Copenhagen Climate Talks "“ Yet another Gimmick?

"“ Dr. Abdul Ruff

                              1. THE ISSUE

The NATO/US led ISTs (international state terrorists) cause the acceleration of deadly pollution of atmosphere by destructions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan and elsewhere, while the natural global warming emissions pursued by most of the nations and resultant rising sea levels resulting from anti-climate human activity, remain the continuous reason for the climate change. Tormented by financial conflicts, the 15th U.N. Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from Dec. 7-18, calls world leaders to Copenhagen next week to address global warming and emissions reductions. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) seeks a reduction of carbon emissions by industrialized countries, methods of financing developing countries' emissions reductions, and management of the funding. Representatives of 192 countries have been invited to meet in Copenhagen to attempt to reach a global consensus on tackling climate change. The highest emitters are USA, China, Russia and India. 

Opening the two-week conference in the Danish capital, Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen has described the UN climate summit in Copenhagen as an "opportunity the world cannot afford to miss". Public concern over climate change is growing across the world and the G77/China bloc - which speaks on behalf of developing countries - is discussing whether to demand a much tougher target of 1.5C. A number of African delegations are backing the argument made by small island states that 2C will bring major impacts to their countries, but none of the industrialized countries have put forward emission cuts in the range that would be required to meet a 1.5C target. In order to make the developing nations also commit to climate change, many developing nations have also been invited to attend the summit.

According to WWF International, the 160-page document, called the Copenhagen Climate Treaty, was completed in June 2009 after nearly a year of work. It has been "distributed to negotiators from 192 states," and shows "balanced and credible climate solutions based on equity and science. The treaty was reworked "into a concise paper called the Real Deal for Copenhagen" in October. In late November, Denmark drafted a climate pact in preparation for Copenhagen. The pact calls for the world to "halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels. The pact also stipulates that wealthy nations "account for 80 percent of the global emission cuts." Noticeably absent from the draft was poorer countries' request for short-term emissions goals for wealthy nations. China and India have said they oppose agreeing to the halved emissions goal unless wealthy world powers "take the lead by setting far tougher reductions by 2020.

The global average temperature has already risen by about 0.7C since pre-industrial times. In some parts of the world this is already having impacts - and a Copenhagen deal could not stop those impacts, although it could provide funding to help deal with some of the consequences. Greenhouse gases such as CO2 stay in the atmosphere for decades; and concentrations are already high enough that further warming is almost inevitable. Many analyses suggest an average rise of 1.5C since pre-industrial times is guaranteed. The Earth's climate has always changed naturally over time. For example, variability in our planet's orbit alters its distance from the Sun, which has given rise to major Ice Ages and intervening warmer periods. According to the last IPCC report, it is more than 90% probable that humankind is largely responsible for modern-day climate change. The principal cause is burning fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas. This produces carbon dioxide (CO2), which - added to the CO2 present naturally in the Earth's atmosphere - acts as a kind of blanket, trapping more of the Sun's energy and warming the Earth's surface. Deforestation and processes that release other greenhouse gases such as methane also contribute. Although the initial impact is a rise in average temperatures around the world - "global warming" - this also produces changes in rainfall patterns, rising sea levels, changes to the difference in temperatures between night and day, and so on. This more complex set of disturbances has acquired the label "climate change" - sometimes more accurately called "anthropogenic (human-made) climate change".

In general, fossil fuels provide us with our cheapest sources of energy. The main route to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to avoid burning fossil fuels; so a successful treaty would almost certainly make energy more expensive. There are different analyses of how much it would cost to make this transition quickly enough to avert "dangerous" climate change. Many countries are thinking about how to prepare for the impacts of climate change - what sorts of adaptation will be necessary. These include measures such as building sea defences, securing fresh water supplies and developing new crop varieties. Developing countries are looking for substantial and reliable finance to help them adapt. Their argument is that as the industrialised world has caused the problem, it must pay to sort it out. Measures to protect forests will be a component of the deal.

Global governments want a new treaty that is bigger, bolder, wider-ranging and more sophisticated than the Kyoto agreement. In June, the G8 and a number of large developing countries agreed that the average temperature rise since pre-industrial times should be limited to 2C (3.6F). In principle, they are looking to the Copenhagen treaty to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep the world within that limit. The Copenhagen talks sit within the framework of the UNFCCC, established at the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992. In 1997, the UNFCCC spawned the Kyoto Protocol. But neither of these agreements can curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to avoid the climate impacts projected by the IPCC. In particular, the Kyoto Protocol's targets for reducing emissions apply only to a small set of countries and expire in 2012.

