Copenhagen affairs

The grand Copenhagen conference on climate change of 15000 delegates from 192 countries for two weeks is a sign of a rare sense of urgency and suggests an overwhelming consensus on the imminent dangers facing a steadily polluting world. The effects of climate change, as we all know, are universal - the tsunamis, cyclones, floods and droughts are all portents of things to come; investing in climate control is therefore very essential.

Global mandates and agreements have been in place for a long time now. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 to arrest the rate of global warming by reducing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Another such mandate is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which recognizes that the largest share of global emissions have originated in the industrialized countries. According to these agreements, developed countries have an obligation to progressively reduce their emissions, as well as to contribute financial resources and transfer technology to the developed countries to compensate for the incremental costs of moderating their rising emissions.

These have, however, been met with scorn from many developed countries, like Australia, which refrained from signing the Protocol for a long time, or the US, which is yet to ratify it. Reality is that, since 1997, emissions in developed countries have, in fact, continued to increase, and commitments made by these nations have fallen woefully short of the required level. While there has been unanimous agreement on cutting emissions, the bone of contention is over who is to do how much and in return for what. Instead of implementing their commitments on the required scale, the developed countries are aiming to shift obligations to developing countries like China, India, Brazil, etc, whom they view as competitors in the global economy. Agreements like the Kyoto Protocol are under threat; developed countries are looking for a new pact to replace it.

At the conference, the US seem to have brokered a political deal with India and 3 other emerging economies over non-legally binding emission cuts, which has, however, been rejected by an overwhelming number of developing nations; the deal under which each country needs only to list its current pledges for emissions sparked a rebellion among vulnerable nations, like Vanuatu or Maldives. India, like most other emerging economies, has pledged to act, but not without adequate incentives(economic aid, etc); India has indicated that it is ready to discuss international scrutiny of its domestic actions to curb greenhouse emissions. Both India and China have been under pressure from the US and the European Union to allow monitoring review and verification (MRV) on all emission-curbing actions; India, though, has consistently asserted that it would open only foreign finance supported emission-curbing actions to international scrutiny. Other important issues like the Kyoto Protocol and long-term co-operation also need sorting out.

While agreeing to work with other nations to help create a fund to deal with climate change, the US has also indicated that unless China and India opened themselves to international monitoring of their emission curbing actions, no US financial deal would be possible. What emerged finally was the Copenhagen Accord - not a legally-binding document providing clear and time-bound targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The procedure that led to the Accord was initiated by President Obama of the US and China's Wen Jiabao, and was subsequently agreed upon by India, Brazil and South Africa. Several other industrialized and developing countries joined in, some grudgingly.

The poorest nations have objected to being left out of the critical negotiations; several of them, threatened by rise in sea-levels, want industrialized countries to take on deeper emissions reductions, while several European countries are unhappy that the US and China are not part of the Kyoto Protocol, and expressed their disappointment about the Accord openly.

Though the Copenhagen Conference has failed to arrive at a consensus, it may still be the starting point for future commitments. Results of international negotiations are not always obtained by the level of urgency; agreement has to be adopted by consensus, and not by majority, something China, for instance, has used to raise objection and stop the entire negotiation process on several occasions. Besides, world leaders are governed by their respective national mandates and related interests, which also acts as a vital gap in the capability of the system. President Obama has already received much credit for his role in the negotiation process; obviously, his may either be a genuine commitment to protecting the earth or an attempt to enlarge his own political image as a green leader. NGO's have blamed world leaders for failing in Copenhagen, while the common man is unsure, whether to celebrate the essential beginning of a new global agreement or express anguish over an unproductive conference. We hope to see a legally-binding agreement in Mexico next year.