I am sorry for having been off the air for a week.  The “holiday season” has been, as you likely have experienced, in full swing.  Among other activities, we entertained on Christmas Eve and Christmas, so there were kids and adults, presents to be wrapped and opened, and lots of cooking and eating.  (I specialize in high-calorie, high-fat desserts.  This is a particularly brutal recipe - not for the faint of heart.)

In any event, I’ve been thinking about stories and saving up good ones.  As you may know, one of the best things to come out of Copenhagen was a substantive agreement on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries.  This post, for instance, from me on December 16th, gives some background and references a useful Libby Rosenthal article from the “NY Times.”  This article today from “The Economist” says “Although there is still work to be done … the deal struck in Copenhagen made it into a real thing, not just an idea. The notion of reducing net deforestation to zero was not explicitly mentioned, but it looks much more credible than it did two years ago.”  (Most of the article, however, is about the enormous potential in “cool farming.”)

This press release from the UK’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) describes an agreement announced in Copenhagen on $3.5 billion in initial funding to fight deforestation.  The participating countries are Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Gordon Brown said “An agreement to slow, halt and eventually reverse deforestation has to be central to the outcome here in Copenhagen.”

On the same day, a critical initiative in Ecuador took a big step forward.  The Ecuadorian Yasuní-ITT Proposal declared being on the verge of a final agreement which will preempt the emission of 407 million tonnes of CO₂ by keeping 850 million barrels of oil underground in the Yasuní National Park.  “If the international community contributes with at least half of the revenue that the State would receive by extracting the petroleum…” - and this certainly looks perfectly do-able, given the commitment of financial resources noted above - then Ecuador will use the money to develop renewables, avoid deforestation and protect biodiversity in 40 national parks and indigenous lands (38% of the country), reforest, and work on sustainable development projects.

In Brazil, the government said recently that estimates based on analysis of satellite imagery show 7,008 square kilometers of forest were cleared in Brazil during the recent 12-month period measured, the lowest rate since the government started monitoring deforestation in 1988.  See this video for how Brazilians are waging the good fight.

Brazil is not just embracing REDD as a means for reducing its considerable GHG output.  It is also powering up its renewables industry - well beyond its considerable sugar-cane ethanol production.  (Biofuel production, of course,  has serious caveats to be considered.)  Brazil’s Wind Power Auction Spurs More Clean Energy Development is the story from the director of Brazil’s National Electric Energy Agency (ANEEL), writing at “RenewableEnergyWorld.com.”  What’s the potential?  145 GW, according to a report from Brazil’s Electric Energy Research Center (Cepel).

Finally, re:  Brazil, AFP reported here yesterday that President Lula da Silva has signed a law “…requiring that Brazil cut greenhouse gas emissions by 39 percent by 2020, meeting a commitment made at the Copenhagen climate change summit.”

There is a blockbuster piece at Salon.com that looks at Five common mistakes in the coverage of the Copenhagen Accord.  It punctures some of the fallacies that have abounded in some quarters such as that there could have been a better Accord voted on by the delegates, that the smaller developing nations rejected the Accord, that it was a product of big-nation backroom wheeling and dealing with no input from key constituencies such as the Small Island Nations and the Least Developed Countries, that it’s a failure and that Obama is to blame.  I’ve touched on the last two items here at the blog, but this article gives you point-by-point analysis of what actually happened with excellent hyperlinks to key press conferences and other useful reference points.

(One corrective to the Salon piece, and it’s a common mistake: The Byrd-Hagel resolution passed in the summer of 1997, five months before the Kyoto Protocol was adopted by the Conference of the Parties. It anticipated the Kyoto Protocol, certainly, but it was not a reaction.)

The “Financial Times” has its usual comprehensive coverage, with a ton of commentary.  Reuters also has a lot to say, including a FACTBOX-Main points of the Copenhagen Accord.  There’s plenty more out there, from the environmental groups to business groups and others. (For all the documentation and other background material, you can go to the UNFCCC.)

I’ll be parsing some of this over the course of the next few weeks.  Meanwhile, I highly recommend the Salon article.