A lot of issues are involved. Industrialized nations set targets for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions in order to mitigate climate change. The key date for these commitments is 2020, although some countries are looking beyond that, to 2050. Australia, the EU, Japan and New Zealand have already said what they are prepared to do by 2020. Richer developing countries are also likely to be asked to constrain their emissions. If they do make any pledges, they are likely to restrain the growth of emissions rather than making actual cuts. Developing countries are looking for money in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars each year for mitigation - the ballpark figure that the International Energy Agency calculates is necessary to fund a large-scale switch to low-carbon energy. Many island nations are the affected parties threatened by rising sea levels and Commonwealth leaders met days after pledges by the US and China to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, amid concerns that December's Copenhagen meeting on climate change could fail to agree substantial cuts. Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told a news conference in Trinidad that the Commonwealth - representing a third of the world's population - believed "the time for action on climate change has come".

There has been a rather, futile attempt from the climate polluting states to use global media to make climate change less important and not dangerous at all now. They say that temperatures are not rising anymore. One of the main reasons why governments decided two years ago to draw up a new global agreement on climate change was a major report published just before that year's UN climate summit in Bali. This was the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the distillation of research into climate past and present, melting ice, atmospheric changes, dates of bird migrations and harvests, projections of future social and economic development, in fact any field that could throw light on how the climate was changing and how it might change over the next century, and what implications that carried for humankind and the natural world. The broad outline, though, deviates little from the IPCC's conclusions -unequivocal evidence of warming, more than 90% likelihood that humanity's emissions of greenhouse gases were principally to blame, projections of temperature and sea level rise, declining crop yields, mountain glacier melt, and considerable damage to ecosystems and the human economy.

                                2. CLIMATE & FUND 

The greedy industrialized nations have harmed the genuine global atmospheric interests. The rift between developing countries and their industrialized counterparts, poverty and war has always been advantageous for the strong nations. Previous conferences got the ball rolling on awareness of climate change, but did not set legally enforced standards because the top polluters played dirty politics. The US Congress's inability to enact climate and energy legislation that sets binding targets" on greenhouse gas emissions was one of the "chief barriers" to what might have been a "comprehensive deal in Copenhagen." An atmosphere of distrust has already been established between rich and poor countries regarding climate change funding. In 2001, several rich nations pledged $410 million per year, from 2005-2008, to developing countries for climate change, but hardly any forward step was initiated to implement the promise. The European Union got removed lines in the negotiating text for the summit that stressed "that climate change aid comes on top of existing development aid." Charity organizations considered the move potentially devastating to the Copenhagen talks.

Commonwealth leaders at a recent meeting have backed a multi-billion-dollar plan to help developing nations to deal with climate change and cut greenhouse gases. The fund, proposed by UK and French leaders at the Commonwealth summit on Friday, would start next year and build to $10bn annually by 2012.. Leaders also called for the strongest possible outcome at next month's climate change summit in Copenhagen. They unanimously agreed to seek a legally binding international agreement, but accepted that "a full legally binding outcome" might have to wait to 2010. Commonwealth leaders welcomed the initiative to establish, as part of a comprehensive agreement, a Copenhagen Launch Fund starting in 2010 and building to a level of resources of $10 billion annually by 2012. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown said half the $10bn fund should go towards helping developing nations reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and the other half towards helping them adapt to climate change.

The first cash would be made available next year, he said, before any emissions deal could take effect. UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband said the Commonwealth is showing that "you can find some common ground amidst countries that are very different, large and small, rich and poor, and that climate change is an issue that affects us all, and "fast start funding" for adaptation should be focused on the most vulnerable countries to assist the poorest and most vulnerable countries, to cope with, and adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change. In order to help developing countries constrain their greenhouse gas emissions, industrialised nations have agreed in principle to help them in areas such as renewable energy. Their commitments are likely to be expressed in terms of a reduction in emissions growth of a certain percentage compared with "business as usual".  A number of studies, including one by the World Bank, also suggest that a further $100bn per year or thereabouts will be needed to help poorer countries adapt. By comparison, the amount of overseas aid currently given each year by rich countries is in the region of $100bn. That neatly illustrates the greatest threat to a global deal, many countries will only make binding concessions if every other nation also gives ground. Speaking earlier at the summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said he believed an agreement was in sight, with recent moves by some countries a positive step to cutting emissions. Developing countries are looking for mechanisms that can speed up this technology transfer.

