, if our problems are universal the solutions must be as well.

Well, yes and no. Calling a problem "global" is meant to imply three different things: that it is the result of the actions of people in different countries; that those actions have impacted on the lives of everyone in the world; and that the remedy must involve pretty much identical responses or correctives to those actions. These are separate premises, any of which might be true without the rest of them necessarily being so. The banking crisis certainly had its roots in the international nature of finance, but the way it affected countries and peoples varied considerably according to the differences in their internal arrangements. Britain suffered particularly badly because of its addiction to public and private debt, whereas Australia escaped relatively unscathed.

That a problem is international in its roots does not necessarily imply that the solution must involve the hammering out of a uniform global prescription: in fact, given the differences in effects and consequences for individual countries, the attempt to do such hammering might be a huge waste of time and resources that could be put to better use devising national remedies. France and Germany seem to have pulled themselves out of recession over the past year (and the US may be about to do so) while Britain has not. These variations owe almost nothing to the pompous, overblown attempts to find global solutions: they are largely to do with individual countries, under the pressure of democratic accountability, doing what they decide is best for their own people.

This is not what Mr Brown calls "narrow self-interest", or "beggar my neighbour" ruthlessness. It is the proper business of elected national leaders to make judgments that are appropriate for the conditions of their own populations. It is also right that heads of nations refuse to sign up to "legally binding" global agreements which would disadvantage their own people. The resistance of the developing nations to a climate change pact that would deny them the kind of economic growth and mass prosperity to which advanced countries have become accustomed is not mindless selfishness: it is proper regard for the welfare of their own citizens.

The word "global" has taken on sacred connotations. Any action taken in its name must be inherently virtuous, whereas the decisions of individual countries are necessarily "narrow" and self-serving. (Never mind that a "global agreement" will almost certainly be disproportionately influenced by the most powerful nations.) Nor is our era so utterly unlike previous ones, for all its technological sophistication. We have always needed multilateral agreements, whether about trade, organised crime, border controls, or mutual defence.

If the impact of our behaviour on humanity at large is much greater or more rapid than ever before then we shall have to find ways of dealing with that which do not involve sacrificing the most enlightened form of government ever devised. There is a whiff of totalitarianism about this new theology, in which the risks are described in such cosmic terms that everything else must give way. "Globalism" is another form of the internationalism that has been a core belief of the Left: a commitment to class rather than country seemed an admirable antidote to the "blood and soil" nationalism that gave rise to fascism.

The nation-state has never quite recovered from the bad name it acquired in the last century as the progenitor of world war. But if it is to be relegated to the dustbin of history then we had better come up with new mechanisms for allowing people to have a say in how they are governed. Maybe that could be next year's global challenge.

The implications are huge!! I request a new thread on this "New World Order!"

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 22 Dec 2009 04:22

Europe feels left out in cold on climate deal

LONDON – It's a climate deal that has Europe feeling left out in the cold.

The continent that used to take the lead in advocating climate action is now taking the lead in climate complaining. And it's not just upset with the results, but the process itself.

Europe's goals were generally not met, and Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen, host of the U.N.-sponsored climate talks in Copenhagen, was shoved aside as president of the conference in favor of Philip Weech of the Bahamas.

When a deal was reached, those in the room were heads of state from Africa, North and South America and Asia — not Europe.
..
...
"Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks," British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Monday. "Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries."

British climate change minister Ed Miliband wrote in The Guardian newspaper that most countries — developed and developing — supported binding cuts in emissions, but that "some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this." He singled out Beijing as the culprit behind the talks' near-collapse.

...

V_Raman · Post by **V_Raman** » 22 Dec 2009 05:21

i really believe/hope that a grand understanding will be reached between india/china as a fallout of all these shenanigans by the west. if china has technology to share with india for a greener future, then india should tap it. it is mutually beneficial.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Dec 2009 07:22

Gordon Brown calls for new group to police global environment issues

The Prime Minister will say: “Never again should we face the deadlock that threatened to pull down those talks. Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries. One of the frustrations for me was the lack of a global body with the sole responsibility for environmental stewardship.

