Mark Lynas guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 22 December 2009

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.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

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”.

Shifting the blame

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. 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, 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.

Strong position

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

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.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

China’s game

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

By DAVID A. FAHRENTHOLD and JULIET EILPERIN
The Washington Post
Friday, December 18, 2009

What the heck is all this?

This is a United Nations-run conference that was — originally — supposed to produce a new global agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions because what happens after 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol is uncertain. There is a legal agreement in place, but it has no specifics in it, and countries would have to agree to a new round of targets. But the idea of a new global agreement was scotched before the conference even started. Now, countries say they’re trying to produce a “political agreement.” In U.N.-speak, that means a deal that settles some key issues, like climate targets for major greenhouse gas emitters and the amount of money that rich nations will pay to poor ones to adapt to climate change, and establishes a framework for inking a formal treaty next year.

Key issues remain unsettled, so the talks’ final outcome are uncertain.

What’s with those demonstrators?

Many of them feel the Copenhagen conference doesn’t take the problem of climate change seriously enough. For days, demonstrators outside the Bella Center in Copenhagen — the site of the talks — have battled with Danish police wielding tear gas and truncheons. Others have held nonviolent demonstrations in the city (and in Washington, where Thursday morning Greenpeace used fake police tape to cordon off the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labeling it a “Climate Crime Scene” because they believe the chamber is trying to slow progress toward emissions cuts). The goal of most of them is to push the delegates toward more stringent, ambitious cuts in emissions. But there are also skeptical groups, who believe that climate change is not happening in the way that mainstream science believes, or that tackling it would impose vast costs on the world’s economy.

What’s the deal with “two degrees”?

It’s a statement about the world’s thermostat. This summer, world leaders gathered in Italy pledged to prevent the earth’s average temperature from warming more than two degrees Celsius, which is about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, from pre-industrial levels. This conference was supposed to work out the stickier question of how to accomplish that goal. Many vulnerable countries have called for the world to aim for curtailing global temperature rise even more, by establishing an upper threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

For now, the world seems to be on pace to miss the goal. A consortium of U.S.-based scientists recently found that, even if all the world’s countries fulfill the emissions-cutting pledges they’ve made so far, temperatures will rise about 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

What progress has been made so far?

Some, but there’s a real question of whether it’s enough. The most encouraging news has come on the subject of the funds that rich countries will pay to poor ones, both to help them adapt to climate change and to reduce the greenhouse gases they emit. On Thursday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that the United States would help mobilize $100 billion in annual financing by 2020 (although Clinton did not say, specifically, how much the U.S. would contribute). And, on Wednesday, there was a key signal from the other side, as Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said poorer countries would accept a smaller amount of short-term funding in exchange for a bigger long-term package. Zenawi said his side had agreed to take $10 billion a year in the next three years, if that amount rose to $100 billion by 2020.

Also, before the conference began, both the United States and China made pledges to tackle their greenhouse-gas emissions. In the U.S. case, President Obama offered to reduce them “in the range of” 17 percent, as measured against 2005 levels, by 2020. China pledged they would reduce their carbon output relative to the size of their economy by between 40 and 45 percent compared to what it otherwise would have been over the same period. Many experts said this is less ambitious than it seems, since China’s economy is bound to get more energy efficient in the coming decade as it develops and relies on cleaner technologies. Some say that China’s existing policies will lead to carbon output reductions in the 40 to 45 percent range and that they need to be more ambitious than that. Many countries have criticized the U.S. target as well, saying that it represents just a 3 percent cut below 1990 levels, the benchmark used under Kyoto.

What role is the United States playing?

No longer the villain, but not quite the hero, either. The Obama administration has been praised in Copenhagen for pledging to make emissions cuts, which was a break from the Bush administration’s approach. And, over the last couple of days, U.S. officials have proposed funding for poor countries, a breakthrough credited with keeping hope of a deal alive. But U.S. negotiators were criticized by some developing countries for taking so long to act and for demanding that major developing countries subject their emission cuts to international scrutiny. The U.S. delegation is likely to be cautious in any emissions-reductions it promises — mindful that climate legislation is stalled in the U.S. Senate, and that an angry Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol under President Bill Clinton.

Obama will arrive in Copenhagen on Friday. What he says, and whether he’s able to bring bickering blocs of countries together, will likely be the best-remembered story of the U.S. involvement there.

Wait, didn’t “Climate-gate” show that climate change isn’t happening after all?

No. The “Climate-gate” scandal involved a trove of electronic files stolen from a climate-change research center at a British university. The e-mails showed climate scientists fretting over problems in their data, and scheming to keep researchers who disagreed with them out of scientific journals. They certainly raised questions about whether the leading experts on the subject tried to make their field appear less messy, and the science of climate change more unanimous, that it really was.

But there was nothing in them that showed that the basic conclusions of climate science — that earth’s temperatures are warming, and that man-made pollutants appear to be trapping unusual amounts of heat in the atmosphere — are wrong.

Where do the delegates still disagree?

On a few key points. Countries have made little progress on how an agreement would capture the climate targets they’ve put on the table. They also disagree over how — or whether — third- party countries can check to see if countries are meeting their promises to reduce emissions.

