RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

High Drama and Delicate Negotiations in Copenhagen

by Tim Costello 12-15-2009

Yesterday was a day of high drama where Africa walked out, suspended talks, and then later in the day returned after the Danish facilitators took on some of their concerns. A large crowd of civil society supporters cheered their confrontation with the West, and made it clear they stood in solidarity with Africa.

Behind this high drama, side events in the program continued. I attended a faith-based seminar called “Renew the Face of the Earth” and was overjoyed to see a totally packed hall. The church bells ringing throughout Copenhagen and throughout the world yesterday transmitted the prayers offered in many churches for moral leadership.

Christians and people of other faiths are here in large numbers. And they share a common spiritual value that decries the greed and lack of limits that have despoiled creation. This is not a “back-to-the-Garden-of-Eden” mantra that seeks to undo industrialisation, as people of faith also embrace a future low-carbon, growing economy with new jobs and opportunities.

For those of faith there is a spiritual dimension that recognises that our profligate use of energy and water has not led to greater happiness, and even less, to the Kingdom of God.

Copenhagen is the chance to repent by changing the direction and walking together as a global community in a new way that includes the poor.

But they are not the only ones with energy and hope.

There are 8,000 government delegates, from 194 nations, all of whom have to agree on everything for a successful UN outcome — thus the extraordinary complexity of these negotiations.

This is matched by the energy of 20,000 representatives from civil society who are watching, protesting, and urging a pro-planet and pro-poor deal.

What if all of this energy of those who want to save the planet — and those who have the decision-making in their hands — were harnessed? The miracle that we need channeling this optimism might materialise.

So where do we stand as we begin the final week of this two-year process?

The best estimates are that there are now 15% cumulative reductions of GHG by 2020 from the West on the table. Almost every nation agrees that there need to be cuts of 25% minimum and up to 40% by 2020 to avoid two degrees warming and the disaster that portends. Of course the question is this: How will we know whether countries are seriously cutting their emissions without an agreed international standard? Yet China has not agreed to monitoring, reporting, and verification of their carbon emission cuts that the West sees as non-negotiable for a deal. And today we hit a bump in the road toward an outcome that advances the two parallel tracks — the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and the new Copenhagen agreement — as both meetings were suspended.

China understandably wants the Kyoto Protocol extended in order to ratchet up the legal compliance of those western countries that have signed it, and therefore preserves the gains.

The West says what is the point of keeping the KP, as we know the U.S., which did not sign up, will not come into any Copenhagen political deal if China isn’t fully part of it.

This gulf, though gaping, can be bridged.

Copenhagen must face this week the question of whether it can be the meeting point of both streams — resulting in a second commitment period under the KP with its legally binding nature, and a new agreement that includes the U.S. and China.

This should not be beyond the 113 national leaders who arrive at the talks this week. It is a dead end to argue for either KP, or a fresh Copenhagen deal including the U.S. We need both.

The political capital — will and skills — to fuse these two is the challenge for a deal that saves the planet and protects the poor.

Tim Costello is the CEO of World Vision Australia.

Categories: Environment
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • squeaky
    Yeah, true. But small branches of larger universities like to think of themselves as independent entities, even though we rely on the the main U for funding. We otherwise don't have that much to do with them (other than governance issues), at least not in the disciplines I have been involved in (others might have more collaboration, but I don't think so.) Sometimes I wonder if that connection to funding does more harm than good (the main U doesn't always see the outlier campuses as important, I have seen).
  • BuckeyeDon
    Isn't is a branch of a major state university?
  • squeaky
    Thanks, Don. Just one correction--I work at a pretty small university. On the other hand, we have had the title "best, public, liberal arts university in the country."
  • BuckeyeDon
    fundamentalist, I have reported this comment because of your name-calling. Check out the Comment Code of Conduct at the beginning of the comment section. Further, you owe Squeaky, who is a geology instructor at a major university, an apology for suggesting that she is unable to think for herself.

    Shame on you!
  • squeaky
    I'm sorry, I didn't realize you have been studying the subject for 30 years. Just out of curiosity, please expand on your background. What sources have you been studying? Have you been reading any peer-reviewed climate journals? Have you followed the work of any climate scientists? Do you have a degree in climate science or another branch of science and math? Tell me more about your experience with the subject.

