So the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit is over after slipping into overtime following two weeks of negotiations between world leaders. The result is the Copenhagen Accord – so is this a success or a failure?

What is the Copenhagen Accord?

The Accord calls for action to hold mean warming of the Earth’s surface at no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels – however, it does not outline how this will be achieved.

Instead, it commits 31 countries to a deadline of January 31, 2010 by which they must submit national emissions reduction goals. In the case of developed countries, specific targets and years must be outlined; while for developing countries it is necessary to submit actions to reduce emissions although these do not have to be quantified.

The Accord also offers an outline of the financing for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries. Support is defined to be approaching $30billion USD in the period 2010-2012; and scaling up to $100billion a year by 2020. Financing of the adaptive measures will be prioritised for the most vulnerable countries such as sub-Saharan African nations.

So does the Copenhagen Accord meet the summit’s goals?

In terms of addressing global warming, the Accord agrees that temperature rise should stay below 2°C which can be described as a tangible achievement, albeit less ambitious than many would have hoped. The treaty did not provide any numerical targets for cutting pollution while China ensured that there would be no international monitoring of emission reductions although it did agree that countries must measure their own emissions and report them to the outside world.

The lack of detail on where the financing will come from remains a significant issue; and while the Accord also set up a new fund that pays poor nations not to chop down trees it did not outline where this money will come from.

Rich countries arrived in Copenhagen with the aim of offering poor nations a large sum of money in return for their signature which would avoid significant sacrifices to Western standards of living and while many developing countries were willing to accept the terms, not all were. The finger has been pointed, most notably at the USA and China for failing to move beyond their opening bids on emissions.

It seems that while all 192 countries agreed that the atmosphere could only consume so much greenhouse gas and that mankind has already used up most of its carbon budget, the fact that each country was able to create its own numbers on emissions goals with no overarching to assess whether they were comparable to those put forward by others led to infinite problems. While it was important that every voice was heard, the lack of compromise resulted in a stalemate.

Missing the mark

Perhaps one of the flaws with the COP15 summit was that not enough emphasis was placed on the transfer of renewable energy technology.

Technology transfer would assist developing countries with the damage caused by climate change and allow them to lower their own carbon emissions. Parties are required to engage in technology transfer from developed to developing countries but at this point there has been little focus on establishing what technology needs to be transferred and why it is not being transferred currently.

Even though renewable energy investment has picked up in recent years, investment decision making with regard to developing countries continues to be overlooked and as a result development assistance has been falling well short of the mark. This can partly be blamed on a lack of political will to help, a failure to establish concrete proposals and the need to establish specific packages of technology that are needed for adaptation.

It appears that developing countries want to avoid discussing mitigation until the developed countries deliver measurable and verifiable amounts of technology and financing; something that developed countries need to recognise as more than a bargaining chip.

Our verdict

Gordon Brown has described the Accord as a first step towards saving the planet from global warming and in that regard he is right – however, the Accord reads more like the opening statement of a summit rather than a conclusion.

Over the next 30 years, a substantial percentage of greenhouse gas increases will come from carbon emissions in developing countries and without clean technologies in place these developing countries will find it impossible to curb emissions. Only the private sector in developed countries is in any position to develop and transfer these technologies and must be given a greater focus if leaders are to conquer the rhetoric and begin to find real solutions.

Faye Sunderland