Copenhagen: Triumph or Failure?
It’s been over a week since the Copenhagen climate talks ended. Most bloggers and pundits have taken a couple days off from 24-7 prognostication, so it feels safe for me to venture into the fold and submit my humble take on what happened at COP15, and what it means for the global climate movement. First, I’d like to look back at the last couple years of the climate movement leading up to the Copenhagen talks.
The movement comes of age
Let’s step into our time machine for a moment and take a trip back to Bali, Indonesia, where COP13 was held in December 2007. Still logjammed by the Bush administration’s oil-slicked representatives, delegates from other countries agreed to the Bali Roadmap, basically an agreement to keep moving towards an agreement, with vague topical goalposts along the way: technology transfer, forests, financing, adaptation and, of course, the elusive carbon cuts.
Even with the US delegation blocking progress at every level, there was a sense of momentum, and with US elections coming up, a flickering light shown at the end of the tunnel. In 2007, the climate movement also came of age.
All over the world, climate activists — in particular young people — realized that nobody would save the world from catastrophic climate change for them. They would have to do it themselves. In Australia, India, the US, all over Africa, in Mexico, China, Europe and the Middle East, activists began forming coalitions of social justice, environmental, faith and other progressive groups to take on the fossil fuel interests and intransigant elected officials.
While many of these groups existed before 2007, a combination of innovative public campaigning, shocking scientific reports and natural disasters vaulted climate change into the center of the political arena. In a sense, that year was when the global climate movement came of age - two major organizing pushes in the US (Step It Up 2007 and Powershift 07) inspired a rash of similar events around the world over the next two years. As the Bali negotiations came to a close, the movement learned about a new number that would set a goalpost for years to come: 350 — the safe level of carbon in the atmosphere in parts per million.
While the results of the Bali negotiations proved to be nothing more than a band-aid on the international climate negotiation process, the two weeks spent there helped activists forge relationships and ideas that would serve us well throughout the next two years.
Making our voices heard
Now cut back to 2009. The movement, having weathered yet another year of climate inaction on the part of most major countries, but bouyed by the election of Barack Obama in the US, undertook the largest, most widespread collective campaign effort ever initiated in social movement history. Globally, thousands of climate activist groups began to build constituencies, impact national elections significantly, target specific elected officials, take down fossil fuel interests, and come up with new and innovative ways of getting the word out.
There are too many efforts for me to list here, but suffice it to say that in every corner of the planet, from the smallest rural village to the largest metropolis, concerned citizens were successful in pushing for local change and linking it to a global movement, building political power from the ground up everywhere on the planet. The 350.org campaign aggregated some of the most amazing work worldwide, raising those voices — many from the world’s most vulnerable countries — to make sure that world leaders would notice.
And notice they did. China and India, long considered to be inexorably tied to high-carbon growth, came forward with not insignificant proposals to reduce carbon emissions while still ensuring their citizens comfortable lives. The US House passed the first ever climate bill in that country (albeit a very weak one.) In Africa and small islands all over the world, activists helped educate and support Environment Ministers and delegates on the need for bold action on climate change.
For the first time, we had a truly global movement, and we influenced public policy all over the planet. In just a few years, we had managed to build a movement that had a voice at the international table.
Copenhagen - triumph or failure?
After two years of light-speed movement building all over the world, towards the end of 2009 all eyes were on Copenhagen.
US legislators hurried to pass a(ny) climate legislation, using the now irrelevant excuse “we have to get something before Copenhagen” to weaken a cap and trade bill. It didn’t even come close to being passed in 2009, overshadowed by the circus-like debate over healthcare in that country. China, India, Europe, Maldives, South Korea, Mexico, South Africa and a whole host of other countries submitted their own climate laws.
On the eve of Copenhagen, with more than 140 heads of state scheduled to arrive, it became clear that the world’s largest carbon emitters were not ready to commit to significant reductions. Perhaps some of us were blinded by the flashy ads everywhere telling us to refer to the city as Hopenhagen rather than Copenhagen — but it became abundantly clear in the few weeks before COP15 that no significant deal would be made.
It should have been no surprise that at the end of a marathon negotiation session on the last night of the summit, the world would be presented with a half-baked, vague “accord” that a handful of countries wouldn’t sign. There have been various attempts at finger-pointing for the failure to make significant progress: Obama is a favorite target, China has been accused of political plotting, and even Denmark didn’t escape the witch-hunt.
It’s abundantly clear that none of the world’s leaders, save those from the smallest and most vulnerable countries, were able to muster the leadership needed to move the world into a prosperous new decade. That alone is a stark failure of leadership, but it is not a reflection so much of the climate movement as it is the result of the influence of entrenched fossil fuel interests.
Politics is often a binary; even if significant people power comes up against entrenched power, it might amount to 0 if the entrenched interests win.
We should recognize and understand that COP15 was a complete failure in terms of saving the world from climate catastrophe. It makes no sense to call the Accord a step forward, when the only thing it does is to ensure that the broken UNFCCC process continues. Physics and Chemistry don’t care that the UNFCCC process will continue into 2010 and beyond. In the morbid math of climate change, every month our leaders spend debating, instead of reducing emissions, is a failure because it means millions more people will die of climate-related phenomena.