    Also, is it possible for you to make your points without name-calling and demonization?
  • fundamentalist
    Squeaky, You assume too much. Typical of arrogant CO2-phobes. I have been studying the climate issue for 30 years. The difference between you and me is that I can think for myself about the science whereas you need someone to lead you around by the nose.

    "But it seems instead of making grand claims about the validity of scientific statements, since you are not a scientist"

    Excuse me! I didn't know that we were not allowed to express an opinion unless we were in the priesthood of the elite climate "scientists." That's an appeal to authority, by the way, which is a logical fallacy. Besides, there are plenty of climate scientists who are skeptics.

    " look at the data and information that THEY present. "

    I did.
  • squeaky
    The scientific consensus has done just that. But as long as your research goes no deeper than Wikipedia, you won't find answers to the questions you raise. As I have posted on several other threads, climate scientists have websites, and many of them are more than happy to answer questions people ask. Why not e-mail some of them and ask them about their work?

    Daniel Spencer gave you a very good response on an earlier thread (the one about Desmond Tutu). I hope you read it.

    I don't get the impression you know that much about science. It's fine to have questions about the science and to not immediately submit to "authority." But it seems instead of making grand claims about the validity of scientific statements, since you are not a scientist, it would behoove you to at least seek out sources of information from the climate scientists themselves. I'm not sure why it is you think you know more than they do about this, when I'm guessing you have not studied much science (you can tell me otherwise, if that is not the case).

    The correct response to areas of confusion about the science is not "those scientists are stupid and are trying to ruin the economy". Rather, the correct response is "why do climate scientists think this way?" and then look at the data and information that THEY present. You say there are no answers to your questions, but that's not true. In the age of information, the answers are there, and they are not hard to find. But you might need to dig a little bit deeper than you seem willing to do at this point.
  • nuclearferret
    If you need "consensus," the science behind it is debatable.
  • fundamentalist
    Sqeaky, the article doesn't have less credibility. Look at what you posted. If you want to accept the scientific consensus, that's fine. But some of us can think for ourselves. We don't immediately submit to authority. We think the "scientific" consensus is wrong and the facts demonstrate it. If the "scientific" consensus can respond to the facts in a reasonable way, I'm open to changing my mind.
  • squeaky
    Check out Wikipedia's artical, "Climate Change." In it is the following quote:

    "Presently the scientific consensus on climate change is that human activity is very likely the cause for the rapid increase in global average temperatures over the past several decades"

    Why does that article have less credibility than yours?
  • jkc1945
    Thank you, fundamentalist, for calling us to reality. You are right; if we were to get rid of all human activity on the planet, we could not achieve the CO2 reduction goals that are currently being discussed by the environmental left.
  • squeaky
    It's no more a move towards one world governance than was the agreements the world made to cut CFCs to keep the ozone layer from disintegrating. Sometimes the world can come together and see that our actions threaten all of us, and sometimes we can actually make positive changes.

    I really struggle with the theology that the world coming together on issues is a bad thing. Does God really prefer us to be at war and fighting with each other? Does He really prefer we destroy His creation?

    So here is this positive thing that people are criticizing because it brings about "one world order". This criticism isn't about science. It's about a theology that I have to admit I find suspect. To me, the theology is used as an excuse to undermine peaceful cooperation. I admit there may be an irony in there that I am not grasping. But it doesn't make much sense to me. So anyone who wishes to explain that seeming disconnect to me, feel free to take a crack at it.

