Copenhagen is already starting to look like a transformational political moment. Today was the first day of the COP15 climate talks. In the plenaries vulnerable nations spoke out forcefully about the need for global cooperation toward rapid greenhouse gas reductions. International youth joined Avaaz in staging two powerful actions inside the Bella Center. As with previous UN climate conferences, civil society and the most impacted countries did their part to raise the stakes of the negotiations. What’s different this time, is that at the end of these climate talks at least 110 global heads of state will be at the table ready to broker a deal.
In the past several weeks dozens of countries have come out with new emission reduction targets. While its encouraging to see real commitments, it is terrifying to think about what could happen if global ambitions end here. Two points are important to keep in mind for the climate movement in Copenhagen:
1. The politics of climate change are not where they need to be.
2. The politics of climate change are about to change in a big way.
Presidents and Prime Ministers don’t put their reputations on the line for global issues all that often. Imagine the repercussions in future elections if leaders came away from Copenhagen without a deal. The stakes couldn’t be higher for coming up with something. The question is – what will that something look like on December 19th?
A month ago I was in Barcelona listening to environmental ministers speak about Copenhagen on the last day of the pre-COP meetings. It had been an underwhelming week of delay and compromise without any major breakthroughs. Local and global climate activists were there all week organizing actions to push the envelope of what could be achieved.
In the final hour, what stuck with me were the words of two speakers – one from the Solomon Islands and one from Liberia. The Liberian delegate spoke of a “nation on fire” with paralyzing drought and water shortage. The minister from the Solomon Islands reminded others in the plenary of the costs of inaction – rising sea levels and flooding that threatened their very survival. By the end of the plenary, I was in tears from the weight of their words. It wasn’t simply the impacts they were describing that go to me, but the guilt and desperation I felt when they spoke about how long global leaders had been debating solutions without a result.
Sometimes it makes sense to compromise your ambitions in favor of what’s possible in the moment. Copenhagen is not one of those times. For the last month I’ve included the following quote in each message I’ve sent to friends and colleagues as a reminder of this moment:
“Compromise has its place, but climate change is different. The laws of physics and chemistry do not wait, nor will they compromise. Either Copenhagen sets us on a course of radically reduced greenhouse gas emissions or the future of humanity is in jeopardy.” – Martti Ahtisaari, former president of Finland and 2008 Nobel Peace Laureate.
To me, the bottom line for Copenhagen is crystal clear. We must demand a real deal that can hold back the tide for vulnerable nations and avoid climate tipping points. All nations must agree to a framework for a legally-binding treaty with enforcement teeth that will peak global emissions by 2015, rapidly declining to 350ppm. Developed nations must provide $200 billion a year by 2020 in fair financing for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Global leaders should feel pain and pressure from our movement daily until such a deal is reached.
It won’t be hard to find politicians and seasoned environmentalists who will be quick to compromise on this bottom line. Many have already maneuvered themselves in the direction of a greenwash. What’s important is that a critical mass of moral leaders, governments, and NGOs stand with vulnerable nations in defending a real deal, which is essentially a global survival pact. With a real deal will come jobs and opportunity in a global economic revolution.
Copenhagen cannot be the end game for the climate movement. The power of international law is limited. However, it is a transformational moment that must be seized. The iron is hot and it is time to strike.
