Copenhagen Summit - Some observations

by Patali CHAMPIKA RANAWAKA

On 16th December, I was on board the flight SK640, from Frankfurt, destined to Copenhagen. It was my first visit to Denmark - a country of which a greater extent of land is low lying. The bird’s eye view I have had a few minutes before the scheduled touchdown, gave me the impression that, sooner or later, the low lying landscape below me would get inundated by the Baltic sea, if the prevailing conditions are allowed to continue unabated. Also from there I could see the cloud formations at very low altitude due to its stratosphere being closer to the earth than any other part in the earth pole zones.

Further, I could see huge black clouds of smoke released from power plants overshadowing the dark sky of the winter. Through a screen of natural clouds and artificial smoke, I could see the wind mill blades rotating, illustrating how difficult it was to generate the required power through renewable energy sources. Throughout the flight I was suffering from pain and numbness in my legs due to the compact nature of the economy class seating arrangements in the aircraft. I was much relieved when I disembarked, no sooner it touched down.

Copenhagen climate change summit 2009

I was checked in at a compact room in a hotel, overlooking a beautiful lake. Through our protocol officer and the hotel staffers, I came to know that during the period, the charges of all the hotels had been exorbitantly jacked up, making way for those in the hotel industry to reap huge profits. Over 30,000 people had attended the Copenhagen climate summit and as a result, the hosting country would have easily collected a net profit of over 30 million US$. For Asian countries, hosting an international conference is an event of national pride, but for the western countries, it is a lucrative business. It is a well-known fact that the United States earns millions of dollars by way of hosting many UN sessions and conferences. However, ironically, it has declined to contribute its share of the maintenance expenditure of the UN office building complex and its infrastructure facilities.

Just prior to the commencement of the sessions, the members of our delegation described the agonizing ordeal they had experienced by being in lengthy queues to enter the venue of the conference - Bella Centre. I can still remember the disgusting experience I have had during the previous climate change meeting (COP 15) held under identical climatic conditions in Poznan, Poland. There, the participants were kept waiting for hours for security screening and checking purposes and as a result we were compelled to bare the effects of negative temperature, falling snow and chilly winds. Was it not unfair, specially by people like us, coming from tropical countries to be subjected to such harsh climatic conditions? As if adding insult to injury, the western countries having pushed us to the brink of extinction by way of their excessive consumption habits are now tormenting us by hosting conferences under harsh conditions.

Although, as a matter of courtesy, in my statement, I thanked the Danish government for the excellent arrangements they had made, it was obvious that my delegation had fallen short of my expressed sentiments. Denmark being a comparatively small country, had made every endeavour within its capacity to make the conference arrangements a success.

When we attended the main group G77 China, in which we too are a member with 132 member states, we found that there are some fault lines. The western countries were using back door diplomacy to divide and rule the global developing body comprising 132 countries, without which no global power could take any decisions or finalize any agreements. AOSIS and SIDS, African union, oil producing countries, rainforest coalitions had tried to put forward their own agenda scuttling the whole process. After many deliberations, Sudan the head of G77 and other countries finally agreed to reach a common position.

We also managed to reach a SAARC common position as well, emphasizing equity and environmental justice as two cornerstones. The main thrust of the argument of the western countries was that since they have polluted more in the past, they had a right to pollute more in the future as well. Also, they are of the opinion that their children and their markets should enjoy more value than that of the rest.

Obviously, we had to contest the concept of “superior being” as nothing but neo white colonialism in the name of development.

During the plenary sessions, the participants experienced the heated and volatile atmosphere that prevailed at the assembly. The Danish government having discussed with some selected key players had sought to get a separate text approved. The integrity of the President - the dynamic Minister of Environment Conny Haggrd was questioned due to the leak of the document and as a result she was compelled to resign.

Thereafter, violating the established procedure, the Danish Prime Minister took the chair having overruled all the objections raised.

The interventions of Dr. Palitha Kohona and myself too were not allowed to be heard. Even the attempts on the part of Hugo Charvez to intervene was not entertained. However, President Charvez avenged the snobbishness of the chair by taking half an hour to deliver his statement, instead of the allotted three minutes per speaker. He was being greeted with a standing ovation, manifesting a clear division between the parties present. Prior to the speech of President Charvez, two young activists suddenly took the floor and started chanting verses about the rich diversity of the mother earth and its beauty.

The participants including the head table representatives treated it as a cultural event. But suddenly they burst out accusing the Danish government of its hypocrisy and the western governments for being so selfish about the common future of the earth and over the futile talks on climate change when millions are being killed around the globe.

When the head of the Ethiopian delegation took the floor to deliver his statement, on behalf of the African Union, one of the women delegates, out bursting her anger, shouted at him “you betrayed our cause”. Later, I heard that the famous Nobel Prize Winner for environment Bangari Matha of Congo also being accused of selling out the cause. The representatives of some small countries, quite rightly had pessimistic views about the outcome of the discussions and they knew that they had no alternative than to take away what is offered to them by the industrialized countries.

