Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

[Turborama]

Source: Guardian

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change">Read the 'Danish text'
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-in-pictures-day-two">In pictures: Copenhagen day two

The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.

The so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment" – but understood to include the UK, US and Denmark – has only been shown to a handful of countries since it was finalised this week.

The agreement, leaked to the Guardian, is a departure from the Kyoto protocol's principle that rich nations, which have emitted the bulk of the CO2, should take on firm and binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, while poorer nations were not compelled to act. The draft hands effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank; would abandon the Kyoto protocol – the only legally binding treaty that the world has on emissions reductions; and would make any money to help poor countries adapt to climate change dependent on them taking a range of actions.

The document was described last night by one senior diplomat as "a very dangerous document for developing countries. It is a fundamental reworking of the UN balance of obligations. It is to be superimposed without discussion on the talks".

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

---

A confidential analysis of the text by developing countries also seen by the Guardian shows deep unease over details of the text. In particular, it is understood to:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

[WriteDown]

1. What?!

"a secret draft agreement worked on by a group of individuals known as "the circle of commitment"


Coke Zero? The Illuminati?

[marginlized]

2. Is this real?

A 13 page draft where the critical percentages in the two attachments are left unspecified.

[Democrats_win]

3. This should serve as a warning to ALL who care about the climate: watch what you write!

Before these leaks, we knew that there were a lot of people who hated the "environmentalists." So people, especially officials, should watch what they write. We wouldn't want to give those who love pollution any more ammunition.

[superconnected]

9. This is a leak from the other side - the corportists. It's a good leak.

[waterscalm]

10. And the US is involved. Yes, it is a good leak.

[peacetalksforall]

4. This is a good leak. How utterly disgusting of us. I hope the lieak prevents

this diabolical plan from succeeding. Throw out the Kyota protocal? Turn it over to the conrol of the World Bank of all institutions? Help us.

[GliderGuider]

5. It's odd.

Between the hacked emails and this leak, it's almost as though someone wants the conference to fail...

Sorry, it's not odd at all. I smell a rat.

[naaman fletcher]

13. It looks like the emails were not hacked at all, but leaked from inside.

There is zero evidence of the hacking, and the way security was set up there and the way the files were put together suggest that it was someone on the inside.

[GliderGuider]

15. I wouldn't expect the FSB to leave a trail.

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/12/since-over-1000-confidential-e.html

The Russian secret service has been accused of masterminding the theft of the confidential data from one of the world's leading centres of climate change research. The charge comes as news emerges that hacked climate scientists have received death threats.

Since over 1000 emails were hacked from a server at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, it's been hard not to play climate change Cluedo: who committed the crime?

Rumours on the identity of the perpetrator now appear to be firming up, according to the Independent's Shaun Walker.

According to Walker, a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has voiced suspicions that the hack job was not the handy work of a lone amateur but that of a "highly sophisticated, politically motivated operation."

"It's a carefully made selection of emails and documents that's not random," Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, IPCC vice chairman, told the paper. "This is 13 years of data, and it's not a job of amateurs."

[naaman fletcher]

17. There is absolutely zero evidence

of the russians having anything to do with it.

[GliderGuider]

24. There is as yet no evidence of anybody having anything to do with it.

Russia is being accused. Disgruntled CRU insiders are not.

I have no way of knowing, but my gut tells me it was some sophisticated group on the outside. Russia seems like a reasonable suspect, given that the leaks first surfaced on a server in Tomsk.

[WriteDown]

25. My gut tells me it was the people who are always behind these shadow games...

Coke Zero.

[naaman fletcher]

32. Of course disgruntled CRU'ers are not.. that's the whole point

These guys have been busted doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing. It is much better for them to say the evil Russians hacked them than it is to say that an insider blew the whistle on us.

[Octafish]

6. The New World Order in a nutshell...

... Ready? (harmonica sound for tuning) OK:

"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

Secret deals trump transparency, yet again. And the middle class? LOL! They're S.O.L.

[FarCenter]

7. Obama's priority has to be the US economy - not polar bears or some low-lying Indian Ocean islands

[jgraz]

8. Please tell me you aren't really that obtuse

Even if we *wanted* to be sociopathically self-centered about this, putting money in to climate change research and prevention is a sure way to improve the US economy.

You really need to turn off Glenn Beck and pick up a book.



