|
Assessing the Copenhagen Accord
It's been almost a week since the end of the COP, and the world has had some time to digest what happened at the conference, especially the events of the final 48 hours. Myself, I've also had some time to rest and digest as well.
I think, like most people, I am somewhat disappointed with the outcome of the COP. The result wasn't bad, but I think there was a better deal to be had, and much more could have been accomplished. That being said, there are significant accomplishments to note. The accord addresses the key sticking points toward getting a more substantive agreement in the next year.
- For the first time, all of the major developed AND developing emitters (US, China, India, EU, Brazil, S. Africa, Russia) have put specific mitigation targets on the table. This was not thinkable a year ago.
- The US and China have gone from passive observers to active participants, and even leaders.
- A substantial amount of money is being devoted to developing countries. The $30 billion in fast-start money pledged by developed countries is nearly 10x the current size of the Global Environment Facility, the principal multilateral funding mechanism for environment projects.
- There is a pledge from developing countries for long-term adaptation funding.
- Brazil, as a developing country, has pledged to contribute to adaptation funding for less developed countries.
- Significant progress was made on Forestry, Technology Transfer, and other implementation issues.
There are also some things to be concerned about. For one, the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated outside the UNFCCC process. To have it incorporated as part of the COP took some procedural acrobatics. This begs the question of whether a UN-style process, where 190+ countries have to agree to every little piece, is the best way to address climate change. From a mitigation and financing standpoint, the solution rests with a handful of developed and major developing countries. However, it was smaller countries (Sudan, Tuvalu, Venezuela) who were the main roadblocks to a more significant deal. Had they not repeatedly delayed proceedings, there would have been time to do much more before heads of state arrived.
Certainly, island states and the least developed countries deserve a place at the table, and their concerns are important - especially when it comes to adaptation. However, the UNFCCC process gives them the disproportionate power to hold up the process. It's almost like the US Senate, without the ability to invoke cloture! Since the UNFCCC seems unable to come to consensus on rules for voting, it seems like some sort of alternative process is necessary to move forward.
I was reminded on the last day that COP15 is part of a process, it is not the end. Work will continue, and countries will keep talking. The US Senate will act on climate legislation this year (I'm still optimistic on this point) and I think that the Accord will give this effort a boost (although not as big a boost as a more substantive agreement would have.) COP16 is in Mexico next year, and people are already hard at work getting ready for it. A binding agreement will be made, it is just a matter of time and a lot of hard work.
|
Posted By: Thomas Lee @ 7:03 PM |