Breaking: LEAKED final draft of Copenhagen treaty declaration

[kgrandia]

With only hours left in the Copehagen climate treaty talks we have obtained an early version of the final agreement' draft text.

President Obama's speech wrapped up a few minutes ago with nothing new announced. But as long as this session continues there remains hope that world leaders can deliver a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal.


But if they don't roll up their sleeves and get down to business, this leaked draft text probably gives you a good idea of what the final outcome of this negotiation here in Copenhagen will be:

The Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, and other heads of delegation present at the fifteenth session of the Conference of the Parties and the fifth meeting of the Parties to Conference of the Parties to the to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change...

Check out the rest of the leaked text here: http://www.desmogblog.com/breaking-leaked-final-draft-copenhagen-treaty-declaration

[Ghost Dog]

1. ... compared to 1990 (X%) [u]and[/u] 2005 (Y%), huh.

...
4. Annex I Parties to the Convention commit to implement,
individually or jointly, the quantified economy-wide emission targets
for 2020 as listed yielding in aggregate reductions of greenhouse gas
emissions of X per cent in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y per cent in
2020 compared to 2005 ensuring that accounting of such targets and
finance is rigorous, robust and transparent.

5. Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention resolve to implement
mitigation actions, based on their specific national circumstances and
in the context of sustainable development...
...

But still, just pious words, mostly. Shit.

Do you have an original source or other description of the origin for this text?

[kgrandia]

4. 2005 versus 1990

Weird that they have both baselines listed.

As for the source, it's, as usual, confidential. But I know it's about to go out on a lot more outlets - I just happen to have gotten it a little earlier than everyone else.

[liberal N proud]

2. Here is the real thing from LA Times...

In a relatively brief speech to a session of more than 100 heads of state from around the world, Obama sketched the pillars of a possible deal: commitments by industrialized and fast-growing countries to limit emissions, a way of monitoring whether countries keep their emissions commitments and a grand aid package to help poor nations adapt to climate change and transition to low-emission energy.

The president promised that the United States would keep its pledge to reduce emissions -- in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 -- "no matter what happens in Copenhagen." But he also warned that the world risked, by failing to come to agreement here, prolonging an already protracted debate while the effects of climate change worsen.

"We are ready to get this done today," Obama said. "But there has to be movement on all sides."

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fgw-obama-climate19-2009dec19,0,1135926.story

[kgrandia]

3. That;s the US

That's the US commitment to cuts, not the final treaty cuts. At least not yet.

[Ghost Dog]

6. I understand that only the US insists on refering to 2005 levels;

and that its proposed 17% cuts from 2005 levels are equivalent to about zilch in relation to 1990.

We're looking for, to be realistic, greater than 40% cuts from 1990 levels from the rich and big developing countries, I think, which some are close to offering.

Even China is offering far more than the US, if the above and below and still holds true. Even India too.

But, sure, any President of the USA has to deal with kowtow to all those red state whackjobs and their representatives and august senators and the likes of liebermann, as well as the good 'ole boys and downright mafia and assorted bribers and blackmailers lobbyists...

And shit-crazy vets and pretenders and the holy rollers.

Damn.

Somebody put us out of our misery.

[kgrandia]

5. Added analysis

Added a quick analysis of the key things to watch in this draft text:

Things continue to evolve and according to the draft version of the agreement, the major issue of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions cuts by what year, remains unanswered.

As it stands, the text states:

Annex I Parties to the Convention commit to implement, individually or jointly, the quantified economy-wide emission targets for 2020 as listed yielding in aggregate reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of X per cent in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y per cent in 2020 compared to 2005...

Based on the best scientific research these numbers should be 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and by 80-95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

One thing to note is that the draft text now includes a mention of a 2005 baseline as well as 1990, which is most likely a bow to pressure by developed countries like the US and Canada who are looking to come out of these negotiations looking better than the actually are by moving the emission reduction goal posts.

Watch to see what these numbers look like, as well as what baseline year that is included in the final text.

The other big issue in these negotiations is the transfer of money from developed to developing nations to assist them in moving to a clean energy economy, as well as helping deal with the effects of climate change (i.e. building dikes to protect low-lying land).

On this issue, the draft text states that in the short term:

Parties to provide new and additional resources amounting to 30 billion dollars for the period 2010-2012 as listed and with funding for adaptation prioritized for the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods.

Groups like the Climate Action Network and others have called for a global commitment of US $10 billion annually in the short term (from now to 2013), so this agreement appears to meet the short term financial commitment.

However, on the issue of long-term financing, civil society has been calling for annualized funding to developing nations of US $195 billion globally by 2020. The draft text states:

In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, the Parties support a goal of mobilizing jointly 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs of developing countries.

So a $95 billion shortfall remains between where we should be and where world leaders are willing to go. "This declaration won't save the planet.

A so-called politically binding agreement is just a fancy way of saying 'trust me I'm a politician" says Greenpeace campaigner Joss Garman . "The leaders have just hours left to end this farce but they still can. We need deeper carbon cuts across the board - it's not complicated - but if they don't step up now this conference will forever be branded the shame of Copenhagen."

Unless leaders sit down at the table, roll up their sleeves and get down to business, this leaked draft text will probably closely resemble the final deal here in Copenhagen. And unfortunately, it is not the deal we've all been working so hard to see and definitely not the one that will save us from the worst effects of climate change.