Despite the 0 that our leaders handed over, Copenhagen was a triumph for our movement. It provided a focal moment, a frame through which we could explain to each other and to the global public the clear moral argument for taking action on climate change. Most polling data shows that we were incredibly successful in doing so, but a better measure of how large and powerful the movement has become is how much we shaped the narrative of the negotiations.
From the opening days of COP15, when African delegates spoke vociferously about the need for hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy funding for developing countries and bold targets that put us on the path to 350 parts per million CO2, right up until the last moments of tense debate, our power was at the negotiating table, propped up by our champions.
While small island state leaders and African delegates may have been forced to sign the Accord, in the end, it was our hard work that enabled President Nasheed of the Maldives to approach President Obama and demand stronger targets, or Lumumba Di-Aping of the Sudan to call out his colleagues in the G77 who would sign onto a weak deal if the price was right. It was with our language and with the support of the global climate movement that a handful of delegates from vulnerable countries refused to sign the Copenhagen Accord.
It is our movement that fought off greenwash in the media worldwide, and mobilized citizens to redouble their efforts, even after a long year of sustained public pressure. Even though we ended up with a 0 from our leaders, our movement significantly altered the narrative in Copenhagen.
What comes next?
“The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.”
- Martin Luther King Jr.
Too often we look at the climate movement as a singular event in history. True, there has never before been such a pressing global emergency that implicates everybody on the planet. However, the rich history of social movements teaches us that a war is not won in a day (or even a couple weeks), and a movement takes time to build.
The paradox of the climate movement, of course, is that we have no time to waste. Below are a few ideas I’ve been mulling over the past couple weeks - call them general recommendations for moving forward:
* Build robust international networks
2009 saw some of the most incredible international coalitions form — the World Council of Churches, Rising Tide direct action groups and everything in-between joined together to fight for bold and fair action on climate change. For the first time, climate action groups built coordinated and strategic bottom-up pressure on world leaders everywhere. 2010 should be the year when the movement refocuses on national fights, while continuing to coordinate strategically.
In particular, we should focus pressure on the “C5,” the five coal-dependent economies: USA, EU, Australia, South Africa, China. A simple political analysis shows that by building strategic constituencies all over the world, we can change some positions and bolster others.
Lest we forget, movement-building does not just happen on its own. At the same time as applying strategic pressure, we should encourage open-source, innovative campaigns, in particular those that empower civil society from developing countries to continue affecting change at home.
* Highlight the solutions
Everywhere in the world, entrepreneurs are making incredible strides towards cheap clean energy and efficiency. India, China, Brazil and other countries are at the forefront. Our movement must highlight and support these efforts, and work towards ramping up a massive subsidy shift from fossil fuels to clean technology. Numerous thought-leaders have already begun to refer to the “Race China” paradigm, where the US and other countries would invest in WWII-style programs to jump-start investment and ramp up implementation.
2010 should be the year the international movement joins with entrepreneurs to show that clean energy and efficiency technologies exist and are economically feasible, but will require a shift in government subsidies and massive investment worldwide.
* Take down opponents of climate action
If the US Senate is any indication, even our so-called “champions” are far from what the science says is necessary. While we should support our champions at the national and international levels, we should stop coddling fence-sitters, and focus on getting vulnerable climate deniers out of office. In countries like Australia, the UK and Germany, activists have succeeded in making climate a voting issue. We must laser-focus on the proponents of climate inaction, and work collaboratively to hit them where it hurts — the ballot box. We should use our new media savvy to help shape public opinion during election campaigns.
* Make coal the enemy of prosperity
Coal is the dirtiest fuel on the planet, and everybody in the world should know that simple fact. In the US, the Sierra Club, along with numerous state and local groups, have erased more than 90 new coal-fired power plants from the list of 170 proposed facilities. In the UK, Australia and India, activists have successfully shut down coal supply lines and power plants through direct action and grassroots protest.
In 2010, we must make it clear to the world that coal stands in the way of prosperity. “After all,” said President Nasheed of the Maldives in Copenhagen, “It is not carbon we want, but development. It is not coal we want, but electricity.” Already, discussions about internationally coordinated anti-coal work have begun. The international climate movement would do well to set it sights on the handful of coal barons and their politician pawns who have taken the world hostage.
* Ensure the sustainability of the movement
If the months leading up to COP15 taught us anything, it is that we will be in this fight for the long haul — because it is the fight for our lives and the human race. We will not solve climate change this decade. Indeed, in many places, we are already suffering its effects. In the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen climate talks, many activist groups released statements referring to COP15 as “the last bite of the apple,” or “the end game.” While heightening drama around the climate talks is a useful PR tool, in the case of COP15, it was dishonest and misleading.
2010 must be a year of deepening commitment, honest reassessment and continued collaborative action. This is no time to be distracted by internal politics, organizational ego or incrementalism. We must find out what works, leave behind what doesn’t, and provide resources and support to each other to get the job done.
Finally, 2010 must be the year when mutual trust and love ensure that moral voices from across the climate movement — from the most vulnerable countries to faith leaders, from youth activists to senior citizens — resound worldwide. Only by forming truly loving relationships with each other, across boundaries of race, sex, class, language and religion will we build a movement strong enough to usher in a new era of clean energy prosperity.
