2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference

The United Nations Climate Change Conference , Copenhagen , was held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark , between 7 and 18 December. The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (MOP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol . According to the Bali Road Map , a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 was agreed. [2]

On Friday December 18, the final day of the conference, the international media reported that the climate talks were “in disarray”. [3] [4] [5] Media reported that in a place of collapse, only a “weak political statement” was anticipated at the conclusion of the conference. [6] [7] The Copenhagen Accord was drafted by the United States, China, India , Brazil and South Africa on December 18, and judged by the United States Government. It was “taken note of”, but not adopted, and was not unanimously passed. The document recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present day. The paper is not Legally binding and does not Contain Any Legally Binding Commitments for Reducing CO 2 Emissions. [8]

Background and lead-up

The conference was preceded by the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions Scientific Conference, which took place in March 2009 and was also held at the Bella Center. A Secretary General Ban Ki-moonattended the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, organized by the Copenhagen Climate Council (COC), where he requested that COC councillors wait for New York’s Climate Week at the Summit on Climate Change on September 22nd and commits with heads of government on the topic of the climate problem. [9]

Negotiating position of the European Union

On 28 January 2009, the European Commission released a position paper, “Towards a comprehensive climate agreement in Copenhagen.” [10] The position paper “addresses three key challenges: targets and actions; financing [of” low-carbon development and adaptation “]; and building an effective global carbon market “. [11]

Leading by example, the European Union, with a satisfactory deal in Copenhagen. Last December, the European Union revised its carbon allowances system called the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) designed for the post-Kyoto period (after 2013). This new stage of the system aims to provide a better understanding of Europe before and after the Copenhagen meeting. To Avoid Carbon leakage-relocation of companies in other regions not Complying with similar legislation, the EU Commission will Foresee That Sectors exposed to international competition, shoulds be Granted Some allowances free of CO 2provided they are at least at the same level of a benchmark. Other sectors should buy these credits on an international market. Energy intensive industries in Europe have advocated for this benchmark [12] The European chemical industry claims the need to be closer to the needs of citizens in a sustainable way. To comply with such commitments for a low-carbon economy , this requires competitiveness and innovations. [13]

The French Minister for Ecology Jean-Louis Borloo pushes the creation of the Global Environment Organization as France’s main institutional contribution, to offer a powerful alternative to the UNEP .

Official pre-Copenhagen negotiations

A draft negotiating text [14] [15] for finalization at Copenhagen was official released. It was discussed at a series of meetings before Copenhagen.

Bonn – second negotiating meeting

Delegates from 183 countries in Bonn from 1 to 12 June 2009. The purpose was to discuss key negotiating texts. These serve as the basis for the international climate change agreement in Copenhagen. At the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol ( AWG-KP ) the negotiating group was still in the process of being affected by the effects of climate change: a minus 25% to minus 40% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020. The AWG-KP still needs to decide on the target for the country. Progress was made in gaining clarification of the issues of concern and parts of the text. [16]

Seventh session


The first part of the AWG-LCA was held in Bangkok, Thailand, from Monday, 28 September to 9 October, at the United Nations Conference Center (UNCC) of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), Bangkok , Thailand. [17]


The resumed session was held in Barcelona, ​​Spain , from 2 to 6 November 2009. Thereafter, the AWG-LCA puts its place of business at its eighth session, competing with the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties which opened in Copenhagen on 7 December 2009.

Listing of proposed actions

Proposed changes in absolute emissions
Area 1990 → 2020 Reference base
norway -30% to -40% CO 2 e w / o LULUCF
japan -25%
US -20 to -30% CO 2 e w / o LULUCF @ 20%
CO 2 e w / – LULUCF @ 30%
russia -20 to -25%
South Africa -18%
iceland -15% CO 2 e w / – LULUCF
New Zealand -10 to -20% CO 2 e w / – COP15 LULUCF
australia -4 to -24% CO 2 e w / o LULUCF
-15 to -33% CO 2 e w / – human LULUCF
United States -4% CO 2 e w / o LULUCF
Canada + 2.5% CO 2 e ( LULUCF undecided)
brazil +5 to -1.8%
Area 2005 → 2020 Reference base
china -40 to -45% (per GDP) CO emissions intensity
india -20 to -25% (per GDP) CO 2 e emissions intensity
Scotland -50% to -75% (per GDP)

During the conference some countries stated what actions they were proposed to take. In the end, no such agreement is reached and the actions will be in 2010. Sections in alphabetical order.


