Vedran Horvat, Copenhagen/Zagreb

 After the first week of negotiations in Copenhagen, the chances for the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit to result in an acceptable framework and a legally binding global agreement between the rich countries (mostly of the North), the growing economies such as China, India, Brazil and Mexico, and the so-called developing countries are getting slimmer and slimmer.

In the past few days, the rich North has even distanced itself sharply from the optimistic announcements made at the beginning of the Copenhagen summit. Partly due to the failure of US President Obama’s climate policy which was halted by the US Senate, the northern countries have now begun to pull away and ignorantly turn their heads away from their responsibility towards the southern countries which - both need and demand - hundreds of billions of dollars for adaptation to climate changes in the next decade.

Climate Justice - Here and Now!

 The historical summit entered its second week Monday, and while some are demanding climate justice here and now, through regulation of the new fair climate regime, others are evading absolutely all responsibility they have and are using the climate change discourse in order to get rid of their competitors i.e. growing economies.

At the same time, the amount of political pressure has been greatly increasing. On numerous fronts, in hundreds of corners of the Bella Center where the COP 15 is taking place, temporary and long-lasting deals are being both arranged and erased among various delegations, spins are being launched today only to be replaced by new ones tomorrow, and all in order for the negotiations to be made as unclear, non-transparent and ambiguous as possible.

At the same time, the Klimaforum only a few kilometres away gathered hundreds of non-governmental organisations and civil groups from around the world where completely different messages were conveyed  -  demands for a fair and just climate agreement which would not mix matters of resources with markets and privatisation.

Using the back door approach, this is exactly what some people are attempting to achieve in Copenhagen by abolishing the Kyoto Protocol. Polarization has been sharpened and has become quite obvious. Western countries are united in preserving their comfort and in erecting a new wall against the South, a wall that doesn’t even recognize solidarity as its basic value.

The wall that is viewed by the present economic system as a new niche for development which transforms management of resources (especially atmosphere management) into a market issue by translating all of the resources into market mechanisms, into hundreds of billions of dollars worth of new businesses, investments and deals.

We can already confidently conclude that big businesses have successfully captured climate discourse, while climate changes, which are the result of irresponsible management of resources and a reflection of the constant growth paradigm, have once again proved to be the perfect solution to the financial crisis. The climate crisis has therefore, to make the paradox even more obvious, become an escape from the financial crisis, At the same time, it is quite clear that there is a danger that capitalism in Copenhagen will dramatically put on a new green suit.

The Neoliberal system thus once again proves to be extremely vital and innovative, turning the climate crisis into a market product and placing not only human destinies, but also the destinies of certain countries on the market!

 Those who have until recently denied climate changes have now officially stated: yes, we will recognize climate changes, but if we do so now, we will also benefit from them. Now the climate crisis offers a whole set of new market mechanisms which would privatise and commercialise greenhouse gas trading, as well as atmosphere trading as the only planetary resource, mechanisms which would turn them into market value.

Those who have created the green discourse on climate changes in the past several decades are now in the position to easily deliver it to the big business - without transferring power, without changing actors. Precisely because of the danger that the green revolution will not happen, it is necessary to increase the pressure so that such a scenario will not to be allowed - by no means silently and by no means without resistance.

Between Green Capitalism and Catastrophe

 This also means that if Kyoto gets killed in Copenhagen, and it is not replaced with a new legally binding and globally fair climate regime, the great transformation of the economic system we argued for will not occur.
Perhaps such an agreement in Copenhagen would open the door to a technological Green New Deal, perhaps the economy would truly turn a bit green. But a price would have to be paid - market value as the result of trading with C02, without radical change, but quite contrary, with a further deepening of the crisis and a possibility of conflict.

The redirection of financial flow to more pure and green technologies, may indeed occur after Copenhagen, but will this process be managed by those who have built it? Will the principles of justice, solidarity and transparency be incorporated into this process? This concept is probably not very interesting to the delegates of about thirty of the most developed countries who have been sketching new agreements in the Bella Center in the past days.