Also, it was only Thursday that countries formally agreed on just what they were negotiating over here. Poorer countries want the next deal to be considered a formal sequel to the Kyoto accords, since they held industrialized countries to strong emissions cuts. A group of developed countries wanted to start with a clean slate, but on Thursday they gave up that bid.

How is this all going to end?

At the last possible moment. Though international negotiators have had two weeks to work out their differences in Copenhagen, it’s likely they will follow custom and pull off a deal on the conference’s last day. The arrival of heads of state, including Obama, may speed that along, since they have authority to make deals that lower-level negotiators do not. For now, however, it seems like the hardest issues of dealing with climate change — how deeply to cut emissions, how to make sure other countries are keeping their promises — will be left unresolved, to be handled at another conference (with many of the same players) next year.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama heads to Copenhagen on Thursday to help secure a U.N. climate pact, staking his credibility on an as yet elusive deal that has ramifications for him at home and on the world stage.

Obama is expected to arrive in the Danish capital on Friday morning, joining about 120 other world leaders to finish a complicated process of reaching a political agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming.

The time is short and the stakes are high. With his top domestic priority of healthcare reform legislation percolating in Washington, the president plans to stay in Copenhagen less than a day.

That may or may not be enough time to overcome persistent disagreements between developed and developing nations that have marred two weeks of talks, but Obama’s presence and contribution could be a potential deal-maker.

The United States has proposed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. That corresponds to a 3 percent reduction from 1990 levels, the baseline used by the European Union and others.

Obama is unlikely to propose a more aggressive emissions reduction target, which many countries have demanded. His goals are based on a bill that passed the House of Representatives but has yet to go through the Senate before it can become law.

Still, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama hoped to help break a deadlock around outstanding issues surrounding developed countries’ emissions targets and disagreements about financial support for poor countries dealing with climate change.

“I think leaders representing developing and developed nations all over the world coming to Copenhagen gives … an opportunity for some of those issues to be resolved and a breakthrough to happen,” Gibbs said on Wednesday.

“The president is … hopeful that his presence can help that, and hopeful that, again, we leave Copenhagen with a strong operational agreement, even as we work toward something even stronger in the future.”

RISKS ON ALL SIDES

Environmentalists say Obama could turn the talks around by pledging his strong support for the Senate climate bill, which has a more aggressive 20 percent emissions reduction target, and by putting his full efforts into the issue once healthcare reform is finished.

He could also ease conflicts over funding by promising to ask Congress for more money in the U.S. budget for fiscal 2011 to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

His visit is fraught with risks. If the president, a Democrat, puts a more aggressive offer on the table, he could face criticism from Republicans who charge the United States is going too far without getting enough in return from big developing economies such as India and China.

If he is more cautious and the talks end up faltering, he would be connected to that failure and his efforts to pass domestic climate change legislation could suffer along with his credibility among other international leaders.

“He’s sort of damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, and (so) he might as well do the thing that’s right,” said Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, urging Obama to push the talks forward.

“This is the kind of thing that, if you think about it, he ran for president to do. The kind of thing he got awarded his Nobel Prize because of the potential to do,” Meyer said.

Obama has been making phone calls to other world leaders this week to discuss the process before his arrival.

There is some speculation Obama would also sign an updated pact with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to reduce nuclear arms stockpiles during his short European trip, but the White House played down the chances a deal on that issue would be reached in time.

(Editing by Peter Cooney)

By Aubrey Ann Parker
Free Press guest blogger

When it comes to wind power, Americans have all kinds of excuses not to use it. “It’s too expensive” or “Not in my backyard” (NIMBY: referencing that they don’t want a tall, skinny, white turbine obstructing their beautiful view of the ocean or the mountains.) Let me begin by saying this is all a sham, in my opinion.

Recognized around the world for the last century of leading the manufacturing industry, Detroit is rusting from the inside out. Michigan is currently experiencing a 15% unemployment rate. Although some jobs have been created since the government incentive to manufacture affordable cars with good gas mileage, the jobless people of our state are still left waiting for the dawn of the second industrial revolution.

Why aren’t we using our technical expertise and warehouses full of machinery equipment to help optimize wind turbines that could be used throughout the world? This morning I attended a three-hour tour to Middelgrunden Wind Farm, just off the coast of Copenhagen. Luckily this tour didn’t turn out like Gilligan’s, because the temperature was below freezing.

The tour highlighted several speakers from the wind energy industry, all of which mentioned the need for better turbine design so that wind energy can become more affordable for consumers. They stressed the importance of new technology to overcome the learning curve in an industry that is still fairly young (only 30 years old for onshore turbines, and less than 10 years for offshore). But the potential is there, and estimates say the demand is growing fast.