To reduce carbon emissions by global emissions to levels of CO 2 e to 450 ppm or lower. [18] [19]

To reduce carbon emissions by 15% below 2000 levels by 2020 if there is an agreement where major developing economies are committed to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies. [18] [19] [20]

To cut carbon emissions by 5% below 2000 levels by 2020 unconditionally. [18] [19] [20]

It is clearly stated in the Australian Senate [21] and policy statements of the government [20] [22] [23] that the Australian emission reductions include land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) with the form of inclusion and keeping them informed that they are subject to the Copenhagen Conference. In contention is the Australian Government’s preference for the removal of non-human induced LULUCF Emissions – and Perhaps Their abatement – from the account, Such As from lightning induced bushfires and the subsequent sequestering carbon natural regrowth.[24]

Using Kyoto accounting guidelines , these proposals are equivalent to an emissions cut of 24%, [21] [22] 14% [21] [22] and 4% [21] [22] below 1990 levels by 2020 respectively. Raw use of UNFCCC CO 2 e data Including LULUCF as defined During the conference by the UNFCCC for the years 2000 (404 392 Tg CO 2 e [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] ) and 1990 (453 794 Tg CO 2 e [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]) leads to apparent emissions cuts of 33% (303,294 Tg CO 2 e ), 25% (343,733 Tg CO 2 e ) and 15% (384,172 Tg CO 2 e ) respectively. [30]



To be measured by 2020 2020 (if no action was taken) by the year 2020. [31]

This is equivalent to a change of emissions between 1990 levels by 2020. original research? [32]


In 2009 the goal was to cut carbon emissions by 20% off 2006 levels by 2020; An equivalent of 3% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19] [20] [30] [33] The goal was changed in early 2010 to 17% of 2005 levels by 2020; an equivalent of 2.5% above 1990 levels. [34] [35]

The three most populous provinces disagree with the federal government and more ambitious targets on their jurisdictions. Quebec , Ontario and British Columbia announced respectively 20%, 15% and 14% reduction targets 1990 levels while Alberta is expecting a 58% increase in emissions. [36]

People’s Republic of China

To cut CO emissions intensity by 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. [19] [37] [38]

Costa Rica

To become carbon neutral by 2021. [19]

European Union

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30% (including LULUCF [20] ). [19] [20] [39] [40] [41]

To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% (excluding LULUCF[20][42]) below 1990 levels by 2020 unconditionally.[19][20][39][40][41]

Member country Germany has offered to reduce its CO2 emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020.[43]


To cut carbon emissions by 15% below 1990 levels by 2020.[19]


India ‘s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (blue) and Indian Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh (behind) During a multilateral meeting with US President Barack Obama , Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Brazilian President Lula da Silva and South African President Jacob Zuma at the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

To reduce carbon emissions by 20-25% below 2005 levels by 2020. [19] [44]


To reduce carbon emissions by 26% by 2020, based on business-as-usual levels. With enhanced international assistance, President of Indonesia Dr. Yudhoyono offered an increase of 41% by 2020, based on business-as-usual levels. [19] [30] [45]


To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19] [46]


To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 15% below 1992 levels by 2020. [19]


To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19]


To become carbon neutral by 2019. [19]


To reduce emissions 50% by 2050 below 2000 levels. [19]


To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19]

New Zealand

To Reduce Emissions entre 10% to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 if a global agreement is secured That limits carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) to 450 ppm and temperature Increases to 2 ° C, effective rules is forestry, and New Zealand HAVING access to international carbon markets. [19] [47]


