Copenhagen - an Autopsy

The result of United Nations Climate Change Conference in December in Copenhagen has been described as everything from an unmitigated disaster to a positive result depending on which spin doctor you listened to. While those of us watching from the sidelines are wondering if all the 'hot air' generated during those 11 days will be enough to push this planet beyond its tipping point.

It should be noted that two countries that seemed particularly pleased with the results, China and India, are both countries of great concern not only for the greenhouse gases they already produce but because of their population and growing industrial development. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the potential for greenhouse gas emissions increasing exponentially in only a few short years.

The Copenhagen Accord which was the final result was drafted by only 5 countries, USA, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Was debated by participating countries in which it was 'recognised' rather than being 'agreed upon' and was not passed unanimously. The document recognised that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the present and that actions should be taken to keep any temperature increases to below 2°C. But the document is not legally binding and does not contain any legally binding commitments for reducing CO2 emissions. A weak document with no legal standing, no real targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions and which states the obvious, something needs to be done but no real detail of what or how.

Developing countries are asking for funds to mitigate the cost of battling climate change. The document covers an amount that will be paid into a fund for this purpose by developed countries but there is no detail of how much each developed country is expected to pay, how much will be given to which developing countries and what exactly it is going to be applied to. Will it be used to shore up the Presidential Palace against rising sea levels or will it be used to develop a green power plant to replace their coal fired power plant, so they can do their bit to turn back the tide of climate change.

It would appear to the cynic that developing countries do not want their growing industrialisation reigned in or to have to adopt more modern, cleaner and possibly more expensive industrial solutions.  They do not want carbon emission targets applied to them while making developed countries carry all the burden of battling climate change with the argument that it was developed countries that brought the world to this precipice.

While it is understandable that developing countries want to hold on and continue the industrial progress they've made and their desire to advance from 'developing' to 'developed' but to continue along their path while at the same time pleading to the world to do something to tackle climate change seems unreasonable and somewhat illogical. It would be pointless to clean up an oil spill while failing to plug the leak.

Yes, the rights of indigenous peoples, the needs of developing countries both in their ability to industrialise and their ability to mitigate the detrimental effects of climate change have to be taken into consideration with any fair and just international agreement.

Additionally, developed countries can not in all consciousness demand carbon emissions cut  by 20% when developing countries only produce a fraction of what developed countries do, which will result in a vastly larger burden being carried by developing countries. Some equity must be found, either a formula that will allow developing countries the same opportunities while still achieving the desired emission cuts or developed countries will have to provide the necessary technology and finance to allow these countries to develop industrially regardless of what emission targets are set.

 So what can the rest of us make of all this?

While some are indicating progress has been made at Copenhagen, most appreciate a great deal still has to be done before the  2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference which will be held in Cancún, Mexico, from 29 November  to 10 December 2010.

Copenhagen demonstrated that climate change is not something that can be resolved with a simple target for carbon emissions and money thrown at poorer countries most at risk by climate change. A number of conferences, meetings and negotiations were made leading up to Copenhagen but clearly not enough 'meeting of minds' with the varying stake holders as each faction grouped according to their needs and viewpoints, seemingly at odds with each other.

A lot of homework will need to be done before the Mexico conference in November or history will be doomed to repeat itself. Copenhagen wasn't a complete failure as it identified the challenges that need to be overcome. It also identified those that only play lip service to resolving the problem of climate change, they can no longer hide behind illusory rhetoric; they have been unmasked and will either have to be brought on board by negotiation or have their impact globally negated on all levels so others can make the changes necessary on fair and equitable terms.