The tour boat circled 20 turbines at the offshore Middlegrunden wind farm —- contributing three percent of the Copenhagen energy grid -— and we could see 100 Swedish turbines spinning in the distance. There are 11 offshore wind farms just like this scattered along the Danish coastline, but it still manages to retain its beauty. There are plenty of sailboats docked for the winter in the harbor, and I’m sure their owners still get plenty of use out of them — they might even use the turbines as a sort of obstacle course. The coastline at Middelgrunden is marred with carbon emitting stackhouses in addition to the windmills, and to my way of thinking, I’d rather have 20 skinny, white turbines “ruining” my view of the water than sooty, gray smog.

Denmark has 5,100 wind turbines total —- 78% of which are onshore, 22% offshore -— contributing to 20% of Danish electricity production. Jan Hylleberg, CEO of the Danish Wind Industry Association, projects that by 2020 this will increase to 50%.

I believe that Michigan could lead the green revolution —- supplying wind turbines to the world instead of automobiles —- if we could only think outside the dinosaur graves buried beneath the Middle East. The laws of economics apply here: As fossil fuels become scarce and supply decreases, demand (and therefore price) of these industries will increase to an amount that no one can afford to pay; thus a crash like the recent auto industry.

So why are we giving false hope to workers in Detroit by filling jobs manufacturing high mileage cars that we know are only temporary fixes? Why are we proposing to use our industrial knowledge and resources to build six new coal plants, if we know that the price of this energy is only going to increase? Why, instead, aren’t we seeking our own, domestic solution to this very foreseeable problem in the near future? Shouldn’t we be producing and manufacturing our own wind turbines, as well as supplying them to the rest of the globe?

Simply put, because nobody wants a shiny white turbine obstructing their view of crystal clear Lake Michigan. Absurdity! We get some amazing winds off the bluffs along the coast and we should be taking full advantage of them. And even if you argue that this isn’t enough to meet the energy demands of Michigan, that’s fine -— at least we can sell the technology to other places like Denmark where wind is more favorable.

The Danish wind industry started after the first oil crisis in the 1970s. Denmark was looking for domestic solutions to foreign fossil fuel dependence, and began to develop a plan featuring wind as a long-term, renewable alternative. Although the market began with onshore wind turbines, offshore development—which produces 30% to 40% more energy per turbine -— has experienced a steady increase, expected to grow 45% annually in coming years. This means that in 2015 6% to 7% of the world’s wind energy will be offshore, and the European Union will increase to 20% offshore suppliers, says Anders Soe Jensen, offshore president of Vestas Wind Systems.

Each turbine is 100 meters tall and 76 meters in diameter, producing two MWh per hour, totaling to four million KWh per year —- enough to power around 1,200 households (for onshore turbines), says Jensen. Middlegrunden, with 20 offshore turbines, produces enough energy for about 35,000 households —- this compared to the 20 to 25 thousand households if the same 20 turbines were onshore.

The other wind leaders in the European Union are Spain, with 15% wind power, and Denmark’s southern neighbor Germany, with 8%. Last year the EU as a whole had a 40 percent increase in wind installations.

“We can industrialize this industry at a lower price, building a foundation,” Jensen said. The only thing missing is technological advancement, who is currently hiring for the position of a manufacturing leader.

Christian Kjaer, CEO of the European Wind Energy Association, says the European Union legislation is expected to set a binding target for renewable energy at 20% —- a 5% increase from the current set point. By 2012, the EU will meet its Kyoto obligations because they are already delivering on carbon reductions, says Kjaer. This in stark contrast to Canada, which I heard the other day at the Bella Center is at negative three percent of its Kyoto obligations.

Spain alone plans to intensify this regime, however, ratifying an agreement in June 2010 to have 40 percent of Spanish energy coming from renewable resources, says Carlos Gasco of Ibertrola Renewables in Spain.

“Scientists say we need to act soon,” Kjaer said. “Developed countries need a 25 to 40 percent reduction in carbon emissions. We need a legally binding target by 2020, not by 2050 …” Kjaer not only recommended bumping up renewable energy systems, but also a complete fuel source switch, such as from coal to gas.

Steve Sawyer, the secretary general for the Global Wind Energy Council, has 20 years of experience with negotiations like those seen at the United Nations Climate Summit in Copenhagen this week. He told the tour that by the end of next week 130 heads of state will be here, “and the deal isn’t done yet. Usually they only show up to congratulate themselves on a job well done.”

Sawyer confirmed what I’ve been feeling all week. As far as the negotiations go, there are pessimists and there are optimists here in Copenhagen when it comes to the question of whether or not the United Nations will sign a “real deal” by this time next week. “But as far as I can tell,” Sawyer said, “the game is still in play.” However, he adds, the majority of the negotiations on the table right now are “nowhere near ambitious enough … (despite that) potential is huge all over the world.”

Currently, there are wind projects totaling 33,000 MW under construction now, 22,000 of which are in China alone. Almost 29,000 MW of wind power are currently generated in the United States as of April 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

“We’ve learned from Europe,” said Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association. The EU set hard renewable energy targets and then each country had to develop their own energy portfolio to reach those goals. “In the U.S., we have no hard targets, so it is up to the individual states to come up with their own objectives,” which is much less actionable in terms of carbon reductions.

I hope as we go into the next week of negotiations that the U.N. does decide to implement strict renewable energy goals. And I hope that the Michigan manufacturing industry will be watching.