To reduce carbon emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19] [20]

During His speech at the conference, Minister Prime of Norway Jens Stoltenberg offert 40% cut in emission below 1990 levels by 2020 if It Could contribuer to an agreement. [19] [48]


To reduce emissions 5% below 1990 levels. [19]


Prior to the meeting, Russia to a comparable level of emission reduction. [49] This topic has not been announced to the UNFCCC Secretariat before the COP 15 meeting. In the COP 15 negotiations, Russia only pledged to make a commitment to Kyoto Protocol, but said it would reduce emissions by 20% to 25% as part of an agreement on long-term cooperative action. [19]


To reduce emissions by 16% by 2020, based on business-as-usual levels. [19]

South Africa

To reduce emissions by 2020. [19] [50]

This is equivalent to an absolute emissions cut of about 18% original research? ] 1990 levels by 2020. [51]

South Korea

To reduce emissions by 4% below 2005 levels by 2020. [19] [52]


To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19] [20]


To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. [19] [20]

United States

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050. [19] [53] [54]

Raw use of UNFCCC CO 2 e data excluding LULUCF as defined During the conference by the UNFCCC for the years 2005 (7802.213 Tg CO 2 e [25] ) and 1990 (6084.490 Tg CO 2 e [25] ) leads to apparent emission cuts of about 4% [55] [56] [57] (5878.24 Tg CO 2 e ), 33% (4107.68 Tg CO 2 e ) and 80% (1203.98 Tg CO 2 e ) respectively. [30]

Technology measures


At the fifth Magdeburg Environmental Forum held from 3 to 4 July 2008, in Magdeburg , Germany, United Nations Environment Program called for the establishment of infrastructure for electric vehicles . At this international conference, 250 high-ranking representatives from industry, science, politics and non-government organizations discussed solutions for future road transportation under the motto of “Sustainable Mobility- United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 | the Post-2012 CO 2 Agenda” . [58]

Technology Action Programs

Technology Action Programs (TAPs) have been proposed as a means of organizing future technology efforts under the UNFCCC. By creating programs for adaptation and mitigation technologies, the UNFCCC would send signals to the private sector, governments, and research institutions as well as citizens of the world for solutions to the climate problem. Potential focus areas for TAPs include early warning systems, expansion of salinity-tolerant crops, electric vehicles, wind and solar energy, efficient energy grid systems, and other technologies. [59]

Technology roadmaps will address technology transfer, cooperative actions on technologies and key economic sectors, and support implementation of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) [60] and National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs). [61]

Side Event on Transfer Technology

The United Nations Industrial Development Organization ( UNIDO ) and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs ( UNDESA ) have been assigned the task of co-convening a process to support a system-wide coherence and international cooperation on climate change-related technology development and transfer . This COP15 Side Event will feature statements from UNDESA, UNDP , GEF , WIPO , UNIDO, UNEP , IRENA and the UN Foundation . Relevant topics such as the following will be among the many issues discussed: [62]

  • Technology Needs Assessments (TNA) [63] [64]
  • The Poznan Strategic Program on Technology Transfer [65]
  • UN-ENERGY [66]
  • Regional Platforms and Renewable Energy Technologies

Related public actions

The Danish government and key industrial organizations have entered a public-private partnership to promote Danish cleantech solutions. The partnership, Climate Consortium Denmark , is an integrated part of the official portfolio of activities before, during and after the COP15. [67]

There is also a European Conference for the Promotion of Local Actions to Combat Climate Change. [68] [69] The entire morning session was devoted to the Covenant of Mayors. [70]

The Local Government Climate Lounge will be held in the COP 15 building, at the heart of the negotiations. [71]

The Conference

Connie Hedegaard was president of the conference until 16 December 2009, handing over the chair to the Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in the final stretch of the conference, during negotiations between heads of state and government. [1]


