COP-15

After I wrote my earlier post on countries that submitted their emissions targets under the Copenhagen Accord, I visited the tally sheet maintained by the US Climate Action Network and noticed that they had a copy of the official US letter.

Dated today, the letter commits the US to a 17% reduction in greenhouse gases from 2005 levels by 2020 “in conformity with anticipated US energy and climate legislation, recognizing that the final target will be reported to the Secretariat in light of enacted legislation.”

There was also no mention of the Copenhagen Accord fitting into a legal process or treaty-building exercise.

The letter does say that the US expects other countries to meet the 31 January deadline for reporting their emissions under the Accord, contradicting Yvo de Boer’s description of Sunday as a “soft ” deadline.

The US response is not a surprise.  The Obama Administration gives itself an “out” if Congress fails to pass legislation or passes a climate bill with a weaker target.

Failure to mention steps beyond the Accord suggests to me that the US is not enthusiastic about the viability of the UN process.  But the reiteration of the 31 January deadline means that the US doesn’t want other countries to delay and that they want to be able to point to positive steps towards addressing global climate change.

Like I said, none of this is surprising; but it shows us how the battle lines are beginning to solidify and what to expect in the way of points of contention as international negotiations continue over the next few months.

On the domestic front, assuming that major emitters (especially India and China) meet the deadline for reporting their targets under the Accord, the Obama Administration will surely use this progress to pressure the Senate into passing an energy bill.

Although Obama didn’t utter the words “cap and trade” during his state of the union speech last night, he did hit the “clean energy/jobs” angle pretty heavy.  Large emitter endorsement of the Accord will likely help the Administration in moving climate and energy legislation.

With Sunday’s deadline fast approaching for countries to officially offer their emissions reductions targets under the Copenhagen Accord, we are starting to get a glimpse into how the parties to the UN climate convention are interpreting the rather vague document.

The Accord was a deal brokered in the final minutes of last month’s Copenhagen conference by the leaders of the major emitters.  It was nearly derailed in the formal session at Copenhagen.  The compromise which was hashed out at that session was not a full-fledged endorsement, but merely a reflection that the Copenhagen Accord was “noted” by signatories to the UN climate treaty.

I won’t get into the arcana of UN climate decision-making, but the significance of “noting” the decision has been unclear.  Is it a “legal” document?  Are countries under some obligation to meet its dictates?

Underscoring the uncertainty of the document, the head of the UN climate secretariat, Yvo de Boer, had to send out a letter to parties stressing that the Copenhagen Accord does “not have any legal standing in the UNFCCC process.”

Therefore, it will be interesting to see how countries themselves interpret the Accord in order to get a sense for its significance.

Meeting the Sunday deadline for submitting emissions reductions targets to the UN is one way to gauge the seriousness of countries.  Last week, de Boer called the 31 Jan. deadline “soft,” raising concern that it will be ignored.

As far as I can tell, the major emitters (aside from South Korea) have not yet presented their commitments to the UN.

What is interesting though, is that some of the smaller countries–e.g. Marshall Islands, Singapore, Samoa, Bangladesh –are insisting that the Copenhagen Accord be a step on the path towards a legally binding treaty.  We are seeing this in their pre-Jaunuary 31 communications.

Even a major emitter like the United States ostensibly wants a legally binding treaty.  But how this plays out within the context of the existing UN framework is extremely uncertain.

One thing that has never been resolved–although it was supposed to have been dealt with in Copenhagen–is the future of the Kyoto Protocol.  Fast-growing developing countries like  China and India have been reluctant to give up on Kyoto since its architecture does not obligate them to reduce emissions.

The key advantage of the Copenhagen Accord is that it does ask these emergent economies to plan for some commitment to reductions from business-as-usual levels.   Earlier this week the BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India & China) released a statement indicating that they want the Kyoto discussions to continue, while simultaneously expressing their interest in signing on to the Copenhagen Accord.

At some point a different architecture is going to have to be developed.  Kyoto is binding (for those who have ratified it) but ineffective.  Copenhagen is voluntary, but it is still too early to judge its effectiveness.  Thus, these early communications from countries could be key in determining the ultimate efficacy of the Copenhagen Accord.

If we see a large number of smaller, developing countries highlighting in their communications that the Copenhagen Accord is part of a process leading to a legally-binding treaty, one way of interpreting it would be that these countries are seeking to maintain the Kyoto architecture since Kyoto is the main legal expression currently in force.

