Leaders deserted the sinking ship that is the Copenhagen climate talks as fast as they could on Friday evening proclaiming success from what at best is a rag-tag document that may well prove not to be worth the paper bit is printed on. In the end personal ambition and national self-interest ruled the roost and the nation’s of the world doomed the planet to at best an uncertain future.
It was a long and heart-breaking night for those who believe that a binding agreement was essential to prevent the climate spiralling on an inexorable plunge into chaos. The climate summit in Copenhagen has finished without a treaty to protect the climate. The document they concocted at the last minute is neither fair nor ambitious, but worst of all it is not legally binding.
World leaders abandoned the climate summit without agreeing to the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that science demands. That means we could see average global temperature rises above 2oC and the worst impacts of climate change. They're putting our future at risk.
The UN climate talks in the Danish capital have ended with a Copenhagen Accord. But amid the chaos and confusion of frantic negotiations on the final night of the summit, what kind of deal actually emerged?
The Copenhagen Accord, as it was named last night, makes reference to the need to keep temperature rises to no more than 2oC and says rich countries will commit to cutting greenhouse gases and developing nations will take steps to limit the growth of their emissions.
Under the accord, countries will be able to set out their pledges for the action they plan to take to tackle climate change, in an appendix to the document, and will provide information to other nations on their progress.
There are provisions for short term finance to the tune of $10bn a year over three years for poor countries to help them fight climate change, and a long term funding package worth $100bn a year by 2020.
There are also references to the importance of reducing deforestation and efforts to give poor countries access to technology that helps them go green.
But this is far from the hoped for outcome. Originally, the plan was for the Copenhagen talks to deliver a comprehensive, legally-binding international deal to tackle climate change. But it has been clear for some time that such an agreement would not materialise at these talks.
In the immediate run-up to the negotiations, it was hoped a political agreement could be reached, which could then be turned into a legal treaty next year. We did come out of the talks with a political agreement drawn up by leaders and which was eventually accepted by the conference of more than 190 countries this morning, but there are some major holes in the deal.
The politicians will paint the summit a success but let us be clear there are some key things missing. Firstly there is no mention of a long term global emissions cut target - although the 50 per cent reduction by 2050, which was dropped at the last minute, is what would be needed to meet the 2oC temperature cap still referred to in the deal.
There is no target, either, for the long term cuts developed countries must make.
Perhaps more significant, though, is the absence of any timescale for when or even if the deal could be turned into a legally-binding treaty.
And a series of other agreements which would have formed part of the deal, such as one on how to tackle deforestation, have been shelved until the next conference.
Leaders had expected to arrive in Copenhagen for the end of the talks to sign an agreement drawn up by negotiators, but when they arrived - mostly on Thursday - officials had not managed to agree something they could give them.
As a result heads of state and government from a number of countries themselves ended up thrashing out parts of the text in the early hours of Friday morning, and held talks with one another while officials and negotiators continued to work out details throughout the day.
Eventually the US announced it had secured agreement with China, India, Brazil and South Africa for the deal, which had the backing of the EU and - in the end - the majority of developed and developing countries at the conference.
This was billed as a historic opportunity for the world to tackle climate change, but faces have been glum around the talks in the wake of the announcement. Is anyone happy with the deal?
Key players, including Prime Minister Gordon Brown, US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have described it as a ‘first step’ to dealing with global warming.
But they admit that as it stands, it isn't enough to address the problem. Nevertheless, there was probably a certain amount of relief that any deal at all was done - as at moments last night things didn't look good.
But campaigners have reacted furiously to the accord, which they say does not tackle climate change, deliver sufficient emissions cuts or help the poor.
And some countries -including Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba - refused to accept it, forcing UN climate chiefs to forge a compromise at the talks this morning in which those who do agree will sign up to the declaration directly.
Countries will be expected over the next month to submit their pledges for the action they will take to tackle climate change, for entry into the appendix, and some who promised a range of figures need to decide if they go for the most ambitious targets.
Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband has said that he wished there had been a timescale for a legally-binding deal, and he is among those who have said they would continue to work for that at upcoming climate summits.
But if this is, as leaders said, the first step, then it is the first step on what seems likely to be a long and difficult road.
Categories: ,
Comments
All comments
You need to be registered with the IET to leave a comment. Please log in or register as a new user.