(Apologies in advance if you just forgot the sarcasm tag)

[waterscalm]

11. Excuses (posters) for the WH/US will be out in full force.

[jgraz]

12. Usually they're a bit smarter about hiding their agenda

This one sounds like an Inhofe staffer.

[waterscalm]

14. No, I disagree as I

think,-just based a few posts in the past--that many here are DU would be willing to water down the US role. IMHO.

[FarCenter]

16. Have a look at "Who’s at the Climate Talks, and What Do They Seek?"

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/12/05/world/climate-graphic-players.html

Note that the United States accounts for 20% of global CO2 emissions, 30% of global GDP, and 5% of population.

Other developed areas of the world account for smaller emmisions per capita. Europe, for example accounts for 15% of emisions, 25% of GDP, and 8% of population.

The United States is a hugely inefficient user of energy. Any quick (1 or 2 decade) change to become efficient means abandoning investments in many energy-efficient things, e.g. single-family housing, suburbs and interstate highways.

While I agree that we need to invest in both climate change research and in energy efficient technology, I don't expect it to be able to offset the negative impact of measures that would rapidly restrict emissions to the levels being talked about (levels 20% less than 1990).

[jgraz]

21. Perfect example of a false choice

Reducing emissions can easily have an overall positive impact on the general population: less dependency on foreign oil, lower fuel costs, better health, a modernized industrial base, more middle-class jobs, etc. The negative impact will mostly be felt by the coal and oil sharks and the parasites that feed off them.

Unfortunately, it's the coal and oil sharks who seem to be running the government right now. Why are you helping them?

[Igel]

29. I don't see your reasoning.

You say the US is a "hugely inefficient" user of energy, but what you seem to mean is that the US simply produces a lot of CO2 per capita--something that's already accounted for.

You need to separate energy from CO2 emissions and treat efficiency as its own thing. They can be related, but they don't need to be.

I think you're trying for carbon efficiency--the amount of GDP produced per unit of CO2 emitted. The US isn't bad at all, and got there by ways of increased efficiency over the last 30 years, both in the production and consumption of electricity. We still produce a lot of CO2 because we produce a lot of stuff and because we rely on carbon-based fuels. If we produced less it would say nothing about energy efficiency, just productivity.

The chart says nothing about energy effiency. Consider Europe's carbon emissions, for example. They're lower per unit of GDP than in the US, but it may not be because they're all that more efficient--you can't tell. France's electricity is mostly from nuclear and hydroelectric. The US's is mostly from carbon fuels. If we suddenly had all of our electricity from nuclear energy we'd see the CO2 emission for the US on that chart plummet, GDP stay pretty much the same (I'd assume). We'd suddenly, as you would call it, be very efficient. Even if we're not more efficient at all.

[FarCenter]

34. The US is inefficient in terms of CO2 emissions per capita

The only just and equitable position is that each member of the human race has the right to as much CO2 emissions as any other.

Currently, the us uses about 100 quadrillion BTU of energy per year, roughly a fourth of the global energy production.

Either, our use of hydrocarbon fuels has to be cut drastically or our energy use has to go down from 100 quads to about 20 quads s in order to drop our use to the 5% of global energy.

Either change requires a dramatic reordering of energy production technologies and businesses.

[JDPriestly]

30. Any president or administration that agrees to a drastic cut in emissions

will not be re-elected. That is because the economic damage that would result from an abrupt change in our emissions policy would ensure that president could not be re-elected. That is a political fact.

It isn't a good fact. But we have to work with it.

If you want change with regard to emissions and pollution in general, you have to work with Obama on this one.

He is correct in proposing that we prepare our economy and Americans for a smooth transition. A hurried one will end in no change at all. It is very sad, but true. Turn off the lights in your own house. Use public transportation and other energy-saving devices in your own life and be patient.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Nihil]

35. "you have to work with Obama on this one"

> That is because the economic damage that would result from an abrupt change
> in our emissions policy would ensure that president could not be re-elected.
> That is a political fact.

No, it is political fear-mongering that panders to low-IQ Americans and
maintains profits for the top layer of the corporate party oligarchy.


> He is correct in proposing that we prepare our economy and Americans
> for a smooth transition. A hurried one will end in no change at all.

We need to do more research.

The evidence needs to be stronger.

We can't trade off the economy for an unproven hypothesis.

The American way of life is not negotiable.


Damn ... where have I heard that stuff before?