It will be interesting to see how some of the larger emitters respond.  For instance, it is not clear whether South Korea mentioned anything about their commitments being part of the effort to forge a treaty.

If you get key countries like the US, Mexico, Indonesia, the EU, Japan, excluding mention of a treaty in their communications, it may not bode well for the UN negotiations later this year in Mexico.

Environment ministers from the BASIC countries–Brazil, South Africa, India, China–met in New Delhi over the weekend to coordinate their responses to international climate change negotiations in advance of the 31 January deadline for parties to communicate their emissions reductions strategies to the UNFCCC.

The meeting ended with a joint statement that reasserts their support for both the UN process and the Copenhagen Accord which has a tenuous and uncertain relationship to the global climate regime.  The countries call on the Prime Minister of Denmark to convene five meetings leading up to the big, COP 16, meeting in Mexico.   But they also indicated their intentions to submit emissions reductions targets by Sunday’s deadline.

Perhaps more significantly was their emphasis on the Accord’s immediate $10bn annual pledge for adaptation in developing countries.  In news reports several of the environment ministers pointed to that pledge as a test of developed countries’ seriousness.

On related note, the Guardian reports today that the United Kingdom is contemplating reallocating money from existing overseas aid budgets to finance climate change adaptation.  This, of course, is objectionable to developing countries who insist that climate assistance should be above and beyond existing aid.

Things aren’t much better in the United States where the climate envoy Jonathan Pershing said yesterday that the government is “currently looking at the financing in the budget” suggesting that the “fast track” funding is far from immanent.

It has been a month since the UN summit in Copenhagen ended amidst discord and uncertainty about the state of global climate policy. The dust has settled somewhat and we’ve had some time to reflect. So where do we stand at the beginning of 2010?

For the two years leading up to Copenhagen, the expectation was that the meeting would culminate with a solid framework for a new climate treaty based on the latest scientific evidence and poised to reform the shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol.

Instead, the meeting ended with little substantive progress and a vague, last-minute, face-saving political document (the “Copenhagen Accord“) on which key countries appear to be relying for action in the coming year.

The Accord asks countries to submit their voluntary emissions reduction targets for the year 2020 by 31 January. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol which only called on developed countries to reduce their emissions, the Copenhagen commitment will include reductions from “business as usual” by key developing countries.

On the issue of insuring that countries stick to their commitments and engage in measurable and verifiable reductions, the accord asks countries to develop domestic procedures, eschewing an international standard.

The accord also discusses a financial mechanism by which the rich countries responsible for atmospheric greenhouse gas buildup can help poorer countries meet the immediate challenges they face in adapting to a changing planet.

While the accord is commendable to the extent that it gets countries–including the emerging economies of India, China, and Brazil–to offer mid-term emissions reduction targets, its voluntary, non-binding nature makes the entire enterprise quite precarious.

Thus, as we move forward in 2010, there will be some key things on which to focus to see if adequate global solutions to the climate problem can be developed.

First, it will be key to see which countries formally sign on to the Copenhagen Accord, if they sign on by the 31 January deadline, and the nature of their commitments. On Wednesday, UN climate chief, Yvo De Boer called the 31st a “soft deadline,” suggesting that some of the countries which pushed for the accord may not even be willing to meet this modest provision. Last week in a speech in Washington, US negotiator Jonathan Pershing said countries were working on their commitments, including the US; but he gave no indication as to whether the US will meet the deadline.

Much of the holdup in the US brings us to the second key process to watch out for in 2010: the climate bill in Congress. The Obama Administration has used the need to get a comprehensive climate bill through Congress as an excuse for its coyness in its failure to agree to bold emissions reductions targets. The logic on the surface made sense: Kyoto has been ineffective because of US lack of participation and the lack of participation was due to Congressional rejection of the Clinton Administration’s targets which were presented to the international community without Congressional approval.

Obama’s representatives have said that they want to be able to stand by any numbers they put on the negotiating table. However, at this point, passing ANY significant legislation through the US Senate is looking to be difficult. Although Obama’s Democratic party has majorities in both houses of Congress, they don’t appear willing to exert any political muscle on potentially controversial legislation. As I write this, the future of the year-long effort at health care reform appears in doubt solely because the Democrats lost one seat from their Senate majority.

