news story / By Dan Ihara

Poor Climates

It ain’t enough by a long shot, but the Copenhagen Accord was neccessary

(Dec. 24, 2009)  The main outcome of the two week “Climate Summit” was a document called the “Copenhagen Accord.” The two-page document contained approximately 12 paragraphs — not much to show for two years’ work. Expectations leading up to COP 15 alternated from high to low several times. Perhaps they peaked with the arrival of 115 heads of state toward the end of the second week. It is no wonder, then, that almost all of the participants in the conference were disappointed, some of them bitterly so, when so brief a statement with so little specific content was all this great undertaking could produce. And it wasn’t even a statement — it was a “taking of notice,” the weakest term in the United Nations’ considerable lexicon of agreement.

But was a better outcome possible? Let’s look at the facts.

Parliament Square, Copenhagen Denmark, 12/12/2009  1 PM Japanese Coop members join the March. Photo by David Simpson.

GALLERY >

Mitigation. Compared to recommendations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a minimum 20 percent reduction of greenhouse gases by the year 2020 — what is contained in the Accord is indeed weak. Many developing countries, such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the African Group were asking for much greater reductions. For people who are currently experiencing grave damage from climatic changes, every delay of action at a level that might actually work is a threat to their very existence.

But the negotiators in the United States could not make any binding agreements beyond what legislation in the Senate had already called for — only 17 percent from 2005 levels (or 4 percent from l990 levels). Any larger commitment would have been quickly undone by Congress.

Forests. The only areas seemingly compatible to both developed and developing countries were the policies known as REDD — Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation. Developed countries would pay developing countries for preserving and expanding forests. The developing countries can store or “sequester” carbon by protecting forests. Many questions remain about these practices, which are part of the carbon trading concept.

Adaptation and finance. Developed and developing countries were separated on the question of how much the former would pay for adaptation — measures addressed at relieving the worst effects of climate change. Developed countries did not wish to provide assistance at the level that developing nations felt was necessary for their survival. Secretary of State Clinton arrived near the end of the last week with a proposal that would result in a new $100 billion per year fund dedicated to helping the poorer nations, though where and who the funds would actually come from was left entirely vague. The fund would begin operations by 2020.

1 2 3 NEXT PAGE >SHARE