Despite being the first world leader to join the summit, Mr Brown was excluded from the key meeting where the compromise was decided.

The UN’s consensual method of negotiation, which requires all 192 countries to reach agreement, needs to be reformed to ensure that the will of the majority prevails, he feels.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 22 Dec 2009 07:57

It is interesting to see the level of fulmination on the part of UK because they weren't among those who finally got together to agree upon a deal. Brown is clearly peeved at being sidelined. Unfortunately for him, all his talk about policemen are not going to come to pass as long as neither China nor India sign on, and that is not going to happen except on our terms.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 22 Dec 2009 08:14

"will of the majority" indeed. The "handful of countries" behind the Brownian Takleef comprise 3 billion people.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Dec 2009 09:15

This is all hyperventilation and atmospheric warming from Oirope/Poodlestan. What happened is that the BASIC went in with an announced offer, and came out with the same. Not an inch gained, and none given. And the US is now forced in the interests of H&D to claim that this is a great success.

That's the Noo Whirled Odor. For once, the Poodles and Oiropistanis were kept at their proper level. The US had to go ask to be allowed to play with the "other large economies of the world" (GOTUS term from todin's pata-e-Khabar). IOW, with the 3 billion represented in that room. Another billion or so are sort of left on the sidelines (Africa) and another billion don't give a hoot because they are rolling in oil dollars (ME). The Russians are probably happy any way this turns out. Which leaves about a half billion disgruntled Oiropean snake-oil peddlers. Tough.

Apparently (per Jairam Ramesh) Frau Merkel greatly enjoyed the sight of the Poodle and the Froginstani getting hot under the collar.

When will the British learn to kick out the likes of Millibrain from their Foreign Office? It is astonishing that this clown is allowed to keep making an exhibition of himself. I would have thought that the British Eton Boys' Club would have blackballed him long ago for being an idiot.

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 22 Dec 2009 11:45

India may have bungled its 'green' card

http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_in ... rd_1326230

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 22 Dec 2009 16:06

Copenhagen accord outwitted government of India: Jaitley

The government was in a "Sharm-el-Sheikh syndrome" as far as the climate change accord in Copenhagen was concerned, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Arun Jaitley said on Tuesday while labelling the document a "betrayal of poor nations".

The accord says one thing and the government's understanding is another, Jaitley said in the Rajya Sabha, following a statement by Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh on the Copenhagen climate summit, while referring to the controversial Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement signed by the prime ministers of India and Pakistan in Egypt earlier this year.

The government has been "outwitted" in the drafting of the document, Jaitley said while labelling it a "US-BASIC" accord, rather than an accord among all 192 nations attending the summit. The BASIC countries are Brazil, South Africa, India and China.

"It (the accord) appears to be a complete betrayal of the poor nations," he added.

He also asked the government to clarify "what will be the consequences under the guidelines (of the accord)".

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 23 Dec 2009 08:03

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 23 Dec 2009 08:13

enqyoob wrote:When will the British learn to kick out the likes of Millibrain from their Foreign Office? It is astonishing that this clown is allowed to keep making an exhibition of himself. I would have thought that the British Eton Boys' Club would have blackballed him long ago for being an idiot.

What can I say N? Nothing is as it was.

If you're old enough to remember the old Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister, then you no longer have a picture of how things work.

It used to be that actual policy was crafted by long-service professionals as a compromise between what the PM/Cabinet wanted, and the reality of what was actually possible.

Since the 1990s policy has been made by politicians, which means it often has little in common with reality.

For once, the Poodles and Oiropistanis were kept at their proper level.

