The Copenhagen Accord

Will It Save the World?

by Paul Callaghan

   The short answer to that is, no, it won’t. Greenpeace has branded the accord, reached in December at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (Cop15), as having “nothing fair, ambitious or legally binding”. It has been derided by environmentalists from around the world as a cop out and a license to carry on polluting the planet.
   But the question needs to be asked, is there anything beneficial to come out of the Copenhagen talks? Or was it just another excuse for world leaders to get together and have a holiday while pretending to work? The 12 Articles of the Copenhagen Accord are analysed below.
   Article 1 of the Copenhagen Accord states that “We underline that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time. We emphasise our strong political will to urgently combat climate change”. From the one hundred and ninety two countries that agreed in principle to the Accord, that represents significant progress. The Kyoto Protocol, written in 1997, took until 2002 to be ratified by 55 countries. The science is still being disputed by a very vocal minority. Those of us who have had discussions over dinner tables and around the water cooler about the reality of climate change now have even more backing. If we can also quote world leaders as wanting to “prevent

dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” then perhaps we can stop the arguments with the sceptics. Such a strong statement, even if not legally binding as yet, sends a message that this is a serious problem. All we have to argue about now is how to deal with it. To those who have been trying for years to encourage our fellows not to pollute and over consume, this is, of course, nothing new.
The second part of the Accord agrees “that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science.” The leaders are saying that global warming is real and is caused or at least contributed to by human actions. Given that the world has just endured eight years of an American administration that almost completely ignored climate change and encouraged other countries to do the same, it was good to see an American President calling for the ratification of the Accord. Whether that President can convince his own government to ratify it remains to be seen.
Article 2 goes on to discuss the need “to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius”. At first glance this seems a reasonable target but, as with other targets in the Accord, there is reason to suspect the starting points. President Obama misrepresented the starting date for

emissions reductions in his speech. Is that 2 degrees from now or from when measurable warming started?
   Article 2 finally undermines its good intentions somewhat by saying that “social and economic development are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries”. At a conference that may well be discussing the end of life as we know it being caused by that very development, this seems contradictory at least.
   Article 3 begins by saying that “Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change…is a challenge faced by all countries”. This has depressing overtones. The Copenhagen Conference was billed as the last chance to stop global warming by many commentators. That the Accord instead talks about ways to deal with the consequences shows that, despite the good intentions expressed at the beginning of the document, there was never really any desire to stop global warming entirely. The Article also talks about “building resilience” in smaller Island States and African countries to protect them from those “adverse effects”. On the positive side there is a call for developed nations to support the developing ones with finance and technology.
   Article 4 calls for Annex I parties (generally the developed nations) to the Kyoto Protocol to submit their “emission targets” by the end

The Copenhagen Accord - Will It Save the World?

Issue 4 | February/March 2010

pg 32

of January 2010. It states that the expectation is to “strengthen emissions reductions initiated by the Kyoto Protocol.” This is obviously positive as most climate change scientists agree there is much to be improved upon from Kyoto. How many of the developed nations actually present their targets and how large the reductions are will be the test of integrity for this stage of the climate change debate.
Article 5 is perhaps a very dangerous one for our planet. It calls on the non-Annex I nations “to implement mitigation actions”. This means that they will continue to develop their economies in the same way that has proven so risky for developed nations. The chance to say “we got it wrong, but we can use more effective technology to help develop your economies in a responsible manner” has been missed. Mitigation is the start of a slippery slope. If I slash and burn a forest but plant pine trees, what sort of mitigation is there? Possibly close to the same in terms of carbon emissions but how about bio-diversity? If we allow mitigation, are we opening the door to further environmental degradation? Global warming is the most serious environmental issue facing us, but not the only one. One thing that needs to come out of the whole climate change discussion process is that people must recognise the

interconnectedness of all parts of our planet.
   Article 6 states the “crucial” need for “reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation” and the importance of developed countries making finance available to assist with this. Certainly, this is positive if it leads to a reduction in the destruction of forests. However, the financial incentives to come from the developed countries must also be matched by a reduction in the purchase of products that come from deforestation. The developed world is the primary buyer of unsustainably logged timber and other products. There is no point in providing finance not to degrade forests if those same forests will still provide profits for those less concerned with ethical considerations and no access to the money in government hands.
   Article 7 says the parties will use “various approaches, including … markets …to promote mitigation actions.” I am always suspicious when governments start talking about markets. Either they want to control them or they want their friends to run them. In either case, it doesn’t seem to improve the lot of the ordinary man in the street, or in this case, improve the lot of our poor old planet. And there is that old mitigation point raising its ugly head again.
   Articles 8, 9, and 10 deal with the funding of mitigation, technology development, and

The Copenhagen Accord - Will It Save the World?

Issue 4 | February/March 2010

pg 33

capacity building. It is expected there will be US$30 billion available for 2010-2012 and a further US$100 billion per year by 2020. All of this money is to flow through a new bureaucracy set up as the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund. Many observers were quoting figures before Copenhagen of US$400 billion to rectify the climate change problems. So governments are again trying to find a cheap solution.
   Article 11 sets up yet another bureaucracy to deal with the transfer of technology, and Article 12 sets a date of 2015 for further review.
   The people of the world have made it clear to their leaders that they expect something to be done about climate change and sustainability. In typical political fashion those leaders have responded by getting together and expending the equivalent emissions of several countries to talk. Those leaders have come up with more ways to sound quite effective without promising too much. Will they actually implement even the limited promises of Copenhagen? That remains to be seen.
   In researching and writing this article it became apparent to me that my real power does not lie in the fact that I am a voter in a democracy. My greatest power is my ability as a consumer to insist that everything I

The Copenhagen Accord - Will It Save the World?

Issue 4 | February/March 2010

pg 34

purchase is made sustainably. That power will be increased if I educate myself and others on ways to live in greater harmony with our planet. Am I disillusioned by the half-measures of Copenhagen? I’m a little too old and cynical to be disappointed by politicians anymore. Instead I choose to be inspired. I will have to do things for myself rather than relying on some great mythical government committee. I haven’t trusted our revered leaders for some years. Copenhagen has made it clear that if I want to leave a planet for my children and grandchildren, I will have to get up and do something myself. So, what will you do?

The Copenhagen Accord - Will It Save the World?