    Quasi-related side note: When the winter olympics are held next year, will they be seen as an attempt at creating one world governance? Is this also an anti-God gathering?
  • fundamentalist
    Check out Wikipedia's article, "Carbon Cycle". The chart in it is from NASA. Do the math. Humans contribute 2.6% to atmospheric carbon. CO2 is the least of the greenhouse gasses, behind water vapor and methane (cow farts), but let's say it's 1/3. So do the math: we get rid of 100% of human contributions to atmospheric carbon and that's a total reduction of GHS's of 2.6% X 33% = 0.86% reduction in total GHG's. And that will save the planet? From what?
  • JoannaCW
    <<For some reason, thebootedone, all this is viewed by some as a "zero-sum" situation. That is, if one country, or a few countries, use "X" amount of resources, then there is automatically less of those resources for all the other countries that are left. Nothing could be further from the truth. Resources are actually created by those countries who use resources, and there is a net gain when they do.>>

    If by 'resources' you mean 'money and consumer goods', you're right. But we zero-summers are talking about resources that humans can't create. Fossil fuels are obviously zero-sum, finite and running out. Clean water, arable land, forests...are theoretically conservable and renewable, and capable of s;light expansion, but they can't be endlessly 'created' either--there is a limit to what our planet will generate. And without these zero-sum resources money, jobs and consumer goods are useless.
  • Ngchen
    Emissions cuts of 15%, 25%, and even 40%, I hate to say it, are a very tall order. Especially when it's supposed to happen in roughly 10 years. Might it be possible? Most certainly. But to give all readers an idea of the magnitude of change being proposed, consider how ALL transportation emissions in the US, being a highly car-dependent economy, account for around 30% of emissions. If there were zero cars, trucks, ships, and planes running tomorrow, we'd have a 30% cut, all else being equal. But obviously such is unrealistic. Even highly bike oriented Copenhagen (ironically) has 50% of trips taken by bike, not to mention the fact that it has its planes, trains, and so forth.

    Electricity generation would offer possibilities, since it currently accounts for like 60% of the carbon dioxide generated. Going nuclear, deploying micro and maybe other hydro, and taking advantage of more wind farms can help. Anyone have hard numbers on how feasible such actions would be? France generates 78% of its electricity through nuclear. How feasible is reviving the old Breeder reactor system? (It allows tremendous levels of fuel reuse, but has its own problems.) Carbon capture and storage is intriguing, but is pretty much untested as of now. Is anyone willing to live next to a carbon dioxide injection port? (Mishaps can potentially kill by suffocation - arguably it's more dangerous than living next to a nuclear waste site repository.)

    Large-scale reductions in cattle farming would also help by reducing methane production. But how many people are willing to make beef a rare delicacy, rather than the common meat it is today?

    The problems are huge - hopefully people will be willing to make various sacrifices to get us there. At the same time, we ought to be willing to push others to make their share of sacrifices too.
  • jkc1945
    For some reason, thebootedone, all this is viewed by some as a "zero-sum" situation. That is, if one country, or a few countries, use "X" amount of resources, then there is automatically less of those resources for all the other countries that are left. ]
    Nothing could be further from the truth. Resources are actually created by those countries who use resources, and there is a net gain when they do. Jobs are created, and some of those jobs are created in the countries who get less of the original resources.

    Primarily, all of what is going on in Copenhagen is simply - - a push for a giant redistribution of the wealth that is existent in the world, most of which is created by the "raw-material-users" of thw world, and most of which eventually benefits all of us, and that includes third-world countries who would be utterly lost without that industrial-nation creativity. If we were to redistribute the wealth as is being pushed, all of us might "have enough" - - for awhile. But eventually, the push toward planetary mediocrity would win out, and we would all be hungry.

    Global warming is not settled science. It is settled politics!! And we had better be much more certain than we are now, of the certainty of that science, before we begin to seriously fool around with the natural changes that may well be occurring. Many of the nations, especially developing nations, of the world seem to recognize that - - hence all the the fuss in Copenhagen. May that fuss long continue.
  • Ngchen
    It's supposed to help the poor in that global warming is believed to disproportionately impact the poor. Who suffers the most when drought or flood hits? Yes, the poor, who can't afford to move or purchase more expensive food. But yes, anything that has a price tag on it tends to hurt the poor more than the wealthy. IMHO part of wisdom is being able to rationally balance the costs of action with the costs of inaction.
  • thebootedone
    how wil this at all help the poor. please someone tell me how. I only see this as a move towards one world governance. It will not help the environment becasue it wont reduce carbon emmisions and it will hurt the poor alot. what is sojourners seeing that i am not
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008