If the Democrats aren’t willing to push through their health care bill, there is even less hope for climate legislation given the fact that there are key Democrats who are not excited about reducing emissions. I’m not sure where this leaves us on the international side of the negotiations; but where ever it is, it is not a good place.

Thirdly, over the next few months we will begin to see where the UNFCCC fits into this uncertain environment. In last week’s speech, Pershing was quite dismissive of the UN process. He seemed to push the idea that the “major economies forum” might be where the action is in getting things done. On the one hand this makes sense, given that we need key developing countries to make reductions from business-as-usual to stay within the global warming limits that the science demands. However, the major economies forum leaves many important constituencies out of the process. Small island nations, poor African nations, indigenous peoples, NGOs, and global civil society have no seat at this exclusive table–while the UNFCCC, with all its flaws, does offer a modicum of accessibility.

In his news conference yesterday, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer looked positively exhausted. While he did his best to put a positive spin on the Copenhagen Accord, it was not convincing. In the immediate weeks prior to Copenhagen, people were hoping at the very least that a specific timetable for a binding agreement would come out of the talks. What actually emerged was a political agreement with a loose time line and voluntary targets.

Many of the key players behind the Copenhagen Accord–including President Obama–have said they view the accord as a step towards an agreement. But the question that needs to be answered is what kind and size of step?

There are many other loose ends stemming from Copenhagen that need to be scrutinized–the whole financing scheme, for example. But for now, these are just a few things we’ll be keeping our eye on over the next few months.

As the conference came to a close, and minimal solutions were decided upon, the world remains in limbo regarding the next steps to mitigating climate change. Developed countries such as the US and high-emitters such as China have come out with a inadequate sort of agreement, but the developing nations that will soon be feeling the radiating effects of climate change have not been aided in the least, as far as I can tell. As I mentioned in a previous post, a potential solution to mitigating some of the negative externalities of climate change and maintaining a sustainable rate of population growth would be the introduction of family planning resources in developing nations. In a recent op-ed for Minnesota Public Radio written by Sarah Stoesz, CEO and president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and fellow attendee of COP 15, more light is shed on the importance of reproductive rights and population maintenance as a tool to lessen the blow of climate change is discussed more in depth.

Most strikingly, Stoesz cites facts from a study conducted by the London School of Economics regarding the impact of family planning on climate change. The statistics don’t lie; family planning indeed can inexpensively decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The emission of one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent can be prevented by spending only $7 on family planning. When comparing this sum to the amount of money that many governments and non-profits have been contributing to other carbon-reducing technologies it becomes clear that family planning is a simple solution that has the potential to decrease millions of tons of GHG emissions for a very low cost.

Unfortunately, this solution is still not an option in many countries where the concept of using contraceptives is unacceptable and women are not given the chance or choice to limit the number of children they have. It becomes clear that the underlying cause to why the world has not accepted family planning as a real solution to climate change is gender inequality. This issue, of course, is a whole different ball game, but emphasizes the inherent connection between gender, poverty and climate change. Climate change can very easily be proven to be a phenomenon that has the potential to aggravate inequitable global conditions, especially the plight of poor women in impoverished nations. Poverty and gender inequality must therefore be addressed before real climate change mitigation and adaptation can take place on a global scale.

These past two weeks I have been able to observe the COP-15 conference. The first week was very hopeful and organized through out Copenhagen and the Bella Center where the UN negotiations were taking place. The negotiation room was slow and many countries would speak past their allotted time and stand still on issues such as Carbon Capture Schemes. The small countries such as Tuvalu wanted to get rid of the Kyoto Protocol, while other countries wanted to stay with what was already existing and move from there. The Bella Center also had side events that allowed NGOs and other participants at COP-15 to learn about what is going on around the world due to Climate Change. Side events offered adaptation and mitigation ideas and discussions. The lost puzzle piece in the negotiations was urgency and action towards seeing environmental justice as a moral issue. The world can’t wait any longer and developing nations are suffering the worst. The agreement of 350 ppm of CO2 emissions would help stop the downward slope of climate change. Additionally, funds should be given to developing countries that had little role in industrialization and have to endure the effects of droughts and flooding.

