by Michael A. Cuomo
First steps can be frustrating. The climate accord reached early last Saturday morning in Copenhagen is a first step toward achieving a comprehensive, enforceable agreement among members of the United Nations. But while the accord furthers the dialogue of influential players such as China, India, Brazil, the EU and the U.S., it fails to come through with specific targets for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, it contains a vague promise to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Feelings were mixed about the end results of the summit. Gordon Brown described the negotiations as "frustrating” and the Obama administration hailed the meeting as an “important breakthrough.” Most notable among the accord’s successes: A commitment by wealthier countries to provide an annual fund of $100 billion by 2020 to countries who do not have the financial resources to develop their industries. With little to no financial backing, these countries must simultaneously follow ever stricter environmental regulations.
Balancing the needs of developing versus developed nations has been a sticking point at previous climate summits. Developing nations have been hesitant to sign an agreement that may cripple their economic advancement. Industrialized nations, on the other hand, have been disdainful of granting more achievable emissions restrictions to their less developed neighbors.
First steps can be frustrating. The climate accord reached early last Saturday morning in Copenhagen is a first step toward achieving a comprehensive, enforceable agreement among members of the United Nations. But while the accord furthers the dialogue of influential players such as China, India, Brazil, the EU and the U.S., it fails to come through with specific targets for the reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions. Instead, it contains a vague promise to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Feelings were mixed about the end results of the summit. Gordon Brown described the negotiations as "frustrating” and the Obama administration hailed the meeting as an “important breakthrough.” Most notable among the accord’s successes: A commitment by wealthier countries to provide an annual fund of $100 billion by 2020 to countries who do not have the financial resources to develop their industries. With little to no financial backing, these countries must simultaneously follow ever stricter environmental regulations.
Balancing the needs of developing versus developed nations has been a sticking point at previous climate summits. Developing nations have been hesitant to sign an agreement that may cripple their economic advancement. Industrialized nations, on the other hand, have been disdainful of granting more achievable emissions restrictions to their less developed neighbors.
The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, as it is called, has the dual purpose of reparation for past harm done by big polluters, such as Europe and the U.S., and encouragement of cleaner industry by developing countries such as Mexico and India. Reparation efforts include providing assistance to countries already feeling the effects of rising temperatures. Island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu have an imminent need to take preventive steps such as resettling inhabitants of low-lying areas to higher altitudes and constructing levies to prevent the contamination of freshwater sources by rising seawater levels.
The months-long buildup to the summit was intense. Demagoguery and guerilla marketing were employed by NGOs, non-profits and the countries themselves. Developed vs. Developing. Haves vs. Have-nots. Pre-summit meetings among countries such as Brazil, France, China, and the U.S. were invariably followed by promises of a world without carbon where air conditioners would become obsolete. And on October 24th, demonstrators in 181 countries and 5200 separate events found unique and creative ways to spell out “350” (as in, 350 parts per million of carbon, a number which has been calculated by top scientists as the upper limit for planetary health - we are presently at around 390 and rising). In a previous article, this site covered a local 350 event in Westport.
As exciting as the anticipation of such a conference may be, it all came down to two weeks of difficult and contentious negotiations, which were far more engaging to the participants than they were to the spectators. Highlights did, however, occur. Leaders of several developing nations staged a brief walkout on the 14th in protest of what they saw as a movement away from the Kyoto Protocol. Young and otherwise exuberant protesters turned out in droves, even combining forces with NGOs who at one point walked out of the summit to participate in a joint demonstration with the demonstrators outside. Then, President Obama flew in for the final day to stitch up the unbinding agreement before leaving early to avoid being delayed by heavy snowfall in Washington, D.C.
When dealing with international accords, the tricky part tends to be policing possible violations. Trickier still, punishing nations who commit any such violations. As Edward J. Markey, co-author of the climate bill currently being debated in Congress, said, “[i]f China or any other country wants to be a full partner in global climate efforts, that country must commit to transparency and review of their emissions-cutting regime.”
Transparency is a concept with which governments often struggle, especially in regards to the scrutiny of governments of other countries. Consequently, enforcement of the Copenhagen accord is a tenuous concept and one that may not be solidified further until next year’s summit in Mexico.
Before then, there will assuredly be much debate and recrimination over what many see as a lost opportunity in Copenhagen. I prefer to focus on what was accomplished: A collective single step. What remains to be seen, and what may not be known for months, is whether the step taken was in the right direction.
Image courtesy of COP15.
Comments