Copenhagen agreement

The two-year process, initiated under the UN, to agree on measures needed to cope with climatic change has ended with an agreement. Despite its positive points, the deal falls short of expectations, particularly those of the poorest countries. For over a week, the talks remained stalled over issues like the level of reduction of the heat-trapping gas emissions, monitoring mechanisms and funds that were to be made available by rich countries to help the poorest nations cope with the effects of climate change.
With the arrival of Obama in Copenhagen, things started moving fast. After a flurry of meetings held by him with major countries, an agreement was finally brokered between the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Those who gave finishing touches to the deal are now underlining its achievements, while others are pointing out its weaknesses.
For President Obama it is "an unprecedented breakthrough." He conceded, however, that the agreement, which unlike a binding treaty, is only a political statement, well-short of what was in fact needed to fight global warming. The delegates from the poorest countries have objected to being left out of the negotiations at the critical stage. There is still uncertainty if the rest of the 193 countries would approve the deal because of crucial issues left unresolved.
Among the positive points is that major economies have for the first time come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the issue of climate change. The accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress towards the national pollution-reduction goals. Further, it sets as its goal the limiting of the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, by 2050.
Poorer countries had however demanded it to be reduced to 1.5 degrees. The agreement requires major reductions in the emission of greenhouse gases over the next four decades. Among the failures of the agreement is that it does not set a 2010 goal for reaching a binding international treaty on the issue, which many countries had demanded. The agreement also does not commit the industrialised or the developing nations to firm targets for mid-term or long-term greenhouse gas emission reductions.
It falls short of the goal of producing a comprehensive and enforceable action plan for addressing dangerous changes to the global climate. Weaker systems of review and verification have been proposed but they do not provide the assurances that are needed. What remains absent is a strong system of compliance within a legally binding treaty structure. The poorer nations demanded at least $200bn in new money to help them tackle climate change.
Their demand has only been met partially and in the absence of an obligatory treaty, even the promise held out remains doubtful. The agreement may not be ideal, but this was the only practical thing possible in the prevailing circumstances. We are living in a world with a strong carbon lobby where "flat earth" climate change skeptics, an expression used by Gordon Brown, continue to deny that any warming is taking place or that it is the outcome of carbon emissions.
There is also strong resistance to mechanisms for monitoring emission reductions from a number of countries, foremost among them being China. There are also deep differences about emission targets, with the US proposing 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels by 2020, while developing countries, including China and India are demanding 40 percent. The deal can, at best, be considered as the first step in a long march.