BETRAYAL in COPENHAGEN

Contents

COPENHAGEN—A U.N. conference on Saturday rammed through a battle plan against climate change forged by U.S. President Barack Obama and other top leaders, sidelining smaller states which lashed the deal as betrayal.

After toxic exchanges, the summit chair forced through a deal using an unusual procedural tool that effectively dropped all obstacles to the new-born Copenhagen Accord.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon admitted the agreement had failed to win global consensus and would disappoint many who demanded stronger action against climate change, but he voiced relief it had not been strangled at birth. “Many will say that it lacks ambition,” Ban said. “Nonetheless, you have achieved much.”

Obama earlier called the political accord an “unprecedented breakthrough” after meetings with about two dozen presidents and prime ministers in Copenhagen.

The agreement was assembled in a frenzied game of climate poker among the leaders of the United States, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and major European countries. The group had been chosen by conference chair Denmark after it became clear the summit was in danger of catastrophic failure.

But the deal was savaged when it was put before a full session of the 194-nation U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Half a dozen developing countries led the charge, blasting the document as a cozy backdoor deal that violated U.N. democracy, excluded the poor, and doomed the world to disastrous climate change.

"It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future,” said Ian Fry of Tuvalu, a tiny Pacific island whose very existence is threatened by rising seas. The draft set a commitment to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but did not spell out the important stepping stones—global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050—for getting there. It did not identify a year by which emissions should peak, a demand made by rich countries that was fiercely opposed by China. And, under it, pledges are voluntary and free from tough compliance provisions to ensure they are honored.

China had bristled at anything called “verification” of its plan to cut the intensity of its carbon emissions, seeing it as an infringement of sovereignty and saying rich nations bore primary responsibility for global warming.

The deal was more detailed on how poor countries should be financially aided to shore up their defences against rising seas, droughts, floods, and storms. Rich countries pledged $30 billion in “fast-track” finance for the 2010-2012 period, including $11 billion from Japan, $10.6 billion from the European Union, and $3.6 billion from the United States. They set an ambitious goal of “jointly mobilizing” $100 billion by 2020.

But to make the “fast-track” funds operational, the accord needed plenary approval. Countries were invited to sign up to the deal.

The U.N.‘s climate pointman Yvo de Boer denied that the 13-day conference had been a complete failure, but admitted it had not lived up to expectations. “A great deal of energy was invested, a great deal was within our grasp, we managed to capture a certain degree of success, but we should be conscious of the huge challenge that lies ahead of us,” he told a closing press briefing.

More than 130 leaders attended the outcome, “the biggest meeting of heads of state and government in the history of the United Nations and possibly in history,” said UNFCCC Information Officer John Hay. “It’s the first time that heads of state and government have got involved in drafting text.”

The goal is to complete a signable treaty in Mexico City in December 2010 and have it take effect from 2013, after the current roster of pledges under the U.N.‘s Kyoto Protocol expire.

The outcome in Copenhagen will deliver a boost to Obama’s efforts to secure legislation in the U.S. Congress that would set his country on a path to lower emissions by around 17 percent by 2020 over a 2005 benchmark.

Obama described the deal as a “meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough.”  He added, “Going forward, we are going to have to build on the momentum we have achieved here in Copenhagen. We have come a long way but we have much further to go.”

The Copenhagen Accord was met with dismay by many activists, who said it was weak, non-binding, and sold out the poor.

“Well-meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from dangerous climate change are simply not sufficient to address a crisis that calls for completely new ways of collaboration across rich and poor countries,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative.