Donate Now
William Wheeler, for the Pulitzer Center
Copenhagen, Denmark
With only a week to go, negotiators at the Copenhagen climate summit say that longstanding divisions between industrialized and developing nations have so far proven insurmountable.
The fissures were clear at a press conference Friday morning, which featured delegates from India, China, Bangladesh, and the European Commission.
"After two years of negotiations, it came to me that we argue a lot between developing countries and developed countries but it boils down to one issue," said Chinese negotiator Qingtai Yu. "For the developed countries, when it comes to emissions space, the fundamental attitude is that 'what is mine is mine, but what I've taken away from you I've got to keep.' For us, the developing countries, our position is -- our emissions space is under occupation. And we want it back."
The statement underscores one of the central hurdles negotiators face: the reluctance of advanced developing nations like India and China to commit to enforceable limits on carbon emissions, and American insistence not to commit without them.
Indian delegate Chandrashekhar Dasgupta repeated the familiar the argument that developing countries cannot afford to sacrifice growth and poverty eradication in the battle against climate change.
"If we fail to achieve and maintain the highest possible rates of development," he said, "then we will be condemning future generations of our countries to the horrendous impacts of climate change without any significant coping capacity."
"I find it difficult to consider CO2 emissions as a resource," fired back Karl Falkenburg from the European Commission. "You're talking about the right to pollute the atmosphere." Industrialized nations must help secure developing nations' economic growth, he added. But, speaking over Dasgupta, he continued: "the bottom line is I don't know a right to pollute, either for a developed country nor for a developing country. And I think it's fundamentally not addressing the real challenge."
In the last week, drafts of various blocs' proposed agreements have leaked or been circulated. None seem to be able to bridge the divide about how to limit emissions, how to monitor and report them, and how much funding and technology industrialized nations will provide to do so.
Early in the week, the Guardian newspaper published a leaked document, known as the "Danish text," that had reportedly been circulated as a potential draft agreement between Australia, the US, the UK and Denmark.
The document abandons the Kyoto Protocol, which places the greatest responsibility for cutting emissions on rich nations, and sidelines the United Nations in future climate change negotiations.
The news created quite a stir. Some criticized the secretive manner in which the text was crafted, as well as its lack of ambition for creating meaningful carbon emissions goals.
"It kind of rolled over the Kyoto protocol," said Alison Doig of Christian Aid, which strongly opposes the text as letting rich countries off the hook."It's going to change the balance of power. We're very against that because it ignores poor countries'-- like China-- need to develop. It puts the bias [for carbon emissions cuts] onto developing countries."
Under the headline, "Something really WAS rotten in Denmark," the climate negotiations bulletin ECO, which is produced by a coalition of environmental NGOs, called it "a substitute for a real agreement." "What's also clear," it continued," is that the process for developing it was fatally flawed, and as often happens with a flawed process, this one exploded in the hands of its maker."
A subsequent split has also emerged poorer developing and more advanced developing nations, reflecting divisions within a previously unified bloc as well as growing pressure for a more ambitious deal.
The Alliance of Small Island States circulated a largely symbolic draft calling for more stringent limits on global temperatures.
"We are on the frontlines of climate change crisis," said one AOSIS delegate. "Some of the islands will disappear, we accept that, but we want an agreement that will address our survival. That is why we are here."
Despite the stumbling blocks, negotiators promised a renewed effort in the week ahead. "Progress where it has appeared," said Falkenberg, "is too slow, it's coming late... [but] an impressive number of leaders have announced they will come here. I trust they're not simply coming to shake hands with the Queen of Denmark, but that they come to do business," he said. "They recognize the urgency."
This story was reported for the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting as part of the Copenhagen News Collaborative, a cooperative project of several independent news organizations. Check out the feed here from Mother Jones.