Climate Politics @ Copenhagen

People had bigger expectations from the recently held Copenhagen Climate Conference and there were several reasons behind this ambition. There is no doubt that this conference has been able to mark some significant achievements -first in terms of creating a global momentum on climate change and second – it has been able to create a strong and legitimate base for the way ahead. Strategically this time citizens around the world have been visible stakeholders of the negotiation process which will definitely be a strong space for public advocacy to influence the upcoming policy priorities and influencing the governments specially the rich ones. However, this conference could not make a breakthrough, in forms of signing over legally binding documents and replacing the Kyoto Protocol, among the member states of the UN. In this sense, expectations have been smashed.

The current Copenhagen Accord is voluntary in nature which does not have any set targets. There are few package to support developing countries to help them mitigating climate challenges, but these too are not up to the mark. The Copenhagen Accord was much centered around the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The document acknowledges that climate change is one of the greatest challenges and appropriate actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. Unfortunately, the document is not legally binding. Regarding the funding the accord mentions, “The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation. Funding for adaptation will be prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, Small Island developing States and Africa. In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.” There is no commitment for a period of 2014-2019 and there are still doubts on the quality of funding.

There have been dissatisfactions from all the corners including the civil society, developing countries governments and even the rich countries. There are also criticisms for UN in not being able to take effective actions. In this context, UN General Assembly President Ali Treki, in his statement said, “There are complaints that some countries have not been dealt with carefully, other countries believe it was not democratic, other groups believe that the matter has been out of the hand of the UN and they would like also that UN would take over this problem again,". He added, “But I think we should be realistic that what happened there, it is really something positive,". He said, "I think that the conclusion of a certain agreement was really good progress and we have to follow that up.”

It is true that there was a doubt among many people that whether Copenhagen will fail. If we consider this context of doubt, then definitely this conference has boosted up certain positive aspects as well. “As recently as a month ago, they again cast doubts. Copenhagen will fail, the skeptics said. The road is too hard, the difficulties too large. We are here today to write a different future.” Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s opening remark reveals the fact of doubts as well as a greater optimism for the days ahead. However, as the larger global politics lies in the hands of few rich countries and some new emerging economic powers such as China, India, South Africa etc. climate change politics also largely depends on the political will of some of these countries. It is clear that though climate change appears to be a scientific and technical issue in nature which is also a fact, it has larger sociopolitical and economic consequences as a result it does have deeper political tussles among the powerful countries of the world.

Beside, these politics, as Oxfam’s latest report entitled ‘Climate shame: get back to the table’ mentions “Copenhagen was a unique opportunity to turn the world’s course away from climate disaster, towards a safe future for all of us on this small planet. Massive global public mobilization demanded it. But leaders of the major powers negotiated for their national interests, instead of safeguarding our shared destiny”. Beside many frustrations, the climate conference has been able to mobilize thousands of people. This sensitization aspect has been a crucial mode in global climate politics.

As usual, during the conference, there was a sense of frustration among the developing country delegates and much of the frustration was pervading among civil society groups and many of them have expressed their anger in different ways. For many of the participants in the conference, it was a good opportunity to be aware of climate change and build their capacity however, for hundred thousands of poor of the world who have been the constant victims of global climate politics there is yet a long way to know what exactly happened in Copenhagen Climate Conference. Moreover, the fundamental question is -does it make sense in their daily lives?

Rich countries, which have best scientists and researchers, are definitely aware of climate change and its effects in the days to come. However, their reluctance to prioritize the agenda clearly manifests a fact that climate change is still an issue of the poor and those who have been the constant victims of the power structures of society. Let’s hope that galvanized strengths of the citizens from across the world will play a vital role to bring the agenda on the table as a common priority of all the citizens irrespective of their political and economic status.

Earth Concern Desk