Some small protests occurred during the first week of the conference. [72] A much larger market was held in Copenhagen on 12 December for a global agreement on climate. Between 40,000 and 100,000 people attended. [73] 968 protesters were detained at the event, including 19 who were arrested for carrying pocketbooks and wearing masks during the demonstration. Of these all but 13 were released without charge. One police officer was injured by a rock and a protest was injured by fireworks. [72] Some protestors Were kettled by Police and detained This for Several hours without access to food, water or toilets, [74] before being white arrêté and taken to a holding facility is coaches. [75]Protestors were said to be angry at the use of what they considered “heavy-handed” police tactics. [73] Activists claimed that the police used wire-taps, undercover officers and pepper spray on people who had been detained. [76] The police said that it was necessary to deal with such organizations in a manner that would have “consciously attack the structures supporting the COP15”. Per Larsen, the chief coordinating officer for the Copenhagen police force told The New York Times that it was “surely the biggest police force ever”. [77]

The Climate Justice Action Network organized several live actions during the conference, including the ‘Reclaim Power’ action on 16 December. [78]

The Yes Men made a false statement by Jim Prentice , which pledged to cut carbon emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The statement was made by the Ugandan delegation, praising the original pledge and The Yes Men also released a spoof press conference on the official website. The statement was written about The Wall Street Journal before being revealed as a hoax. Jim Prentice described the hoax as “undesirable”. [79]

Four Greenpeace activists gatecrashed a dinner that heads of states were attending on December 18. They unfurled banners saying “Politicians talk, leaders act” before being arrested. They were held without charge and were not questioned until after the arrest. [80] Eventually Greenpeace Nordic was fined 75,000 DKK and activists that participated, for which they were prepared , and received a suspended sentence. and violating the domestic peace. They were acquitted of charges of Lèse-majesté .[81]

International activism

An estimated 20,000 people took part in a march held in London, one week before the conference started. They called on British leaders to force their nations to cut their emissions by 40% by 2020 and to provide $ 150 billion a year by 2020 to assist the world’s poorest countries in adapting to climate change. [82]

As many as 50,000 people took part in a number of marches in Australia, during the conference, calling for world leaders to create a strong and binding agreement. [83] The largest market took place in Melbourne . [84]

Klimaforum09 – People’s Climate Summit

Wahu Kaara (Global justice activist / Kenya Debt Relief Network) spoke at the closing ceremony at Klimaforum09 – People ‘s Climate Summit in Copenhagen December 2009.

An alternative conference, Klimaforum09 , was attended by 50,000 people during the conference. [85] [86 [86 [86 [86 [86] VIDA Shiva , founder of Navdanya , and author Naomi Klein,discusses climate change with Klimaforum09 . [87] A People ‘s Declaration was made before and during the 15th of December. [88] [89]

SevenMeters , a series of art installations made by Danish sculptor Jens Galschiot was displayed during the COP15 summit.

The Danish Text

A leaked document known as “The Danish Text” has started an argument between developed and developing nations. Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Developing countries reacted to the document by Saying que la Developed Countries HAD Worked behind closed doors and made an agreement selon Their wish without the consent of the Developing Nations. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping , chairman of the G77 , said, “It’s an incredibly imbalanced text intended to be subverted, absolutely and completely, two years of negotiations.[90] A profound analysis of the text by developing countries [91]

“Tuvalu Protocol”

