The December 7-18, 2009 Copenhagen climate summit was initially intended to produce a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an environmental treaty agreed on in 1997 by the leading industrialized and most developing countries. The aim of the Kyoto Protocol is to combat global warming. But more importantly, the Kyoto agreement opens a new chapter of global environmental cooperation under the auspices of the United Nations.

      Under the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, “for the first time, countries agreed to a schedule of binding targets for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, and a prescribed means for working toward those targets.”1.

      While more than 180 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the United States was the lone exception. Although it is responsible for over a third of the world’s emission of greenhouse gases, the United States refuses to honor the agreement it signed in Japan, and resists that a limitation of emission be imposed on its economy. Instead, it tries the utmost to blame India and China for the rise of the CO2 levels in recent years.1. 

      During the climate treaty negotiation in 1997, the United States at first had no intention of agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol until Vice President Al Gore intervened in the final hours. Gore, who wished to run as an environmentally friendly presidential candidate in the 2000 election, demanded two conditions before U.S. committed to the Protocol. Firstly, he wanted the target for emission reduction be reduced by 50 percent and secondly that carbon is allowed to be traded between individual companies and countries.1.

       However, after signing the Kyoto Protocol by President Clinton in 1997, his administration never submitted it to the Senate for approval. The U.S. politicians under heavy pressure from the U.S. oil lobbyists reneged the treaty by using China and India as an excuse for not being part of the agreement. The Bush administration also dismissed the Kyoto Protocol and resisted mandatory emission cuts. Bush claimed Kyoto Protocol would impose too heavy a burden on the U.S. economy, as it made no demands on China, the U.S. economic competitor. He even questioned the science of global warming. As a result, the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol suffered a setback during the Bush administration, and this can largely be blamed on the powerful influence of oil interests on American politics. At one time, Barack Obama’s campaign promise during the presidential election led many to believe that Obama may be a environmentally friendly president, and this is how the London Independent newspaper described Obama and global warming: “Prospects for success in the world’s struggle to combat global warming have been transformed at a stroke after US President-elect Barack Obama made it clear that America would play its full part in renewing the Kyoto Protocol climate-change treaty.”2. 

       Unfortunately, Obama, once entering office, also rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and surprisingly adopted many key positions of President Bush with regard to climate negotiations. Obama’s energy envoy called on the developing countries to make “significant, binding commitments to emissions reductions,”3. while the U.S. itself has refused binding commitments. Few months before the Copenhagen Summit, there was report that the Obama administration clashed with EU over the climate deal. According to the Guardian, in its meeting with the U.S. before Copenhagen, “Europe has been pushing to retain structures and system set up under the Kyoto Protocol, the existing global treaty on climate change. [but] U.S. negotiators have told European counterparts that the Obama administration intends to sweep away almost all of the Kyoto architecture and replace it with a system of its own design.”4.  

       Notably, the U.S. strategy for Copenhagen was outlined by Michael Levi of the Council for Foreign Relations a few months before the summit. The U.S. Council for Foreign Relations is the premier foreign policy think tank of the U.S. political elites, and Levi is a senior fellow specializing in energy and climate change in that institute. Mr. Levi proposed the “country specific” policies of 50 per cent reduction of Carbon dioxide emission by 2050. 

      In Copenhagen, Mr. Levi said, the United States should try to avoid “excessive blame” in case no agreement could be reached. In any case, Levi does not foresee any comprehensive agreement could be reached in the conference. Instead, he preferred extensive negotiations over many years similar to the WTO trade talks. “This ‘Copenhagen Round’ would be more like an extended trade negotiation than like a typical environmental treaty process.”1.

       According to Mr. Levi, China should be pressured to increase investments in renewable energy and “ultra-efficient conventional coal powers,” and India in smart grid energy. The United States, taking advantage of its high technology, should try to have agreement on “measurement, reporting and verification” in climate negotiation at Copenhagen. In customary American arrogance and irresponsibility, Mr. Levi has no hesitation to any proposal that violates the sovereignty of other countries. He is also ready to lay all the blame of world environmental problems on the developing countries, particularly China. China and others, he said, always demand less stringent caps and it is unable to monitor accurately their own emissions.1.

