Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
The new Washington
Post Weather website
Jump to CWG's
Latest Full Forecast
Outside now? Radar, temps
and more: Weather Wall
Follow us on Twitter (@capitalweather) and become a fan on Facebook
Posted at 10:45 AM ET, 09/21/2009

Goals of Major U.N. Climate Meeting Unclear

By Andrew Freedman

* Staying Warm: Full Forecast | Obama Should Make a Climate Speech *

In a sign of determination mixed with desperation, world leaders will gather in New York tomorrow for a United Nations-sponsored forum on climate change that is aimed at jump-starting the stalled negotiations of a new global climate treaty. With the next round of formal climate treaty negotiations scheduled to take place in Copenhagen, Denmark in less than three months, leaders are running out of time to iron out major disagreements on key issues.

U.N. Headquarters in New York City. Courtesy U.S. Department of State.

Plenty of potentially show-stopping disagreements exist, ranging from the amount and timing of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions, to how much aid should be given to developing countries to help them adapt to the impacts of climate change and grow their economies in a cleaner manner. Studies have shown that poorer countries will bear the brunt of climate change impacts, largely because they don't have as much capacity to adapt to changing conditions as industrialized countries do.

Keep reading for more on tomorrow's U.N. climate meeting...

During the past few months there has been a steady erosion of expectations for the Copenhagen summit, despite continuing calls from many in the scientific community that steep reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions must begin soon if the worst potential effects of climate change are to be avoided.

At one point it appeared that a new treaty was possible. Then things shifted to a discussion of potential frameworks that could be agreed to in Copenhagen, with the details to be filled in at subsequent meetings. But now even this appears to be optimistic, according to some observers, although it's difficult to tell how much of the expectations game is diplomatic posturing and how much reflects reality.

The fact that U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon called Tuesday's meeting, which is being billed as the highest-level discussion of climate change ever conducted (the heads of state of most major economies will take part), indicates the growing anxiety in world capitals that the Copenhagen talks won't result in a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Part of the pessimism stems from the political environment in the United States, where the health care debate has been consuming much of the political oxygen in Washington. During Tuesday's meeting, President Barack Obama is scheduled to make a high-profile speech that will help clarify to world leaders where the U.S. stands on a new climate treaty.

While it is encouraging that Obama is going to address Tuesday's meeting in person (he is not currently expected to go to Copenhagen), it's not clear what message he intends to deliver. For example, it's unclear if Obama will discuss the scientific evidence for and against manmade climate change, as I encouraged in a recent column, as have many leaders in the environmental community.

Also, it's doubtful that his speech will earn much domestic media coverage beyond Tuesday, considering the continued high-profile wrangling over other issues, such as health care. However, the president's address could prove to be significant if it gives world leaders greater confidence that the U.S. is willing to significantly reduce its emissions, and work with other countries to meet the already agreed upon goal of containing global warming to a two-degree Celsius increase above preindustrial temperatures.

The one-day U.N. confab, which can be characterized as a pre-meeting meeting, or a meeting about a meeting, has an interesting format. Rather than mirror the restrictive, formal procedures of typical U.N. negotiations, leaders have agreed to closed-door, free-form sessions with no predetermined outcome or concrete goal in mind. I suppose that this way, no one can accuse heads of state of falling short of their goal on Tuesday. Perhaps all summits should be set up like this?

The New York Times compared the format to "a series of college seminars designed to forge political momentum," and noted that there is no expected outcome other than a collective willingness to work with other countries to solve the climate problem.

"Senior organizers said they had never been involved in such a high-level summit meeting where the outcome was not predetermined," the Times reported.

The same could probably be said for climate change in general, since many scientists have described the possible unintentional altering of Earth's climate as a large experiment whose precise outcome is unknown. However, if many of the scientific studies are to be believed, a failure to tackle the climate problem in the near future could ensure that for many regions, the outcome is quite bleak indeed. For this reason, a lot is riding on the climate talks, be they formal, informal (Hawaiian shirt day?), or somewhere in between.

The views expressed here are the author's alone and do not represent any position of the Washington Post, its news staff or the Capital Weather Gang.

By Andrew Freedman  | September 21, 2009; 10:45 AM ET
Categories:  Climate Change, Freedman, Government, Policy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Forecast: Fall to Arrive, Summer Warmth Holds On
Next: PM Update: Clouds Lead the Way for Autumn


I couldn't help but note the following misleading information spread by the right wing, in this case courtesy of Drudge. The headline "Snow in Wyoming and Coloardo: 'Fall was cancelled and we've gone straight to winter.'

How could there be "climate change" if it's snowing already, right?

Well, if you bother to read the article at the link, you'll find the quote was followed by "he said as a joke." The article goes on to note: "many people seem surprised at the sudden cold snap, but said about eight years of above-average temperatures have conditioned the public to expect summer to linger longer."

"This is actually a lot closer to normal" ... so I guess that just means climate change is over and we're back to normal. It would be more amusing if so many people weren't so easily mislead.

Posted by: manatt | September 21, 2009 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Salvation of the human race???

Condemnation of the human race????

As usual, Obama fails to deliver expectations????

Posted by: AugustaJim | September 21, 2009 8:12 PM | Report abuse

Normal Sept. snowfall at Denver is 2.1"; these reports all appear to be at least 2500 feet higher. Why would you expect accuracy from Dreck?

Posted by: CapitalClimate | September 21, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Thanx for the link, A-Jim; much more comprehesive climate conference coverage than the WashedUpPo at the FT's main page (

European envoy blames US Senate for hold-ups
* EU sees US as biggest obstacle to agreement
* California targets big-screen TVs in climate battle
* UN climate body chief predicts praise for China
* Global Insight No melting of climate doubts
* In Depth Copenhagen climate summit
* Scientific consensus over dire consequences

Posted by: CapitalClimate | September 21, 2009 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Unlike Andrew's previous meatball-pie-in-the-sky analysis, Obama's UN speech properly focused on economics and diplomacy, not science.

Posted by: CapitalClimate | September 22, 2009 11:19 AM | Report abuse

For starters, it would do a great deal of good if individuals ceased referring to such a topic as "Climate Change", and began to rightfully keep in the spirit of the original theory, and properly & constantly speak of it as AGW. The term "Climate Change" is, in of itself, an extreme oxymoron.

Posted by: TheAnalyst | September 22, 2009 9:29 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2012 The Washington Post Company