EVERYONE EXPECTING that the United Nations climate change summit might miraculously produce an agreement aimed at averting the worst consequences of global warming will be sorely disappointed by the deal cobbled together by a relatively small group of world leaders, representing the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa.
For the “Copenhagen Accord” contains no specific targets whatever for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, no year in which they should peak globally and no deadline (such as the end of 2010) for concluding a legally-binding agreement. The only numbers in the three-page text are references to limiting the rise in average global temperatures to “below 2 degrees Celsius” and a collective commitment by developed countries to provide a total of $30 billion (€20.6 billion) in aid to help poorer nations cope with climate change between 2010 and 2012, rising to $100 billion (€ 68.6 billion) by 2020.
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the “accord” provoked such sharp discord when its terms were finally revealed to the representatives of so many countries who had not been involved in drafting the text. Some reacted with fury, as did many environmental and development aid organisations. It became abundantly clear that there was no possibility of achieving universal consensus, as required under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Thus, the 15th conference of the parties (COP 15) ended up “noting”, rather than adopting, the Copenhagen Accord, and it will be up to individual countries to decide whether they wish to subscribe to it. In other words, the outcome fell far short of the hoped-for “politically-binding agreement”.
For the US – and, therefore, for all parties – there was a problem of “sequencing”: COP 15 came before the US Senate had dealt with new legislation on energy and climate change; that’s not expected to happen until next spring, at the earliest. By promoting a minimalist deal in Copenhagen, President Barack Obama was – as he himself said before flying out on Friday night – trying to “make sure that whatever we promised we will be in a position to deliver”. He also had to stitch China into the fabric of any agreement in order to make it saleable to senators and, indeed, to the American public; after all, China has now overtaken the US as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. Ensuring that China and all other major economies would have to report every two years on the progress they are making in reducing their emissions is a useful exercise in transparency, something the US had long sought.
Altogether, 119 heads of state or government came to Copenhagen to deal with climate change. That they failed to produce anything more substantial will be seen by some as a shameful betrayal of their responsibilities. But others – including Taoiseach Brian Cowen – have taken a more sanguine view, arguing that any deal is better than none. The European Union did not get what it wanted – ambitious commitments from others, to match its own. All we can hope is these will be forthcoming in Mexico next December.