Copenhagen COP15 Update from an SFSU ENVS Student
December 20, 2009 2:07am PST (11:07am GMT)

Instead of giving you a detailed description of everything that went on during the second week of COP15, I think it will be more appropriate to simply reflect upon some of the more major events that took place and briefly discuss the results of the negotiations.
As you probably already know, all of civil society was banned from Bella Center during the second week of the negotiations. The U.N. said it was for security purposes, but I am not at all convinced that that is true. I am fairly certain that they did not want civil society present when the 119 heads of state arrived during the second week because we were doing such an effective job of making our demands clearly understood. Without us there inside Bella Center, it would be easier for world leaders to make major decisions behind closed doors and without transparency.
After being notified that we would not be allowed access to Bella Center anymore, the general reactions from people were a mix of anger, resentment and disempowerment. Thousands of us scattered for several days, unsure of how to regroup or where to relocate in order to continue doing effective work as the negotiations progressed. After a couple of days, a new convergence space was decided upon where we could access the internet and watch the negotiations on large projectors, but it wasn’t the same. For the remainder of the conference, I noticed that many people seemed lost and disappointed, and the work that we were doing didn’t seem to make quite the same impression as it had in the first week, simply because our politicians and leaders were no longer able to directly witness it.
Be that as it may, our work did continue, and some amazing things were still accomplished. For example, 350.org held a rally with Bill McKibben and President Nasheed of the Maldives, who was the first head of state to arrive at COP15. The event was planned without much notice, and turned out to be a huge success.
We also planned a torch-lit aerial photo, organized by John Quigly, which spelled out “Climate Shame” in huge letters comprised of hundreds of people standing out in the cold. Here is a video of this event: http://tinyurl.com/yaauacy.
As all of these events were taking place outside Bella Center, negotiations were still underway, with few people other than delegates and party members there to witness the progress. For those of us stuck on the outside, most of what we knew was coming either directly from the news or from rumors. I heard of stalled negotiations, and of disagreements between different countries, neither of which was surprising, but it was difficult to obtain the constant stream of accurate information that had been available during the previous week. One thing we were able to determine for certain, however, was the fact that the promises of emissions reductions by the major polluting countries weren’t adding up to much. Bill McKibben’s friends at MIT concluded that, based on the promised emissions reductions from various countries in the U.N., the projected levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would reach 770 ppm by 2100. When I heard that, I was horrified.
Only a few days after Bill and the team at MIT came out with the 770ppm figure, an official (but confidential) U.N. document was leaked. It essentially confirmed the same thing that Bill had been telling people: that the negotiations weren’t following the science, and that the promised emissions wouldn’t actually reduce atmospheric carbon concentrations at all. Although we never found out exactly why, Bill McKibben’s name is clearly written at the top of this document, along with 350.org’s name. Read here for more information about this leak (you can even read the document for yourself): http://www.350.org/leak
By now, you already know the results of the negotiations. The U.S., China, Brazil, South Africa and India wrote up a “Copenhagen Accord” that isn’t ambitious, legally binding or fair, even though that is what the world has been calling for. Those five countries threw together a poorly written agreement that contains no real targets or timetables, and it completely disregards the needs and wants of more than 100 other countries, thereby disregarding the U.N. process. Unfortunately, many smaller developed and developing nations were forced to “take it or leave it”, but not all were willing to do so quietly.
In a very interesting set of detailed notes from the last negotiating meeting held on December 19 from 3am to 8:30am, you can read what some countries had to say about the proposed Copenhagen Accord. These rough notes were taken by an Avaaz Organizer, and were sent via e-mail throughout several environmental networks:
·         Pres
o   introduces the paper
o   outlines the content
·         - massive clapping by Venezuela on the table, but are not given the right to speak
·         Tuvalu
o   I am grateful that you came back to the meeting
o   within the UN, we are given respect as nations
o   we have processes to consider items collectively
o   today I saw leaders saying they had a deal
o   this is disrespectful of the other countries
o   we have democratic processes
o   we appreciate that you have given us more time
o   this documents have major problems
o   we need science-based results
o   anything above 1,5 can mean the end for
o   response measures – inconsistant with Bali
o   reference to mechanism on REDD- but is not defined clearly
o   no reference to International Insurance Mechanism
o   review mechanism in 2015 is too late
o   in biblical terms:
o   I regret to inform you: Tuvalu cannot accept that document

