Cop15 came to its end without a legally-binding treaty and the public opinion is looking back at Copenhagen as the place where UN missed a big opportunity.
We can say that Cop15 was a complete failure; or we can look at Copenhagen as a step ahead toward the next climate treaty. In any case climate change is still there and it still is a big issue the world has to deal with.
Answers by experts to one single question:
After Copenhagen,
which prospect for climate negotiations?
The answer by
Christa Clapp, OECD Environment Directorate
“While the Copenhagen climate change talks did not result in a legally-binding agreement – seeking agreement from 193 nations is not an easy task – leaders did produce a statement called the Copenhagen Accord, a political agreement to tackle climate change. This represents a key step forward in the global effort to tackle climate change, but much work remains to implement a low-carbon future.
The Accord seeks to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, and provides an appendix that will list national targets by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and one for listing mitigation actions by developing countries. The Accord also seeks to mobilise 100 billion USD per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to support mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries, and to provide fast-track financing of USD 30 billion between 2010 and 2012. In these respects, the Accord represents a break-through agreement on international climate action.
But where do we go from here?
The next year and beyond can be used to establish both a strengthened international regime and domestic policy frameworks that broaden participation in the carbon market, keeping the global costs of action lower, and enabling financing for developing country actions. At the OECD, we are working with countries on domestic policy design, and examining how to link emission trading schemes to move towards a global carbon market. We are exploring how to best direct limited public sector finance to target priority regions and actions, how to create and guide carbon market finance, and how to incentivise private sector investment. We are also identifying how to build an international reporting system to provide transparent information on climate actions and relevant financial flows. This will help us determine how to most effectively use financial and technical support.
Working to establish clear policy frameworks to advance the Accord will strengthen the signal from Copenhagen to invest in a global low-carbon future”
The Accord seeks to keep the global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius, and provides an appendix that will list national targets by developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and one for listing mitigation actions by developing countries. The Accord also seeks to mobilise 100 billion USD per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to support mitigation and adaptation activities in developing countries, and to provide fast-track financing of USD 30 billion between 2010 and 2012. In these respects, the Accord represents a break-through agreement on international climate action.
But where do we go from here?
The next year and beyond can be used to establish both a strengthened international regime and domestic policy frameworks that broaden participation in the carbon market, keeping the global costs of action lower, and enabling financing for developing country actions. At the OECD, we are working with countries on domestic policy design, and examining how to link emission trading schemes to move towards a global carbon market. We are exploring how to best direct limited public sector finance to target priority regions and actions, how to create and guide carbon market finance, and how to incentivise private sector investment. We are also identifying how to build an international reporting system to provide transparent information on climate actions and relevant financial flows. This will help us determine how to most effectively use financial and technical support.
Working to establish clear policy frameworks to advance the Accord will strengthen the signal from Copenhagen to invest in a global low-carbon future”
The answer by
Manfred Fischedick, Vice-President and Director Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
and
Wolfgang Sterk, Project Co-ordinator Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy
“After the failure of the Copenhagen summit, many are now asking whether a setting where more than 190 countries negotiate is actually up to the challenge. The critical point, however, is probably not so much the number of participants but rather the lack of political will.
Under the Climate Convention, industrialised countries have pledged to take the lead in combating climate change, but the emission reduction targets they have so far put on the table are far weaker than what science stressed as necessary. Indeed, although the absolute reduction targets addressed by the industrialised world might be higher, the pledges developing countries put on the table in Copenhagen would lead to a stronger reduction compared to “a business as usual path” than the pledges by industrialised countries.
One key problem is the completely inadequate emission target of the USA, coupled with the position of the other industrialised countries that participation of the USA is an absolute precondition for an agreement. However, even though much has moved under the Obama administration, the state of discussion in the USA is still years behind that in most other countries. In addition, 67 votes are required in the US Senate to ratify a treaty. And as the current health care debate and indeed almost any other initiative since the presidential election has shown, the Obama administration will likely not get 67 Senate votes for any sophisticated initiative for years to come, least of all a climate treaty. Tying oneself to the USA therefore means to give oneself hostage to a few dozen blocking US senators for the foreseeable future.