Depends on whom you mean - a great deal of business and industry in the UK and Europe is thrilled by the defeat of what they regard as self-destructive nonsense. There are a lot of skeptics even if there isn't much room for them in the media or academia.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Dec 2009 09:21

Well, Johann, I stand corrected. The "Sir Humphreys" are obviously doing a super job of "supporting" the Hon. Millibrained. Every time he opens his mouth..

My friend the accounting expert (and even more expert cynic) who works as an energy trader assures me that the entire Carbon Trading scheme is set up to benefit a few billionaires and wannabes such as Al Gore, and that the Carbon market is on the verge of collapse because supply vastly outstrips demand.

Now it appears that it is indeed done for. This part is not clear to me - are they really dismantling the Kyoto Annex I quotas, instead of tightening them? This could cause another economic collapse if the projected $1T Carbon Market becomes totally worthless, couldn't it? Will this be compensated by the delight of companies that they don't have to pay the Carbon baksheesh any more?

Also, why didn't Australia want a continuation of the Kyoto deal? I thought they were allowed to keep increasing carbon footprint, despite having a super large footprint? With solar and nuclear resources, they stood to gain immensely from carbon trading. What happened?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 23 Dec 2009 09:33

Rest of the World is still leading!

vina · Post by **vina** » 23 Dec 2009 09:41

Now it appears that it is indeed done for. This part is not clear to me - are they really dismantling the Kyoto Annex I quotas, instead of tightening them? This could cause another economic collapse if the projected $1T Carbon Market becomes totally worthless, couldn't it? Will this be compensated by the delight of companies that they don't have to pay the Carbon baksheesh any more?

The $1T market was wampum.All Maya and no reality. The only guys pushing it were the snake oil dealers and the Green fashionistas would have been rolling in the green stuff (I meant bills, not the gobar they claim to beholden ton) if it came about and the Oieropeans and the loony greens thinking they could kill many birds with that one stone if it came about.

Also, why didn't Australia want a continuation of the Kyoto deal? I thought they were allowed to keep increasing carbon footprint, despite having a super large footprint? With solar and nuclear resources, they stood to gain immensely from carbon trading. What happened?

Bird in hand is worth two in the bush. They have large reserves of coal, oil and gas and traditional carbon resources. As long as China is vaccuuming it up, why bother with some new fangled stuff that you may lose control of and dont have a lock in terms of monopoly position.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Dec 2009 04:15

xpost
Don't look to Beijing for global leadership

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 24 Dec 2009 04:52

Carbon prices fall in wake of Copenhagen

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 24 Dec 2009 05:55

Carbon prices fall in wake of Copenhagen

There goes my last hope for the LH2 Supersonic Transport, and 6-hour trips across the Duniya.

What happens now to the British Airways Chief Poobah's declaration that IATA members will cut CO2 emissions to 50% of 2005 values?

AnimeshP · Post by **AnimeshP** » 24 Dec 2009 05:57

And joining the whinefest about Copenhagen ... The Guardian ....
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".

The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia {looks like we are the new axis of evil for "Wittle" Britain}, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

Read it all

sumishi · Post by **sumishi** » 24 Dec 2009 11:29

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 25 Dec 2009 14:41

The Copenhagen Accord and India

To avoid any impression that India was less than serious in its efforts to reach an agreement, Singh went so far as to state in his maiden speech in Copenhagen that India will deliver on its promise of bringing down its 2005 emission intensity by 20 percent by 2020 even if an agreement were not reached in Copenhagen

From his initial position that given the country’s low per-capita emissions, India should not be subjected to any mitigation commitments, Singh went on step-by-step to raise the level of his country’s voluntary commitments. First came his promise not to let per-capita emissions of India ever to exceed the average of per-capita emissions of industrial countries. Then, he proceeded to commit to the goal of holding the average temperature increases around the globe to 2°C. This was followed by the announcement of eight national missions aimed at mitigation, which included plans to introduce building codes, tighter auto emission standards, increase in the share of green sources of energy to 20 percent by 2020 and even a cap and trade program for selected sectors. Finally, in the last week prior to the beginning of the Copenhagen summit, he committed India to cutting 2005 emission intensity by 20 percent by 2020.