      As a result, the Copenhagen Summit, originally billed as the opening of a new chapter of global environmental cooperation, gradually turned into a contest between the United States and China, with China being the target for blame for environmental misbehavior and portrayed as a pariah nation. One of the complaints launched by the U.S. media against China is the claim that China is the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases. But they conveniently forget that much of China’s increase in energy consumption is for exports and, if calculated on a per capita basis, the Chinese only consume one quarter of the Americans’. In reality, China not only bears the brunt of environmental degradation as a result of the policy of free trade and globalization, but she also suffers unfair criticism on the environmental issue.

     For the Obama administration, transparency, measurement, reporting and verification of emission reduction are essential to any international agreement. According to Mr. Levi, “The U.S. isn’t going to trust the Chinese or Indian promises to cut emissions; that’s why U.S. negotiators have made transparency a centerpiece of their agenda.”5. While admitting that “the U.S., prickly about its sovereignty, may resist some strong transparency measures too,” Mr. Levi and the U.S. negotiators shamelessly want to impose this kind of extraordinary measures on China to the point of violating China’s sovereignty, but at the same time insist that any agreement would be subjected to U.S. domestic law. This is the height of hypocrisy and double standard. It is especially galling that this kind of demand would come from the country that has polluted the world for centuries through industrialization for conspicuous consumption and has not honored its international agreement on climate change.

     By reneging Kyoto Protocol, the United States not only fails to fulfill its commitment to cut emission, it also is not keen to help developing countries in the form of financial aid or technology transfer to combat global warming. 

     In the question of financial aid, Michael Levi has pondered the question of whether the U.S. would be pressured for a long-term commitment. He considers even the contribution of $4 billion a year as difficult for U.S. to agree to. He stated that “the U.S. will need to hold a tough line on this one, and will probably come under fire for it.”5.

      Mr. Levi thinks it will be difficult to get the approval of $4 billion a year from U.S. Congress, while Hillary Clinton has no problem to raise the magic number of $100 billion a year in climate financing for the poor countries by 2020. Cynically, many may view this as a plot to woo the developing countries away from their alliance with China, India and Brazil. This is another imperial game of divide and rule, trickery, and soft approach to achieve its objective with empty promises.6.

       While Hillary Clinton employed empty promises, President Obama displayed the tough side of American diplomacy with his first speech at the conference. Obviously frustrated with the rightful demands of the third world countries for U.S. to own up responsibility with regard to emission cut and financial aid, Mr. Obama was visibly angry. According to the British Guardian: “Obama told world leaders that it was past time for them to come to an agreement…But Obama did not offer any new pledges of action---either in increased emission cuts or clarity on Americans’ contributions to a climate fund for poor countries.”6. Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama’s speech was met with a cold reception and anger among many delegates.6.

       Environmental movement denounced Mr. Obama’s speech. American Bill McKibben of 350.org called it a “take it or leave it” ultimatum, while Friends of the Earth stated that Obama has disappointed the whole world. World Development Movement declared that Mr. Obama “showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster.”6.

      Dr. Michael Dorsey of the Environmental Study Program, Dartmouth College, stated:” The President’s mitigation targets may well kill millions around the world. The 17% reduction is the LOWEST end of the draft legislation in the US Congress; and it is far off the mark.”7.

      Totally disregarding the horrific consequence of the impending environmental disaster and the potential killing of millions around the world, Mr. Obama negotiated the Copenhagen Accord during the last minutes without any transparency, with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. This agreement makes no commitment for a legally binding treaty by 2010, and only promises “to make progress by 2016.” It looks as if the climate negotiations will go through many years of fruitless empty talks, exactly what has been proposed by Michael Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations. Moreover, this agreement has no target in the emission reduction for any country, nor draws out any action plan to restrain the rise in world temperature over 2 degrees Centigrade.7.
      It is obvious that with no clear goal, and low target and binding commitment, the Copenhagen climate summit has ended in failure. According to New York Times, after the agreement was announced by Mr. Obama, “Speaker after speaker from the developing world denounced the deal as sham process fashioned behind closed doors by a club of rich countries and large emerging powers. The debate reached such a pitch that the Sudanese delegate likened the effect of the accord on poor nations to Holocaust.”8.