It seems that big business has succeeded in skilfully capturing the climate change discourse and has now redirected all available development and humanitarian resources by calling it reductively a solidary combat against climate changes in developing countries. In this respect, neither the EU, the US, Japan nor Russia are offering new and fresh tools in combating climate change, which is a demonstration of political will and leadership.

However, these same measures will not decrease poverty or injustice, and they will certainly not increase the democratic legitimacy of such an agreement. It is therefore necessary for us to ask the following question even at this point,- what is the substance of the agreement that we will (in rough draft form)  see in the next few days?

 Not only is solidarity at a major test in Copenhagen, the very question of which direction humanity wishes to take is also posed. A major transformation would involve a fundamental turning point in our comprehension of life and our relationship with resources, as well as with other people on the planet, but this transformation will not succeed if the agreement currently under way is accepted.

Even more so since instead of  getting the "green new deal" we will end up in a "green wash", because such a reductionist solution to climate injustice boils down to financing adaptations (possibly through their own private companies and through the export of home-made technologies), which is merely a temporary cosmetic procedure that doesn’t enable the changing of actors nor the transfer of power.

However, the current creators of the Copenhagen agreement are led by ideas of infinite growth and profit, and are in no way acting responsibly towards the coming generations and the world they might, or might not, inherit. This is yet another way to create opportunities for intergenerational conflicts and a new line of political struggle. Yet, even more importantly, certain islands and African countries are facing even greater endangerment and helping them is definitely a more urgent matter. Their survival will be defined in the course of the next several decades. 

Instead of a Fair Agreement, a New Wall

 Instead of building a new agreement, what is currently being built in Copenhagen is a new wall - a wall against those endangering western economy, a wall against those demanding compensation, the payback of debt and the equal carrying of weight. The West’s response to this is superficial - allocating a few coins from its own funds, while all the acquired wealth and irresponsible management of resources based on projections of indefinite growth remain secure.

That is why a scenario like this should never occur and great pressure and intervention is needed to redirect the current process towards an agreement which will either prolong the Kyoto mandate (second period) or offer sustainable and acceptable solutions to all three groups of countries. For such an outcome to occur, developed countries are expected to to break the ice and be the first to make a concession. However, it is almost impossible that this will actually happen.

 According to the last paper the UNFCC published on Friday, by 2050 the world should reduce emissions by at least  80% compared to levels in 1990. It is significant that several days ago even Brussels earmarked a "mere" 7.2 billion euros which will be used to help the countries of the South finance their adaptation in the next three years. Still, this is only one third of the resources mentioned at the beginning. Even with such scarce and disappointing investments in adaptation, the European Commission has undertaken to reduce emissions by at least 30% by 2020.

And what position is Croatia taking in Copenhagen? A quite unacceptable and somewhat bizarre one. Croatia, at least on the level of state representation, is already known as a country that loves trading with carbone dioxide (carbon offset), CDM (the Clean Development Mechanism) and CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage).

The country is also extremely conservative in forming its future energy strategy (nuclear and carbon) and is repeatedly requesting exemption in Copenhagen in relation to the baseline year of 1990 and an increase of emissions by 6%. Germanwatch, a German non-governmental organisation, published the results of the Climate Change Performance Index at today's press conference, strongly proving the rapid fall of Croatia's position in several platforms, primarily when it comes to respecting Kyoto targets and drafting its energy strategy.

Croatia's viewpoints are hardly available and are even unknown to the public, but it would be really useful if all citizens wanting a new climate agreement based on justice and solidarity could find out exactly how Croatia will participate.

The example of the two-year mandate in the UN Security Council which is nearing its reflects official policy that does not support the fair and just climate agreement since lining up with the strongest nations – such as the EU, the U.S. and Russia - and their current requests can certainly not be regarded as a sufficient effort, and as our stake in the combat for a maximally fair climate agreement. Solidarity with developing countries is, in this case, a much more acceptable solution, but is unfortunately, an almost improbable one!