·         Venezuela (bleeding hands from her clapping!)
o   it is with indignation that we are speaking
o   this document is not acceptable
·         Bolivia
o   we have learned about this document through the media, not through you
o   now we are given 60 minutes to accept something already agreed upon by other states
o   we are seeing actions in a dictatorial way
o   this is unacceptable and anti-democratic
o   we say to the people of the world: they shall judge upon it
o   the rights of our people are not being respected
o   we are not going to decide about so many lives in only 60 minutes
o   this is s group of a small number of countries
o   APPLAUS
·         Cuba
o   4 hours ago Obama announced an agreement which is non-existant
o   we is behaving like an emperor
o   we have seen version being discussed by secretive groups in the last hours and days
o   Cuba will not accept your draft declaration
o   at this conference, there is no consensus on this document
o   I associate my voice to Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia
o   the target of 2 degrees is unacceptable
o   …
·         Costa Rica
o   for the reasons that we have heard, this document cannot be considered the work of the AWG-LCA and cannot be considered by the COP
o   this can only be an INF doc, it’s just for information
o   additional question: in an earlier version, a CP.15-decision, para.1: there was a reference to a legally binding instrument to be adopted by the COP
o   now: we have a new version, but the reference to legally binding instrument disappeared
·         USA
o   [wants to speak, but point of order by Nicaragua]
·         Nica
o   there is already a precedent where we have not been given the right to speech
o   now that you have mentioned we finally want to speak
·         Pres. [moving on]
o   US does not appear on my list any more, so next one is Sudan
·         Sudan
o   there must be something horribly wrong here
o   I pushed the button when I saw Nicaragua raising their sign in order to support them
·         Nicaragua
o   this is a deterioration of the democratic system
o   and this happens at the most important conference of the UN for many years
o   we have draft decisions about how to carry forward the process
o   states (lists names) have written a submission:
§  this has not followed the basic principles of the UN
§  inclusion
§  bottom up processes
§  democratic participation
§  equality of states
o   during this consequence, many states expressed their position against such approaches
o   the only agreement we recognize is ??
o   we propose a Decision 1/CMP.5
§  reads out their full proposal
§  agrees to suspend the meeting
§  agrees that AWG-KP shall continue its work
§  sessions as often as needed
§  shall end its work June 2010
§  shall forward its work for adoption at its resumed 5th session in June
o   we propose 1/CP.15
§  agrees to suspend the session
§  continue /complete work by June 2010
§  with a view of adoption of the agreed outcome in June
§  …
o   Secretariat will receive the submission