Main article: Tuvalu and the United Nations

The Tuvaluan delegation, led by Ian Fry, played an active role in the Conference, attracting media attention. The country submitted a proposed protocol, which would have imposed deeper, legally binding emissions cuts, including on developing nations. The proposal -dubbed by the media and by the NGOs as “Tuvalu Protocol” – was “immediately supported by other small states, including Grenada , Trinidad and Tobago and several African states”, but opposed by countries China, India and Saudi Arabia . The controversy caused by suspension in negotiations, and prompted supportive […] outside the meeting in favor of Tuvalu, chanting: ‘Tuvalu is the new deal.’ “[94] Tuvalu’s position was supported by, among others, East Timor , the Dominican Republic ,Jamaica and Vanuatu , and by Papua New Guinean chief negotiator Kevin Conrad . [95] Tuvalu and its representative Ian Fry “were the toast of the environmentalists at the conference, who held a noisy demonstration in support of the island state’s position”. [96] [97] In an article entitled “Tuvalu takes you off the gloves”, The Sydney Morning Heraldnoted that, by asking for a protocol that would legally bind developing countries, Tuvalu had “cracked a diplomatic axiom that has prevailed since the UN climate convention came into being in 1992: rich countries caused global warming, and it was their responsibility to fix it “. [98] The Economic Times in India noted that the Tuvaluan proposal had “taken [n] center stage”, holding up proceedings for two consecutive days. [99] Australian Senator Christine Milne described Tuvalu as “the mouse that roared” at the Conference. [93] Fry refused to support the final agreement reached by the Conference, describing it as30 pieces of silver to betray our future and our people “, [100] after delivering a final plea in a speech with tears in his eyes, concluding” The fate of my country rests in your hands. “His” tear-jerking performance [ …] prompted wild applause among the crowded Copenhagen conference floor “. [101]

Indigenous rights

Indigenous Rights Organization Survival International has raised the issue of climate change. [102] [103] [104] [105] The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues . Stephen Corry, director of Survival International, explains that “projects that can not be promoted or marketed as green projects”. Survival International calls attention to the fact that these people, who are most likely to contribute to the problem of climate change, are already the most affected by it; and that we must seek solutions that involve indigenous people. [106] Andrew E. Miller, human rights campaigner at Amazon Watch, said, “Many Indigenous Peoples, Understandably, Are Seen in the Realm of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”. the same way that countless conservation schemes have limited local subsistence activities and led to displacement around the world. ” [107] Similar criticism cam out of the Climate Justice network Climate Justice Now! .

In March 2010, Executive Secretary, Estebancio Castro, of the International Alliance of Indigenous Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests suggests that “indigenous people need recognition of their local and national level, to be reflected in the negotiating process.” [108]

Negotiating problems

On December 16th, The Guardian reported that the summit in Copenhagen was in jeopardy. “We have made no progress” said a source close to the talks. “What people do not realize we are not really ready for the leaders. Negotiators were openly talking about the best possible outcome being a “weak political agreement that would leave no clear way forward to tackle rising greenhouse gas emissions”. This would mean that negotiations would continue into 2010. [109]

On 18 December, the head of the United Nations Environmental Program told the BBC that “the summit of this morning is a summit in crisis” and that the summit of a successful conclusion. Head of climate change for WWF in Britain, said the proposals made so far, especially those of industrialized countries. [110]


Hopenhagen is a climate change campaign Organized by the United Nations and the International Advertising Association to Support COP15 – the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009. The council creative Was Chaired by Bob Isherwood and the ad agencies That created the campaign included Ogilvy & Mather , Euro RSCG , McCann Worldgroup , Draftfcb , Saatchi & Saatchi , Interbrand , Tribal DDB and Digitas . [111] The campaign ran from the web sitehttps://web.archive.org/web/20090718030312/http://www.hopenhagen.org/ where users could sign a petition. Together with The Huffington Post also included sponsorship of a “Hopenhagen Ambassador”, – a citizen journalist selected in a contest. [112]

Photographer John Clang was also involved in the campaign. [113]


On the other hand, it was announced that a “meaningful agreement” had been reached between the United States and the other, in a position of the BASIC countries (China, South Africa, India, and Brazil ). [114] An unnamed US government official said that the deal was a “historic step forward” was not enough to prevent dangerous climate changein the future. However, the BBC’s environment said: “While the White House was being advertised, many others – perhaps most of them – had not even seen it. Completed about the way it was reached – “anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable” citation needed ] . most vulnerable to climate impacts have not got the deal they want. ” [114] The use of “meaningful” in the advertisement was viewed as being political spin by an editorial inThe Guardian . [115]