As a part of as yet non-binding Copenhagen Accord, Singh also accepted the U.S. demand for submission of mitigation plans to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Additionally, India will submit a progress report on mitigation every two years that will be subject to “international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.” In principle, this provision can be seen as a first step towards the conversion of what are currently “voluntary” steps towards mitigation into internationally mandated commitment that Singh and his environment minister have promised not to accept under any circumstances. .These progressively rising levels of concessions have not led to any improvement in the offer by the United States, which currently stands at cutting it’s the country’s 1990 emissions by merely 3 percent by 2020.

But the proposed level of funding at $30 billion in the first three years, which must be spread over more than 150 countries, is tiny. More importantly, much of this funding is likely to go to the least developed and island countries. It is unlikely India will reap any benefit from this fund.

This meager U.S. response testifies to Singh’s failure to achieve his second objective. Unless Singh is able to persuade the United States (and other industrial countries) to undertake far more ambitious cuts in emissions under a final agreement that is to succeed the Copenhagen Accord, his own commitments on behalf of India could prove costly to his country. On one hand, he will not have achieved the goal of avoiding environmental catastrophes and on the other, he would have ended up compromising growth and poverty alleviation. Under existing technologies, cuts in emissions or their growth are almost sure to translate into cuts in energy consumption or its growth, which would in turn adversely impact India’s GDP growth and poverty alleviation.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 25 Dec 2009 15:39

With all respect, and noting that I was the one who goaded ramana into starting this thread by noting that India was giving away her negotiating position, I disagree with the Brookings

.

The fact is indeed that India can get a lot of mileage (no pun intended) from the steps that MMS has pre-emptively and proactively announced. Each of those steps is needed, and can be done without foreign baksheesh.

1. Building codes. HIGHLY needed in India. Better materials that don't consume so much energy to make; better construction techniques than just stacking flame-fired brick on brick, better electric wiring, better air flow provisions, better use of solar energy in building construction, more use of passive shading than air conditioners, replacing wood-burning fires with better central heating in the colder parts. Rainwater harvesting with gravity-fed water supply for 50% of domestic needs.

2. Take credit for the switch to CFL and even LED, as it happens (i.e., NOW), not 10 years later. The difference between US and India is stark today as most of India has already switched to CFL. Count the credit for this.

3. Better transmission grid to slash power line losses. This does not need phoren aid.

4. Auto emission standards. Highly needed. The difference in pollution between say 2 years ago and today is huge already on Indian streets, even though traffic has increased, because newer engines are coming in, and pollution checks are actually being done. It is smart to take credit for it right now, as the auto scene transitions from the 1950s technology to 1990 technology. If India waits another 2 years before starting to count, the rate of emissions decrease will be much lower and harder because the big smoke-belchers will be already off the street.

5. Serious air quality laws to improve factories. What better time than now, when business is good and companies are raking in profits? Don't Indian factories NEED some such improvement? Again, take credit for the transition from 1930s to 1990 that is happening now.

All of the above are good for India, quite independent of UNFCCC. And that's all MMS has promised.

"Not allow Indian per capita emissions to exceed that of western nations". That is not very hard, because winter heating needs are nearly negligible in India, and most developed nations are in the colder latitudes. The roads are lousy, so commuting 30 miles each way by car is not a viable option for most people. Also, long distance car / air travel constitutes a large part of the Carbon Footprint for many ppl in large western nations. Not likely to become that prevalent in India because the distances are not that great.

So I would say that MMS made some smart promises, to capture the reductions that India any way needs to make. Whether this brought US reciprocity is a stupid metric. Whether it brings US $$ is another matter - in fact I believe this is what Hillary C and MMS agreed during her visit, when the massive Solar investment was announced.