·         BREAK, then start again

·         Pres.
o   the documents will become an INF document
·         Nicaragua
o   we would like to propose the following
o   document shall be a submission, by Parties, thus only a MISC
·         Pres.
o   interrupts Nicaragua (Richard from the Secretariat tries to calm him down)
o   i asked you about what you think about my proposal. Please answer to my question
·         Nicaragua [not immediately answering to his question]
o   we want the document to be a MISC document
o   we have two suggestions on CMP.5 and CMP.5:
§  [didn’t get it]
o   if you do not agree, we ask to suspend the COP
·         Pres.
o   okay, Proposal for Copenhagen Accord will be a MISC Document
o   and AWGs will continue
·         India, angry
o   if you want to issue the text as a chairman’s draft, do it
o   but if you want to issue it as a MISC submission by the parties which have elaborated it, then ask these parties first before you say it’s their submission!!!
·         Nicaragua
o   now that this issue is settled, we can withdraw our proposal to suspend the COP
·         Sudan (only as Sudan, Lumumba)
o   the document L9 is one of the most disturbing events in the history of the UNFCCC
o   this doc. threatens the existence of the African continent
o   L9 is murdress; it condemns Africa
o   L9 asks Africa to sign a suicide pack
o   total absence of morality
o   this is like the 6 millions Jews who died in Europe (was referring to Holocaust!)
o   there is no African Minister or President who has a mandate to destroy Africa
o   2 degree is a certain death
o   it’s immoral to even think that this doc. was issued by a UN or UN-related body
o   the promise of 100 billion dollar will not bribe us to destroy the continent
o   as such, we do ask you  to withdraw L9, delete it from the UNFCCC system
·         Maldives
o   [started speaking]
·         Sudan suddenly gets the right to speak again
o   I did not finish
o   I want to put on record
o   you , President, have been biased and violated all rules of transparency

