Developed countries agreed to commit to jointly providing an annual aid budget of US$100 billion by 2020. The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund was established to channel and manage the funding so that it is used efficiently and fairly. This money will go towards mitigation and adaptation schemes in LEDCs. Particularly highlighted in the accord were REDD schemes (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, which provide financial incentives for LEDCs to reduce emissions from deforestation, a major contributor of CO2. There are already schemes operating in major deforesting countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, and international aid will have a significantly positive impact on the effectiveness of these schemes. A Technology Mechanism to accelerate the development of technology to support adaptation and mitigation was also mentioned. This is particularly crucial in respect of those developing countries that are already feeling the effects of climate change and need faster advances in technology in order adapt to them. However, there is no specific detail of where the funds will come from or guarantee that they will transpire. Many feel Gorden Brown, who has decided to use the already existing UK overseas aid budget to fund the CGCF (thereby using the same funds ”twice”), has already exploited the lack of specificity. This means that part of the financial aid that would otherwise combat ongoing poverty and vulnerability to natural disasters is reduced by the amount that must now be committed to mitigating climate change – recession-induced penny-pinching. Apart from that, the deadline is far too far away and the budget barely a fifth of what is needed for LEDCs to cope with climate change according to WWF. Inflation is also likely to devalue the fund considerably by 2020. This is not enough to support and protect developing countries especially as deep cuts in emissions are unlikely to occur anyway, and the need for increasingly unaffordable adaptation schemes will become more urgent.
Political tensions had some impacts on the outcome of COP15. At the conference a leaked document caused political tension between developed and developing nations. The text, known as “The Danish Text” was supposed to be a basic draft of the accord devised mainly by the UK, Denmark and the USA. It outlined unfair limits on emission reductions whereby MEDCs would be allowed to emit a maximum of 2.67 tonnes but LEDCs only 1.44 tonnes. It also referred to the abandonment of the Kyoto treaty, and to the handing back of financial control to the World Bank instead of the UN, which would not be in the best interest of LEDCs. Developing nations saw this as a gross betrayal and was part of the reason why Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Cuba pulled out. There was also a lot of mistrust over China’s intentions. There are a lot of conservative opinions in China with only a third of the country agreeing that climate change is a serious issue. Many criticised China for not taking enough responsibility and refusing to accept specific goals such as an 80% emission cut by 2050.
Despite the huge advances in the scientific research of climate change, the 2007 IPCC warnings of faster and irreversible effects of climate change, and massively improved technology, COP15 has all but completely failed to surpass the Kyoto Protocol. For instance, the Kyoto protocol became legally binding in 2005 (admittedly 8 years after the first accord) and committed developed countries to a 5.2% cut in emissions by 2012 at which point the protocol will expire. However, COP15 is not legally binding and once Kyoto has expired the parties to the accord will be under no legal obligations until 2015 when it will be reviewed. Although, Kyoto’s emission target wasn’t a very ambitious target, the committed countries are way off target with a predicted 10% rise above 1990 levels by 2010. With this in mind, COP15 has still committed no emission reduction goals anywhere in the treaty apart from “recognition” of the need to keep the global temperature rise below 2C. Finally, the USA were fully behind the COP15 agreement but still turned up with very low ambitions, prepared to reduce emission by just 4% below 1990 levels compared to the EU’s promise of a 20% reduction below 1990 levels. This sort of dedication was also applied to the Kyoto Protocol when the USA, who was at the time responsible for 25% of global emissions, pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol saying it was flawed. This participation of the USA was initially crucial to the ratification of the treaty but luckily Russia did sign bringing the reductions quota up to the required level and the treaty was able to go ahead. Only developed countries were required to commit to emission reduction goals, and big developing countries (and big emitters) such as India, China and Brazil did not have to ratify. COP15 did succeed in bringing all nations rich and poor together with the one subject in mind and LEDCs were also required to show some ambition towards emission cuts assuming financial help from developed countries. However, as mentioned before, there were no binding agreements over any emission goals.
Overall Australia, UK, India, China, and the USA were pleased but there were many references to the fact that “we have much further to go” (President Obama), and, more importantly, that agreements “need to become legally binding as quickly as possible” (Gordan Brown). COP15 did succeed in bringing developing and developed countries together with a common goal. This was not achieved by the Kyoto protocol in which only 141 countries ratified the treaty. It has also raised both political and public awareness of climate change, an issue that is now better understood and has definitely become one the top concerns of the world’s political leaders. Finally it has encouraged green growth as a successful economic model and both MEDCs and LEDCs are going forward with low-carbon plans. However, COP15 has crucially failed to create a legally binding deal or any decision to agree on a legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol. No global targets were made for reduction of emissions or details on how a low-carbon future can be achieved. Neither were there specific details on where funding is to come from, nor is the funding sufficient for supporting LEDCs. As it stands, we are now looking at a likely 3C rise rather than a 2C by 2100. In conclusion, COP15 may have been seen as an “essential beginning” (UN minister) but it should by now, 30 years after the balance of evidence for global warming became convincingly positive, have been more than that.