Instead of tying its horses to the US waggon, the EU in particular should therefore rather work to create a “green coalition” with those countries that are prepared to take climate protection seriously. If the EU and the emerging economies got down to business, this would hardly fail to leave an impression in Washington”
Under the Climate Convention, industrialised countries have pledged to take the lead in combating climate change, but the emission reduction targets they have so far put on the table are far weaker than what science stressed as necessary. Indeed, although the absolute reduction targets addressed by the industrialised world might be higher, the pledges developing countries put on the table in Copenhagen would lead to a stronger reduction compared to “a business as usual path” than the pledges by industrialised countries.
One key problem is the completely inadequate emission target of the USA, coupled with the position of the other industrialised countries that participation of the USA is an absolute precondition for an agreement. However, even though much has moved under the Obama administration, the state of discussion in the USA is still years behind that in most other countries. In addition, 67 votes are required in the US Senate to ratify a treaty. And as the current health care debate and indeed almost any other initiative since the presidential election has shown, the Obama administration will likely not get 67 Senate votes for any sophisticated initiative for years to come, least of all a climate treaty. Tying oneself to the USA therefore means to give oneself hostage to a few dozen blocking US senators for the foreseeable future.
Instead of tying its horses to the US waggon, the EU in particular should therefore rather work to create a “green coalition” with those countries that are prepared to take climate protection seriously. If the EU and the emerging economies got down to business, this would hardly fail to leave an impression in Washington”
The answer by
Emilio Lèbre La Rovere, Coordenador Executivo, Centro de Estudos Integrados sobre Meio Ambiente e Mudanças Climáticas – CentroClima and Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
“The first step will be the indication by all parties of the UNFCCC of the mitigation targets (Annex I countries) and voluntary goals (non-Annex I countries) by 31 January 2010.
The overall result is expected to be much lower than the emissions reductions needed to put the world on a pathway with a reasonable probability to stabilize the average global temperature at a level two degrees higher than in pre-industrial times.
The climate negotiations will have then to proceed in order to promote additional mitigation commitments from both Annex I and emergent countries.
An important way to get there is the matching of financial resources committed by Annex I countries to the financing of NAMAs (nationally appropriate mitigation actions) in non-Annex I countries. The initial presentation by non-Annex I countries of their potential to undertake NAMAs in exchange of financial and technological support from Annex I countries may lead to a first total amount of emissions reductions that can be supplied by non-Annex I countries by 2020. The balance of total emissions reductions required at a global level to put the world in the right track by 2020 will have to be provided by Annex I countries, according to the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This may be attained either by increasing Annex I countries emissions reductions targets at home (and through the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms), or through their financial support to a new round of NAMAs by non-Annex I countries (under the assumption of a certain elasticity of new emission reductions with the supply of more financial resources). The key issue will be the agreement of a burden-share scheme between Annex I countries, according to their allocation of more financial resources to the Copenhagen Global Climate Fund and the adoption of more ambitious mitigation targets”
The overall result is expected to be much lower than the emissions reductions needed to put the world on a pathway with a reasonable probability to stabilize the average global temperature at a level two degrees higher than in pre-industrial times.
The climate negotiations will have then to proceed in order to promote additional mitigation commitments from both Annex I and emergent countries.
An important way to get there is the matching of financial resources committed by Annex I countries to the financing of NAMAs (nationally appropriate mitigation actions) in non-Annex I countries. The initial presentation by non-Annex I countries of their potential to undertake NAMAs in exchange of financial and technological support from Annex I countries may lead to a first total amount of emissions reductions that can be supplied by non-Annex I countries by 2020. The balance of total emissions reductions required at a global level to put the world in the right track by 2020 will have to be provided by Annex I countries, according to the UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. This may be attained either by increasing Annex I countries emissions reductions targets at home (and through the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms), or through their financial support to a new round of NAMAs by non-Annex I countries (under the assumption of a certain elasticity of new emission reductions with the supply of more financial resources). The key issue will be the agreement of a burden-share scheme between Annex I countries, according to their allocation of more financial resources to the Copenhagen Global Climate Fund and the adoption of more ambitious mitigation targets”
COP15 wa the best chance the world had to achieve socialist nervana. But next December at Mexico, Obama will have lost his majority in the House so he won’t be able to make any headway in Mexico. Copenhagen was it. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.