The Accord states that this can only be achieved through major cuts in emissions from rich countries. There are no dates, or timelines, or sanctions for non-compliance. Efforts to stop global warming must not derail economic progress in emerging economies. The Accord provides money for adaptation initiatives in economically-poor countries which are likely to suffer heavily from climate change. Between now and 2012, the fund should provide $30 billion for such projects. This is to be scaled up to $100 billion by 2020. The Accord also makes money available to economically-poor nations to enable them to protect their forests from loggers. Finally, the Accord was ‘noted’ rather than ‘adopted’ by the assembly.
The fait accompli was presented to poor nations with the implied threat that, if they did not sign up to the deal, they might lose the Adaptation Fund which is an essential element in their ability to adapt to climate change. Naturally, people such as Yvo de Boer, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, attempted to portray the failure to reach a FAB agreement as a temporary glitch which will be put right at COP 16 in Mexico in December 2010.
While politicians dithered about how to deal with this global challenge, the warnings from the scientific community become even more apocalyptic on two fronts. First of all, things are happening at a much faster pace than previously thought. On the evening of December 14, 2009, scientists from the Hadley Centre’s climate change division made a presentation at the Bella Centre. They said that, even if emissions peak in 2015, and decrease rapidly after that at about 3% per annum, there may only be a 50:50 chance of keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. More ominously, in terms of the inaction in Copenhagen at significantly reducing greenhouse gases, the Hadley document makes the point that every delay of 10 years in the peak emissions would add about a further 0.5 degree Celsius. In the light of this science, the commitment to preventing a temperature rise above 2 degrees Celsius, without putting any credible mechanisms in place to achieve it, is merely play acting.
In my mind, there were two positive outcomes from the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change. The first was that so many heads of state came to Copenhagen. This is a clear recognition that almost every government around the world now accepts that climate change is happening, that it will have enormous impact on our planet, but especially on the poor. Implicitly, these leaders accept the scientists’ prognosis that climate change needs to be addressed urgently if the target of below-two-degree Celsius rise is to be achieved. Secondly, the Conference captured a huge amount of interest right across the globe. Millions more are now aware of the impact of climate change. It is to be hoped that they might bring the necessary pressure on politicians in powerful countries to reach an accord that will fend-off runaway climate change. Time is running out.
