The Copenhagen Accord: A Considered Report. (December 21 2009)

In amongst all the hyperbole alluding to the outcome from the climate talks in Copenhagen over the past thirteen days Jeff Tollefson writing for NatureNews gives a judicious account, summing up with it producing a: "formally recognized... bare-bones mandate to curb greenhouse gas emissions," that was "a multilateral political deal brokered the day before by leaders of the United States, China, India, South Africa and Brazil."

As to the particulars:

1. Greenhouse gas commitments proposed by industrialized nations and the major emerging economies — as well as anyone else who cares to sign up — would be placed into a registry for monitoring and verification.
    

2. Industrialized countries would be bound to meet their emissions reductions, while developing countries would be required to audit and report their domestic actions every two years.
    

3. Any actions undertaken with international aid would be "subject to international measurement, reporting and verification".

According to Mr Tollefson: "Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, chief negotiator for the G77 group of developing countries, called the deal a 'gross violation' of the UN process that would do little to curb global warming. 'Sudan will not be a signatory to a deal that will destroy Africa,' he said. The proposal drew numerous other objections from developing country representatives."

However, in the view of US President Barak Obama this Copenhagen Accord is: "[M]eaningful and unprecedented... For the first time in history, all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change."

And Mr Tollefson makes the point that 12 years ago 95 of the 100 US senators voted for a resolution condemning the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change.

There is still a sizable elephant in the US Congress.

A crucial concession that was made in order to avoid outright failure of the conference was brokered by Britain's Ed Miliband when "instead of making all parties subject to the agreement, countries have the option of joining the accord or not". In addition while the accord agrees to holding the global rise in average global temperatures to 2^oC it doesn't specify the long-term targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

As for assistance to developing countries to meet the challenges of global warming a start-up fund of about US$30 billion would be set up over the next three years and to integrate new technologies into sustainable development plans and protect their forests. Then a contribution by the developed nations of US$100 billion per annum would be realized by 2020 but contingent that such monies probably would be contingent on actions by the recipients.

What might be called the coda to the conference is that: "Countries that are party to the 1997 Kyoto protocol will continue to discuss a post-2012 commitment period; negotiators on a second track that includes the United States, which is not party to Kyoto, will continue under the main UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Finally, Elliot Diringer, who works on international climate policy for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change in Arlington, Virginia might be said to have at least partially damned the conference with faint praise when he told Mr Tollefson: "It's certainly far short of what we need, but it would provide a reasonable basis for negotiating a fair and effective climate treaty."