Early on Saturday 19 December, delegates approved a motion to “take note of the Copenhagen Accord [116] of December 18, 2009″. Reviews This was due to the opposition of countries Such As Bolivia , Venezuela , Sudan and Tuvalu Who registered Their opposition to Both targets and the process by the Copenhagen Accord Was qui atteint. [117] The Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the US-backed climate deal as an “essential beginning” of the agreement. [118]The Copenhagen Accord acknowledges the scientific case for temperature control below 2 ° C, but does not contain a baseline for this target, nor commitments for reduced emissions that would be necessary to achieve the target. One part of the agreement pledges US $ 30 billion per year, rising to US $ 100 billion per year by 2020, to help countries adapt to climate change. Earlier proposals, that would have reached to limit temperature rises to 1.5 ° C and cut CO 2 emissions by 80% by 2050 were dropped. The Agreement also favors developing countries, reducing deforestation and degradation, known as REDD. [119] [120]The agreement was made non-binding goal US President Obama said that they could show the world their achievements. He said that if they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress would have been made. [121]

Many countries and non-governmental organizations were opposed to this agreement, but, throughout 2010, 138 countries had signed their agreement. [122] Tony Tujan of the IBON Foundation suggests that there may be some differences in the understanding of what is going on. [123] This could help gain the support of developing countries. Michael Zammit Cutajar, Malta’s Ambassador for Climate Change, extends this to suggest “the shock has made people more open to dialogue” [124]



US President Barack Obama said that the agreement would need to be built in the future and that “We have come a long way but we have more to go.” [125] Gregg Easterbrook noted that Obama’s speech was exactly what George HW Bush had said after the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. However, there had been no progress in regulating greenhouse gases since 1992. [126]

Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Great Britain said “We have made a start”. [125] He spoke to a small number of nations of the Copenhagen talks to ransom. [127] EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said “I will not hide my disappointment regarding the non-binding nature of the agreement here.” [114] French President Nicolas Sarkozy commented on “The text is not perfect” however “If we had no deal, that would mean that two countries as important as India and China would be freed from any type of contract.” [114]

The head of China’s delegation said that “The meeting has had a positive result, everyone should be happy.” [125] Wen Jiabao , China’s prime minister said that the weak agreement was “because of the difference between the two countries:” To meet the climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous efforts and enhance co-operation. ” [128] India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh , has been reported as saying, “We have been able to achieve our goal” and that India had “come out quite well in Copenhagen”. [129]

Brazil’s climate change ambassador called the agreement “disappointing”. The head of the G77 group of countries, which actually represents 130 nations, said that the draft text calls for “suicide pact” and that it would “maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”. [130] The values ​​were based on “the very same values ​​in our opinion that caused six million people in Europe into furnaces”. Representatives of Venezuela , and Tuvalu were unhappy with the outcome. [125] Bolivian president, Evo Moralessaid that, “The meeting has failed. It’s unfortunate for the planet. The fault is with the lack of political will by a small group of countries led by the US.” [128]

John Ashe , the chair of the talks to the Kyoto protocol, [131] was also disappointed with the agreement made, stating: “Where do we come from?” far short of the mark. ” [128]

Non-governmental organizations

Rajendra K. Pachauri stated the Copenhagen Accord is “good but not adequate.” [132] John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, states that “The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight … It is now obvious that a global warming will require a radically different model of politics in Copenhagen. . ” According to him “there are too few politicians in this world capable of looking beyond the horizon of their own narrow self-interest”. Nnimmo Bassey, of theInternational Friends of the Earth called the conference “an abject failure”. [125] Lydia Baker of Save the Childrensaid that world leaders had “a successful death warrant for the world’s poorest children.” Up to 250,000 children from poor communities could die before the next major meeting in Mexico at the end of next year. [120] Tim Jones, climate policy officer from the World Development Movement, said that leaders had “refused to lead and search for bribes and bully developing nations to sign the equivalent of a death warrant.” [128]“The United Nations’s Environment Program’s (UNEP) Fifth Emissions Gap report is in the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 20C … “Canada wants to seize these opportunities by committing to ramping up investments in renewable energy to power our homes, buildings and vehicles,” said John Bennett, Sierra Club of Canada. Kim Carstensen of the World Wide Fund for Naturestated: “Well-meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from dangerous climate change. best, we will be working on one in half a year’s time. “” What we have after two years of negotiation is a half-baked text of unclear substance. ” Robert Bailey, of Oxfam International , said: “It is too late to save the summit, but it is not too late to save the planet and its people. be a rapid, decisive and ambitious movement, not business as usual. ” [133]

