Dickinson to Durban » Climate Change, Key COP17 Issues » Just a bunch of fluff.
Just a bunch of fluff.
Classic Cinderella
The Copenhagen Accord reads like a Disney version of a classic fairytale. You know, the fairytales where they leave all the “bad stuff” out, the scary stuff that actually make the stories real classic fairytales, just so that everyone can enjoy them.
The Copenhagen Accord is the treaty that Obama, as well as the “leaders of China, India, Brazil South Africa and about 20 other countries” were able to cooperate and agree upon that last Saturday night of the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen at 3am with all the pressure of the conference on them to come up with something (1).
First they acknoweldge that climate change is occurring. Then they explain how all countries are going to have to adapt and respond in different manners because each country is going to have a different experience. They acknowledge the responsibility of the Developed contries and the difficulties that the developing face. At the end they even claim that “Scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries” (2). It appears that everyone is finally on the same page. The commitments are all very considerate and cooperative.
Disney - Look at all that fluff!
The Copenhagen Accord sounds wonderful and brilliant but if you look a little closer you realize that it does not constitute a revolutionary and reliable treaty, instead it constitutes a bunch of empty words. It lacks the “bad stuff,” mainly the parts where the players have to be held accountable for any of their prospective actions. Without that part the treaty is just a Disney story, just a bunch of meaningless fluff created to make people feel better.
The Accord ends with this statement:
“We call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015, including in light of the Conventions ultimate objective” (2).
There is no strategy articulated to hold any other the players responsible for following through with their commitements. David Doniger’s defensive of this absence is that “Agreements can be effective even though non-binding, if the parties are motivated by self- and mutual interest to observe them” (3). But where is this “self-interest”? Global warming procedures are in very few nation’s “self-interest,” in fact many of the strategies tend to go against short term economic interests, which are generally the most important to governments. So without added incentive the governments of the world are never going to do anything. It’s like my professor Neil Leary said, no nation is ever going to agree to enact selfless policies for the “better of the world” at any price to themselves.
Now I don’t want to completely trash the Copenhagen agreements. Yes, many things are said in the Accord that some countries would never have considered saying a decade ago. The fact that they all agree climate change is happening at all is an achievement. But we cannot let that excuse fool us. The Sustainability Institute’s C-ROAD analysis of the Accords claims that “current national commitments would lead to approximately 3.9 °C (7.0 °F) warming by 2100” (4). This agreement, while maybe revolutionary, is not nearly good enough to solve the problem itself.
Obama, and the other nations of the world, knew that people were looking to them for action. We were hungry for some sign of moving forward. So they gave it to us. They formed a lot of empty promises packaged in fluff and sold it to us as the “next big step” in solving this global “train wreck in slow motion” as one of my friends called it the other day. Just like the way Disney makes you think you know the classics, until you crack open a book and realize that the movies have just been giving you half the real thing, just because they wanted everyone to like it.
Works Cited:
1. Samuelsohn, 2009. New York Times. “Obama Negotiaties ‘Copenhagen Accord’ With Senate Climate Fight in Mind.”
2. UNFCCC, 2009. “Copenhagen Accord.”
3. Doniger, 2009. “The Copenhagen Accord, A big step forward.”
4. Sustainability Institute, 2009. “C-ROADS analysis of the final Copenhagen Accord.”
Other Works Consulted:
– Stavins, 2009. “What hath Copenhagen wrought? A preliminary assessment of the Copenhagen Accord.”
Filed under: Climate Change, Key COP17 Issues · Tags: climate change, Copenhagen Accord, Doniger, Emily Bowie, Obama, Stavins, UNFCCC
Emily,
I agree with your sentiments that the Copenhagen Accord is merely the fluff that world leaders wanted to display so that there was something tangible resulting from the discussions, especially after reading Stavins’ blog entry. I also feel that the Cancun Agreements ultimately ended in the same way, although slightly more formalized. After reading both the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreement, I was left begging for something concrete. While it still looks like negotiations will take some time, hopefully we can agree on some plan of action before the big, bad wolf of global climate change comes and does some truly irreparable damage to our little straw house.