site

  1. myWWF Sign in
  2. Sign up
  3. Help

NGO’s write benchmark Copenhagen climate treaty

Posted on 08 June 2009

The 160-page “Copenhagen Climate Treaty”, which will be distributed to negotiators from 192 states, took some of the world’s most experienced climate NGO’s almost a year to write and contains a full legal text covering all the main elements needed to provide the world with a fair and ambitious agreement that keeps climate change impacts below the unacceptable risk levels identified by most scientists.

“This is the first time in history that a coalition of civil society groups has taken such a step. Together we have produced the most coherent legal document to date showing balanced and credible climate solutions based on equity and science” said Kim Carstensen of WWF International.

The document describes the path the world must be on to avoid catastrophic climate change, recognising that global temperature increase must be kept well below 2 degrees Celsius. It sets a global cap on emissions – a carbon budget – and explains in detail how both industrialised and developing countries can contribute to the safety of the planet and its people, according to their means and responsibilities and shows how the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet can be protected and compensated.

“We have put protection of the climate and therefore the planet and its people at the heart of this Treaty and we should expect and demand no less of our governments” said Martin Kaiser of Greenpeace International. “All that is needed now is political will and the ‘cut and paste’ feature to produce the agreement the world is waiting for,” he added.

Adaptation is another key component of the Treaty outlining an Adaptation Action Framework which includes grants, insurance and compensation for the most vulnerable countries.

“Help for the poor and vulnerable to deal with the climate impacts that are unavoidable is crucial. Without a strong, effective deal in Copenhagen we could also be looking at more resource wars, disruption, refugees and natural catastrophes in the very near future,” said Wael Hmaidan, IndyACT.

The Treaty calls for a legally binding agreement consisting of three parts; the Kyoto Protocol updated to strengthen industrialised country obligations; a new Copenhagen Protocol that has legally binding commitments for the USA and sets out low carbon pathways for developing countries, supported by the industrialised world; a set of decisions that lays the groundwork for the next three years.

The ‘Copenhagen Climate Treaty’, was drafted by Greenpeace, WWF, IndyACT – the League of Independent Activists, Germanwatch, David Suzuki Foundation, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine and expert individuals from around the world.

Notes to Editors:

The Copenhagen Climate Treaty includes:

  • The annual global carbon budget in 2020 from all sources of greenhouse gases (not counting those controlled by the Montréal Protocol) would be no higher than 36.1 Gt CO2e, bringing emissions down to roughly1990 levels and would need to be reduced to 7.2 Gt CO2e in 2050, in other words by 80 % below 1990 levels.
  • A design proposal for a new institution – the Copenhagen Climate Facility - to manage the processes for emissions cuts, adaptation and forest protection under the new global treaty.
  • A recipe for long-term action plans for both developed countries (Zero Carbon Action Plans, ZCAPs) and developing countries (Low Carbon Action Plans, LCAPs).
  • Binding targets for Newly Industrialized Countries (NICs) like Singapore, South Korea and Saudi Arabia in line with the Convention principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.
Expert for interviews:

Kim Carstensen
Leader, WWF Global Climate Initiative
E: k.carstensen@wwf.dk
M: +45-40-343635
Kathrin Gutmann
Head of Policy, WWF Global Climate Initiative
E: kathrin.gutmann @wwf.de
M: +49-162-2914428
 
Wael Hmaidan
IndyACT– the League of Independent Activists
E:whmaidan@indyact.org
Tel/Fax: +961-1-447192
 
Christopher Bals
Executive Director Policy, Germanwatch
E: bals@germanwatch.org
T: +49 174 3275669
 
Martin Kaiser
Climate Political Coordinator, Greenpeace International      
E: martin.kaier@greenpeace.org
T: +49 171 8780817
David Marshall
David Suzuki Foundation
E: dmarshall@davidsuzuki.org

Irina Stavchuk

National Ecological Centre of Ukraine
E: irina.stavchuk@necu.org.ua
T: +38(044)238-62-60
 

For more information or interview arrangements contact:

