Dear Colleagues,
There are insiders and there are observers to the Copenhagen process. I
would like to make a few corrections to the self-promoted observations
made by Rado in his paper in Global Environmental Politics. Firstly
Tuvalu did not soften its stance on the Copenhagen Accord. We rejected
it then and we continue to reject it now. This is primarily due to
content reasons rather than process, although we also had concerns about
the process. Therefore our position was quite different to those
expressed by the ALBA group of Latin American countries. For instance, a
reference to 2deg C would mean the end for Tuvalu. No world leader
should be asked to sign on to an agreement that would in effect spell
the demise of his/her country. Certainly the Prime Minister of Tuvalu
was not willing to do this. The linkage of funding for adaptation and
response measures (compensation for oil producing countries) is
unacceptable and immoral.
It was our perception that the Copenhagen Accord was primarily a face
saving exercise produced for President Obama. Without domestic
legislation President Obama had nothing to bring to the negotiating
table. Without commitments to significant emission reductions by the US
(the highest greenhouse producer in the world) it is perfectly
understandable that India and China were not willing to agree to targets
(and indicated by the "secret recordings"). I hope this helps clarify a
few misconceptions.
sincerely
Ian Fry
International Environmental Officer
Government of Tuvalu
ph: +61 (0)432489479
On 12/05/2010 1:08 PM, Radoslav Dimitrov wrote:
Dear colleagues,
The 'secret recordings' video is generally accurate and fair but quite
basic; it underscores how little the media knew about the
negotiations. Attached is the brief 'behind-closed-doors" account of
Copenhagen published in the current issue of /Global Environmental
Politics. /It clarifies what happened there and assesses the current
state of global climate governance/. /It argues the overall picture is
quite good, and calls for creating a 'barometer' of climate governance.
*"Inside Copenhagen: The State of Climate Governance"*
_Abstract_ This article clarifies the outcome of the Copenhagen
climate conference from the perspective of a government delegate.
Access behind closed doors reveals the full extent of the damage. The
failure at Copenhagen was worse than our worst-case scenario but
should not obscure a bigger and brighter picture. Aggregate climate
governance is in healthy condition that contrasts with the plight of
multilateral climate governance. While the multilateral UN process is
damaged, multilevel governance comprising regional, national and local
climate policies worldwide is steadily gaining speed. The challenge to
the academic community is to develop a composite measure of multilevel
governance that captures aggregate public and nonstate policy
initiatives at various levels.
Radoslav S. Dimitrov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Western Ontario
Social Science Centre
London, Ontario
Canada N6A 5C2
Tel. +1(519) 661-2111 ext. 85023
Fax +1(519) 661-3904
Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On May 11, 2010, at 12:11 PM, Greg White wrote:
Dear Colleagues:
Perhaps people have already seen this:
_/http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1063770.html/_
The Guardian covered it as well.
_/http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/may/07/secret-copenhagen-talks-climate-recording/_
Apart from the ominous music cues - and the gentle treatment of
Merkel - I wonder if it's a fair distillation of the "secret
recording." For students, it might be useful heuristically -
especially when Sarokozy raises "organized hypocrisy" as an issue.
(Wonder if he's read Krasner...)
Does anyone have any thoughts/insights on the video's treatment of
the "secret recording"?
Thanks,
Greg
