There has been much written on the failure of the COP15 last December. While it is true that the much-needed legally binding treaty did not happen, there were a number of positive outcomes. Before going to Copenhagen we were well aware that a legally binding commitment from major emitters was unlikely to happen, so we were prepared for such an outcome. I was guardedly optimistic about other possible outcomes, such as greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments from the U.S., an increased participation on the part of non-Annex I major emitters such as Brazil, China, and Indonesia, as well as some provisions on REDD: this was the first time that conservation was seriously considered at the international level.
My hopes that COP15 would result in tangible action from major emitters were dampened from the first week we were there. Already, the negotiations seemed stalled, with no real accords being reached. The second week was full of tension and chaos, as heads of state began arriving in Copenhagen. As NGOs were being limited, our group was only allowed into the Bella Center until Wednesday, with restrictions on how many of us could be inside at any given time. There was much uncertainty as to whether something could be pulled together at the last minute. Personally, I did not fully digest what had happened at the COP15 until after I had gotten home and read up on different perspectives.
The Copenhagen Accord has been accused of being weak on emission targets and vague in its wording. Indeed, reading the document itself, one gets the sense that it is very open-ended and needs some more work. However, by January 31st, 2010 most countries had sent in their emission reduction targets. It is projected that about 85% of global emissions are or will be accounted for in this document. The transparency of this document is an important first step in negotiating further emission reductions. The Australian government, for example, has stated that it will improve its goal of a 5% reduction by 2020 if other countries step up and make stronger commitments. In a favorable scenario, this type of negotiation could quickly escalate countries’ emission reduction targets.
The Copenhagen Accord aside, there were some tangible positive outcomes from the latest Conference of the Parties. There were 119 heads of state present, an unprecedented number in any kind of international negotiation. This development signals an increasing involvement on part of governments everywhere, it shows unity in concern over the issue of climate change. Another important development was the exceptional youth presence. Several negotiation veterans, including our own professor, Neil Leary, said that this was the biggest youth presence they had ever seen at a COP. This youth presence indicates a growing concern among young people over their future, and a desire and commitment towards an international movement to combat climate change that will not end with the UN negotiations.
With this in mind, I now look forward to the COP16 which will take place in Cancun, Mexico from November 29 to December 10, 2010. My hopes for this year’s round of negotiations are the consolidation of a REDD + program, an increased youth presence and strengthened youth voice, more ambitious emission reduction goal commitments from major emitters, as well as an expansion of the adaptation fund. A key element to strengthening commitments is a comprehensive and ambitious reduction plan from the U.S. and that is pending on our domestic policy-makers. Now, more than ever, is the time to demand strong climate legislation in the U.S. if we are to achieve substantial progress at the COP16 this year.
Some statistics on the Copenhagen Accord:
http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/policy/copenhagen-accord-commitments