The USA position was clear. It would not sign the Kyoto Protocol. It actually wanted to make the Kyoto Protocol null and void and thereby the Bali Action Plan in which binding targets for emission reduction is stipulated. The US wanted a new agreement where China, India and Brazil, the emerging economies and other developing countries also to have binding targets. China and India argued that although their negative emission is comparatively high they have a huge human population with a less per capita emission level. Therefore, to alleviate the poverty, they needed sufficient power and as a result they would not be able to reduce their emission levels. The developing world has an inherent right to develop and also they are not contributing to the present global warming by excessive emission, either. Therefore, it is very unfair for anybody to call them to reduce their emission levels, was the argument. The European countries argued that they accepted that their excessive emissions had caused global warming. However, after ascertaining that they were able to reduce their emission levels (some were of the opinion that shrinking population cause the reduction and not the mitigation measures and also most EU counties were accused of data doctoring to show the low emission level. as one newspaper revealed, a company had tried to hide emission levels by a scale which is equal to Denmark’s emission - Carbon hole). Adding to that EU is prepared to reduce 20% of their reduction by 2020 and if the USA is committed, to the same amount, they are prepared to cut their emission levels further by 30%. They also are willing to contribute 100 billion US$ for the adaptation fund by 2020. They alone could not reduce their emission level because it may hamper their competitiveness with US and Canada, the worst polluters of the world.

Japan too agreed to cut their emission level by 30% by 2020, which was very encouraging news to all, but they too insisted that the emerging economies too should participate.

China agreed to reduce their emission growth rate or carbon intensity, by 40% in 2020, most people misunderstood the Chinese argument. As per the Chinese economic growth it is estimated that their current GDP ($ 9,845 billion - PPP - 2010) will be quadrupled, which means its aggregate emission level will increase by 400% as business as usual model. But if they are going to cut this level by 40%, the increase would be 250%, instead of 400%. And it is also agreed that 60% of the China’s emissions are due to exports to the USA. The US markets consume much more than their official domestic figures because their imports caused emissions elsewhere.

Now the USA understood that they could not impose legally binding targets to others and are planning to draft new regulations which could be used to ban products with high carbon foot print from other countries. The US may use new legislature to encourage domestic products (protectionism!) and prohibit imports. So it is worthwhile to note our apparel market being affected if we are to generate electricity, based on coal, gas or oil in times to come.

The plenary Sessions of the conference was chaotic, with no agreement being reached. China, India and Brazil backed by developing countries argued with tenable reasons against the western self interests. The sharp division which clearly displayed at the conference was taken into the streets of Copenhagen and it resulted in eruption of streets fights. Even at the official dinner, hosted by the Danish royal family, a couple openly displayed a placard saying “Politicians talk, Leaders Act”, forcing the Heads of States who took part in the royal dinner to take a decision. Violent protest campaigns showed the world what is to come. A new form of political violence based on climate injustice is in the offing. Another Bin Laden in the form of climate terrorism may emerge. Dr. Kohona and I had lengthy discussions about the impasse of the deliberations. Being an experienced international negotiator, he was of the opinion that this show (the US Vs China) was actually a shadow boxing game. The real talks were under way and it had been suggested to extend the sessions by another two days, so that when others were out of the session, the western countries could be able to seal the deal! However, the Danish government was doing everything to protect its reputation and were trying to hype the success of the Copenhagen summit. They were desperately looking at least for a non binding political statement to make it as a fig leap due to the numerous protest campaigns staged on their soil.

A few western agents approached me informing that the required funds were available and they solicited my support to change our stance to accommodate their interest too. I politely had to tell them that the President of my country had not betrayed our just principles in the past and will not betray it in the future as well. I also had to tell them that we were for environmental justice and the developed or the worst polluters in the world should take all responsibilities for the present predicament. Further I told them that we would like to take the moral high ground and had launched a programme called “Green Lanka” (2010-2020) in order to introduce Green Economic policies to our country, although, we have not contributed to global warming.

When US and EU announced 200 Billion US$ for adaptation, several leading counties within the G77 took the bait. They simply sold their future generation for the sake of their present self interests.

In Copenhagen polite words were openly being exchanged. But unfortunately the bad habits of buying out had gone unabated. I personally do not think that the Billions of Dollars pledged at the summit would be honoured. We have the experience of being pledged with thousands of millions of US$ when our country was hit by the Tsunami. But only a few millions came through. The western countries are playing with the time. They are devastating our future.

For a few, the Copenhagen summit was a profitable business. The next summit would be held in Mexico in 2011. There would be pledges, agreements and postponements. But the crisis could not be postponed. Over 40,000 Tons of Co2 had been emitted for the Copenhagen summit of which 90% had come from aviation. The environmentalists like Al-Gore and De-Caprico were accused of using their private planes and high carbon foot prints. Obama - Clinton Smart talk would not deliver this time. Papua New Gunia special consultant - Kennard, who is very much known to me, once said that for reasons which are not known to us, the USA is not going to lead this environmental forum anymore. We are ready to lead it, so (the USA) please get out of our way”.

When I left Copenhagen a huge snow was falling and was seen everywhere. The flights were getting delayed. It happened in Frankfurt as well. I was surprised to see that even Doha in the amidst of a desert is experiencing heavy rainfalls. Floods were everywhere.

Climate change is happening. But the real culprits did not have the courage to take its responsibility or act in a responsible manner.

The writer is Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.