Copenhagen Drama Disappoints

The stage was set. The spotlight shone on Copenhagen, with critics calling it ‘the most important meeting in the world’s history’. The 15th United Nations Climate Change conference wasn’t just any annual climate summit—Copenhagen was the climax to two years of contentious negotiations. During that time, diplomats had been working towards the first climate blueprint since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Behind the backdrop of the Danish capital, a new climate change deal was to be negotiated and citizens around the world wanted to see a fair, ambitious and binding deal.

World Leaders Fail Expectations

Enter stage left: 119 world leaders. An extraordinary cast was present, including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, Nicolas Sarkozy and our very own Kevin Rudd. It was the largest gathering of heads of state in the history of the United Nations.

During the two weeks of the conference, the audience watched in anticipation as the leaders were locked in marathon sessions of heated and often frustrating dialogue. But as the curtains drew to a close, world leaders failed to agree and reach an historic deal. Instead of revealing a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, they delivered an anti-climatic document: the Copenhagen Accord.

A Toothless Document

The Copenhagen Accord is a two-and-a-half paged document of aspirational goals only. It’s a toothless document because it is not legally binding and was not formally adopted at the conference. Member states were instead asked to ‘take note’ of the Accord. This means that there is no guarantee that what is detailed in the Accord will be fulfilled. Furthermore, the Accord does not even specify a deadline to draft a legally binding agreement.

What angered many participating countries was the fact that the Copenhagen Accord was created behind closed curtains between only a handful of countries. The Accord was drafted by the United States and four developing countries with emerging economies and large emissions: Brazil, China, India and South Africa. While this last-ditch effort may have saved the conference from being fruitless, countries most affected by climate change, such as smaller African nations and Pacific islands, were left ‘offstage’ from the process.

According to the Accord

So what exactly is in the Accord?

Degrees but no specified targets
The Accord recognises that the global temperature needs to be kept below two degrees Celsius, so that the dangerous effects of climate change are prevented. But it does not explain how this will be achieved or detail emission targets. Without specific targets, there is no guarantee that the world’s temperature will be limited to two degrees.

There is also scientific evidence that two degrees is now not enough. Led by the small island states, more than 100 countries demanded that 1.5 degrees is the only acceptable goal. The Accord vaguely acknowledges this and calls for a review by 2015 to see whether the 2 degrees limit needs to be adjusted to 1.5 degrees.

Funding goals but no commitments
Rich countries will provide funding to help poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to the changing climate. A ‘goal’ of US $30billion in aid will be distributed to developing countries during 2010 to 2012, and US $100billion each year by 2020. However, this is just a goal rather than a commitment. Poor countries have no confidence that they will receive any of the money. There are also no assurances that this funding will be on top of existing aid commitments.

Targets but voluntary
The document also details that Annex 1 countries need to submit emission targets for 2020 by 31 January 2010. Annex 1 is a group of rich, industrialised countries including Australia. These targets are voluntary and so are unlikely to be based on climate science but rather the political agenda of each country. By the same deadline, the non-Annex 1 countries, which include the poorest countries, will report the actions that they will take to minimise the effects of climate change.

Forests but just the beginning
Perhaps the only ray of light to shine from the stage of Copenhagen is the recognition of forests. Forests are important in reducing emissions because they act as a carbon sink, capturing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it within the wood. Reflecting this, the Accord promotes positive incentives for countries to slow down deforestation.

To Be Continued…

Two years worth of difficult negotiations have left the world with the Copenhagen Accord—an empty and vague political statement. There are goals but no binding action.

The UN hopes to have a legally binding treaty ready by 2010. The negotiating process will be fast-tracked for this year’s UN climate change summit in Mexico City. However, it is unlikely that so many world leaders will attend again, highlighting the missed opportunity of Copenhagen.

The Copenhagen summit has become a symbol of failure; without an ending but rather a ‘to be continued…’.The curtains have now closed on the set of Copenhagen leaving world-wide audiences disappointed. Some want a refund but many are just wondering whether this year’s sequel will be any better.