Side Event room at COP-15

12 December 2009 was the date of action and representation. The NGOs and activists, young and old, privileged and oppressed, came together to march for Climate Justice and a fair deal at COP-15. The solidarity of people from all over filled the streets of Copenhagen with hope for change. People chanted, “System change, not climate change,” and “There is no Planet B.” The march ended at the Bella Center to meet the delegates and make them hear the people’s request. Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland, spoke at the rally and led the people in a chant for, “Climate Justice and a Fair Deal Now!” Mary Robinson had a young environmental activist join her on stage and share her stories and experiences with the fight and struggle for climate justice. She shared that there were hunger strikers on each continent on day 32 demonstrating for environmental justice and that she was joining them in their fast. The two women invited a man representing the voice of the indigenous people. He was from North America and had first hand seen the injustices against the Native American people. The three groups of people offering different points of view came together to raise a united message of solidarity and Environmental Justice Now.

Saturday COP-15 March for Environmental Justice and Fair Global Binding Deal

The exciting and moving moments at the march continued on Monday at the side event Women for Climate Justice and the side event on the melting ice sheet commented on by Al Gore. However, the next day a reality check came in place for all the NGOs. Friends of the Earth were denied access to the Bella Center and many other delegations were forced to ration out delegation passes, approximately 1/3 of delegation. The long lines and added security made the people grow frustrated and belittled. Many people came from all around the world and paid a lot of money to witness the negotiations and participate in the side events at the Bella Center and it was very unexpected to be shut out of the Bella Center by Wednesday. Thursday and Friday all NGOs were not allowed in the Bella Center and the choice of G77 to leave the negotiations left little hope for a legally binding and fair deal.

Police at Actions and Protests During NGO Shut Out at COP-15

With the arrival of US President Barack Obama and US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton at COP-15 filled the Bella Center with anticipation and last gleam of leadership. However, the end result of COP-15 was nothing more than a weak political agreement. The highs and lows of COP-15 taught my fellow students delegates and myself a first hand experience of an intergovernmental organization’s pitfalls and prospects. The UN is able to bring countries together and make room for intergovernmental agreements, however, the system makes it hard for any binding agreements to be reached since consensus is hard to meet if people leave negotiations or choose to not compromise or listen to the issues. Nations must look past only their immediate needs and look towards accountability and justice. Environmental justice must be worked towards and UN leaders must work together to move this issue forward. The US needs to pass a binding Environmental Clean Energy bill and move America towards understanding that Climate Change is real and that profit can be made in sustainable development and practices. Once the US steps up the rest of the world can truly understand where the future of American industry and Fortune 500 companies are going, which will allow them to see how they too can profit from Clean Energy. Clean Energy will lead to Environmental Justice and control of Climate Change, but it is important for World leaders to step up to the plate and move discussions and agreements forward.

Just as many had predicted, COP 15 failed to produce a legeally binding international climate aggreement.  The international community will have to wait for COP 16 in Mexico City.

  As unfortunate as this is, I would like to focus on the fact that COP 15 was able to capture the attention of nearly every major politicition in nearly every country in the world.  Not only did it capture their attention but it also required their prescence.  

Many will blame the US for not putting forth a great effort. But I would like to note that the Federal and State Governments brought their top employees; including members ofthe Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also including; influential Governors, Mayors, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and most notably, President Barrack Obama.

This is proper governmental representation on the largest stage of international environmental politics. 

The problem is not the government, it is the citizens of the United States, most of whom deny the fact that climate change is even  a legitimate reality.  As citizens of the United States we are fortunate to have the right to be provided a representative government.  Unfortunately, the majority of citizens choose to be represented in a manner that is not in our best interest. 

Many argue that moving towards a low carbon economy will result in the loss of jobs, inadequate supplies of energy, or possibly even shrink national GDP.  All of those arguments are legitimate; however, they are the temporary issues that arise whenever change occurs.

Change is really what everyone is concerned about.  Many live by the concept: that if it isnt broke then dont fix it.  Our economy nearly broke and our climate is begining to show vulnerabilities.  The bloodline of the US economy is oil. This provides a supreme polictial advantage to middle eastern nations.  If we do not begin to change that fact, then we will eventually encounter an economic collapse.   

It is certain.

It is the responsibitly of all of us to positively influence the deniers of climate change.   Not everyone will accept it; thankfully, all we need is a majority.

On Tuesday, as the access to the Bella Center was severely restricted, I chose to spend some time at Klimaforum in the DGI Byen center in Copenhagen. After attending an event on deforestation in Brazil, I walked around and stumbled into an event on “False Solutions.”

