2009年联合国气候变化大会

2009年联合国气候变化大会（2009年12月7日─12月18日），即“《联合国气候变化框架公约》缔约方第15次会议”，缩写为“COP15”，在丹麦首都哥本哈根的贝拉会议中心举行。

同时，它还是《京都议定书》签字国第五次会议。

根据“巴厘路线图”的决定，本次会议将诞生一份新的《哥本哈根议定书》，以代替2012年到期的《京都议定书》。

如果在本次会议上，各国不能达成共识、并通过新的决议，那么在2012年《京都议定书》第一承诺期到期后，全球将没有一个共同文件来约束温室气体的排放。

因此，本次会议被喻为“拯救人类的最后一次机会”。

The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as the Copenhagen Summit, was held at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between 7 December and 18 December. The conference included the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (COP/MOP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol. According to the Bali Road Map, a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 was to be agreed there.
The conference was preceded by the Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions scientific conference, which took place in March 2009 and was also held at the Bella Center. The negotiations began to take a new format when in May 2009 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon attended the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, organised by the Copenhagen Climate Council (COC), where he requested that COC councillors attend New York's Climate Week at the Summit on Climate Change on 22 September and engage with heads of government on the topic of the climate problem.
Connie Hedegaard was president of the conference until December 16, 2009, handing over the chair to Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen in the final stretch of the conference, during negotiations between heads of state and government. On Friday 18 December, the final day of the conference, international media reported that the climate talks were "in disarray". Media also reported that in lieu of a summit collapse, solely a "weak political statement" was anticipated at the conclusion of the conference.
The Copenhagen Accord was drafted by the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa on December 18, and judged a "meaningful agreement" by the United States government. It was "recognised", but not "agreed upon", in a debate of all the participating countries the next day, and it was not passed unanimously. The document recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. The document is not legally binding and does not contain any legally binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions.[9] Leaders of industrialised countries, including Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, were pleased with this agreement but
many leaders of other countries and non-governmental organisations were opposed to it.
Outcome 结果
On December 18 after a day of frantic negotiations between heads of state, it was announced that a "meaningful agreement" had been reached between the United States, China, India, South Africa, and Brazil.[93] The use of "meaningful" was viewed as being political spin by an editorial in The Guardian.[94] An unnamed US government official was reported as stating that the deal was a "historic step forward" but was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the future. However, the BBC's environment correspondent stated: "While the White House was announcing the agreement, many other – perhaps most other – delegations had not even seen it. A comment from a UK official suggested the text was not yet final and the Bolivian delegation has already complained about the way it was reached – 'anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable'. With no firm target for limiting the global temperature rise, no commitment to a legal treaty and no target year for peaking emissions, countries most vulnerable to climate impacts have not got the deal they wanted."
Early on Saturday 19 December, delegates approved a motion to "take note of the Copenhagen Accord[96] of December 18, 2009". However it was reported that it was not yet clear whether the motion was unanimous, or what its legal implications are. The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the US-backed climate deal as an "essential beginning". It was unclear whether all 192 countries in attendance would also adopt the deal. The Copenhagen Accord recognises the scientific case for keeping temperature rises below 2°C, but does not contain commitments for reduced emissions that would be necessary to achieve that aim. One part of the agreement pledges US$ 30 billion to the developing world over the next three years, rising to US$ 100 billion per year by 2020, to help poor countries adapt to climate change. Earlier proposals, that would have aimed to limit temperature rises to 1.5°C and cut CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 were dropped. An agreement was also reached that would set up a deal to reduce deforestation in return for cash from developed countries. The agreement made was non-binding but U.S. President Obama said that countries could show the world their achievements. He said that if they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress would have been made.
Analysis and aftermath分析与后果
Despite widely held expectations that the Copenhagen summit would produce a legally binding treaty, the conference was plagued by negotiating deadlock and the "Copenhagen Accord" is not legally enforceable. BBC environment analyst Roger
Harrabin attributed the failure of the summit to live up to expectations to a number of factors including the recent global recession and conservative domestic pressure in the US and China.
In the week following the end of the Copenhagen summit, carbon prices in the EU dropped to a six month low.
The Copenhagen Accord asks countries to submit emissions targets by the end of January 2010, and paves the way for further discussions to occur at the 2010 UN climate change conference in Mexico and the mid-year session in Bonn. However, some commentators consider that "the future of the UN's role in international climate deals is now in doubt."
Failure blamed on developed countries
George Monbiot blamed the failure of the conference to achieve a binding deal on the United States Senate and Barack Obama. By negotiating the Copenhagen Accord with only a select group of nations most of the UN member states were excluded. If poorer nations did not sign the Accord then they would be unable to access funds from richer nations to help them adapt to climate change. He noted how the British and American governments have both blamed China for the failure of the talks but said that Obama placed China in "an impossible position" - "He demanded concessions while offering nothing." Martin Khor blamed Denmark for convening a meeting of only 26 nations in the final two days of the conference. He says that it undermined the UN's multilateral and democratic process of climate negotiations. It was in these meetings that China vetoed long-term emission-reduction goals for global emissions to decrease by 50%, and developed countries emissions to fall by 80% by 2050 compared to 1990. Khor states that this is when other countries began to blame the failures on China. If China had accepted this, by 2050 their emissions per capita would have had to be around one half to one fifth per capita of those of the United States.
Failure blamed on developing countries
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has reported that India, China and other emerging nations cooperated at Copenhagen to thwart attempts at establishing legally binding targets for carbon emissions, in order to protect their economic growth.
UK Climate Change secretary Ed Miliband accused China specifically of sinking an agreement, provoking a counter response from China that British politicians were engaging in a political scheme. Mark Lynas, who was attached to the Maldives delegation, accused China of "sabotaging" the talks and ensuring that Barack Obama would publicly shoulder the blame. The New York Times has quoted Lynas as further commenting:
"...the NGO movement is ten years out of date. They’re still arguing for ‘climate justice’, whatever that means, which is interpreted by the big developing countries
like India and China as a right to pollute up to Western levels. To me carbon equity is the logic of mutually assured destruction. I think NGOs are far too soft on the Chinese, given that it’s the world’s biggest polluter, and is the single most important factor in deciding when global emissions will peak, which in turn is the single most important factor in the eventual temperature outcome...
"I think the bottom line for China (and India) is growth, and given that this growth is mainly based on coal, there is going to have to be much more pressure on China if global emissions are to peak within any reasonable time frame. In Beijing the interests of the Party come first, second and third, and global warming is somewhere further down the list. Growth delivers stability and prosperity, and keeps the party in power."
China's Xinhua news agency responded to these allegations by asserting that Premier Wen Jiabao played a sincere, determined and constructive role at the last minute talks in Copenhagen and credited him with playing a key role in the "success" of the conference. However, Wen chose not to take part in critical closed-door discussions at the end of the conference.
The editorial of The Australian newspaper, blamed African countries for turning Copenhagen into "a platform for demands that the world improve the continent's standard of living" and claimed that "Copenhagen was about old-fashioned anti-Americanism, not the environment
分析和后果分析与后果
尽管广泛预期的哥本哈根首脑会议将产生一份具有法律约束力的条约，这次会
议是困扰谈判僵局和“哥本哈根协定”是没有法律强制执行。

