Is Copenhagen Melting Down?

Story image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blogumentary/4175677664/">Flickr/Chuck Olsen (The Uptake.)</a> Front page image: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/americagov/4166097103/">Flickr/americagov (Creative Commons)</a>

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On Monday morning, negotiators from African nations shut down the climate talks at Copenhagen. The Bella Center is rife with rumors that rich countries are trying to do backroom deals with poor nations in a bid to drive a wedge in the developing-country bloc. Is the climate summit on the verge of a meltdown? 

Hovering over all this conflict is the ghost of the Kyoto Protocol. As David Corn has explained, there are two separate tracks of talks at the summit—one involving signatories to the Kyoto protocol and one that encompasses the few countries like the US that did not sign the 1997 accord. The African countries want the Kyoto process to be extended because it holds certain developing nations to binding emissions cuts, not mere goals. But the US prefers a brand new political deal that is not legally enforceable. This is partly because US negotiators are apprehensive about getting a formal treaty approved by the Senate and partly because Kyoto’s mandatory cuts don’t apply to developing behemoths like China and India that will fuel most of the future growth in emissions.

When the Danish government drew up an agenda for the next four days of discussions, the Kyoto Protocol track was apparently not included. So developing nations—particularly the G77 bloc of poorest countries and the Alliance of Small Island States—rebelled. The G77’s response has been described by some reporters as a walkout, but in fact its negotiators halted formal talks scheduled to begin at 10:30 a.m. African negotiators have been roaming the Bella defiantly sporting buttons that read “Kyoto, Yes.”

Talks eventually resumed later in the day. But the question of Kyoto’s relevancy is fast becoming Copenhagen’s fiercest battleground. Developing countries have made it clear that they want to keep the Kyoto Protocol as “the foundation on which you build the rest of the architecture,” explains David Waskow, climate change program director at Oxfam America. Today’s delay in the negotiations was significant, he said, because it reveals that poorer nations are coming close to treating a binding successor treaty to Kyoto as a dealbreaker.

These increasingly bitter skirmishes are stalling vital work that must be completed if a final agreement is to be accomplished. And time is running out. Over the next few days, ministers from participating governments are supposed to hammer out the major elements of an agreement, leaving only the most high-level questions to be resolved by the heads of state in the conference’s closing days. (Those last-minute, sensitive subjects will likely include long-term financing to help vulnerable nations adapt to climate change, and details on how each country’s emissions cuts will be monitored and verified.) Heads of state don’t generally show up for such meetings unless they’re confident a deal can be made.

But so far, there’s not much indication that either side will budge when it comes to the question of continuing or expanding the Kyoto agreement. “I don’t think the United States is particularly interested in Kyoto,” said the conference’s executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, on Monday. “I haven’t seen them sign up or want to ratify it.”

The resistance from the US and other industrialized countries to this suggestion has developing nations increasingly suspicious of rich-world motives. (The move last month to punt a final treaty to 2010 didn’t help.) For poorer countries, the Kyoto Protocol is the only enforceable commitment they’ve got. “The Europeans and the US are saying trust us, this is going to lead to a treaty, and the developing countries are saying we don’t really trust you … so we’re going to stick to this system,” said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. We have it, we know what it is, we don’t know what this other thing might be.” Waskow added: “As we go forward this week, these Kyoto Protocol issues are going to have to be fundamentally addressed.”

Now, developing nations fear that the US, Europe, and host Denmark are trying to split their ranks, offering tailored concessions to individual G77 members to get them to relent on the Kyoto question. “The pressure has been to divide the developing countries,” said Bernarditas de Castro Muller, lead negotiator for the G77. Friends of the Earth president Erich Pica expressed concern that developed nations are “working behind the scenes with Denmark to try to manipulate the process.” And if negotiations fall apart as a result? “They’re going to blame the poorest countries.”

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate