Copenhagen's dismal outcome

As expected the Copenhagen climate summit did not end with a legally binding treaty but an agreement between five major countries, namely the US, China, Brazil, South Africa and India which the rest of the conference "took note of". It was, on the whole, a disappointing summit.

One can argue that the outcome was a step in the right direction, however small, as some sort of agreement is better than no agreement at all, but this is perhaps an over-optimistic approach.

The European Union, which considers itself a world leader in climate change - having pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, compared with 1990 levels - expressed its frustration at the summit outcome, as did a number of developing countries, especially small island states.

Environment Minister George Pullicino, writing in The Times on Monday, said the conference was "almost a total failure". Mr Pullicino wrote: "The so-called Copenhagen Accord falls considerably short of the EU expectations. It neither provides binding emission targets for the US, China and other emerging economies such as India and Brazil, nor does it provide a comprehensive package of financial aid for adaptation by the most vulnerable countries.

"The only two meaningful results were the 'commitment' to limit the rise in earth's temperature to no more than 2°C and a limited package of financial aid."

Speaking to The Times Business, Helga Ellul, president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry said that the Chamber was disillusioned with the restricted outcome of the Copenhagen summit.

"We regret that major economic players outside the EU have only repeated their limited mitigation commitments. Therefore the Copenhagen Accord has not brightened the prospect for a global level-playing field in the future.

"On the contrary, European companies have to pay for their emissions under the EU Emission Trading Scheme and are as exposed to carbon leakage as they were before Copenhagen. More predictability should have been given on the future of private financing schemes like the Clean Development Mechanism," she said.

Mrs Ellul said that looking at the summit from a more positive perspective it was good to note that the Copenhagen Accord reinforces the political commitment by international leaders to limit global warming to 2° C.

"It is hoped that this is quickly followed up with a legally binding agreement because companies need predictability to develop the new green solutions on which a future low-carbon economy will depend. In this regard, Copenhagen could be viewed as a small step forward."

A few days after the end of the summit leaders began pointing fingers at who they considered responsible for the disappointing conference. Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticised the United States for failing to commit to emissions reductions. South African negotiators, who participated in the drafting of the final agreement, nonetheless attacked it as "not acceptable."

Writing in The Guardian on Sunday, British Climate Secretary Ed Miliband accused China of having "hijacked" the proceedings for its own goals. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman responded that Mr Miliband's accusations were just a way "to shirk responsibilities that should be assumed towards developing countries".

In a nutshell the main points of the Copenhagen agreement are the following:

- There is no reference to a legally binding agreement.

- It recognises the need to limit global temperatures rising no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels. The language in the text shows that 2°C is not a formal target, just that the group "recognises the scientific view" that the temperature increase should be held below this figure. Countries have been asked to spell out by February 1, 2010 their pledges for curbing carbon emissions by 2020. The deal does not mention sanctions against any country that fails to meet its promise.

- Developed countries are to "set a goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries". A green climate fund will also be established under the deal. It will support projects in developing countries related to mitigation, adaptation, "capacity building" and technology transfer.

- Regarding transparency, emerging nations will monitor their own efforts and will report to the UN every two years. There will be some international checks. The pledges of rich countries will come under "rigorous, robust and transparent" scrutiny under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

- No detailed framework on carbon markets was worked out and "various approaches" are to be pursued. The Copenhagen meeting was a unique moment in history because it grouped together so many world leaders to discuss the issue of climate change, which is why the summit outcome is so disappointing.

On the "positive" side it looks like there is no longer any question that climate change is central to the political thinking of every country in the world and that public awareness on this subject has increased tremendously. Hopefully world public opinion - helped naturally by the media - will be strong enough to convince politicians to agree to a climate change treaty in a year's time in Mexico.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon said a legally binding treaty by next year is a priority. What is needed now is for the momentum started at Copenhagen to continue next year and for world leaders to show real leadership in pushing for a treaty to be concluded in Mexico in a year's time.