Updated: First time on the Rec List, thanks very much. It's good to be able to shine some light on passionate and well-informed journalism. And in the middle of a Hamsher-icane too :)
A quick diary before bedtime. A writer for The Guardian in the UK has written a compelling piece on the breakdown of negotiations in Copenhagen, in particular the role of China, which seemed to deliberately be creating deadlock to shift blame onto the shoulders of Western nations, especially the US.
Firstly, Mark Lynas has written a fascinating piece which will richly reward reading in full. Find it here.
Lynas is unequivocal in his assessment of culpability for the events in Denmark:
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
How did China do this? The article states that the Chinese prevented any advances in the open-floor negotiations and used closed-door sessions to gut the deal of any content. This weakening of the deal after closed sessions was then almost universally interpreted as the fault of the West, and Barack Obama in particular. The article sets the scene around the negotiating table:
The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
However, the truly shocking incidents stem from the behaviour of the Chinese delegation:
...it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Although, I'm stretching the bounds of fair use here I've not even begun to scratch the surface of this fantastic piece of journalism. Go and have a read.
Lynas' conclusion is somewhat grim, and his description of the intransigence of China reminded me of how the rest of the world felt about the US during the W years. As a roadblock to any kind of meaningful reform. However, the US has had a democratic change of executive that has the possibility to create meaningful changes in policy. How could a similar thing happen in China, where there is not the domestic pressure to act?