Analysis and aftermath

The Copenhagen Accord, which is not binding enforceable. BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin is credited with the recent global recession and conservative domestic pressure in the US and China. [134]

Gregg Easterbrook described the Copenhagen Accord as “vague, nonbinding comments about how other people should use less fossil fuel”. According to Easterbrook, international climate change negotiations are “complex, expensive and goin ‘nowhere” and are prone to creating the appearance of action while distracting attention from the lack of real change. [126]

In the week following the end of the Copenhagen summit, the EU dropped to a six-month low. [135]

The Copenhagen Accord Asked countries to submit emission targets by the end of January 2010, and paved the way for discussions to further Top Occur at the 2010 UN climate change conference in Mexico and the mid-year meeting in Bonn . By early February, 67 countries had registered their targets. [136] Countries such as India and the United States of America made clear that they believed that Copenhagen could not replace negotiations within the UNFCCC. [137] [138] Other commentators consider that “the future of the UN’s role in international climate deals is now in doubt.” [134] [139]

Failure blamed on developed countries

George Monbiot blamed the failure of the conference to achieve a binding deal on the United States Senate and Barack Obama . By negotiating the Copenhagen Agreement with a group of nations, most of the member states were excluded. If poorer nations did not sign the Accord then they would be unable to access funds to help countries adapt to climate change. He noted how the British and American governments blamed China for the failure of the talks but said that Obama was sitting in “an impossible position” – “He demanded concessions while offering nothing.” [140] Martin KhorBlamed Denmark for a meeting of only 26 nations in the final two days of the conference. He says that it undermines the UN’s multilateral and democratic process of climate negotiations. It was in these meetings that China’s long-term emission-reduction targets for global emissions to 50%, and developed countries emissions to 80% by 2050 compared to 1990. Khor states that this is when other countries began to blame the failures on China. If China had accepted this, by 2050 their emissions per capita would have fallen to one of the United States. [141]

According to Kishore Mahbubani , President Obama has had a negotiating session, including Premier Wen Jiabao , and angry response from Xie Zhenhua . [142] White House staffer Alyssa Mastromonaco describes the US delegation including Obama and Clinton, breaking into a “secret” BASIC negotiating session, and the prior confusion over whether the Indian delegation had abandoned the conference. [143]

Failure blamed on developing countries

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has reported that India, China and other emerging nations are cooperating with the world in order to protect their economic growth. [129] [144]

UK Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband specifically criticized China’s involvement in an agreement, provoking a counter response from China that British politicians were engaging in a political scheme. [145] [146] Mark Lynas , who was attached to the Maldives delegation, accused China of “sabotaging” the talks and asserting that Barack Obama would publicly shoulder the blame. [147] [148] The New York Times has quoted Lynas as further commenting:

“…the NGO movement is ten years out of date. They’re still arguing for ‘climate justice’, whatever that means, which is interpreted by the big developing countries like India and China as a right to pollute up to Western levels. To me carbon equity is the logic of mutually assured destruction. I think NGOs are far too soft on the Chinese, given that it’s the world’s biggest polluter, and is the single most important factor in deciding when global emissions will peak, which in turn is the single most important factor in the eventual temperature outcome…
“I think the bottom line for China (and India) is growth, and given that this growth is mainly based on coal, there is going to have to be much more pressure on China if global emissions are to peak within any reasonable time frame. In Beijing the interests of the Party come first, second and third, and global warming is somewhere further down the list. Growth delivers stability and prosperity, and keeps the party in power.”[149]