      While doing his utmost to dismantle the Kyoto Protocol, Obama hinted that China was to be blamed for the failure to achieve a more substantial agreement. He declared that developing countries should be "getting out of that mind set, and moving towards the position where everybody recognizes that we all need to move together".9. 

      Once again, Obama shows his true colors as he betrayed many activities in the environmental movement by reneging Kyoto and abandoning U.S. obligations. This is unacceptable for an industrialized state like America, which is the world’s largest per capita emitter. The United States not only export pollution to countries like China, but wants China to bear the world’s environmental cost. This is especially significant when Obama only offers a mere 4 percent emission cut over the 1990 level in the climate talks. To Lumumba Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 groups, the agreement had "the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It’s nothing short of climate change skepticism in action. It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever. Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."9.

      Obama just like Bush will be a disaster for world environment, as the former president still clings to the fallacy that global warming would have a minimum effect ecologically and economically. The United States as the world’s largest industrialized economy and the largest emitter as measured per capita have a solemn obligation to lay out an action plan in emission reduction and offer drastic cuts. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed in the actions of American delegation in Copenhagen was nothing but posturing, politicking, and public relations. This will have disastrous consequence for combating global warming. The president was hinting that China was to be blamed and, in the aftermath of the summit, the British Prime Minister “expressed outrage at what he called the effective hijacking of the conference by China—the world’s biggest polluter.”10.

      Truthfully, China only became the world’s biggest polluter when the multinational corporations moved their factories to China. The policy of exporting pollution has been advocated by U.S. economists the likes of Lawrence Summers, who is currently President Obama’s Chief Economic Advisor. Summers stated that “health-impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country of the lowest wages.”11. The Chinese elites, on the other hand, gladly accept the subservient role assigned to China for being the factory of the world, thereby receiving international scorn as the world’s number one emitter.

     The Chinese carbon dioxide emission will be worsened as China further embarks on the model of capitalist development and the adoptation of American style of consumption, such as the use of automobile industry as the key pillar of the Chinese economy. By emphasizing exports, consumption, urbanization instead of rural development and organic farming, China has invested massively in the heavily polluting industries such as steel, oil refinery, and aluminum. As a result, China’s environment is in ruin with steadily increasing emission. This certainly does not augur well for the well-being of the Chinese people and the global environment. Moreover, being a party to climate change skepticism in action in Copenhagen and collaborating with the Americans in crafting this non-binding, “sham agreement” to deal with climate change, China has lost credibility with many of her friends and supporters in the developing world.

Notes:
  
1. Tokar, Brian: “Repackaging Copenhagen”,  December 4/5  Counterpunch
2. Doyle, Leonard: “Obama brings U.S. in from the cold”,  November 29, 2009  The Independent
3. Thernstrom, Samuel: “The Quiet Death of the Kyoto Protocol”,  November 5, 2009 American.com
4. Adam, David: “U.S. planning to weaken Copenhagen climate deal, Europe warns”, September 15, 2009  Guardian
5. Levi, Michael A.: “Five Stories to Watch:  UN Climate Change Conference Dec7-18 2009
6. Martin Patrick: “Copenhagen climate summit ends in bitter disagreements”, wsws.org
7. Dorsey, Michael: “Off the Cuff—Reaction To President’s Speech”,  Private Communication
8. Revkin, A. and Broder, J.: A Grudging Accord in Climate Talks”,  December 19, 2009
9. The Guardian: “Low targets, goal dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure”, December 19, 2009
10. Edwards, Steven: “Leaders voice climate-change dismay”, December 22, 2009  Canwest News Service
11. Summers’ Memo: “Let Them Eat Pollution”, February 8, 1992  The Economist