LIMA: The twentieth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has come and gone . Normal service has been resumed at the headquarters of the Peruvian armed forces where COP20 was held this last fortnight—a scene of intrigue and torture and death during Peru’s ghastly twenty-year Internal War. The UN flags are down, the delegates either gone home or relaxing in Machu Pichu, and what is left?
COP20 began in an air of cautious optimism. The summit carried a great weight of expectation. In the few months leading up to the conference, movement on the climate front had been unprecedented. To begin with, the Europeans, in the midst of ongoing economic doldrums, had upped their level of ambition. The UN Secretary–General had successfully brought together around sixty world leaders in New York City in September, while on the streets of the Big Apple nearly half a million souls marched demanding action. Around the world, rallies were held in solidarity.
In the lead-up to the G20 Summit in Brisbane, Tony Abbott could not help himself. Despite the best advice to the contrary, he let himself be led by his willful ignorance and arrogance, and declared that a silly thing like climate change had no place at an economic meeting of the world’s richest countries. Well, he was shown up for the provincialist that he is: Barack Obama and Xi Jinpiang ignored him and shook hands over new targets.
The three greatest powers of the early twenty-first century had spoken, loudly and clearly. When John Kerry came to Lima late in COP20 to deliver a powerful speech in a hothouse room packed with people, he too was very clear: the United States is awake to the danger before us and it demands action. Whilst we should not look at this turn in geopolitics through rose-coloured glasses, a turn it is. And one that will be noted in the history books a hundred years from now.
Remarking on the China–US deal, Al Gore said, ‘I know these men,’ he said, ‘And this is the most positive movement on climate change I have seen in forty years.’
Yet, as one veteran observer of COPs noted at the end of the first week, many parties seems to be coasting towards the end; confident in their naïveté. Notwithstanding the cautious optimism, this COP was hardly as sure thing. Perhaps this is why the deep differences between blocs that emerged on the floor of the Plenary on Friday and Saturday of the second week was not noticed or simply ignored. Too many were too confident and had forgotten that this would be hard.
While an estimated 15,000 people marched in the second week through the streets of Lima, in a hot and crowded press hall at COP20, the Presidents of Peru, Chile, Mexico, and Colombia announced a new ‘Pacific Alliance’ on climate change; jointly pledging to work together ‘with one voice’.
Fanning herself now and then, Chilean President, Michelle Bachelet, spoke of the sense of urgency attending COP20 in Lima, widely regarded as the penultimate step towards a new international climate treaty in 2015.
‘If we do not reach an agreement in Paris we will be too late. We cannot fail now,’ Dr Bachelet said.
Everybody seemed to say it, but how many really grasped what it meant?
Certainly the Australians did, belatedly, if not entirely clearly. That Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was able to tell Cabinet she was going to Lima, and that Tony Abbott saw fit to dispatch the Trade Minister Andrew Robb to ‘chaperone’ her, speaks volumes about Australia’s diplomacy in this arena.
When Robb and Bishop were here it was quite clear that they hadn’t a clue what they were talking about. Doubtless, and despite their rhetoric, they still see climate policy through a haze of pollution—only dimly seeing the costs and none of the opportunities. They were clear on the diplomatic risks of appearing not swim with the crowd, so they hastily agreed to cobble together US$166 million, redirected from a slashed foreign aid budget, to throw at the Green Climate Fund, even though they swore blue murder they would never, ever do such a terrible thing. This helped them tread water, but many delegations remember all too keenly how badly Australia’s behaviour has been over the years. Abbott is just Howard on steroids.
The conference itself was part international high-level geopolitical dialogue, part trade fair, and part music/arts festival. I have seen few events more democratic. The population of the compound was a mixture of be-suited veteran diplomats, young up-and-comers, veteran NGO advocates, focussed scientists, colourful activists young and old, businessmen (mainly men), and dog-eared journalists. Despite trying not to draw attention to themselves, the fossil fuel lobbyists were there, too, as were their minions the climate-change deniers. I almost felt sorry this last lot whose media releases and actions were some amateurish as to be risible. Whilst they may influence certain mining and media magnates, the power over the UN summit itself is diminutive.
I have seldom seen people work so hard as I did in those two weeks, yet fun was had. The Fossil of the Day awards, a tradition organized by the Climate Action Network, was a welcome respite from the official proceedings. Australia won, all up, six daily awards, and took in the Colossal Fossil for the year. One knows that the likes of Robb et al. will be unmoved by this—after all, what would a bunch of activists know?—but we have seen this year just how powerful and crucial civil society action is to progress.
About the COP President, Manuel Pulgar–Vidal himself, not a bad word was spoken. This seasoned environmental lawyer and minister seemed to have boundless energy. NGOs and governments alike laud his preparation for and steerage of the proceedings. His staff are fiercely loyal. And whether or not the rumour that he is on the outer in his own government is even half correct, one suspects he is destined for bigger things. He was clearly conscious of the lessons of Copenhagen and did his utmost not to repeat them. Of course, his interventions did not go with hiccups, but ultimately he brought the conference in to land, albeit a little behind schedule.
The applause as the deal was finally struck in the wee small hours of Sunday morning is understandable. People were tired. On Saturday, delegates’ speeches had begun to become—shall we say?—colourful. As an impasse on the text emerged between the global North and South (roughly speaking), the New Zealand delegate talked of ‘swallowing dead rats’, whilst the Malaysian complained that he had missed his Pisco Sour, and the Singaporean spokesperson said that one take care when performing a circumcision lest it end in amputation—making every male in the room wince, I’m sure.
Perhaps more importantly, one youth NGO delegate was heard to remark, ‘You have been negotiating all our lives’, which about sums it up. Yes, some historic developments transpired in Lima: adaptation is now firmly part and parcel of the UNFCCC whereas the convention was hitherto always about mitigation. But this does reflect the fact that the world has dragged its feet these past two decades.
And yes, there is now a recognition that we need to get the hell out of fossil fuels within decades; moving to zero net emissions by century’s end. But the rhetoric and legalese is still well behind and too small to match the scale and urgency of the task.
Many veteran NGO observers called the outcome at Lima the ‘bare minimum’ needed to get the world to a decision at Paris. Some, especially the development NGOs who were outraged at the dodge on financing for adaptation and clean development (we still don’t know how countries will get to US$100 billion a year by 2020), were far less kind. There is no formal requirement to check up on the pledges that countries will make in the coming twelve months. That task will, once again, be left up to civil society. It will be interesting to see whether the Co-Chairs allow time for NGOs to present their assessments in or ahead of Paris. But, countries will, nevertheless, be under pressure to come to the party with a decent plate. Such as it ever was, it is up to the people to make sure they do.
I realize it irks some more hard-nosed operatives, who think that the greater mass expect too much from COPs. I can understand that. But, when the fate of the world is at stake (and it really is), it is perfectly understandable that people will invest greatly in the symbolism if not also the substance of such international summits. The momentum of the climate movement—at all levels— means that more hinges on the outcome at Paris than at any other COP.
The author Greg Bear once wrote, ‘The nations were not sane—rational, composed, aware, but not sane.’ This is a reality that isn’t going away anytime soon. COP20 at Lima, like every other summit before it, showed how human these things are. We are talking about frail, fallible human beings making decisions that will resonate through the ages. ‘Twas ever thus. Governments do, surprisingly, respond to pressure from their people as much as they do from other governments and economic imperatives. The next twelve months will be even more important than the last. Every year counts.