The world's big powers, including USA and China, the largest culprits in contaminating the atmospheric air, followed by India, have been stating their objectives and making diplomatic efforts ahead of the Conference in Copenhagen. China, the world's top emitter at par with USA, together with India, Brazil and South Africa rejected core targets for a climate deal such as halving world greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 just days before talks start in Copenhagen on 07 Dec and they demand that richer nations do more and have drawn "red lines" limiting what they themselves would accept. India said that India's offer would be conditional on other countries sharing the burden. The four rejected key targets proposed by the Danish climate talks hosts in a draft text "” halving global greenhouse gases by 2050, setting a 2020 deadline for a peak in world emissions, and limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.

The USA has the dubious honor of being the world's other top polluter. In a break with his predecessor G. W. Bush, Barack Obama takes the issue of man-made global warming seriously. The EU is keen to be seen as a standard bearer for the reduction of greenhouse gasses. At the end of October the EU identified that developing nations need help to the tune of 100 billion euros per year to reduce their emissions - but failed to agree on how this aid could be achieved. EU countries have pledged to reduce their emissions by 20% by 2020 (based on 1990 levels), a figure that could climb to 30% depending on the outcome of the Copenhagen summit. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has made the reduction of greenhouse gases one of his top diplomatic priorities.

South Africa became the latest country to make an offer on cutting emissions - its first quantifiable target. On the eve of the summit it offered to cut by one-third the growth of its carbon emissions over the next decade - subject to getting more funding and technological help from wealthier countries.

US President Barack Obama's presence is an expression of the growing political momentum towards sealing an ambitious climate deal in Copenhagen The US president had changed his plans after talks with other leaders and after seeing "the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations". US representatives will attend the Copenhagen summit throughout negotiations. It said the president believed recent progress included the emissions reduction target announced by the US; China and India setting targets for the first time to reduce their carbon intensity and moves by members of the Commonwealth. The White House said the president had discussed the state of the negotiations with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He concluded there appeared to be growing support for the suggested $10bn annual fund to help developing countries deal with climate change.

Obama needs to reconcile the expectations of the international community with realities at home. Obama's stated objectives are to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020, then 30% by 2025 and 42% by 2030 (based on 2005 levels). But this needs to be approved by Congress which will be responsible for passing climate legislation. The US House of Representatives only narrowly approved these figures in June and the Senate has only just begun looking at them. China, one of the world's biggest polluters, has always refused to impose fixed targets for emissions reduction in order to protect its economic growth. But now China has unveiled its first firm target to curb greenhouse gas emissions, laying out a carbon intensity goal (the amount of carbon dioxide emitted for each unit of economic output) that premier Wen Jiabao will take to the climate talks as his government's central commitment. The carbon intensity goal highlights China's commitment both to the environment and to continued economic growth. The global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance. Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of US economy.

Less than one-third of money raised by major airlines in carbon trading schemes goes directly to reducing emissions. Environmental activists plan protests in Copenhagen and around the world on 12 December to encourage delegates to reach the strongest possible deal. Tens of thousands marched in London and other UK and European cities.

Meanwhile the Danish regime is making arrest arrangement of the protesters. Danish Cops Prepare "Dog Kennel" for Copenhagen Protesters 346 people are to be held in the 37 cages in the old brewery storage facilities of world wide Danish corporation Carlsberg. They are protesting heavily against vaccines and the wars. Most people were also against the formation of the EU. Moreover the Danish parliament Folketinget recently passed legislation "“ which enables the police to conduct preemptive arrests on the sole assumption "“ that the person has criminal intend. The Danish police states that carrying an ordinary scarf or headdress in a bag "“ is considered an evidence of criminal intend. This is a surprise to some "“ because of the generally cold Danish winter weather. In ending it is relevant to add that the Danish police have announced that they will stop and arrest all passengers on busses loaded with demonstrators as far as 350 km from Copenhagen. Demonstrators against "COP 15"³ are called "climate thugs" throughout the Danish mainstream media. Martin Kaiser, Greenpeace International's political climate coordinator, said in a statement: "After a global outcry, President Obama has come to his senses and accepted the importance of this potentially historic meeting."

