From Copenhagen to Durban

This summer when I was researching the past Conferences of the Parties it’s start as COP-1, the one conclusion I consistently found about the Copenhagen COP-15 was that nothing concrete in the way of real policy was accomplished. I remember thinking that what I was reading was perhaps biased—was this conclusion really true? Had nothing been accomplished—after all Cancun and now South Africa negotiations were subsequently being held after the “failed” Copenhagen COP-15? Where were the legally-binding policy most of the developing country wanted to desperately see?

Reading first the actual Accord that came out of Copenhagen and subsequent reactions and criticisms following that negotiation, I felt that I was finally reading a more balanced account of what really occurred at the Copenhagen conference. Some of the criticisms reacted to the general positivity of the negotiations, while other papers sought to focus on the lack of real concrete policy creation, and the Accords themselves, bland and vague as they are, painted the picture that perhaps something had been done.

For this entry, however, I’d like to focus on one element of the Accord where it seemed like real progress was made in Copenhagen, and hopefully will subsequently occur in South Africa in a few months. This is the issue of reporting GHG emissions and holding emissions targets to binding policy actions.

So why the optimism from what came out of the Copenhagen agreements? According to Morgan, the Copenhagen agreements paved the way for more successful (i.e. cooperative) negotiations in Cancun in 2010. Morgan alludes to the greater sense of urgency felt in Cancun to keep negotiations going, a greater sense of trust between the nations and increased flexibility between countries (especially in regards to US/China negotiations). Reading this, one can not help but feel that key issues, most notably creating binding limits on CO2 emissions, will effectively be tackled after an outcome like this.

Firstly, more stringent and transparent reporting of GHG emissions came out of the Accord. Each country voluntarily stated their emissions targets to keep below the 2 degrees Celsius. (In keeping with scientists and activists, such as Bill McKibben, who believe that 350 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere is enough to keep dangerous warming at bay  http://www.350.org/ ). While many argue that this voluntary acceptance of emissions targets does not provide real regulations or punishments for non-compliance following the Accord, the targets themselves, one could argue, are a sign that voluntary cooperation to address controlling GHG emissions is occurring.

From a political standpoint, the role of the US and Obama’s final hurrah at Copenhagen suggest that political leaders understand that they must act in regards to emissions. While critics such as those representing Climate Action Centre say that developed countries talk in terms of 4 degree targets, and what the world needs is 2 degree targets for global warming, one can also argue that setting drastic targets is one way to move closer to them during the next set of negotiations. The argument could be made in the terms that “Rome wasn’t built in a day.” Neither, is long-lasting, equitable, binding policy actions between 192 countries! History now shows that after Copenhagen, at Cancun, even more significant terms were negotiated, leading one to have even higher hopes for the Durban negotiations.

The very idea that progress can be made and attained is pulled from “An Ethical Analysis of the Cancun Climate Negotiations!” http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2010/12/an-ethical-analysis-of-the-cancun-climate-negotiations-outcome.html. “The UNFCC is a “framework” convention because it has always been expected that additional requirements would be added to the initial framework in updates that are known as “protocols” or in annual decisions of the conferences of the parties (COPs).” There’s the proof! Even the critics must define what the true role of the COP is, and address the critical complex issues associated with creating the long-term binding emissions targets commitments between ALL the diverse countries of the world. This work goes on to say that, “each COP for the most part continued to add small steps toward the goals of the UNFCCC.” Therefore, one can argue that emissions target, whatever they are, are a positive step in fulfilling the role of what the UNFCCC intended to do. So, it IS fulfilling its intended role—if that isn’t a positive display of what the COP is, then I don’t know what is!

While Copenhagen seemed to not conclude with binding actions, it symbolized the discussions that need to continue with increasing levels of success. It emphasized targets that need to be reached in future negotiation. To take this ONE aspect of the Copenhagen negotiations in a broader context, one could argue that there is hope in the way of BINDING regulations occurring in South Africa this year.

Works Cited

What Hath Copenhagen Wrought? A Preliminary Assessment of the Copenhagen Accord

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES Fifteenth session Copenhagen, 18 December 2009. Agenda item 9 High-level segment. Draft decision -/CP.15 Proposal by the President Copenhagen Accord

Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010

http://www.wri.org/stories/2010/12/reflections-Cancún-agreements

http://cancun.unfccc.int/

http://www.climateactioncentre.org/climatecon

http://rockblogs.psu.edu/climate/2010/12/an-ethical-analysis-of-the-cancun-climate-negotiations-outcome.html