Keeping Copenhagen on course

Pessimism about a climate change deal in Copenhagen is not merited. Vitally so for developing countries, there is all to play for

David Turnbull
guardian.co.uk, Monday 23 November 2009 10.00 GMT
Waking up one drearymorning in Copenhagen (where I've recently moved to prepare for the upcoming climate talks in December), I was met with a barrage of headlines, mostly from US media, telling me that Copenhagen is doomed to total failure and I might as well head off to Mexico City, where next year's summit will be held. Not the best way to start the day.
Is Copenhagen really over before it begins?
Had I moved to this dark, rainy (but beautiful!) city for no reason? Should we all just pack it in and hope that political declarations will solve it all?
The answer, thankfully, quickly became a resounding "no". The mainstream media clearly got it wrong. There's still hope – a lot of it, too. Let's start with those headlines. Who are these "world leaders" who agreed to delay? Well, the plural may be accurate, but just barely.
Since the initial reports, it's become clear that while the media reported that all 19 Apec (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation) leaders were in agreement on the so-called "one agreement, two steps" approach, that's not at all the case.
The real story occurred at a hastily arranged Apec breakfast. Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen made a last-minute visit and surprised the room with a speech on the upcoming climate talks. One can only imagine a room full of bleary-eyed heads of state sitting around a table sipping their coffee and politely nodding at Rasmussen's speech without really understanding how their nods would be translated by the media.
Rasmussen began his speech by saying:
"I would like to share with you how I believe a Copenhagen agreement could be constructed to serve the dual purpose of providing for continued negotiations on a legal agreement and for immediate action."
And later, towards the end of the speech, he said:
"Some of you might have wished for a different format or for a different legal structure. Still, I believe you will agree with me on one fundamental point: what matters at the end of the day is the ability of the Copenhagen agreement to capture and reinforce global commitment to real actions."
Doesn't sound like consensus to me; it sounds like a man trying to convince an audience to go along with him. It's not entirely clear who actually did agree with the prime minister, but what is clear is that there is nowhere near consensus on such a delay approach; in fact, dozens of countries oppose it and are still wishing – and fighting – for more.
Now, what about the actual plan itself – the "one agreement, two steps" plan? Two steps to an agreement doesn't sound so bad, right?
As NRDC's Jake Schmidt wrote, the strategy might not be so bad if you actually thought that the second step would ever be taken. Unfortunately, what Rasmussen has put forward is a cynical approach. It's becoming clear that all he cares about is getting a "positive" result in Copenhagen, and that the second step could just be for show.
If you look closely at Rasmussen's Apec breakfast speech, there's very little incentive actually to finish the job in 2010 (as in, to take the "second step"). Despite his lip service to "continued legal negotiations", there's no clarity or firm deadline. Rasmussen's invention of "politically binding" – a term no one seems willing or able to define – is also repeated here.
Furthermore, there is only a passing mention of the Kyoto protocol later in the speech. Despite what some would have you think, the Kyoto protocol does not expire in 2012. In Rasmussen's vision, the Kyoto protocol goal seems to disappear in favor of a "politically binding" outcome.
Luckily, there's still time to push for more. The Alliance of Small Island States, the African Group of Nations, and other vulnerable and least developed countries will surely be pushing back on this plan during the preparatory meetings in Copenhagen this week. In fact, 11 Pacific Island States already have. Some European nations are also likely to stand up to this plan.
The planet and its people need a fair, ambitious and, yes, binding outcome from this process. Countries should be working on such a document in Copenhagen – and they can and should finish it there. After all, it's what they committed to in Bali just two years ago.