                        3. POST SCRIPT

One is not sure if the world's advanced nations causing pollution through emissions make a mockery of impending climatic disaster, but the would be affected nations have already, like Maldives, have expressed their anguish and anger at the slow decision making processes in this regard. The question is what will rich countries do to reduce their emissions and what will major developing countries do to limit the growth of their emissions and prompt finance that will allow developing countries to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

The Copenhagen talks mark the end of that two-year period. Governments hope to leave the Danish capital having completed the new deal. The talks are technically known as the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) - often abbreviated to COP15. The Copenhagen summit aims to draw up a treaty to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Talks in Copenhagen aimed at establishing a new global treaty on climate change are expected to come out with some new ideas. Two years ago, at the UN climate talks held in Bali, governments agreed to start work on a new global agreement.

World economic powers, inducing advanced capitalists, have extracted yet another venue in the name climate change to discuss their trade deficits and decide the weapons deals. Under G20 plus forum the advanced econmies along with middle ones gather to woo the countries like India to cut their emissions. In the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the main players have revealed their stated objectives for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the Commonwealth does not give any lead to the world on climate change, as the Queen urged when she opened this summit. So, it doesn't mean the Commonwealth has failed. The wording looks cautious but realistic. It is the breakdown in global negotiations which threatens to sink a strong deal. The Commonwealth Climate Declaration does emphasize that "an internationally binding agreement is essential" but then concedes in the next sentence that "a full legally binding outcome" will have to wait until 2010. There does seem to have been some meeting of minds at the Commonwealth on the global fund to distribute money from rich countries to the developing countries to help them adapt and pay for low-carbon alternatives. Poorer countries can start to see the money now, with the promise of payouts starting soon after a global treaty is agreed.

World is looking forward to Copenhagen meet with a lot of enthusiasm. The majority of the world's governments believe that climate change poses a threat to human society and to the natural world. Successive scientific reports, notably those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have come to ever firmer conclusions about humankind's influence on the modern-day climate, and about the impacts of rising temperatures. Currently, the cuts pledged by industrialized nations are not enough to halt the overall global rise in emissions. Whatever happens in Copenhagen, further meetings will almost certainly be necessary to finalise the "rules" of any new treaty. Further ahead, at some point governments will almost certainly begin the process of securing the deal after Copenhagen. A strong Copenhagen deal might keep the temperature rise under 2C; but given uncertainties in how the atmosphere and oceans respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases, it might not. This is why developing countries put such an emphasis on adaptation, which they argue is necessary already. IPCC figures suggest that to have a reasonable chance of avoiding 2C, global emissions would need to peak and start to decline within about 15-20 years.

Almost every government attending the talks says it wants a deal; and many contend it is necessary to have the essential ingredients in place by the time the Kyoto Protocol's current targets expire in 2012. But in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen, it has become clear that a full, legally-binding treaty is not possible, with a number of key players suggesting something less ambitious is indicated given the immense amount of detail remaining to be worked out and the fact that the US is not in a position to make firm pledges on mitigating its own emissions or on providing financial support to the developing world. A political agreement appears more likely, with attempts to secure a legally-binding treaty deferred until some point in 2010. It all depends on big guys among G20. The USA is expected to play a major role in Copenhagen.

Today, US-led North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) are engaged in illegal terror wars in Islamic world and all western powers are ill-focused on Islam, help enhance Islmophobia around the world with media lords playing dirty terror politics. G20 has become the global point in the fight against the economic crisis and generally they focus more on trade and financial issues and, after the sumptuous lunch and fantastic photo session, have very little time, patience or scope for any credible resolution of climate change. All big summits are used for promoting terror wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. Copenhagen would be used for leaders of IST to get more terror troop commitments for killing Afghans in their own, country occupied by US-led NATO. Copenhagen summit cannot be different from the rule and the realists speculate on the outcome of this climate summit and its relevance for the deadly atmospheric issue. Would then a detailed Copenhagen deal solve climate change?

 -----------------------

Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal

Specialist on State Terrorism

Independent Columnist in International Affairs, Research Scholar (JNU) & the only Indian to have gone through entire India, a fraud and terror nation in South Asia.