Seven reasons why Copenhagen was a success

The 15th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change held in the Danish capital Copenhagen in December was perhaps the most widely talked about event globally after the US presidential elections last year. It captured the imagination of millions and media prime time across the world. Surprisingly, like the US elections that pronounced the first non white man the winner, the Copenhagen conference was also based on “hope for a better future”. On Copenhagen were resting hopes of die hard green activists and more importantly future generations who would be burdened with the carbon debt of our age. Critics would argue, as many vehemently are, that all hopes from Copenhagen have been dashed and the accord agreed is nothing more than a document packed with empty words. If one were to start counting the accusations, the list would probably run into hundreds. But hold on; will the most powerful head of states, that include the US President elected on promise of delivering a better future and Oxbridge trained economist PM Manmohan Singh responsible for opening up the economic potential of India, ever try to agree on something that would have no practical benefit in the real world? Doubting their intentions and judgement is like doubting the millions of people who elected them; Copenhagen must have something positive to it.

While the non legal binding nature of the accord has given more fodder to the sceptics, as the first positive, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that the accord has finally committed the most powerful nations to a clear set objectives guided by climate science. Agreed the accord is not yet legally binding, but that is because of difficulty in agreeing to architecture of the future global agreement and not with the principle of agreement itself. Do we need one single treaty like the Kyoto? Or two separate ones, one for USA and another extension of Kyoto? These unanswered questions are more to do with the arrangements rather than the objectives themselves.

Secondly, never before have so many power nations together agreed and taken note of the need to limit temperature rise to 2 degree Celsius by 2050. This may be below what the ardent climate change campaigners want and will lead to some sea level rise, but it is an acceptable trade off between preventing dangerous climate change and giving us enough time to adapt to the harm that is now done.

Thirdly, the agreement does not mention anything about the “peaking year” or cap on emissions that developing countries furiously oppose, yet involves voluntary pledges by major developing countries. This reinforces the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and hence resolves one the major stumbling blocks that had characterised the climate change negotiations for long.

Fourthly, the agreement explicitly mentions the need to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Deforestation accounts for anywhere between 12% to 20 % of global emissions, yet was never part of Kyoto Protocol. Repeated studies have pointed out the reducing deforestation is the cheapest mitigation option available to mankind and must be controlled if we are to meet climate objectives. The Copenhagen accord has finally put a stamp to this.

Fifthly, the agreement puts hard numbers for cash on the table - US$ 100 billion per year by 2020 and US$ 30 billion between 2010 -2012. Considering that the current UN offset mechanism of Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has generated only US$ 6.5 Billion of offsets till date, these figures are impressive. While this may not be enough in the long run, it is a sizable amount to start with. Questions remain as to how the exact financial transfer will happen, but the fact that countries are ready to talk about concrete big numbers is definitely a positive step.

Next, the agreement mentions that developing country actions for voluntary reductions of emission can be verified subject to national sovereignty being respected. This was a major sticking point till last day of negotiations. However as President Obama mentioned in his address at Copenhagen that no deal is possible without full transparency, and such developing country transparency will only add to status of emerging powers like China and India.

Seventhly, the accord gives the US President a greater chance of passing of the Kerry-Boxer bill currently in US senate. The bill will create a US carbon market and its importance cannot be underestimated. Everyone has to gain by passing of the bill as it is likely to allow import of offsets from developing countries into the USA. The US demand will be close to three times, on an annual basis, to the current European demand and open up the multi-billion dollar US market. Much more money will flow to developing countries than currently flowing under the UN offset scheme of CDM.

The real problem is that many people went into Copenhagen expecting clear rules, timetables and emission targets – something that the leaders have left their subordinates deal with over next one year. The prices of carbon in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme, the only scheme currently operational in the world, tumbled by 8% after Copenhagen reflecting this frustration on clear cut rules. Uncertainty seems to be re-occurring problem in the climate change debate. Climate change politics and markets have been uncertain for last 18 years, since Rio 1992 and will remain so for next 10 year at least – learn to live with it. However, we can’t wait to know all the facts and for the precise and correct rules of engagement to be defined. We must start walking in the right direction with a clear objective in front of us. And Copenhagen does just that.