What Copenhagen changed?
At Copenhagen, for the first time, unity amongst the developing nations shaped the design of the rules. Once the heat and the dust settles, this achievement will be seen as a game changer in leading the world on the pathway to the larger goal. The United States was desperate to secure such a deal.
The countries that brokered the text of the outcome, the US and the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China), to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, reflect a world in which the balance of power has significantly changed in the last 20 years. There is also increased public awareness with campaigns running around the world and the huge media coverage has made addressing climate change indispensable.
Green growth is now the prevailing economic model of our time. The idea that addressing climate change is bad for business has been buried. Countries from both developed and developing economies have announced low-carbon economic plans and are moving forward.
Join http://ebusinesszone.net
Join http://ebusinesszone.net
What it did not change?
About 45,000 dignitaries travelled to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen – the vast majority convinced of the need for a new global agreement on climate change. But other than the acknowledgment by the US and the BASIC group of countries, there was no major agreement. Many of the key governments do not want a global deal. The big players prefer an informal setting where each country says what it is prepared to do where nothing is negotiated and nothing is legally binding. The political will, economic direction, and public pressure were not enough to overcome the concerns over sovereignty that many countries have in the context of international law.
According to the accord, reducing global emissions by 50% in 2050 below 1990 levels will take into account the right to equitable access to atmospheric space. A sustainable approach requires the atmospheric resource to be allocated fairly. However such reductions involve substantial financial allocations from developed to developing countries. The businesses also need to adjust to the targets and need to modify their processes. This implies significant cost implications. They need to look at cost-effective ways of running their business. Also, the outcome is far from the legally binding treaty which some had expected and for which many hoped.
For US, President Barack Obama was not able to pledge anything that Congress will not support, and his inability to step up the US offer in Copenhagen was probably the single biggest impediment to other parties improving theirs.
The reference to transparency in the text is significant as it will mean that for the first time actions by countries can be assessed globally, but there is no verification of the actions undertaken in the developing world unless they are paid for by the developed world.
It remains to be seen whether committed targets on emissions, which are due to be made at the end of January, will make a difference. There will also be a review of progress in 2015 which may offer the opportunity to adjust any targets. Many hoped the COP15 would lead to legally mandated coordinated action plan, but it appears that the outcome will be intergovernmental policy coordination with a focus on the implementation of the national strategies. The move to green growth is no longer in doubt, but the details, actions and time frame remain unclear at best.