Overview - There were critical developments, breakthroughs and some setbacks in 2009 in the policy, politics, business, economics, science, and technology of climate change and energy.  There were moments of high drama in Copenhagen and Washington as well as low comedy.  The landmark Waxman-Markey bill passed in the US House of Representatives, the Obama Administration made truly remarkable strides, and the Copenhagen Conference, while not what many hoped for, should provide a keystone for a concerted international effort.  Even in the face of a global downturn, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency continued their penetration into the fabric of our economies.  The science deepened our understanding of and concern about the climate crisis, while a tempest in a teapot over some communications between climate scientists inflamed a diminishing fringe of skeptics.

Person of the Year - There’s no contest:  It’s President Barack Obama. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.” His international diplomacy from the G-8 meetings, to the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, to Copenhagen, and in numerous bilateral discussions, advanced the focus on and commitment to addressing climate change.  His appointments to key cabinet positions have picked up the ball and charged ahead on addressing key energy and environmental issues.  His economic stimulus package had a number of robust green initiatives.

Most Unexpected Development - There were enormous and not-at-all-unjustified expectations for the Copenhagen Conference, given the tremendous amount of attention and effort devoted to it over the past two years by high-level policymakers.  Even though it should be seen as a breakthrough because all the world’s major economies have, for the first time, committed to making reductions in greenhouse gases, there is an awful lot missing and still to be negotiated.  Both Fortune 500 businesses and major environmental organizations are disappointed.  That Copenhagen did not produce a much more robust agreement was unexpected.

What to Watch for in 2010 - We need to see how the issues left unresolved in Copenhagen, primarily to what extent developed and developing countries will commit to GHG reductions and on what timetable, will play out.  Even though the US EPA is proceeding on a regulatory track, there is, of course, the critical question of what Congress will do.  The House has acted and the ball is squarely in the Senate’s court.  On the business and finance side, it will be interesting to see how hard the major business organizations, like the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), fight for action on climate change.  It will also be critical to see to what extent major businesses, national governments, cities and other governments further the extraordinary progress on clean tech that we’ve been making across the globe.

We are, in my opinion, in a historical transition to sustainable economic development and a world that is much more ecologically sane.  Whether we get there sooner rather than later, thus avoiding some of the more dire consequences of climate change, remains to be seen.

This is the document that has taken many years and much blood, sweat, tears and toil from thousands of people to produce.  Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, described the accord as “politically important.” It provides an “architecture for a response to climate change.”

The “LA Times” had this story this morning:  Climate summit ends with major questions: ‘Breakthrough’ or ‘cop-out’? There was no formal vote to adopt the accord but the delegates “took note” of it, giving it something of an official seal of approval.  It is said that about 30 nations helped draft it.  “The Telegraph” has a useful Q&A on the deal here.

Clearly, there are warts but it was being touted yesterday by President Obama as a “a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough.” As everyone understands, there’s much more work to be done on the Accord to bring it into shape so that it can be fully accepted and signed as a treaty.  That may take a year, seeing it finalized at next year’s Conference of the Parties in Mexico City.

There is no dearth of opinion on the accord.  Many environmentalists are characterizing it as a failure.  The NRDC’s Dan Lashof, however, does call it a breakthrough “…because, for the first time, all major economies, including China, India, and Brazil, as well as the United States, Russia, Japan and the E.U., have made commitments to curb global warming pollution and report on their actions and emissions in a transparent fashion, subject to ‘international consultations and analysis.’”  I concur.

Mr. de Boer had this succinct summary of the outcome.

.

AP had this late tonight.  The deal “…requires industrial countries to list their individual targets and developing countries to list the actions they will take to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts. Obama called that an ‘unprecedented breakthrough.’”  AP further reported “German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a leading proponent of strong action to confront global warming, gave the Copenhagen Accord grudging acceptance but said she had ‘mixed feelings’ about the outcome and called it only a first step.”

And ABC news - the American one - reported on the agreement in this video.

Let’s look at this closer tomorrow, and get some more reaction from some folks who have good insight.

We’re in overtime in Copenhagen.  ABC - that’s Australian Broadcasting Corp. for those Americans who might think otherwise - reports “US President Barack Obama has launched intense after-hours diplomacy with China, hoping to salvage a new world climate pact after warning that an imperfect deal would be better than no pact at all.”  (See this.)  “The Guardian” has a synopsis here of all the latest changes in the negotiating text.  At the heart of these negotiations is emission reductions - how much and by when. “Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of X% in 2020 compared to 1990 and Y% in 2020 compared to 2005.”  As the Guardian reports, “This phrase will spell out the responsibility of the developed world to cut gases that contribute to global warming. X and Y will be be filled in at the end of negotiations or at a later date. Most nations made commitments before Copenhagen, but there is room for manoeuvre.”  What are the obligations of the major developing economies?  Good question.  “The Times” reports in this article that we’re going to have a watered-down agreement, falling well short of most everyone’s expectations.  “A commitment to turning the “Copenhagen Accord” into a legally binding treaty within a year was deleted from a draft of the text leaked tonight. The draft also contained only vague language on the key issues of limiting the temperature increase to 2C and cutting global emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.”