·         Michael Z.C. leaves the room, frustrated
·         Maldives again
o   we have a real danger of UNFCCC talks going the same way as WTO talks
o   science suggests: we have a window of 7 years!
o   in the course of the last days, I have sat together with 25 countries
o   I have seen huge differences
o   large emitters do not take their responsibility
o   over 1,5 degrees, many islands would vanish
o   we tried very hard to get 1,5 degree in the text
o   this was obstructed by large emitting countries
o   President suggested to form a group of states
o   this document is amicable
o   it is not what we were looking for
o   I will be the first to be unsatisfied with this doc
o   but it is a starting point
o   this document allows us to continue talks and come to a legally binding
o   I ask you all: please do not delete this document
·         Egypt
o   we should end this conference as soon as possible
o   for Egypt to accept this document, we want the names of the countries supporting it to be inserted
o   so that we can see: who has drafted this document, who is morally bound by it
·         Spain
o   we totally agree with the words of the President of the Maldives
o   free expression should prevail here
o   what was said by Sudan was not true
o   it dishonors an important project
·         Canada
o   it is legitimate to express one’s views
o   but: to compare this with Holocaust is offensive to our delegation
o   it is offensive, these remarks shall be withdrawn
·         AUS
o   we are absolutely astonished
o   this doc. is criticized by Parties who sat at the table
o   greatest sadness: people who really need the help
·         Ethiopia
o   on behalf of African Union
o   doc. in front of us is a compromise document
o   but as Pres. of Maldives has said: postponing is not an option
·         France
o   request by Egypt: my country supported the inclusion of 1,5 because the
o   only one big country opposed it
o   what we heard yesterday: we were facing failure
o   this text may be unimperfect
o   but we can obviously improve this draft
·         Sweden / EU
o   strong support for Maldives
o   reference to Holocaust is unbelievable
·         Senegal
o   supports Ethiopia
o   but would have liked to see binding commitments under KP
o   1,5 degrees has to be remained
·         UK
o   [micro not working]
·         Pres
o   okay, then US
·         US
o   no, let UK first, it was their turn
·         UK
o   I think this institution faces a moment of profound crisis
o   we have a choice of 2 roads
o   one road: the document, by no means perfect, we have many problems with it, but it will make the lives of people better
o   30 billion fast start, 100 billion long term plan
o   so: it does very important things
o   other road: the one of Ambassador Lumumba
o   disgusting comparison with Holocaust
o   would mean wrecking this process
o   after 2 years of work: only INF document?
o   please make this a COP decision
·         DELEGATES STANDING UP; LONG APPLAUS
·         Pres
o   is there anyone who will oppose this
o   [counts:] 1, 2, 3, 4
o   hm, does this mean we cannot adopt it?
o   how are the rules? I am not familiar with UN rules… do we need consensus?
·         Venezuela
o   …
·         Pres
o   okay, then it can not be adopted
·         SOMEONE making a point of order
·         Pres.
o   please let me speak
o   at some stage it will just be okay if I just speak
o   so if we cannot adopt it, maybe you just subscribe it
·         Cuba
o   there will not be consensus
·         Pres
o   we have to conclude this meeting
o   some people want to catch their plane at 8 o’clock
·         Slovenia
o   i want to propose a solution
o   paper could be adopted with the countries against listed by name
·         Pres
o   thank you for this concrete proposal
·         Mexico
o   accusation by Sudan cannot be left without comment
o   Sudan shall withdraw its remarks
·         Bangladesh
o   one of the most vulnerable countries
o   we must make every effort in the right direction
·         Grenada/ AOSIS
o   my President participated in the group friend of the chair
o   there were others:
o   US
o   Uk
o   Saudi
o   Russi
o   South Africa
o   Algeria
o   Denmark
o   Athiooia
o   Korea
o   China
o   Brazil
o   [could not get all countries, there were some more]
o   there was absolutely no indication that this was an illegal process
o   Grenada regrets the division that is now in the South
o   session was difficult
o   AOSIS fought for every single thing
o   we were there, we saw the process as legitimate
o   I ask all parties who committed to fulfill these obligations
o   we stand by the document and we stand by the process
o   on his way to the airport, my prime minister instructed me to support the document
o   Grenada did its service with good faith
o   I find it offensive to characterize the work of my Prime Minister in the way it was described
o   I call on my brother from Sudan to rethink his conclusions and to get hold of his feelings
o   I encourage us to go forward
·         Japan
o   we are here neither to accuse, nor to blame
o   we are here not only to save the islands, but also to save our future generations
o   we have spent sleepless days and nights
o   please read the doc. carefully, then you see all the concrete steps
·         PNG
o   PNG was not invited as friend of the Chair
o   but Prime Minister spent many hours in order to provide leadership
o   in the final hour
o   PNG supports this document, even though if it is flawed
o   many flaws are due to the G77
o   it was G77 members themselves who weakened the document
o   many G77 sent only public servants, in disrespect of our leaders
·         USA
o   there is nothing to apologize for by participating in the consultations of the President
o   as mentioned by Grenada, there were around 25 countries
o   President of the US was amongst participants
o   President met with leaders of China, India, South Africa, Brazil
o   the process involved
§  …
§  transparency, accountability
§  very substantial funding, both short- and long-term
§  Copenhagen Green Climate Fund
§  also calls for High Level Panel for creative solutions
§  tech mechanism
o   all of this we are going to walk away from??
o   I strongly support UK
o   don’t let this work go to waste
·         Norway
o   there is time for self-criticism
o   one week, there was absolutely no progress
o   then top leaders came, made unprecedented effort
o   did they make a perfect document? obviously not
o   there is no such thing as a perfect document in multilateral processes
o   behavior is unbelievable
o   Norway is only nation in the world who
o   how can you call this a bribe??
o   how can I get back to my people in Norway and ask them to pay more money to other countries if it is regarded a bribe?
o   we want a procedure here where most of the Parties are bound
·         Russia
o   i do not support those who say decisions were taken by small group
o   in the history of the UNFCCC…
o   we should make a step forward
o   this indeed is a step forward
·         Philippines
o   our delegation played prominent role in crafting the REDD language
o   we also support the 1,5 degrees
o   we have to move in order to protect the world
·         Bolivia
o   I have a concern
o   we do not share the view that the paper shall be adopted
o   it has 2 degrees, not 1,5 degree
o   we know that one country who has signed the paper spent 20 times more on defense
o   we are not just 4 countries not agreeing
o   we are more
o   we set a 1 degree temperature limit, and 6% of GDB
o   we didn’t have a secret document suddenly coming out
o   I suggest: we go back to our discussion as to how we are going forward
o   we have maid a specific proposal: put the text in a MISC doc.
·         Marshal Islands
o   this process is about our existence
o   to most people, the tiny specks of corals are an obstacle for navigation, but for me, they are my home
o   my country is only 2 meters above sea level
o   I will have nothing to show to my grandparents as a present from the last 2 weeks
o   but even worse: I did not have any success
·         Singapore
o   my delegation supports the document
o   we lend the voice to that of AOSIS
o   it is not perfect, but it is important
o   please identify exactly the points where Parties disagree
·         Algeria
o   on behalf of African Group
o   we warmly thank Denmark for its hospitality
o   we are risking to give a very bad present
o   we haven’t been in Kyoto
o   Africa participated through Prime Minister Menes
o   a draft that we submitted to the other states
o   5 heads of states were present
o   as any compromise, there are certain problems with this draft
o   commitments which have not been defined
o   but this text defines main elements of a financial mechanism
o   we also have tech. transfer, and we have short-term finance –that was developed by Borloo and me
o   Africa is not pessimistic
o   we want to be part of the solution
o   we urge this sovereign summit: make the right choice
o   we have been suffering for years
o   so let us now go forward
·         Gabon
o   I was not going to speak, given the great speech of Algeria
o   the time is right to tell you that Gabon came hear after participating in many for a
o   Gabon for more than 20 hours had only one ambition: give a chance to a dynamic process
o   like other noble members of this community, our country wishes to make its contribution, too
o   we want to move forward, together, with all the others
o   all the personalities in this room and outside
o   we want to leave with a precise idea of what we are going to do
o   every human endeavor is imperfect
o   Gabon took part in this work in a constructive spirit
o   we are a small country
o   disappointed from brothers from Africa and other parts
o   Brother, please do not go down this path,
·         Barbados
o   not part of the drafting group, but feel represented
o   we will never be part of any major economy forum
o   thus we do not want this process to break down
o   this is not the place to score cheap political points
·         Belize
o   we were not amongst the friends of the chair
o   but we were informed by our AOSIS chair, who participated in the process
o   we look forward to hear
·         Tuvalu
o   we have all worked very hard
·         Solomon Islands, point of order
o   I apologize to Tuvalu
o   some of us will have to leave soon
o   noting the number of states on the speaker’s list, we need an answer!