China’s Xinhua news agency responded to these allegations by asserting that Premier Wen Jiabao played a sincere, determined and constructive role at the last minute talks in Copenhagen and credited him with playing a key role in the “success” of the conference.[150][151] However, Wen did not take part in critical closed-door discussions at the end of the conference.[148][152] According to Wen himself, the Chinese delegation was not informed about the critical discussion.[153]

The editorial of the australian newspaper, blamed african countries for turning Copenhagen into “a platform for demands that the world improves the continent’s standard of living” and asked that “Copenhagen was about old-fashioned anti-Americanism, not the environment”. [154]

Indian journalist Praful Bidwai puts the blame on both sides of the world. India, arguing that the Copenhagen Accord is an illegitimate, ill-conceived, collusive deal between a handful of countries that are some of the world’s greatest present and future emitters. ” [155] He argues that India’s policy is driven by elites determined to maintain high-consumer lifestyles which will have devastating effects for the vast majority of India’s poor.


An article by Gerald Traufetter for Spiegel Posted by admin at 9:05 AM 0 comments Email This BlogThis ! Traufetter’s assertion was based on his analysis of “leaked diplomatic cables.” [156] An article by Damian Carrington for guardian.co.uk also included an analysis of WikiLeaks US diplomatic cables. According to Carrington, “America used spying, threats and promises to help support for [the] Copenhagen accord.” [157]


Benito Müller commented on the criticisms of the UNFCCC process. [158] Müller is a program director at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. In his view, the failure to get a better result at Copenhagen was due to a lack of political will in the preceding months.

Walter Russell Mead clarification needed ] argues that the conference has changed from “Bambi to Godzilla.” According to Mead, environmentalist used to make the argument against big government programs that imposed simple goal massive solutions on complex situations. Environmentalists’ recent advocacy for big economic and social intervention against global warming, according to Mead, has made them, “the voice of the establishment, of the tenured, of the technocrats” and thus has lost the support of a public which is more skeptical of global warming. [159]

Emissions reductions

Main article: Copenhagen Accord § Effect on emissions

A preliminary assessment published in November 2010 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) suggests a possible “emissions gap” between the voluntary pledges made in the Copenhagen Accord and the emissions cuts necessary to have “likely” (greater than 66% probability) chance of meeting the 2 ° C objective. [160] : 10-14 The UNEP assessment takes the 2 ° C objective as being measured against the pre-industrial global mean temperature level. To have a chance of meeting the 2 ° C objective, reported studies indicated the need for global emissions to peak before 2020, with substantial declines in emissions thereafter.

US government spying

Main article: Global surveillance disclosures (2013-present) § 2014 # January

In January 2014, it was revealed that the US government negotiators were in receipt of information during the conference that was being obtained by eavesdropping on meetings and other subterfuge against other conference delegations. Documents leaked by Edward Snowden , and published by the Danish newspaper Dagbladet Information , showed how the US National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring communications between countries before and during the conference, other parties at the conference. [161] [162]

Representatives of other nations involved have reacted angrily. The leaked documents show that the NSA provided more details about the plan to “rescue” the talks should they, and also about China’s efforts before the conference to coordinate its position with that of India. Members of the Danish negotiating team said that the delegation was “peculiarly well-informed” about closed-door discussions that had taken place. “They simply sat back, just as we had feared they would have they knew about our document,” [161] [162]

“The climate is likely to be about building trust – that’s been under the threat of further action,” said Meena Raman, of the Third World Network . “Fighting climate change is a global struggle, and these revelations clearly show that the US government is more interested in crassly protecting a few vested interests,” said Brandon Wu of ActionAid . Bill McKibben , founder of 350.org , called the spying by the US “insane and disgusting”. [161]

See also

  • 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference
  • Business action on climate change
  • Climate Change TV
  • Copenhagen Climate Challenge
  • Energy Lobby
  • Global warming controversy
  • Individual and political action on climate change
  • Politics of global warming
  • Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions
  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • Valby Internment
  • World People’s Conference on Climate Change

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *