Member Sign In | Not a member? Register Now
The real Copenhagen outcome hangs on this month’s voluntary country emissions targets
Economy wide targets must be submitted to UN by Jan 31.
On the one hand, the Copenhagen Summit (COP15) was an enormous disappointment insofar as legally binding and empirically verifiable carbon reduction pledges by the world’s major polluters did not materialize. On the other, it signals the possibility of a leap
forward, but only if the leaders of the major carbon emitting countries are sincere in their expressions of deep concern and in their aspirations for significant emissions reduction. What has become clear to public opinion worldwide is that the issue is clearly not scientific uncertainty about climate change or the economic viability of actions to control climate change and its impacts but rather a matter of political will, leadership courage and the decision-making boundaries of the UN system. The UN Framework Commission on Climate Change mechanism (UNFCC) is severely compromised. There are no global, regional or country emissions limits defined for 2020 or 2050. And no legally binding internationally agreed commitments. Instead, continuing action is encouraged by national governments on a voluntary basis (like Chinese or Indian national plans) or regional action like the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, California’s car emission standards, or Norwegian financing for impact adaptation in Africa. There is no agreement on fixing ceilings based on per capita emissions, which would more equitably reflect historical and current emission realities and allow for continued industrialization of emerging economies. In addition, there is no global mechanism for emissions
trading or carbon taxation. There are aspirations and inadequate commitments by rich countries to pay or finance the adaptation costs by poor and most vulnerable countries for damages to urban areas, infrastructure, public health, agriculture and industry from climate change that is caused primarily by historical emissions from the rich countries. In this sense, nothing changes. The accord acknowledges that greater than 2 degrees celsius increase in global warming would be catastrophic, and to avoid that, countries shall by 31 January 2010 submit to the UN FCCC their individually or jointly quantified economy wide emissions targets for 2020. The target levels are, it follows, a matter of decision by each country and no overall worldwide or regional emissions targets are defined. This would appear to allow a weakening of the common commitments established under Kyoto for developed countries or altogether abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, and it opens the likelihood of bilateral or multilateral deals between the US, China, India, Brazil and the EU without consultation or real voice or vote by all other countries. In this sense, everything changes. But what is the reality behind the numbers? The US offer to reduce emissions 17% relative to 2005 means 4% reduction relative to 1990 levels. The inadequacy of this indication is revealed in the fact the US has increased emissions 16% since 1990. The US has offered $3.6bn for adaptation for the most vulnerable countries through 2012. The EU has offered $10.6bn and Japan $11bn
Page 1 of 2 | Next »