The event had two keynote speakers, a woman from Brazil who had a very interesting outlook on REDD and the negative impacts it would have on her country and Nnimmo Bassey the Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

Nnimmo spoke of a great abuse of the “CDM (Clean Development Mechanism)” projects in his home country of Nigeria, and how CDM’s can provide a false solution to climate change if abused.

The abuse he spoke of was about “gas flaring” a process by which oil company’s burn the natural gas byproduct which is released when they pump oil out of the earth.

He explained that there are three potential ways to deal with the natural gas. Oil company’s can either pump the gas back down and keep only the oil, they can also capture the natural gas and sell it, or they can simply light it on fire. The latter of which is the cheapest.

Gas flaring is terrible for the environment and it’s a process which goes on 24-7-365. Nnimmo also said it’s a process that has been illegal since the 1980’s in Nigeria, however the gas company’s continue to do it in 2009.

This bring’s us to the CDM. Oil company’s in Nigeria have begun to take gas flares and use them to give power to villages. A process which the UN rewards by giving the corporations that do this carbon offsets they can sell as CDM’s. The UN overlooks the fact that the gas flares are still burning and also that gas flaring is a process which has been illegal for over 20 years in Nigeria.

Nnimmo gave an example of how he perceived this practice by saying, “if I am a bank robber and I rob 10 banks a week, if I call the UN and promise to only rob 5 a week from now on… can I have carbon credits?”

This discussion was a real eye opener because it showed the great abuses that can happen and how “solutions” to climate change can be manipulated to where they actually do no good at all.

Sunday the 13th of December, Dr. Pachauri President of the IPCC (Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change) spoke to an audience of  several hundred at the Bright Green Forum in downtown Copenhagen. 

Dr. Pachauri spoke with the purpose of warning government and business leaders of the fact that seal level rise projections published in the IPCC’s 4th report were inadequate.

He remarked, “projections presented in the 4th report had not considered the oceans ability to release current carbon concentrations currently witheld in the ocean.  Such realeases would further increase carbon concentrations in the atmosphere which would undoubtbly increase overall global temperature; ultimately accelerating glacial melt which would lead to increased sea level rise.

Dr. Pacauri warned that seal level rises will occur at a greater rate than the IPCC had initiall believed.

He also stated that most financial and industrial centers were located in coastal regions; therefore. firms should begin addressing this issue.

Dr. Pachauri offered an optimistic view for business leaders, stating that climate change provides a oppurtunity for innovation, re development, and ultimatley the potential for increased profits.

Dr. Pachauri closed his speech by acknowledging that business leaders and governments will not be able to address this issue alone.  Local grass roots organizations will have to grow and provide a greater impact in the process of combating climate change.

The UN climate change talks in Copenhagen ended in a dramatic flurry of activity, diplomacy, and negotiation early Saturday.  The activity, however, did not translate into any significant momentum towards resolving the major impediments to a truly global response to the climate crisis.

The main takeaway from the talks was the “Copenhagen Accord,” [.pdf] a document largely negotiated by the large emitters, including the United States, China, India and Brazil.  The details of how the accord was negotiated are still sketchy, although some the initial reporting suggests that world leaders were actually going line-by-line through the text–an activity normally reserved for lower level diplomats.  Interestingly, it seemed as if China & India were savvy in keeping the EU and the US at bay.  Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao sent his underlings into meetings with Western leaders and apparently rejected both the EU offer of reducing its emissions by 30% by 2020 from 1990 levels and the general developed country commitment of an 80% reduction by 2050 under the questionable guise that by 2050 they will be considered “developed” and subject to reductions.

After the accord was endorsed late Friday night by the few countries engaged in its drafting, it needed to be presented to the larger “conference of the parties” to the UN climate treaty.  The floor debate began around 3:00am and was quite rancorous.  There was significant opposition from Latin American countries and small island nations who were cut out of the accord’s drafting.

Decisions under the climate treaty generally require consensus from all participating countries and at one point it seemed as if the conference would break up without considering the accord.  Apparently the head UK climate negotiator, Ed Miliband stepped in to defend the accord and the conference wound up “noting” the accord as opposed to “supporting” or “endorsing” it.

Such a tepid response sullies the accord’s significance within the context of the UN decision making framework.

So, what does the Copenhagen Accord say?

First, it is a political agreement, so there are no legal obligations on the part of signatories to follow its directives.

