“Earth to Ban Ki-moon” or how a deal was sealed in Copenhagen

December 22, 2009

cop15Sweden complained that the recent Copenhagen climate change summit was a “disaster.” British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described it as “at best flawed and at worst chaotic.” Sudan’s U.N. ambassador, Abdalmahmoud Abdalhaleem, dubbed the outcome confirmation of a “climate apartheid.” For South Africa it was simply “not acceptable.”

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who for over a year had been urging the 192 members of the United Nations to “seal the deal” in Copenhagen, saw things differently. In a statement issued by his press office, Ban said the two-week meeting had a “successful conclusion with substantive outcomes.” Speaking to reporters, the secretary-general expanded on that: “Finally we sealed the deal. And it is a real deal. Bringing world leaders to the table paid off.” However, he tempered his praise for the participating delegations by noting that the outcome “may not be everything that everyone hoped for.”

In fact, the outcome fell far short of what Ban had been calling for over the last year. He had originally hoped the meeting would produce a legally binding agreement with ambitious targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and funding to help developing nations cope with global warming. Instead it “noted” an accord struck by the United States, China and other emerging powers that was widely criticized as unambitious and unspecific.

That accord set a target of limiting global warming to a maximum 2 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial times — seen as a threshold for dangerous changes such as more floods, droughts and rising seas. But it did not say how this would be achieved. It also held out the prospect of $100 billion in annual aid from 2020 for developing nations, but did not say where the money would come from. Decisions on fundamental issues such as emissions cuts were pushed into the future.

The South Korean U.N. chief was not the only person to praise the summit. U.S. President Barack Obama said the outcome was an “important breakthrough”, but noted that it was only one step on the road towards the emissions cuts needed. The head of China’s delegation, Xie Zhenhua, said the meeting “had a positive result, everyone should be happy.” (Gordon Brown was clearly placing the blame for the underwhelming outcome in Copenhagen on China and a few other states when he said: “Never again should we let a global deal to move towards a greener future be held to ransom by only a handful of countries.”)

Back in New York, some delegations were shaking their heads over Ban’s bullish remarks about Copenhagen. “He is talking from Mars,” said the Sudanese envoy, who currently chairs the Group of 77 club of developing nations at the U.N. But Ban is not in outer space, several U.N. officials insisted on condition of anonymity. Ban did not see the summit as a failure, but he, too, felt disappointed and would keep on working to “seal the deal” in 2010. Ban Ki-moon still wants to seal the deal in 2010. (Photo by REUTERS/Laszlo Balogh)

In fact, the U.N. officials said, Ban’s personal intervention had helped prevent the summit from falling apart. “He’s acutely aware of how much worse it could have been,” one official said. He was making phone calls, organizing bilateral meetings and persuading reluctant delegates to join the consensus. “His final intervention at the 11th hour” helped secure that consensus, the official said.

“It’s time to move past the anger and the finger pointing,” he added.

Some diplomats said that instead of calling the summit a success, Ban should admit it was a failure and use the U.N. bully pulpit to accuse China and others of sabotaging it. A name-and-shame policy, they say, might force some capitals to play a more constructive role when talks on a legally binding agreement begin again in 2010.

Another senior Western diplomat said that what Copenhagen showed was that any climate agreement will have to be worked out between the key nations themselves, not the United Nations. That could mean Ban’s role in any future talks would be marginal. “The lesson of Copenhagen is that this is not going to be done through the United Nations,” he said.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

God is against nations joining together for protection, wisdom, prosperity etc. He frustrates, confuses and destroys their plans. (Psalm 1, Psalm 2, II Chronicles 16:7-9, II Chronicles 20:35-37, Leviticus 26, Isaiah 8:9-14, Isaiah 30:1-7)

If the UN goal were really survival and they need to reduce pollutants below pre-industrial levels, the goal is simple. Back away from the employment lifestyle that caused all the world problems and turn to a garden paradise lifestyle that solves them easily. The employment lifestyle has become an industry in itself that enslaves people unnecessarily. God has true freedom, but only when we live according to His written word. If the UN goal is investments and control over nations, they must continue the employment lifestyle though it continues to destroy the planet.

Marie Devine
God has solutions to world problems we created by ignoring His wisdom.

Posted by MarieDevine | Report as abusive

I’m not sure what MarieDevine’s comments have to do with reality. But it’s clear Ban Ki moon is having trouble seeing reality. How can he call that a success? If that’s success, what is failure?

Posted by freddie.wilmer | Report as abusive

Two of the biggest Con-Artists on climate change:

http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2008/07/2 0/al-groe-and-maurice-strong-con-artists -extordinaire/

Posted by TaterSalad | Report as abusive

Joni Mitchell said the same thing in her song “Stardust”.

“And we’ve got to get our selves back to the garden”.

Posted by eddieblack | Report as abusive

An overall rise in sea and ocean temperatures of 2 degrees celcius will destroy all corals and cold water species. Their decay will literally turn the sea water into a toxic soup that will kill off any remaining life.
Most climate scientists agree that a rise of around 2 degrees is the bare minimum that we can strive for. And this figure designates extinction for most denizens of the deep.
Rather than running around trying to make clean energy, maybe we should be educating ourselves on how to survive in a completely hostile environment.

Posted by dedsetmad | Report as abusive

[…] verdensorden til at fordele vores velstand til de sig aldrig udviklende lande – selv om der ikke var enighed om, hvor pengene skal komme fra. Derudover skubbede Kina som leder af udviklingslandene EU til side som den vigtigste […]

Posted by “Klimavidenskaben” i Opløsning – Men Politikerne Lader Ikke Kendsgerninger Stoppe Deres Religion » Euro-med | Report as abusive

[…] Order  to distribute our wealth to the never-developing countries – although it was not agreed where the money is to come from. Besides, China as the leader of the developing countries, pushed the EU aside as the most […]

Posted by “Climate Science” Disintegrating – But Politicians Will Not Let Their Religion Be Stopped by Facts » Euro-med | Report as abusive

[…] Wohlstand an die nimmer entwickelten Entwicklungsländer zu verteilen – obwohl es nicht vereinbart wurde, wo das Geld herkommen wird. Außerdem schob China als der Führer der Entwicklungsländer  die […]

Posted by Die “Klimawissenschaft” in Auflösung – Aber Die Politiker Lassen Durch Tatsachen Nicht Von Ihrer Religion Ab » Euro-med | Report as abusive