What happened in Asia? What will happen in Copenhagen?

By Ben Wessel of the 1Sky policy team. -- Luis

I've been pretty heavily involved in some speculation about international climate agreements, so the following is a review of where we're at and an educated guess, based on collaboration with people who have been pretty closely following the negotiations, of what realistically is going to happen in Copenhagen:

What Actually Happened in Singapore? It's my impression that people have been overreacting to the statements made by Obama and the Danish Prime Minister at the APEC meeting about outcomes for Copenhagen. It seems that Obama announced he didn't see a legally binding agreement -- an assumption everyone has been working off since early June. Danish PM Lars Loekke Rasmussen gave the same speech at APEC that he's been giving for a couple of months, but this time, the White House press corps heard it and they didn't understand it wasn't necessarily new. Then, Deputy National Security Advisor Michael Froman went off his talking points about Copenhagen and made a big ol' media boo boo when he said “It was unrealistic to expect a full, legally binding international agreement to be reached between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days." The White House felt like the whole thing was a little exaggerated, and was more of a media issue where someone misspoke than a political statement.

What Happened in China? The Obama-Hu meeting referred to an "accord" and said that an outcome from Copenhagen (while striving for legally binding) should, nonetheless include emissions reductions targets from developed countries and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Activities (NAMAs) from major developing countries (i.e. China, S. Korea, etc.). This essentially puts NUMBERS back on the table for Copenhagen.

What Might the US do in Copenhagen? U.S. negotiators have suggested that the U.S. will be able to offer some preliminary commitments to help seal a short-term political deal and may make the road to a legally binding deal easier. It is likely that negotiators will offer some sort of short-term emissions reductions target, most likely a range of cuts of 14-20% below 2005 levels by 2020. This will likely be accompanied by some near term financing for international climate programs that would come out of annual Congressional spending bills. One estimate of what the U.S. could offer in the short term is a $1.3 billion dollar investment in projects such as climate impact and natural resource adaptation, deforestation reduction, and other activities that would be paid for in Congress' annual State Department and Foreign Operations spending bill. This sort of deal on financing wouldn't include any funding that would come from a new climate and clean energy bill, and a constant stream of funding would be required to make a lasting global deal work.

What is a likely outcome for Copenhagen, then? We're looking at a "politically binding" agreement that would probably mandate a deadline for legally-binding action of COP16 in Mexico City in Dec. 2010, but we would likely see legally binding language agreed to in Bonn, Germany in June, depending on US Senate bill timing. This short-term "politically binding" agreement will almost 100% come from a document that the Danish government is writing right now. It would most likely have two parts:

1. A Political Statement: A broad, overarching statement that would outline future action, as well as some NUMBERS that governments will strive towards, both dollar figures for financing and percent cuts for targets.
2. An operational framework for what will happen in the 6-12 months before that legally binding deal. This could include near-term, fast-start funding, some procedural agreements on REDD + adaptation, etc.
   
   There MIGHT be two more things, but these are two things that would require some big pushing...
   
   
3. Some Treaty Text: this would be some elements of the final treaty text that all countries would agree to in Copenhagen that would then be folded into a final deal. This may be unlikely as the negotiators in Barcelona earlier this month weren't able to discuss "non papers", or new positions/additions to the negotiating text
4. A Clear Deadline: A specific mandate for specific meetings, clear timeline, and laying out what needs to be done to agree on the treaty text. If we got this out of Copenhagen it would be considered a resounding success.

Is ANYONE still pushing for a binding deal in Copenhagen? YES, in addition to many international NGOs, there are numerous countries and negotiating blocs that are still trying to achieve a binding deal. These are largely countries that fall in the G77+China negotiating bloc, and the most vocal folks are the Alliance of Small Island States, led by Dessima Williams of Grenada and the African Group, led by Prime Minister Zaqawi of Ethiopia. These folks are reminiscent of our climate champs in the Senate: they push for the science, not what's politically expedient.