Ashwini Prabha
E: aprabha@wwfint.org                                    
M: +41-79-8741682
Stephanie Tunmore
E: Stephanie.Tunmore@uk.greenpeace.org
M: +44 7796947451

Comments

Scott

November 9, 2009 - 21:58

I have read it...yikes, a brutal read, but essentially it is a transfer of wealth to a central depositary, where under developed nations can access resources, human, fiscal, and technological to developed sustainable economic industries, with targets in place to reduce greenhouse gases. I for one like the ideal, of putting in place a world wide watch dog on the multinational corporations, and keeping nations accountable to each other. Debating whether or not this will reconstitute the old Modernization theory or will move beyond that where we are truly committed to responsible development of all people and nations.

Ray Walsh

November 7, 2009 - 19:31

Why don't they just call it the "World Poverty Tax"? It would probably sell better than this BS about Global Warming. That way, there would be no science at all involved. Or how about "Redistribution of Wealth Tax"? The same guy crying global warming in the 70's warned about global cooling. Which is it? The Global Cooling Theory was suppose to of caused ice to break off and create sunami that would devastate continental costal areas if nothing was done by the year 2000. Did we miss something? Yeah I bet NGO's would love to have a "One World Order". POWER!!!!!!!!!! That's what this is all about.

Susan Warren

October 30, 2009 - 21:29

don't sign this treaty. I do not want a one world order. America when are you going to wake up. I love my freedom and I want freedom for my children and grandchildren.

Donna M Scala

October 27, 2009 - 22:46

Why is the rest world looking to the USA for monetary payment of " Climate Debt"? America is NOT wealthy. We have monetized our debt. We owe China trillions of dollars that we will not be able to pay back. We need them to keep buying our debt. Cap and trade wil not work to curb carbon emissions in the U.S., just as it didn't in Europe. The U.S. Government is being deceptive to it's own people. Why does the rest of the world think our Govt. won't be deceptive to them. This is about power pure and simple. Our president does not have the support of the American people on almost all issues. The climate treaty will destroy the independence of our country and lead to one world Government which is what the Obama Administration is striving for. We are in debt to China so turn to China to foot the bill. Global wrming is about making people like Al Gore and Jeffrey Immelt weaalthy individuals. Let them pay the climate debt.

heidi

October 26, 2009 - 23:49

i read about 1/3 of the treaty.....it took me a while to just read that much. my conclusion is we have to take a long hard look at the people writing it because with out that context or point of origin we do not understand the common knowledge (or definitions) of the language that "they" are using. such phrases as " sustainable development" can mean different things to different people. So we MUST first understand the context of the "authors" in order to understand the context of the treaty.

Mike Richards

October 26, 2009 - 19:59

Scientific 'consensus' once upon a time resolutely held that the sun revolved around the Earth. Scientists are entitled to their opinions, not to their facts (to quote). Anthropogenic Climate Change is a theory replete with guesswork, flimsy models and outright falsehoods, and when this is realised, the Gores and Browns of the world should be sued for this vast fraud, in The Hague.
DO NOT dilute national sovereignty.

Barry

October 26, 2009 - 17:41

Does anyone know where there is a simple summary of this treaty for the uninitiated to read it?

Robert Kaps

October 21, 2009 - 01:01

Ive seen a couple of videos from some old guy proclaiming he has seen the treaty, and is warning the viewers that the treaty basically is in place to create a one world government....Can someone explain which version he may be talking about....

Wes Bankston

October 20, 2009 - 22:15

The intent of this conference and treaty sounds good. But, I am concerned with what the treaty obliges the USA to do. The USA has been sharing its wealth with most of the world for years, and according to the worlds liberal press, it is disliked. So, lets not rush off and sign another obligation on USA citizens to help those who already dislike us.

Coxee

October 19, 2009 - 15:07

I think you people are full of yourselves. I agree with a cleaner world but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You are playing God and He is not Pleased.

 

 

 

Add your comment

captcha

reload

@import url('http://s3.amazonaws.com/getsatisfaction.com/feedback/feedback.css');