But it was a platform for progress writes Climate Group’s CEO
Copenhagen has divided opinion amongst climate change commentators more sharply than nuclear power, writes The Climate Group's chief executive, Steve Howard. Whilst this was not a perfect outcome, after messy and intense negotiations we believe that the foundations exist for significant progress.
It is after significant reflection that I write this, having heard two different commentators refer to the Copenhagen Accord as a "suicide pact".
Going into Copenhagen we were clear about the key elements of success: China, India and the US on board, US $100bn in finance from 2020, at least US $10bn in finance per year over the next 3 years, a commitment to keeping global temperature increase below 2deg Celsius, clarity on institutions and transparency, targets for global emissions reductions and a mandate to form a legally-binding treaty.
The Accord delivers on all these areas bar the last two. The lack of a peaking year or commitment to halving global emissions by 2020 does make the deal less explicit, and apparently weaker than it might be. However, it is far more important that emissions actually decline rather than our just saying they will: real action will be shaped much more by national policy than international aspiration.
If all the national targets and commitments currently on the table are fully implemented at the higher end of their ambition (some countries and regions gave a range - the EU for example proposed either a 20% reduction target or 30% if the rest of the world joins in comparable efforts), then emissions will peak before 2020. In fact, emissions will be around 9bn tonnes lower than the business-as-usual projections for 2020: comparable to eliminating the emissions of the European Union and the United States combined.
This will lead to major innovation and investment and leave us well-equipped to decarbonise our economies with ever greater speed.
The Copenhagen Accord's provision for registering national targets and commitments by the end of this month (January) provides an ideal opportunity for further advancing national policy: a potentially potent stimulus in just a few weeks.
Many have been struck by the need for any agreement to be legally binding. But if we consider the alternatives - a legally-binding agreement that like Kyoto has little or no enforcement, or a political agreement that gathers major support - then a politically binding agreement may have more potential to deliver.
Climate change has now firmly entered the realm of mainstream international politics. The negotiations will be an on-going process alongside trade and other issues.
Will the Accord stop us going over 2 degrees? Not by itself. However, if countries now step up and register ambitious but achievable targets and commitments, it will be a clear step forwards. We will see unparalleled investment in the low carbon economy.
Three things will build confidence in 2010: ambitious national targets and commitments registered as part of the accord, swift and effective mobilisation of the $10bn quick start funding, and a win in Washington DC on the climate and energy bill. These are not inevitable. It will require all of our leadership to help make it happen.
More information: www.theclimategroup.org
