Good evening from Copenhagen,
The Copenhagen COP 15 is now history. Out of the chaos came the Copenhagen Accord, cobbled together in the early Saturday morning hours to provide a finale to what has been a disappointing climate summit. The views on the accord vary but one thing is certain. There is much more work to do if the world is to emerge in the next year with an agreement that will, in concrete terms, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that will prevent catastrophic climate change.
Final documents, including the accord, are on the UNFCCC web site
 PDF Download Download the accord (160 kb) |
The analysis and commentary is rolling in. There is much criticism of the accord for being a political and not legal agreement. However, there was little likelihood the Copenhagen was going to produce a legally binding agreement. That was clear from the beginning. UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner sounded a hopeful note in his summary of what happened here (the full video is at www.unep.org). Steiner listed the positive outcomes, including agreement to limit global mean temperature increase to below 2 degrees C, financial commitments by developed countries, with some funding beginning in 2010, a commitment for $100B by 2020 (though no specifics on who will pay or how it will work). Steiner said none of the elements of the accord would have been predicted even three months ago. However, commitments to cut GHG emissions fall below the what scientific research say is needed and there is work to do to make the accord into a binding agreement by the next COP in Mexico City.
WWF calls the agreement "half-baked" and points out that, among other things, is is vague on when greenhouse gas emissions should peak. While it says "as soon as possible" the IPCC says clearly that this point needs to be reached by 2017 (see article)
The Guardian in the UK takes a look at US coverage and reaction (see article)
The Guardian columnist George Monbiot writes that negotiators put the Earth "in square brackets" then deleted it from the accord: (see article)
China calls the accord "significant and positive" (see article)
The Daily Star in the Seychelles has a good editorial on where things stand at this point (see article)
The ball is now clearly in the court of the developed nations to live up to their historical responsibility to the disadvantaged nations to cut back on greenhouse emissions and help them adapt to climate change. They will need to bring substance to bear in their approach to the issue. For their part, the developing countries, especially the most vulnerable among them, ought to strive to enhance their negotiating capacities to have their concerns adequately addressed by the time the Mexico conference gets underway.
Nunatsiaq News in Iqaluit, Nunavut, says the "minimalist" agreement is not good news for the Arctic (see article)
For Canadians, the Globe and Mail summarizes both the accord and Canada's lack of leadership (see article)