Global Climate Change: Making Sense of Copenhagen

Speakers:

• Opening remarks: Eric Farnsworth, Vice President, Council of the Americas
• Moderated by: Helga Flores Trejo, Head Strategic Communications Sectors, Office of External Relations, Inter-American Development Bank
• Juliet Eilperin, National Environmental Reporter, The Washington Post
• Lisa Friedman, Deputy Editor, ClimateWire
• Sascha Müller-Kraenner, European Representative, The Nature Conservancy
• John Nash, Lead Economist, Sustainable Development, Latin America and Caribbean Region, The World Bank
• Closing remarks: Laurie Dundon, Director, Transatlantic Relations, Bertelsmann Foundation North America

Summary

Americas Society and Council of the Americas (AS/COA), in collaboration with the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Inter-American Development Bank, hosted a public panel on January 25, 2010, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC. The meeting was part of a series of energy and climate events hosted by AS/COA’s Energy Action Group in 2010 and 2011. Panelists debated the recent climate change conference in Copenhagen, the Copenhagen Accord, and the direction of global climate change negotiations. Key topics that emerged from the conversation include the main components of the Copenhagen Accord, the changing role of Europe in international climate talks, climate opportunities and concerns in Latin America, and the important role of the United States to moving international climate negotiations forward.

Opening Remarks: Maintaining Momentum on Climate Change

AS/COA Vice President Eric Farnsworth opened the event by noting that “there was uncertainty before Copenhagen” and “there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty now that Copenhagen has actually come and gone.” (See Global Climate Change After Copenhagen: What Comes Next? for more information on the events leading up to the Copenhagen summit). The Copenhagen Accord covers issues that range from financial assistance to deforestation to developing country emissions reductions, according to Farnsworth. But it will require much additional work to move forward on these areas. “With all the build up to Copenhagen and the inevitable day-after letdown a lot of people are feeling now, is it possible to keep the momentum going to work out and implement a robust agreement?” he asked.

The Copenhagen Conference: What Happened?

The Inter-American Development Bank’s Helga Flores Trejo, who served as moderator, agreed with Farnsworth that the Copenhagen Conference “left more questions open than answered” and asked the speakers to help make sense of what happened. ClimateWire’s Lisa Friedman responded by saying even those who attended the conference are still trying to understand what took place. At meetings of world leaders such as the G20, the outcome is known in advance, but no one knew what was going to be agreed in Copenhagen. “For sheer unscripted political drama on an international stage I don’t know that there’s been anything like Copenhagen before,” she said. After hours of negotiations, the Copenhagen Accord was hashed out by the leaders of five countries: Brazil, India, China, South Africa, and the United States. Many countries were angry at not being part of that process. Speaking for the G77, Sudan said that group would not accept the accord. Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, and Nicaragua also rejected it outright. As a result, instead of being adopted by the UN Conference of Parties (COP), the accord was “noted”—meaning that it’s existence was merely acknowledged.

The Copenhagen Accord

Speakers agreed that the main components of the Copenhagen Accord are: pledges by all major emitting countries to reduce emissions, the recognition of the need to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius or less, international verification of emissions reductions for developed and developing countries, financial assistance in the short and long terms, and a call to establish a mechanism to reduce deforestation. Still, the accord “is a giant question mark,” said Friedman. Many elements require decisions by the COP to be operationalized, and “it’s entirely unclear how and when those things will happen,” she said. The next meeting of the COP takes place in Mexico in November 2010.

The Ambiguous Role of Europe

Sascha Müller-Kraenner of the Nature Conservancy said the European Union (EU) is analyzing what went wrong in Copenhagen and plotting what to do next. The EU hopes to figure out whether poorly organized negotiations or political difference were the root problems. While the Europeans are pleased that all major emitters supported the agreement and they feel confident that the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) will honor their commitments, they don’t know what the United States will do and are concerned that the accord does not include a clear mandate for a legally binding outcome. But the big regret for the EU, said Müller-Kraenner, is that no European was in the room when the final accord was negotiated. The question is not “why didn’t Mr. Obama possess the grace to find Angela Merkel’s telephone number on his BlackBerry and call her up,” said Müller-Kraenner, “because that’s the kind of meeting you have to be in independently of whether someone is nice enough to ask you or not.” The Europeans are taking steps to ensure they are not sidelined again.

What Does This Mean for Latin America?

Drawing from a recent World Bank study he coauthored entitled Low Carbon, High Growth: Latin American Responses to Climate Change, the World Bank’s John Nash outlined the expected impacts of climate change on Latin America and highlighted the areas in which Latin American countries have a comparative advantage in reducing emissions. Of particular concern are losses in agricultural productivity. These could range from 12 to more than 50 percent in Latin America and have serious implications for the global food supply as well as for trade. If there are significant disruptions in food production, “there are going to have to be major changes in trade patterns of food moving around the world to avoid famines,” said Nash. “It really does underscore the need to focus on bringing to a successful conclusion the Doha Round.” Other climate change risks in Latin America include the melting of the Andean glaciers, increased frequency of hurricanes in the Caribbean Basin, and threats to biodiversity.

When it comes to adaptation—taking steps to reduce the impact of climate change—what needs to occur in Latin America largely overlaps with the overall development agenda, said Nash. On the emissions side of the equation, Latin America is well-poised to make reductions in a number of areas. In that regard, Nash named deforestation as top priority. According to the World Bank, 46 percent of emissions in Latin America stem from land use change and deforestation, compared with 18 percent globally. For this reason, it is very important for Latin America that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation—also known as REDD—is operationalized.

President Obama and the United States

Juliet Eilperin of The Washington Post agreed with the other panelists that the world is waiting to see what action the United States takes on climate change domestically. “One of the critical questions going forward is to what extent can the U.S. pass legislation that would allow it to help cement any sort of meaningful deal, whether it’s a legally binding treaty or not, in Mexico this year,” said Eilperin, “and right now prospects are dim, to put it charitably.” Because the U.S. Congress has not been able to work out a compromise, climate legislation could happen only if President Barack Obama makes it a top priority, though what this legislation would look like is an unanswered question. Eilperin emphasized that in order to get the necessary Republican votes, “any kind of energy and climate bill that could pass Congress this year would have to be significantly changed from what’s been on the table both in terms of Waxman-Markey and the bill that passed the Environment and Public Works Committee.”

But there are reasons to believe the White House would push for legislation. According to Eilperin, Obama cares about this issue and takes his commitment to the international community seriously. However, there are also substantial risks. Action on climate change could be portrayed as a tax on energy and become a lightning rod in the November midterm elections.