BASIC text & Leaked Danish text of Copenhagen agreement

China, the United States, Russia and India are the top emitters. What is being aimed at is a 5-8 page "politically binding" agreement, with annexes outlining each country's obligations.

Developing countries propose up to $300 billion from the developed countries for the Copenhagen Launch Fund to make a global climate deal work.

G-77 and China have deliberated over several drafts of a potential agreement that are afloat including the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) draft.

A draft Copenhagen climate agreement prepared by the hosts Denmark that was leaked to the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-change

The Danish text for a political “Copenhagen Agreement under the UNFCCC,” which was leaked publicly by the UK’s Guardian newspaper. The initial reaction by many parties and observers was excitement as rumors about the “secret” Danish text were finally confirmed.

Many therefore rushed to download or print out the document and study it. Some developing country delegates seemed angry at what they characterized as a “secretive” and “non-transparent”
initiative. “This would amount to hijacking the high-level segment and giving our leaders the impression that we have done nothing the whole year,” alleged one developing country
delegate.

Most veterans and observers close to the process were more interested in knowing “which version” of the text was leaked, and whether it was in fact the document they had already seen in November. “Some changes, but nothing earth-shattering,” commented a veteran developing country negotiator when shown the so-called “new” leaked version.

Reactions to the implications of the leak and the substance varied. “Now it is all out in the open - all the sensitive issues, everything. Maybe it will end up having a positive impact now
that everyone has seen the text early on,” was a comment that summed up some participants’ views. However, others expressed “outrage” about what they saw as weakness in terms of substance
and legal form: “A political agreement with little substance, for instance, no range for developed countries’ emission reductions in the text on a global long-term goal, is not strong enough,”
commented one observer.

Others began speculating about how many more texts would be tabled during the Conference as rumors spread that several negotiating groups and ad hoc coalitions were in the process of drafting their own texts. “I’m aware of four different initiatives,” confessed an insider, “And the last thing we want is a beauty contest over competing texts.” “I wonder if we’ll end up with the COP Presidency tabling a ‘take it or leave it’ text at some point?” asked one participant.

The Danish text says developed countries should account for 80 percent of the global emission cuts by 2050. It does not spell out shorter-term emission targets for rich countries, a key demand from developing nations. India, the world's number four emitter, said it opposed the suggested text.

"If the Denmark draft is any indication then we are heading to a dead end," Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

The text also suggests that the world's greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, should peak in 2020. Emissions have been rising fast in recent years but are set to dip by up to 3 percent in 2009 because of recession. And it suggested efforts to keep the rise in global average temperatures to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times to avoid the worst of heatwaves, floods, species extinctions and rising sea levels.

Developing countries led by China and India are tabling a text in Copenhagen on what they would like to be turned into the basis for negotiations.

Meanwhile, some delegates were also discussing news that the US Environmental Protection Agency would be able to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act since they were now considered a threat to health. Some were speculating whether this might affect the US level of ambition. “At a minimum it provides needed momentum and might provide flexibility in the US negotiating position,” opined one civil society participant. However, others suggested that increased ambition is unlikely without concrete action by the US Congress.

based on the basic texts and news reports