As American sports fans well know, however, “The opera ain’t over till the fat lady sings.”  Or, more prosaically, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”  Let’s see what the wee hours in Copenhagen or tomorrow morning brings.

Wait a minute!  Stop the presses! The “NY Times” reported one minute ago that White House Announces ‘Meaningful’ Climate Deal. They quote a White House official:  “Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of two degrees celsius, and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.”  Phew!

Sounds good.  Let’s see what the bold and fine print say when it’s released.

We’ll know the answer to that question later today.  As I’ve said, though, we’re going to have REDD, certainly, and a fast start to funding for adaptation and mitigation for the developing nations. What else remains to be seen.  See the “NY Times” this morning for a report that notes:  “But the maneuvering and brinksmanship that have characterized the final week of the talks are also a sign of their seriousness; never before have global leaders come so close to a meaningful agreement to reduce the greenhouse gases linked to warming the planet.”

President Obama, whom many see as the key to finalizing an agreement today, said here “The time for talk is over.”  More specifically, what happens between the US and China is critical.  Obama met privately with Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, for an hour early this afternoon in Copenhagen.  According to the White House, the two “made progress.”

If you want to follow this more closely, you can follow some of the live feeds from COP 15.

US aid offer boosts deal at UN climate talks is the headline from the AP tonight.  “Large pieces of a climate deal fell into place Thursday with new offers from the U.S. and China, but other tough issues remained before President Barack Obama and other leaders can sign off on a political accord to contain the threat of an overheated world.”  The US, as noted here earlier, revealed its support for a hefty annual climate fund.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the announcement and this seems to have given China the political space to say it will allow international monitoring of its emissions.

Meanwhile, Joe Romm, who is on the ground in Copenhagen, reports here that “optimism breaks out at COP-15.”  Are we going to be home free?  Certainly not!  (Obviously.)  Romm points out:  Major developing countries, such as China and India “… haven’t yet agreed to cap their emissions, let alone to ultimately reduce them. Until that happens, no model of global commitments is going to keep us anywhere near 2°C (3.6F). But that doesn’t mean they won’t agree to a treaty that sets the 2°C target.”  There are more than a few miles to go before we sleep.

Tomorrow’s final sessions with the government leaders will be more-than-a-little compelling.

“I would say hold tight and mind the doors–the cable car is moving again,” said Yvo de Boer earlier today.  The “WSJ” reports here that de Boer is encouraged.  “Forbes” has some other notable quotes from today, among them Hillary Clinton’s commitment to help raise $100 billion in annual funding for adaptation and mitigation in the developing world.  Here is the “NY Times” on Secretary Clinton’s welcome push.

Who is going to be present at the finale tomorrow?  According to the UNFCCC, it will be 119 heads of state and government who represent countries that account for 89% of the world’s GDP, 82% of the world’s population and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Included in the 119 countries are the 20 largest economies and the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters in the world.

Here is UNFCCC Executive Secretary at his press briefing today:

“And I’ve been from Tucson to Tucumcari
Tehachapi to Tonapah…
And I’m still willin’
To be movin’.”

That’s what COP 15 feels like to me - from 3,500 miles away, admittedly, but like a truckdriver that’s seen it all, and is still willin’.  I said yesterday that the lead negotiators would need “poise, intelligence, good will and commitment.”  I forgot stamina.

AFP reported earlier this evening that “Wealthy nations pledged some 22 billion dollars Wednesday to bankroll the war on global warming, delivering a huge shot in the arm to a UN climate summit marred by wrangling and violent protests.”  Japan made the biggest commitment.  At the same time,”The Times” also reported “African nations have reduced their demands for compensation from rich countries for the impact of climate change and suggested a compromise that could lead to an historic agreement at the Copenhagen summit.”

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I think tomorrow and Friday will see something much more along the lines of what we’ve been expecting:  a package that will move this whole process forward, giving this old mother planet of ours a fighting chance to restore itself to its former transcendent perfection.