[JDPriestly]

39. You are reading into my post all kinds of assumptions for which there is no basis.

I did not say that the evidence needs to be stronger or that we need to do more research. I am just saying that we must make the changes in our environment in an ordered, methodical manner.

Our population is large. Our agriculture depends on hydrocarbons -- fertilizers, machinery and transportation. Do you want even more children in America to go hungry?

Then there is heat in the north and middle sections of the country. Do you want people do die from the sub-zero cold that is experienced in many areas of our country?

Then there are chemicals and pharmaceuticals that are derived from carbons and or that are produced at temperatures that we now create by burning coal, gas or oil.

Yes, alternatives exist. But we do not have the capacity to replace oil, gas and coal at this time. It will take planning and work and, yes, sacrifice, to get there.

My roof in Southern California could produce lots of solar energy. But, putting solar energy on my roof is very expensive. To justify it I would need to rewire my house and change my appliances to electricity.

So, for a society as complex and depend on carbons as ours to cut carbon emissions in a meaningful way will take a long time. That is just as much a reality as the fact that we must do it as quickly as possible. What is possible is the question.

It is unfortunate that under Republican governments we wasted so much time.

I support Obama on this. I know that he is working with economists and others to figure out the best timetable on this.

[Nihil]

42. Not assumptions, I am only seeing blind trust (="faith")

> I did not say that the evidence needs to be stronger or that
> we need to do more research.

I'm sorry, I did not intend to imply that *you* were saying those things,
merely that those things were being said and being acquiesced to.


> Do you want even more children in America to go hungry?

That has less to do with agriculture & fertilizer than with simple greed.
Please don't put up a straw man like that and expect to get away with it.


> It is unfortunate that under Republican governments we wasted so much time.

Agree. It's also a shame that the intervening Democratic governments
(2x Clinton) didn't do anything to get back on track after Reagan & Bush I
derailed things. I *know* Obama is better than Bush II. What I don't want to
see is people being happy with exceeding a piss-poor ultra-low "standard"
and telling me that it is "improvement".

> So, for a society as complex and depend on carbons as ours to cut carbon
> emissions in a meaningful way will take a long time. That is just as much
> a reality as the fact that we must do it as quickly as possible.

= "The American way of life is not negotiable" but with a polite frilly edge.

:shrug:

[naaman fletcher]

33. huh?

Reading your post, if the US and Europe both have way more percentage off GDP than of emissions, it suggests that it is the US and Europe who are the efficient users, and everyone else who is inefficient.

[Uncle Joe]

18. If global warming climate change isn't addressed in a serious and aggressive manner, the economy

will go to hell in a handbasket, like it's never gone to hell before.

On the other hand if the U.S. and for that matter the world develop green sustainable technology and ways of living, global economies will get a critical rejuvenation when they need it the most.

[jgraz]

22. The wealthy are counting on it

Those with liquid assets can make a profit off of any disaster. If they're really lucky, the global resource squeeze will precipitate fascist crackdowns in many countries and the rising sea level will drown a bunch of those pesky brown types who are using up all the billionaires' oxygen. Win, win.

[jpak]

40. Sorry - climate change WILL affect the US economy

agriculture

fisheries

coastal cities

coastal hypoxia

salinization of coastal ground water

increased summertime AC loads that cost $$$$

etc.

Sorry - America is not imune from globall warming

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. And that's with an 80% cut in developed countries from 1990 levels

which shows how difficult it will be to get an agreement that cuts CO2. The 'Danish draft' specifies:

• A reduction in global emissions of 50% compared to 1990 levels (page 2)
  
• A reduction in developed country emissions of 80% compared to their 1990 levels (page 3/4)
  

But developed countries accounted for about 50% of global emissions in 1990 (See Appendix B here: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greenhouse_gas_emissions:_perspectives_on_the_top_20_emitters_and_developed_versus_developing_nations#Appendix_B , and add up US, EU-25, Russia, Japan, Canada, Astralia and South Korea, and you're at about half the world total, for 1990) - that's the target for the whole world in 2050. By 2050, those countries may have a total population of perhaps 1200 million (estimates available here out of the world's 9.3 million. That's 13% - so if we in the developed countries just emitted our fair share in 2050, we'd have to emit just 13%.

Can we cut our emissions to a fifth of what they are now? It'll be hard. Can we cut them to less than a seventh? It'll require the most massive change in lifestyle our countries have ever had.

