The Non-Event of the Copenhagen Accord

Big things were expected from the climate conference in Copenhagen. During those ten days in December 2009, world leaders were tasked with developing a binding agreement in order to reduce global warming by 2020. But it didn't work out as planned. What happened?

Why didn't the participating countries and world leaders agree on a binding agreement? Why was it branded a 'failed conference'? And what exactly was Canada's role in Denmark?

The goal of the Copenhagen conference was to set up an environmental treaty with concrete goals for 2020; measures to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and stop deforestation to curb global warming. The Kyoto Protocol, the current climate change mitigation agreement, contains objectives until 2012. Representatives from 192 countries were present at the 15th Conference of Parties (COP) in Copenhagen. The COP is the collection of nations that has ratified the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The primary role of the COP is to keep implementation of the FCCC under review and make the decisions necessary for its effective implementation.

The first COP was held in 1995 in Berlin, the most famous one by far is the Kyoto conference in 1997, where the Kyoto protocol was created. The next meeting will be held in Mexico later this year. The most important point of the agreement reached in Copenhagen was the allowance of a fund to help the Third World countries to combat the effects of climate change and global warming. It would also be used to aid small islands in case of rising waters.

The participating countries will also try to keep the temperature rise below 2°C. However, the Accord was made non-binding and does not contain commitments which would be necessary to achieve that goal. Rather worrying is the fact that the offers on emissions set by the world leaders fall short of the 2°C benchmark they themselves defined.

American president Barack Obama said that if they had waited for a binding agreement, no progress would have been made. And while over 190 countries were present in Denmark, the actual Accord was set up by just five countries; the US, Brazil, South Africa, India and China. It took another overnight session before most of the rest of the delegates signed up to the Accord. Countries as Venezuela, Cuba and Tuvalu rejected the agreement. "If the climate was a bank they would have saved it," said Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Chief of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon called the treaty a 'start' but also conceded that it is not what was expected of the conference and that many countries 'lack ambition.' Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of Great Britain, and EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso have already expressed their disappointment about the non-binding nature of the agreement.

Kids on a playground

The question remains: if this conference was so important, why didn't the representatives reach a binding agreement? After all, the climate is something that concerns every living being on the planet. Environmentalist George Dvorsky states in his article Five Reasons the Copenhagen Climate Conference Failed (2010) that "part of the problem lies in the absence of an institution or country stepping forward and taking action." Countries are too caught up in their democracies, are too busy looking at each other in a case of "who's going to take action". Not unlike the undecided group of kids on the playground waiting for a leader to step forward and tell them which game to play. Who will take charge? Unfortunately, a lot of countries are happy just to tag along as long as they are not directly confronted with the immediate consequences of the global warming.

Dvorksy is rather pessimistic in his view and states that it will take a global climate instigated and global disaster before something happens. Imagine the temperature in Norway suddenly rising five degrees. Would people in Canada or Argentina really be concerned?

The blame game

Investigative journalist George Monbiot, in 1995 awarded with an UN Award for outstanding environmental achievement, blamed Obama. Obama struck a deal with five nations then presented to the rest of the world. Poorer nations who didn't sign would lose the funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown. Monbiot also states his disbelief at the lack of protest from the general public. "There should have been millions protesting on the streets of Copenhagen instead of a few thousand" he says. It has to be said that Obama wasn't able to pledge anything that the Congress will not support. And conservative minds have constrained president Obama's ability to offer deeper emissions cuts. Furthermore, a lot of Senate members have strong ties with the energy industry.

China was also blamed for obstructing negotiations. The country vetoed long-term emission-reduction goals for global emissions to decrease by 50% by 2050 compared to 1990. But, if China had accepted this, their emissions per capita by 2050 would have had to be around one half to one fifth per capita of those of the United States.

The countries involved in constructing the deal seem to prefer agreements that do not contain legally binding outcomes similar to previous G8 or APEC climate change initiatives. Are these countries really happy with an informal setting where each country says what it is prepared to do, and where nothing is legally binding?

How about Canada?

Canada proposed to reduce absolute emissions by 3% over 1990 levels by 2020. Only Brazil scores worse, with a proposed emission of up to -1.8% (compared to 1990). Norway? -30 to -40%. Iceland? -15%. South Africa? -18%.

The country is also in breach of the commitments it made regarding the Kyoto protocol. In 1997, Canada promised to reduce its emissions to an average of 6% below 1990 levels. However, instead of a reduction, emissions have risen. Significant purchases of international credits would be necessary for Canada to meet its Kyoto obligations. Every country is allowed a certain quota of emissions. Countries that need to increase their emission allowance can buy credits from those who pollute less. The government announced that it will not purchase such credits, meaning that Canada will be in breach of its Kyoto obligations.

As well, Canada have been awarded two Colossal Fossil Awards, presented to the country that has been the least constructive over the course of the (climate) conference. Canada 'won' in Poznan in 2009 and shared the spoils with the US in Bali in 2007. So it seems there is still work to do.