Copenhagen failure met with concern in Turkey, across globe

A historic United Nations climate conference ended with only a nonbinding Copenhagen Accord on Saturday. It was a deal short on concrete steps against global warming, but it signaled a new start for rich-poor cooperation on climate change. Though the accord urges deeper cuts in emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming, it does nothing to require them. 

Environmentalists and a handful of developing countries were unconvinced by the accord. “The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts,” said Jeremy Hobbs of Oxfam International, a group that works with developing countries.

“We have a deal in Copenhagen,” said visibly relieved UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who has made climate change his No. 1 priority. He said that was just the beginning of a process to craft a binding pact on emissions. Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen, however, disagreed and described the deal as “far less ambitious than what we wanted.”

The Copenhagen Accord was met with huge disappointment in Turkey as well. Turkish environmentalists defined the accord as a “total disaster” and argued that it was far from settling the world's climate problem.

Professor Semra Cerit Mazlum, an international relations expert at Marmara University in İstanbul, complained that world leaders failed to say anything “binding” though they spoke much.

“Real negotiations are held in platforms which are not open to the public. Turkey's delegation in Copenhagen exerted their utmost efforts. Not all Annex I countries can be defined as developed countries.

That was what President Abdullah Gül stressed [during his address to participants of the conference],” Mazlum noted. The professor also lamented that Turkey had espoused ambiguous views about what to do in the fight against climate change since the very beginning of the Copenhagen talks.

The Turkish president on Thursday joined a summit of about 120 heads of state to explain where Turkey stands. Gül stated that Turkey must receive technology and financial support to realize national mitigation and adaptation objectives. He underlined that Turkey’s basic social and economic indicators such as per capita income, per capita primary energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions place it in the category of “middle-income developing countries.” He further explained that this means that Turkey is in a different situation than that of other Annex I parties.

Annex I countries cannot receive financial and technical support even if they have special circumstances recognized.

Sibel Sezer Eralp, president of the Turkey office of the Hungarian-based Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC), criticized participants of the Copenhagen summit for working for “financial gains.” “Everybody is working to get money here. If Turkey is accepted as among Annex I countries, it cannot receive financial aid,” she said.

Greenpeace Mediterranean Executive Director Uygar Özesmi slammed the Turkish delegation in Copenhagen for “seeking small financial gains” instead of coming up with realistic and strong targets in the war against climate change. Özesmi had announced that he joined the international “Climate Justice Fast!” before the launch of Copenhagen talks because he had to do something for the climate issue, as millions of people will suffer if no action is taken.

“The Turkish delegation has announced that they have obtained what they had demanded. The delegation sought small gains. Sudan, South Africa and Mexico put forward stronger objectives than Turkey did. Turkey was like a country which was after calculations for small gains. Related ministries conducted no studies on climate change because Turkey does not take the issue seriously. Instead of saving its country, it is saving the day with small monetary benefits,” Özesmi stated. Turkey’s national climate change strategy document called for an energy-related emissions reduction of just 7 percent by 2020, far lower than the 15 to 30 percent suggested for similar countries -- and the amount necessary to keep pace with Turkey’s rapidly increasing urbanization, industrialization and greenhouse gas emissions, which have more than doubled since 1990.

Hilal Atıcı, a climate and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Mediterranean, said there is no such choice between climate and the economy, criticizing Turkey’s ambition to go with expanding the economy and sacrificing the environment. “If we adopt a longer-term vision, we can protect our climate with clean energy technologies, guarantee energy security for our economy and provide cheaper energy to our people,” she remarked.

Highlights from the Copenhagen Accord

The compromise document indicated that richer and poorer nations alike are ready for closer cooperation on the climate. Its key elements, with no legal obligation, were:

Nations agreed to cooperate in reducing emissions, “with a view” to scientists’ warnings to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels.

Developing nations will report every two years on their voluntary actions to reduce emissions. Those reports would be subject to “international consultations and analysis” -- a concession to the US by China, which had seen this as an intrusion on its sovereignty.

Richer nations will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year program to fund poorer nations’ projects to deal with drought and other climate-change impacts and to develop clean energy.

They also set a “goal” of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 for the same adaptation and mitigation purposes.

The next deadline for a treaty will be the 2010 UN climate conference in Mexico City.