While it recognizes that any increase of temperature above 2 degrees Celsius would have catastrophic consequences, it does not follow up with a commitment by the world’s nations to curb carbon emissions sufficiently to keep global warming below this threshold.The financial aspect too is suitably vague. While there is a promise to devote $30 billion in the next three years to helping poorer nations mitigate the effects of climate change and a stated goal of raising $100 billion a year by 2020, the document contains no clear indication of where the money will come from.
NGOs wanted guarantees that existing aid money, needed to meet basic needs in health and other areas, would not merely be diverted to climate change, but the summit produced no clarity on how the money will be gathered or distributed and the poor nations most vulnerable to climate change will pay the price.
Details of the behind-the-scenes haggling are still emerging but based on what is already known, Copenhagen appears to have confirmed the geo-strategic shift under way. If the past decade was marked largely by the blunders of the US, the world’s sole superpower, the multi-polar world order developing in front of our eyes will be just as challenging.
President Obama’s attendance held promise but in the end the US, which has been the biggest contributor per capita of harmful gases, only offered to cut emission 4 percent below 1990 levels. Low as it is, this target could still be challenged in the Senate, where many naysayers still deny that climate change is linked to fossil fuels.
The US and China were the two heavy hitters at Copenhagen. Their interaction did not prove easy, although the final document reflected common interests: the US did not want to be bound by legal targets while Beijing rejected international monitoring of emissions. While rich nations undoubtedly displayed some of their customary selfishness during the summit, emerging powers such as China proved just as intractable.
On the positive side, Brazil, South Africa and India -- part of the BASIC group with China -- are becoming strong voices on the international scene.
The European Union, on the other hand, failed once again to make its weight felt. Instead of rejecting the compromise deal that fell below the goals they had been discussing and taking the lead by offering more emissions cuts, EU leaders chose to rally behind the unsatisfactory agreement.
Short-termism won the day across the board and no single player bears the blame for the debacle. But if the fight against global warming has to rely on nations setting “voluntary” targets, we are in serious trouble. The global financial system was also supposed to be kept in check by self-regulation, but greed and self-interest, also key factors in Copenhagen, caused major disaster.
A visionary agreement was needed not just to convince politicians at local levels to do the right thing but also to make it easier for private sector companies worldwide to invest in climate change technology and research, with the promise of real returns.
There will be other meetings, in Bonn in six months and in Mexico in a year, but the failure of Copenhagen does not bode well for the international community’s ability to produce the kind of global governance our planet needs. More voices will be heard in the new multi-polar world, but making them sing in harmony may not be easy.
