
Cooper reports that Lars Lokke Rasmussen, prime minister of Denmark and the chairman of the upcoming conference believed that such a decision was necessary to “salvage” the Copenhagen meeting. A legally binding agreement between the nations (like the Kyoto Protocol) on what to do about climate change will have to be developed at a later date—which may come at a second summit in Mexico City.
This development may be politically convenient for the Obama administration. As this blog has previously posted, the administration was tooling with the idea of sending an envoy rather than the president himself to Copenhagen since Congress, and more specifically the Senate, have yet to come forward with a final climate change bill. In the Senate the bill hasn’t even come to the floor for debate, so final passage of any bill is not likely to come until 2010.
Without a bill the administration felt they would have a compromised negotiating position. Additionally, without a bill it would be hard for the administration to determine what kind of agreement could be signed and still hope to win Senate approval, as the administration must do with international treaties. Given this news there is less pressure on both the administration and the Senate to quickly come up with a bill. The administration is likely happy with the outcome as they can now avoid the type of scenario that occurred in 1998 when an administration envoy signed the Kyoto Protocol only to have the Senate rebuke the treaty and hand then-President Clinton a loss on a key issue for many in the Democratic party.
Michael Froman, the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs, is quoted by Cooper as stating,
“There was an assessment by the leaders that it is unrealistic to expect a full internationally, legally binding agreement could be negotiated between now and Copenhagen, which starts in 22 days . . . I don’t think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that any of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet thought that it was important that Copenhagen be an important step forward, including with operational impact.”
Perhaps by the time the second summit begins the United State will have legislation it can point to as evidence of the nation’s commitment to combating climate change. Without such legislation the administration will not have much leverage in negotiations, and until the US does something many nations will not make pledges on climate change.
So what does this mean for world hunger initiatives, and why is this blog asking that question? Well, today Reuters is reporting from the world food summit in Rome the “United Nations said on Monday that a climate change deal in Copenhagen next month is crucial to fighting global hunger, which Brazil’s president described as ‘the most devastating weapon of mass destruction.”’
Given the actions and words in Singapore and Rome, it appears as though the international community is sending out mixed messages on the importance of dealing with climate change. On one hand dealing with climate change is crucial to dealing with world hunger, but on the other hand, it is apparently not crucial enough to take legal, binding actions in Copenhagen. Still, negotiators from European countries said the announcement coming from Asia did not imply the Rome summit would lead to weaker actions than planned.
Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon offered this summation of the current situation, ‘"We must craft a single global vision ... to produce real results for people in real need . . . There can be no food security without climate security. . . We must help the most vulnerable to adapt."’
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization noted that if temperatures increase by over 2 degrees Celsius, the poorest nations in the world, those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America could lead to a 20 to 40 percent drop in agricultural productivity. This in turn would negatively affect the ability of developing nations to produce a sustainable food supply to feed their people, the goal of both the UN and the U.S. It also means that these nations will have to rely more on international aid when famines occur.
‘"The food crisis of today is a wakeup call for tomorrow. By 2050 our planet may be the home of 9.1 billion people... by 2050 we know we will need to grow 70 percent more food, yet weather is becoming more extreme and more unpredictable,"’ said Ban Ki-moon. The Rome summit is still working on a deal that would provide more food aid to needy nations by increasing the amount of money nations currently spend on agriculture development in developing nations.
There is a lot of sound and fury coming out of the international community over climate change and world hunger, but will it actually signify anything? Whether or not significant, legally binding international deals will be reached to confront these issues is just about anyone’s guess at this point in time.
To read Cooper’s article for the New York Times, click here.
To read the Reuters article on the food summit click here.
Posted: 11/16/09
There is a lot of sound and fury coming out of the international community over climate change and world hunger, but will it actually signify anything? Whether or not significant, legally binding international deals will be reached to confront these issues is just about anyone’s guess at this point in time.
To read Cooper’s article for the New York Times, click here.
To read the Reuters article on the food summit click here.
Posted: 11/16/09