Second, the accord does say that “the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius.”  This is in keeping with other political proclamations over the past year by developed countries–in particular the G8.  However the use of the word “should”–rather than “shall”–doesn’t imply a significant level of commitment.

Third, instead of a timetable for a globally-binding treaty, the accord simply says that “we should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible.”  Again, no “shall,” and more significantly, no mention in the accord of translating its framework into a legally-binding treaty–an outcome of Copenhagen that was hoped for by many before the talks began.

Fourthly, the accord asks both developed and developing countries to submit their own national emissions targets by 31 January 2010 to include in the accord.  Significantly, developing countries’ mitigation targets “will be subject to their domestic measurement, reporting, and verification” procedures.  This represents a strike against the US position, which had insisted throughout the talks that China and India–in particular–needed to be subject to international “MRV” procedures.  The accord does say, however, that if a developing country is receiving international financing for a specific mitigation action then that particular action needs to be subject to international monitoring.

Fifth, the accord does recognize the importance of forest conservation and endorses an “immediate establishment of a mechanism” to provide financing for stopping deforestation.

Sixth, the accord provides specific numbers for financing from developed countries to developing countries to deal with adaptation and mitigation.  The commitment is collective–meaning the specific breakdown of each country’s share has not been established–and will be $30 billion for three years.  By 2020, the number should rise to $100 billion per year.  These aggregate numbers are lower than amounts discussed before the conference and the specific mechanisms on how money will be allocated are unresolved.

The accord discusses setting up a “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” that will monitor climate aid and should be accountable to the parties to the UN convention.  Although I’m not a lawyer, it is not clear to me what the significance of the parties’ lack of clear endorsement of the Copenhagen Accord might have on the governance of this fund.

Finally, the accord calls for its implementation to be completed by 2015 and a future “consideration of strengthening of the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including in relation to temperature rises of 1.5 degrees Celsius.”  This, obviously, was a rather torpid attempt to placate small island states and the growing body of scientists and activists who argue that the risks of accepting a 2 degree rise in global temperature are too great.

The summation of the Copenhagen Accord has been best expressed by Kim Carstensen of the World Wildlife Fund, who calls it “half-baked and unclear.”

It doesn’t really resolve anything, but brings up even more questions about how the problem of global climate change can be addressed.

Some of these questions include:  If the signatories to the declaration really want to keep the planet from warming 2 degrees, what are they going to do to see that goal realized? What will happen if/when, at the end of January after countries present their mitigation goals, it becomes apparent that the voluntary commitments will be insufficient to stave off harmful global warming?

The accord says that it should be fully implemented by 2015.  This is also the year that IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri said that global emissions need to peak in order to stay within the 2 degree warming threshold.  How can can emissions peak by 2015 given the leisurely timeline for implementation?

What is the future of the UN climate change convention?  If the Copenhagen Accord is the product of a backroom deal that fundamentally eclipses the Kyoto Protocol and the larger UNFCCC process, does this mean that the effort for a legally binding treaty is effectively over?  Regardless of what happens to the UNFCCC, how can differences in the US, EU, China and Indian positions be resolved if we are to live on a planet safe from the risks associated with escalated global temperatures?

Is the financing adequate to help the most distressed peoples of the world avoid catastrophe?  The numbers in the accord don’t seem to add up and are not nearly ambitious enough to deal with the crises many less developed countries are experiencing right now in their struggles to adapt to changing climatic conditions.

These questions were the ones that were supposed to have been resolved at Copenhagen.  The fact that nothing has been resolved is testament to a failure in leadership of many countries involved and especially those who pushed through the accord, namely the US, China, and India.

The next few weeks will be crucial.  Pressure from civil society on national leaders will be essential if actual progress can be made on mitigation.  If the numbers presented on 1 February don’t hold up to scrutiny, each of the signatories needs to be quite explicit on how the international community will actually address the reality of the science.

That leaves the last unresolved question which comes out Copenhagen, namely the future of civil society in pushing for a fair, binding, and ambitious deal.  The UNFCCC and Danish government’s failure to adequately accommodate civil society in Copenhagen leaves a bitter taste for many who had hopes for the talks.  Expelling civil society observers from the Bella Center for the last days of the conference undoubtedly made it easier for the major emitters to push through a “half-baked” accord.  It will be difficult, but the many civil society groups involved in climate policy will have to regroup and redouble their efforts to pressure national leaders to develop an actual deal.