The outcome of the 15th conference of the parties is deflating. During these two December weeks of negotiations, Copenhagen has been the stage of a great theatre of hope for a Green New Deal. Over 45’000 people from all over the world came to Northern Europe in order to discuss and exchange ideas about how a sustainable modern society could look like.
The dream ended with a stone-cold feeling of soberness. The picture is one of sleeping delegates in the plenary room, defeated by the lack of consensus on the highest political level. Many representatives of the parties worked very hard for an agreement to be made; not only in the last two weeks, but over many months in preparation for this summit. However, unfortunately, it seems that the idea of a world community on the purely political level has become an empty word. National interests and competitiveness are the driving forces behind the main players’ negotiation positions. The trench between industrialised countries, emerging economies and developing states seems to have become even bigger than it had been before the COP15.
The chaotic situation shortly before the end of the conference clearly is very disappointing. The uncertainty about whether there will be a minimum consensus in the form of a common declaration was high. One could even say that the whole process was saved from a catastrophic ending in the last minute by a weak unbinding statement, which was not even approved by the conference plenum. At least the UNO-Process is not completely blocked with the achieved statement.
However, even if the result is below what many expected and even shameful in the view of some participants, the whole process still retains a certain credibility in my eyes. There were so many differing voices and contradictory interests at these negotiations that a minimum consensus is better than nothing. Clearly, we all wanted a great symphony and we merely got an overture to an unknown piece of music. Nonetheless, this is an ”essential beginning” as Ban Ki-Moon put it. At least there is still some hope for a future binding commitment. The worst case scenario of a hypocritical impracticable ”operetta” agreement would have been far worse. In this sense, U.S. president Obama is certainly right, when he stresses the imperative need for a control mechanism to review whether countries are keeping their commitments and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. Without such accountability, as Obama said, any agreement would be “empty words on a page”.
The picture that will stay in my mind from this conference is not that of sleeping delegates. My picture of Copenhagen in December 2009 is a colourful painting of innovative ideas, flourishing discussions with representatives and observers from all over the world. At the Copenhagen climate summit for mayors, the key role of cities in the climate change mitigation problematic was highlighted. Financing and international collaboration were intensely discussed between local governors and business leaders. The potential for energy saving by retrofitting of existing buildings, optimisation of public transport and the importance of the direct dialogue with the population are only a few examples of a huge melting pot of concrete actions at the local and regional government level. The possibility of creating new green jobs by promoting sustainable projects was put forward and the benefits of public-private partnership in funding were highlighted. Furthermore, amongst many other groups, students discussed actions at a university or elementary school level. The need for coordination mechanisms and exchange platforms for existing project came out clearly as being indispensable.
Going home with the night train this evening, at least I know exactly what I have to do in the next few months. Even if the international agreement still needs some time to be achieved and implemented at a local level, we all go home with a suitcase full of original ideas.
Franziska Aemisegger, PhD student, ETH Zurich
