Fair COP – How do we avoid another Copenhagen in Paris?
Date: 2 April 2015
Last week, thousands of people converged in Tunisia. On the Wednesday they marched on rainy streets in its capital, Tunis. They were meeting each day in the University of Tunis where the World Social Forum (WSF) brought them together to work on the issues that they hold in common, from food, farming and land rights to unjust international trade deals.
One important discussion was about the United Nations (UN) climate negotiations in Paris in December this year. Paris will see another round of global negotiations, with promises of a new global climate deal, but there are well-founded concerns at the WSF about how much to expect from them. Some are still hopeful that the negotiations may bring an agreement which will avert catastrophic climate change. Others are weary of a repeat of Copenhagen.
The 2009 climate negotiations in Copenhagen saw some demonstrators locked in cages for hours on end to keep them from protesting on the frozen streets, in an area disturbingly referred to by police as “Guantanamo junior”. The intimidating tactics of the police left a bad taste in the mouths of those that went and who are now thinking of protesting in Paris.
However, this is not the only bad memory that those that went to Denmark have of previous UN climate change negotiations. The memory of its failure is a bitter one too. In Copenhagen the negotiators came away with nothing more than “recognition” of the fact that global temperatures need to be stopped from rising above 2°C, with no commitments to emissions reduction.
It was particularly painful because of the expectations placed upon the negotiations by civil society, NGOs and governments. Greenpeace declared that the deal struck should be “nothing short of a plan to save the planet and Gordon Brown declared that it was Copenhagen or Bust Copenhagen wasn’t an ordinary negotiations, we were told, it was the moment to save the world. When it failed, the logical conclusion was then of course, that there was no longer anything worth fighting for. Many blamed this for a loss of momentum in the climate movement at this time. One WSF participant that I spoke to jokingly referred to it as Copenhagen Syndrome.
Again this year some NGOs are peddling a message that we and the negotiators must treat the Paris summit as “now or never”. But we have seen what can happen if this is your message, it may sound like a convincing call to action but it could ultimately lead to disillusion and demoralisation for our movements.
So how likely is it that the negotiations will deliver? There is debate about this but some things are certain. The negotiations are not going to set specific targets for each country, instead each country is expected to reduce emissions based on their “national circumstances” which can be interpreted differently by different countries. For instance the US has said it will reduce its emissions by a quarter by 2025 and China has said that it will peak its emissions in 2030 (which means another 15 years of rising emissions). But we already know, and the science is clear, that we need to have reached a virtually zero carbon world by 2050 if we are to stand a chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change. Neither the US or China are setting out a clear path for anywhere near that level of emissions reduction.
The World Social Forum is a place that brings together movements and community action groups from all over the world. Those from the global south have particular cause for concern because in recent climate negotiations there has been less recognition that some countries are more responsible for climate change than others. This is in direct conflict with the beliefs of many of the organisations and individuals at the WSF who can testify to the fact that those most often on the front line of climate chaos are those least responsible for it. For instance Vanuatu, which recently experienced a devastating cyclone, and other pacific islands where whole countries are disappearing under rising sea levels. Unlike those in the global north these countries’ economies have not benefitted from colossal fossil fuel use historically. And economically less developed, they do not have the financial capacity to investment in renewable energy, or adaption, like for example flood defences. A just deal in Paris would include rich countries paying for and sharing technology and resources to support the development of low carbon economies in the global south, as well as paying for adaption to the effects of climate change.
So if those at the WSF thought that the Paris negotiations will not achieve enough the question becomes; why should we go?
People at the WSF decided that the moment is too important an opportunity to ignore. We know that change needs to happen fast and that political pressure will need to be maintained and increased in coming years. This won’t be ensured by negotiators in conference centres but by us.
In Paris we can show where the real power lies, we can demonstrate that we already have the answers, that the technology already exists to create a just transition away from fossil fuels, that we already know how to create energy justice, it’s just the will of our political leaders that is holding us back. Paris is an opportunity to come together, share ideas and tactics and show our strength as a united global movement against climate change. We are going to make the difference, and the best way for us to do that is en masse.
A few dates were agreed at the WSF:
- 28 and 29 November (the weekend before the negotiations start) will be for decentralised mobilisations in capital cities around the world
- 12 December centralised mass mobilisation in Paris at the end of the negotiations.
These dates still have to be agreed by the Coalition Climat 21 who are co-ordinating many of the demonstrations in Paris. Other activities between the two dates are also being discussed.
Photo of the protest inside the Durban climate talks courtey of Michael Oko/the World Resources Institute