[mbperrin]

20. What did they expect? The rich use their advantages to stay rich.

Someone coming up the ladder after you? Burn the ladder. Build a gated stairway and keep the key. Convince the rubes that there IS no upstairs.

[JonQ]

23. Sounds like these folks need help keeping secrets

Whenever the truth comes out it seems to hurt them.

There are probably some KGB guys out of work who would be up to the task.

[FarCenter]

26. Anything shared by two or more people isn't really a secret

Most likely a deliberate insider leak or a social engineering attack.

[Odin2005]

27. Or Denialists trying to make it look bad.

[JonQ]

28. It is if they don't want it revealed

because general knowledge of it would hurt them.

[GliderGuider]

31. Or as if someone wants it to look like that... nt

[Overseas]

36. K&R. After what happened at the WTO this year, it sounds like this could be genuine.

I am glad that sometimes there are very sincere people in the various agencies who are alarmed about proposed "solutions" and leak the documents. The leakers may be those who wanted the Kyoto Protocols to be strengthened, not tossed out. They may have grandchildren to whom they don't want to bequeath a planet with a destabilized climate. They may think that the largest burden for CO2 emission reductions should be on the countries that caused most of the atmospheric deterioration that led us to this point.

Unfortunately, there are still brigades of financiers who continue to exert their dominance on international economies and push for more privatization and deregulation. Was stunned to hear that at the latest round of WTO talks, even after the global financial meltdown, other countries were still being pushed to "liberalize" their financial markets, aka deregulate their banking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQrC2vySkI0&feature=related

[robcon]

37. I think the recommendations are appropriate.

I agree in principle with all these rec's:

• Force developing countries to agree to specific emission cuts and measures that were not part of the original UN agreement;

• Divide poor countries further by creating a new category of developing countries called "the most vulnerable";

• Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance;

• Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes.

[WriteDown]

38. The top 3 sound alright....

The last one sounds a little wonky though. Explain your support for it. :shrug:

[Overseas]

41. Kicking again. Lots of TV PR on the purloined emails tonight. To distract us from The Danish Text.

Saw clips of pompous corporate chieftains expressing their sheer outrage at scientists for presenting their data in politically significant ways. They were just outraged that the data could have been slanted. Oh boo hoo. Corporate Magnates who pay billions to get their PR, lobbying and TV ads just right are shocked at the scientists. So awfully sorry the geeks showed a bit of political savvy this time. You pampered millionaires usually manage to hog the floor.

And there I was outraged about those new clips and realized-- well I declare. I'd forgotten about the Danish Text. More "screw you, see you later," from the Top Class. Guess they've given in to The Rapture, or are building their underground lairs, or building homes on mountaintops.

The poor old scientists are just angry like I am that we gave (me as geek fan) gave the public the less alarming scenarios of runaway climate change a decade ago so as not to be seen as too alarmist. We pitched out the most extreme predictions, to inspire the public with hope that there was still time to change and they said--

Oh well then, it's morning in America. Let's cut taxes and burn gas, baby. While we can. And they did.

And here we are.
Decades later.
Party is definitely over. Atmosphere has deteriorated planet wide. Wonderful climatic systems we have depended on for centuries have been tipped out of control. Almost. Because we gave you those rosy scenarios earlier. Why aren't you complaining about that?

The scientists tried to give us hope that there was still time for incremental change. We wouldn't have to shock our whole society if we acted then. Just put a tenth of our military budget into alternative energy and conservation technologies. That's what the higher taxes on the rich used to be for. The common good. Longer term thinking, not dominated by the quarterly balance sheets.

Dang it Corporate Magnates (maggots), that's what we were using those extra millions of your overflowing assets for-- public education, nonprofit health care, R&D, ever-improving infrastructure, including national parks, restoring original ecosystems as we learned to appreciate their significance, professional excellence in government agencies. We were using those taxes quite well, compared to the use of equivalent funds in the private sector.

Then this weird right wing Grandpa took over and slashed the top tax rates for his wealthy friends. The old sweety pie who gushed about Morning in America drained the US Treasury and busted the unions that gave workers a bit of power in US manufacturing. And his PR teams were in full force, ready willing and able to proceed per that old Powell Memo.
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

I really thought we were going to have the dreams of MY father when we elected our new president. To reclaim our democracy, compassion and scientific literacy.