COP15 Conclusions
For the past two weeks, people all around the world have bonded over a shared hope for COP15 and concern for the future of the world. The negotiations were complex, demonstrating that the leaders cannot fight global warming alone. They have political and economic pressures that prevent them from progressing in the manner the environment needs and the people of the world want to see. While the leaders have demonstrated their limits, these two weeks have also illustrated the devotion and passion the global community can bring to the fight against global warming. Individuals, organizations, and companies are getting ready to lead the way to an environmentally respectful future and the response to COP15 has demonstrated that.
What happened?
Heading into the conference, there were hopes for commitment from developed countries to meet mid-term and long-term targets that would result in global emissions peaking prior to 2020, and falling to half of 1990 levels by 2050.
Developed vs. Developing Countries
As the conference progress there were several binaries, the loudest distinction between the developing and developed countries. The developing world demanded economic and technological support from developed countries to reduce emissions. The support requested would grow to several hundred billions of dollars by 2020. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi recognized the different needs of developed and developing countries, saying,
“Developing and developed countries are very different in their historical emissions responsibilities and current emissions levels, and in their basic national characteristics and development stages, therefore, they should shoulder different responsibilities and obligations in fighting climate change.”
U.S. Vs China
The negotiations also faced opposition between the United States and China. The U.S not only requested that developing countries such as China, India and Brazil needed to make commitments to reduce the emissions-intensity, but required monitoring China could not consent to. The tensions between the U.S. and China was extremely important for U.S. domestic concerns. If America’s progressive climate change legislation has any hope of passing, Americans must be confident that the Chinese are also taking on commitments.
- China has committed to reducing greenhouse gas output by 40 to 45 %
- The U.S. committed to reduce emissions by 17% (the target in a bill that already passed the House of Representatives, and would go no further, thereby not offering any true change.)
Th U.S. was not in a position to negotiate and this set the tone for the conference. With controversial legislation pending in the Senate, the administration could not act at COP15.
With the U.S. unwilling to compromise there were no ambitious proposals. The state of U.S., the disagreements between developing and developed countries, and the economic concerns COP15 was at a stand still for 10 days. No progress was made as each representative clung to their country’s agenda.
The Agreement
A draft agreement had leaders committed to a path that would reduce global emissions to half of 1990 levels by 2050, with an 80-per-cent reduction from the developed world.
The developing countries like China and Brazil were uncomfortable with this commitment and its suggestion they would have to compensate for any shortfall on the part of developed countries.
Following this draft, The Copenhagen Accord was developed during a 31 hour meeting between President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, and the leaders of India, Brazil and South Africa. What emerged was neither an international treaty nor a binding agreement, but an agreement in principle among the developed world and leading developing countries, countries that make up 85% or emissions.
The main components of the accord are:
- To decrease greenhouse-gas emissions, butdoes not require the world’s major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. (In a U.S. concession to China, the accord did not set a goal of reducing global emissions by 50 percent by 2050.)
- To work toward keeping global temperatures below two degrees Celsius.
- To provide financial support for climate mitigation for poor nations, specifically that richer nations will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year program to fund poorer nations’ projects to deal with drought and other impacts of climate change, and to develop clean energy.
The UN conference did not approve the agreement, but recognized it as a platform for a formal agreement in 2010.
The objections were strong as countries recognized the high temperature goal would condemn millions to die in Africa and the goals in general were neither concrete nor ambitious. They did not reach a binding agreement that determines the future of environmental progress or set goals that offer hope for the global future, making this a disappointing conclusion, but it does demonstrate progress. As Yang said,
“The Copenhagen conference is not a destination but a new beginning,”
The negotiations may not immediately drive change, but they have established a consensus on long-term global emissions reduction targets as well as responsibility for economic and technological support to developing countries. It is the first time, leading developing countries, including China, have agreed to reduce emissions in accordance with an international treaty. A year ago, the major developing countries not only failed to recognize their responsibility to decrease emissions, but resisted the movement, perceiving it as an economic threat, so their support of even a less ambitious bill than we had hoped for is progress. Furthermore, the conference has raised the global population’s concern and awareness about global warming. People are not only more informed, but now recognize their own responsibility as the leaders cannot act alone.