• give us guidance on this please

Even though COP15 was a massive failure in many ways, there is a glimmer of hope that should not be ignored. I spoke with many people who have been attending UNFCCC events for decades, and they all said that they have never seen anything like this COP before.

Before this conference, developing countries like Tuvalu and the Maldives had never been able to stand up for themselves during the negotiations in the face of the major polluting countries, because of the significant imbalances of power. However, with thousands of civil society members standing behind those smaller nations, they were finally able to voice their opinions. I think that this COP was a small step in the right direction, where we have begun to empower the nations who need the most support. If we can continue to build a bottom-up movement and convince more countries to join us in this fight for climate justice, our political power will continue to grow.

At this point, I feel confident that I have shared some the best and most important details of my journey to the Copenhagen Climate Summit. It was an exhausting and intense trip, but it was also wonderful in many ways. I made a lot of great friends and I now have a better understanding of some of the strengths and weaknesses of the U.N. negotiating progress. I am choosing to be optimistic about the future, even though the Copenhagen Accord was such a disappointment, and am going to do what I can to help keep the momentum going. Something beautiful and powerful was started this year, and it is up to you and me to keep it going.

Thank you so much for reading my reports while I’ve been gone. It means a lot to me that I was able to share my experiences with you, and I hope that you gained something from them. I hope that you will not be discourages by the results of the conference, but that you will instead be hopeful and excited for the future. We are living in interesting times, and it’s up to us what will be written in our children’s history books. I think there is still time to write in a happy ending.
If you would like to comment on anything that I have written, or if you have any questions you would like to personally ask me about my trip, please feel free to e-mail me at sara@350.org.

Happy holidays,

Sara

<back to all entries> || <previous entry>