What did the Copenhagen climate summit achieve?

By Tom Brookes and Tim Nuthall. Monday, 21 December 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8424522.stm

The great German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said "from chaos comes
order".

It is difficult to foresee the order that may result from the chaos of the Copenhagen
climate change conference (COP15), but as the dust settles, traces of a path forward
are becoming visible.

The outcome - a decision to "take note of" an accord drawn up by a core group of heads
of state on Friday evening - is far from the legally binding treaty which some had
expected and for which many hoped.

However, this does not change the fact that the Copenhagen conference was a unique
moment in history.

What Copenhagen changed:

• With 110 world leaders present and a single issue on the agenda, there has
never been a meeting like this. The countries that brokered the text, the US,
China, India, South Africa, Brazil and the EU, also reflects a world in which the
balance of power has significantly changed in the last 20 years.
• At a fundamental level, the conference redefined the debate between countries in
terms of awareness of climate science and support for action. There is no longer
any question that climate change is central to the political thinking of every
country on the planet.
• Public awareness has also massively increased. The vast campaigns run around
the world in the run-up to Copenhagen by governments, NGOs and business and
the media coverage of the issue and the summit have made addressing climate
change widely understood and discussed from the pubs of rural England to the
bars of Beijing.
• The other very important change is that green growth is now the prevailing
economic model of our time. The idea that addressing climate change is bad for
business was buried at Copenhagen. Countries from both developed and
developing worlds have announced low-carbon economic plans and are moving
forward.

What it did not change:

• That combination of political will, economic direction and public pressure was not
enough to overcome the concerns over sovereignty that many countries have in
the context of international law. The final decision reflects the fact that many
 countries only want to be answerable to themselves. They will co-operate, but
not under the threat of legal sanction.
• There is no quantified aggregate target for emissions reduction such as the 50%
by 2050 that was in early drafts - as it stands, targets are yet to be announced
and they may be at the low end of what was promised, locking in ever greater
emissions.
• The reference to transparency in the text is significant as it will mean that for the
first time actions by countries can be assessed globally, but there is no
verification of the actions undertaken in the developing world unless they are
paid for by the developed world.
• Also, there is very little detail on any of the elements it does mention.

The accord does refer to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial
temperatures, as well as the need for quantified action by both developed and
developing countries - but it's unclear how the target will be achieved.

The deal at COP15, as it stands, leaves the world on a pathway for temperature rises of
3C and above. It remains to be seen whether committed targets on emissions, which
are due to be made at the end of January, will make a difference. There will also be a
review of progress in 2015 which may offer the opportunity to adjust any targets in light
of the science.

Many hoped the COP15 would lead to legally mandated co-ordinated international
action, but it appears that the outcome will be intergovernmental policy co-ordination
with a focus on the implementation of national strategies. The move to green growth is
no longer in doubt, but the details, actions and time frame remain unclear at best.

Will a new world order result from the chaos? The jury is out.