英国广播公司分析
师Roger Harrabin环境原因的首脑会议失败，不辜负期望，其中包括最近的全球经济衰退和保守在美国和中国的国内压力的因素。

在一周后的哥本哈根首脑会议，欧盟碳价格年底降至6个月低点。

哥本哈根协议要求各国在提交2010年1月底的排放指标，铺平了道路，并进
一步讨论将发生在2010年联合国气候变化会议在墨西哥和中年在波恩举行会议。

但是，一些评论家认为，“对联合国在处理国际气候的作用未来也令人怀疑。

”
失败归咎于发达国家
乔治蒙比尔特指责这次会议未能实现对美国参议院和奥巴马约束力的协议。

通
过谈判，只有一组选定的国家，联合国大多数会员国的哥本哈根协议被排除在外。

如果贫困国家没有签署该协定的话，他们将无法从富裕国家获得资金，帮
助它们适应气候变化。

他指出，如何在英国和美国政府都指责是会谈失败的中国，但表示，奥巴马处于“不可能完成的立场，中国” - “他要求优惠，而不能提供。

”马丁科尔指责召开只有26个国家在最后两日的会议上，丹麦。

他说，它破坏了联合国的多边和民主的气候谈判进程。

正是在这些会议是中国长期被否决
长期的排放，全球减排目标降低了50％，和发达国家的排放量由80％下降到2050年与1990年相比。

霍尔说，这是当其他国家开始将其归咎于中国的失败。

如果中国在2050年接受了他们的人均排放量这一点，就不得不大约是每一半
的美国的人均的五分之一。

失败归咎于发展中国家
澳大利亚广播公司报道，印度，中国和其他新兴国家在哥本哈根合作，挫败旨在建立具有法律约束力的温室气体排放的目标努力，以保护他们的经济增长。

英国气候变化书记埃德米利班德指责具体下沉协议中国，挑起对抗来自中国的回应，英国政客们在从事政治图谋。

马克莱纳斯谁附于马尔代夫代表团，指控“破坏”的会谈，并确保奥巴马将公开难辞其咎中国。

纽约时报引述了进一步的
评论澳莱那斯：
“...非政府组织的运动是过时的10年。

他们还在争取的'气候正义'，知道是什么意思，是由大发展中国家，如印度和中国作为一个国家有权污染到西方的水平解释。

对我来说碳公平是确保相互摧毁的逻辑。

我认为非政府机构过于依赖中，因为它是世界上最大的污染者柔软，是一个最重要的决定时，全球排放量将达到顶峰，这反过来因素是唯一最重要的因素，最终温度的结果...
“我认为对中国的底线（和印度）的增长，因为这种增长主要是煤为基础，因此将不得不作出更多的对中国的压力，如果全球排放量的高峰期在任何合理的时间框架。

在北京，党的利益为第一，第二和第三位，全球变暖是脆弱点的名单。

增长进一步提供了稳定和繁荣，并保持党的执政。

“
中国官方媒体新华社对这些指控作出回应，称温家宝总理在哥本哈根的比赛最后一分钟的会谈坦诚，决心和建设性的作用发挥归功于“成功会议”，他的关键
作用。

然而，温家宝选择不采取关键封闭在会议结束时的闭门磋商中的一部分。

在澳大利亚报章的社论，指责把哥本哈根成“要求全世界改善这片大陆的生活水平”，并要求非洲国家平台“哥本哈根约老式的反美国主义，而不是环境
各国措施
United States of America
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050.
China
To cut CO2 emissions intensity by 40–45% below 2005 levels by 2020.
European Union
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if an international agreement is reached committing other developed countries and the more advanced developing nations to comparable emission reductions.
To cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 unconditionally.。