A few days before the Climate Summit in Copenhagen it is still not clear how much substance, and how much show there will be. The heads of government are confronted with a decision comparable in scale with the dismanteling of slavery: to agree to the exit out of the fossil fuel economy and the entrance in a new welfare model. More than 100 heads of government are expected in Copenhagen. Of course, they want to present the world a result. But it is not yet clear whether they will give in to the temptation to stage the biggest greenwash show in history.
Will they agree to reduction goals that put the world on a path which limits global warming to a maximum of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius – or will they only agree to nonbinding long-term goals, contradicted by weak or even no short term goals, and made meaningless through various loopholes? Will industrialized countries agree to the necessary financing streams to developing countries, in order to make climate and tropical forest protection as well as adaptation to the consequences of climate change possible there?
Or will they announce high finance numbers, but in reality barely making new, public money available? Will they discuss a "politically binding” agreement, which is non-binding in reality, or will they actually initiate a "legally binding” agreement which future governments will also have to fulfil? The time for half measures is over. The political leaders of the world must decide whether that want to burn both us and future generations.
The Briefing Paper (download PDF, 18 pages) identifies main dangers for a Greenwash agreement in Copenhagen:
Danger No. 1 for a Greenwash Agreement: Long-Term Goals Without Short-TermTargets
It could be that a 2 degrees limit and non-binding long-term goals are announced with much fanfare in Copenhagen, but that the binding short-term goals (2020) remain clearly below the benchmark governments set themselves in Copenhagen. Binding short-term targets are the only realistic way for the achievement of long-term goals.
Danger no. 2 for a Greenwash Agreement: The Risk of Loopholes
Given the current state of negotiations, it is likely that we will be confronted with significant loopholes. Then the low reduction targets of industrialized countries would not be worth the paper they are written on.
Danger No. 3 for a Greenwash Agreement: "Politically Binding”
The concept "Politically binding” is a smoke grenade. A "politically binding” agreement would mean putting political will in a sieve through which it can quickly leak out: By no
later than the next change of government, a country would not be bound to it anymore. By contrast, an agreement legally binding under international law would pour the political will in a leak-proof bucket, in order to be able to transport it for the distance. If at the end of the climate conference we have a politically binding agreement it would be a greenwash selling the world a sieve as a bucket.
Danger No. 4 for a Greenwash Agreement: "Pledge and Review”
If every country simply submits its own climate and financing targets and these are accepted, then no real climate negotiations are actually taking place. The purpose of the
multilateral approach, that all particpate and go further than they would otherwise, would be lost.
Briefing Paper
Main Demands of Germanwatch and the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation at a Glance
- Agreement on the 1.5 to 2 degrees limit and the long-term targets in the shared vision.
- Legally binding short term targets (2017 or 2020) for industrialized countries, and binding, ambitious climate protection actions for emerging economies.
- Enforcement and incentive mechanism for achieving targets (emissions and financing targets)
- Reduction of industrialized countries’ emission by 40% by 2020, compared to 1990.
- Joint standards for reporting and reviewing greenhouse gas emissions from land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF)
- Joint standards for national greenhouse gas registries and the transfer of CO2 Equivalents in different countries.
- Joint standards for global emissions trading.
- Comprehensive action programmes for the introduction of climate protection measures and adaptation programmes in developing countries; binding relative emissions reduction targets (increase of energy efficiency) in emerging economies.
- Use of internationally accepted methods for reporting emissions and international review of the implementation of targets.
- Peaking global emissions before 2017.
- Avoiding loopholes through "hot air".
- Comprehensive, transparent and timely reporting and review of national greenhouse gas emissions as well as the pledged targets and political activities in 2015.
- Possibility for an emergency review.
- Financing in the order of 110 billion euros annually for climate protection, rainforest protection and adaptation; this should be achieved with new and additional public
money, not in the context of the 0.7% target. - Establish instruments for international risk sharing which come into play after large catastrophes; create the framework for micro-insurance against climate damages in the poorest developing countries.
- Extend the adaptation fund, also with US participation.
- Instruments to generate financing, such as: Auctioning or sale of remaining emissions permits to industrialized countries, levies or auction revenues from emissions trading in international shipping and aviation; auctioning revenues from national emissions trading schemes.
- Legally binding, international agreement – not just a "politically binding" accord.
- To begin with, the substance of industrialized countries’ and emerging economies commitments should be negotiated separately in the two negotiating fora – the working group on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the working group in the framework of the Convention (AWG-LCA). Only when the substance has been determined, and no-one feels that they have been taken to the cleaners, can we constructively negotiate whether the results should be unified in one single or two separate agreements.
- Dossier: On the road to Copenhagen