What Happens in Copenhagen, Stays in Copenhagen

Why it matters:

The worlds biggest polluters have decided to try to put out a forest fire with squirt guns.

Recap:

A U.N. climate conference years in the making. 200 countries in attendance. Heads of state from the world’s most powerful nations gathering to tackle the climate crisis once and for all. What brilliant battle plan did these charismatic leaders — into whom we’ve placed our deepest hope and faith — come up with?

Drum roll please?

A flaccid, non-binding agreement.

So what does this wimpy accord have to say for itself? In the “plus” column, signatories include the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, the Manson Family of polluters. And that’s about it for the “plus” column. (Can hardly call it a column, really).

Now for the “minus.” Despite approval from a handful of powerful nations, there were, as we mentioned, about 200 nations represented at Cop15 and, well, no one else signed on to the accord. For starters it lacks “overall emissions targets.”

As we’ve mentioned several times here at EcoMatters, the scientific community largely agrees that our atmosphere can safely handle about 350 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. We’re currently pushing past the 390 PPM mark and already seeing droughts, flooding, and glacial melt. Without overall emissions targets even Cap & Trade won’t work (not that it would anyway).

So what did these nations actually agree to do? By 2020 signatory nations agreed to the following emissions cuts:

U.S., a 17 percent reduction from 2005 levels (or 3-4 percent from 1990 levels).
China, a cut of 40 to 45 percent below “business as usual,” that is, judged against 2005 figures for energy used versus economic output.
India, 20 to 25 percent cut from 2005 levels
European Union, 20 percent cut from 1990, and possibly 30 percent.
Japan, 25 percent cut from 1990.

While it should be noted that these represent the first global climate pledges by the U.S., China, and India, these should also be compared to those of the EU and Japan, who will make 5-6 times the emissions cut over the same time period.

One of the biggest hurdles for U.S. commitment to even a flaccid, non-binding accord was verification of Chinese efforts. As of late, China has insisted on its commitment to climate action, while at the same time balking at the notion of any sort of transparency system or verification process. After last-minute negotiations, nations agreed to the following verification system:

Countries are to list actions taken to cut global warming pollution by specific amounts.
Method is agreed upon for verifying reductions.
Developed nations already covered by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (the U.S. is not included) would have their emissions cuts monitored and would face possible sanctions if they fail to meet them.

Finally, there was the issue of economic divide. The Maldives is widely considered to be the canary in the coal mine. The small island nation rises just feet from the ocean and faces total annihilation at the hands of rising sea levels. Likewise, developing nations, especially in Africa are already coping with droughts and famine. These nations, while at the bottom of the economic ladder, have numbers on their side.

The relatively small club that is the industrialized world creates the most greenhouse gases by a substantial margin. Our financial mea culpa will include:

Wealthy nations will raise $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poorer nations cope with the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods. This is contingent upon a broader agreement, including some kind of oversight to verify China’s emissions of greenhouse gases.
Short-term funding of roughly $30 billion over three years beginning in 2010 to help developing countries adapt to climate change and shift to clean energy.

Commentary:

You know when you where sixteen and you came home with a D on your report card, or stumbled home pissed-drunk from a party, or took the car without asking and wrapped it around the neighbor’s blue spruce, and your dad ran his hand over his face before saying, in a disturbingly calm voice, “No. I’m not angry. I’m very disappointed in you,” and you knew that was, like, a million times worse?

Well, I’m not angry with our leaders at COP15, but I’m very disappointed in them.

I don’t envy heads of state. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.” Well the same goes for pleasing them. I understand that there may be economic hiccups on the road to energy independence, but there will be starvation, storms, and drought on the road to climate-induced apocalypse. In fact, it’s already happening.

The deal that’s come out of Copenhagen is not terrible. For one, it marks the first pledges by the world’s worst polluters to change their course and allow the world to keep tabs.

But while the developed world stands around congratulating itself on its bold moves to combat climate change, the developing world might be busy starving to death. That’s where the 100 billion dollars come in, eh?

That’s not exactly pocket change, and certainly $100 billion, well spent, will help in the global efforts to combat climate change. But forgive me (and many others) from being reminded of indulgences, the Renaissance-era Catholic practice which allowed parishioners to literally buy forgiveness.

The most serious and concrete commitments of the Copenhagen accord are financial. And while it’s true that financial commitments are easy to measure and track, they’re not easy to valuate when it comes to environmental impact, much like a Cap & Trade system. Without a solid, effective “cap,” the trade is nothing more than penance.

So what are we left with? A limp pledge by the biggest polluters to try to reduce emissions? Possibly. Before the U.S. can actually commit to any of these pledges we’ll have to get something though the House, Senate, and White House. This is an opportunity for the U.S. to affect real change. Strong, binding legislation is what it’s going to take to get the ball rolling.