Copenhagen: An end or a new beginning?

They came in search of a legally binding agreement. What they got was a communiqué, and a short one at that. But it was a choice between that, apparently, or nothing at all.

About two and a half pages in length, the agreement hammered out by US President Obama with the representatives of China, Brazil, India and South Africa contains no emissions reduction commitments.

Instead, countries and regions will be asked to set out their emissions targets in an Appendix and these will be reviewed in turn by a panel in a form of verification and continuous update. There will be a further conference in six months time and another major event in Mexico this time next year, at which it is hoped, at least by the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, that the principles agreed at Copenhagen can be turned into that elusive binding agreement.

The overall objective remains that of achieving reductions to keep the level of global warming below the 2 degrees Celsius mark by the end of this century. To assist developing countries, the richer nations have reportedly pledged €10bn per annum for the next three years, rising to €100bn by 2020. The US will contribute €3.6bn; Japan €11bn, and the EU €10.6bn to this initial fund.

“I believe that what we achieved in Copenhagen is not going to be the end, but rather the beginning,” the ever-optimistic President Obama remarked.

As to the ‘end’ of things, it was always on the cards that Copenhagen would fail. The world has changed in the past two years. In times when their electorates are required to stomach auterity programmes, the likes of which they haven’t experienced in over a century, democratic leaders might be hard-pressed to impose further economic hardships in the name of climate change. The richer countries are feeling less generous too towards the developing countries. The prospect of aid money to adapt to climate change instead finding its way into the Swiss bank accounts of petty dictators and their henchmen would hardly dispose their populations towards massive transfers either, even if it only involved one or two overly-reported cases.

Kyoto had bindings targets. It was supposed to deliver a 5% fall in emissions. It is projected to deliver about half of one percent, and if the recession hadn’t happened it’s unlikely even that much would have been achieved. The problem that nobody seems to want to acknowledge is that global agreements with so-called binding targets may not work all that well. The current UN-led process, after all, might not be the best way to achieve effective results and keep all countries on board with the objective.

On the ‘beginning’ side, unlike Kyoto, the US has signed up to this accord and is committed to the follow-through. There is the possibility of new structures emerging that may offer greater prospect of protecting natural resources, halting destructive deforestation in combination with real reductions in GHG emissions.

The emphasis laid by the US president on R&D and developing carbon free technologies should be welcomed. The debate on how best to minimise emissions will also have to be much more inclusive of a wide range of disciplines in the future. Thus the era of futile exchanging of insults between the ‘flat –earth climate change deniers’ and the ‘eco-fundamentalists’ may finally draw to a welcome close.

As to what it will all mean for us; no doubt the Minister for the Environment, John Gormley and the Taoiseach will present their views in Dail Statements in the New Year. As a matter of curiosity, it would be of interest too to learn the size of the Irish delegation to Copenhagen, their respective roles in the Conference and the cost to the taxpayer.