MORE FACE SAVING THAN PLANET SAVING IN COPENHAGEN

Jonathan Wootliff  
Late last Friday night I saw a very tired looking group of Indonesian officials in Copenhagen at the close of the UN climate summit. They were trying to make sense of what the outcome really means for the country and for the world.
It was two years ago in Bali when the nations agreed to work on a new, legally binding deal to combat climate change, which was to be sealed last week in Copenhagen.
There have been many intergovernmental meetings over the past 24 months, including large interim gatherings in Poland, Thailand and Spain. In spite of all these efforts and the participation of over 100 world leaders last week, the much heralded prospect of Denmark facilitating a new treaty to slash greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) were buried late Friday evening.
When politicians emerged from the talks declaring that a historic agreement to fight global warming had been reached, it was hard to know whether more energy had been poured into saving face rather than the planet.
In reality, the hopes of the environmental movement were dashed as countries agreed simply to “take note” of a watered-down agreement that fell far short of their expectations.
The summit was supposed to deliver an international commitment to enact measures preventing average temperatures rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, beyond which scientists say we might face irreversible climate problems.
After all of the impressive rhetoric from presidents and prime ministers who unanimously conceded that urgent, internationally orchestrated measures were required to tackle the threat of climate change, it seems hard to believe that these talks have ended in stalemate.
“This is not a time for dogma and confrontation. This is a time for solution and consensus. The only dogma that binds us here is survival,” said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in a last-minute attempt to break the deadlock.
But unlike in Bali, where his passionate words helped win an 11th-hour consensus, this time neither SBY nor any of the gaggle of other political heavyweights were able to little more than agree to continue talking.
However, there is some good news to report.
Failure to achieve international agreement on how to halt global warming should not overshadow
the significant unilateral steps almost all countries are taking. China at the United States, who together produce half of the world’s green house gases (GHGs), both confirmed their commitments to making reductions.
It’s arguable whether a dispute between these two nations over the vexed issue of verification of CO2 cuts led to these talks falling short of expectations. But news that they are determined to move forward with their own climate change mitigation measures regardless will give some comfort to environmentalists.
Indonesia, which would not be required to sign up to mandatory reduction targets because of its developing nation status, has also confirmed its determination to move ahead with the National Action Plan previously announced by the President earlier this year.
“While, like many others, we are disappointed with the outcome in Copenhagen, the delay in getting a legally binding treaty will give us time to initiate our own emissions reduction plan which should be ready by next June”, said Agus Purnomo, head of the country’s National Council for Climate Change.
This means that Indonesia will have introduced its own tangible measures to combat the problem
by the time the UN gathers for its next scheduled intergovernmental climate talks in Mexico in December 2010.
The Indonesian President has already declared a bold emission reduction target of 26 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels. And he has said that this figure can be increased to over 40 percent with enhanced international assistance.
Inability to reach a deal in Copenhagen is unlikely to halt commitments to provide financial aid to emerging nations like Indonesia.
A coalition of conservationists, business interests and officials from developed countries and emerging economies remain committed to the idea of creating financial incentives for protecting the world’s forests, which will certainly benefit Indonesia.
According to the arrangement known as REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), industries that emit the most carbon will financially those poorer nations that manage their rainforests sustainably.
Agus Purnomo said that Indonesia was “pleased” with the outcome of the REDD negotiations, explaining that they received 80 percent of what they wanted.
But any formalization of a special forestry fund will have to wait until a meeting in Bonn now being scheduled early in the New Year when it is hoped that talk will resume.
There will be much commentary and interpretation of the outcome of Copenhagen over the coming days and weeks, which will give rise to yet further confusion.
Perhaps expectations for this summit to deliver a deal were unrealistic.
There may have been failure to seal a deal, but the conference has certainly taken awareness of the climate crisis to new heights.
Growing public concern will inevitably increase pressure on the politicians and it’s surely only matter of time before the cumbersome processes of the United Nations finally deliver what the world so badly needs.
But if the climatologists are to be believed, time is running out for the planet, as it may be for some politicians too.
Let’s hope that nations will be prepared to outline how much they propose to cut their emissions at another meeting now expected early in 2010 – or at the latest, at the next climate summit in Mexico at the end of the year.
“The political price for not delivering in Copenhagen is so high that no one can afford to pay it,” said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish chair of the conference before it started.
In the wake of what has happened last week, I wonder what she is now thinking.

Jonathan Wootliff leads the Corporate Accountability practice at the consulting firm, Reputation Partners. He specializes in sustainable development and in building of productive relationships between companies and NGOs. He can be followed on Twitter and contacted at jonathan@reputationpartners.com