Update – Simon Sheikh: Day 1 of the COP15 negotiations

The theme for GetUp’s next two weeks is a saying we’ve actually been using around the office for the last few years – just make it FABulous!

Now that I’m on the ground I wanted to share some thoughts on what a FABulous deal might look like.

With 192 countries participating, the burden of the expectations of the world’s people rests upon quite a few shoulders. But perhaps none more then those of the leaders of key nations like India, the US, China – and our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

I heard a great anecdote a few hours ago. At the negotiations preceding Copenhagen (in Barcelona a few weeks ago) an Indian negotiator approached an Australian climate activist and they got talking about our very own Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The negotiator commented on how lucky Australia is to have such an intellectually rigorous mind leading our nation. He commented on how committed to climate action Mr Rudd is.

Despite what we think about the Government’s domestic and international efforts so far, one thing is for certain. Our Prime Minister has set himself up to make a global impact – for good or for bad, and that makes influencing his decision so crucial.

So what are we after?

Targets, finance to support developing countries reach these targets (and adapt to the realities of climate change) and a legally binding agreement that locks in action.

On targets a FABulous agreement is first and foremost one that keeps warming below 2 degrees, which means a commitment to stablising global carbon emissions at 350 parts per million. This must be achieved with industrialized countries like Australia agreeing to ambitious 40% + targets. ‘Mitigation targets’ as their called must also drive a global emissions peak within the first 5 years of the deal coming in to force. Importantly, these targets must not be ‘fudged’. The ability of countries like Australia to simply buy the emission reductions of other nations must be limited and the accounting mechanisms for measuring things like land clearing must be fair and not allow loopholes for ‘hiding’ emissions.

On finance the world must commit to both short term ‘start-up’ finance, as well as long term, predictable, year by year finance to help developing countries deal with the impacts climate change is already having, as well as reduce their emissions through clean development. Long term finance commitments from countries around the world need to add up to:

• US$95 billion per year by 2020 for low emissions development, the halting of deforestation and things like technology development; and
• US$100 billion per year by 2020 in grants to developing countries that includes a global climate insurance pool.

This climate emergency fund must be in addition to existing levels of overseas development aid and is the single greatest ingredient in seeking a global deal. Without it, developing nations simply won’t sign up.

And finally on the legal form of the agreement, the Kyoto protocol (specifically the rules and procedures that sit under the Kyoto agreement) mustn’t simply be thrown out the door without an agreement for an even stronger set of rules on compliance and financial commitments.

And is this possible?

48 hours before the end of the Kyoto COP in 1995, an agreement looked all but impossible. And Kyoto now stands as one of the finest achievements of the UN. The last two weeks have seen incredible momentum building in to Copenhagen. China, India and the US are all now firmly engaged in negotiations with targets on the table for the first time.

What’s more, this will be the first COP with a leaders summit and the importance of this should not be underestimated. When leaders come together the political realities of a worldwide 24 hour news market means they absolutely must walk away with a deal to sell to their domestic constituents.

But there is a risk. The extraordinary demand for a global solution means countries are seriously considering ‘green-washing’ their way out.

So how can we know whether our leaders are trying to green-wash us?

Here’s your guide.

Firstly any global deal that only includes start up finance and doesn’t commit long term, sustainable finance at the level of US$195 billion, will be greenwash.

Secondly, a deal that includes dodgy rules for land use land clearing and forestry that allow countries like Australia to escape transitioning to a clean energy economy will mean they’re trying to greenwash us.

And finally, a deal without any compliance mechanism (that is punitive measures and incentives) will be an empty deal. We can’t simply come this far and walk away with a multi lateral agreement with all nations agreeing to do something but not holding each other to account.

Over the coming fortnight we’ll be bringing you really strategic ways of getting involved. Key will be our ability to take actions that:

• show Penny Wong, our Minister for Climate Change that Australians understand how important long term finance for developing countries is;
• show the Government that we won’t accept them pushing in loopholes similar to what happened in Kyoto; and
• that we won’t accept a global deal that doesn’t include compliance mechanisms.

I’d love to read your comments on what’s useful and I’m happy to answer any questions.