The end result? A non-legally-binding agreement to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Which is not as good as the "1.5 to stay alive" developing nations were calling for, not to mention some other flaws:
An obvious flaw: the pact is not legally binding, and while it commits to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), it fails to set targets for greenhouse-gas emission cuts...
Obama came to Denmark under pressure to make concessions to Europe and developing states-but stuck by his offer to only cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. He also dodged saying how much the United States would pay as part of a deal to help developing states tackle warming. Holding that line may help preserve fragile support for a deal in the U.S. Senate.
In other words, the whole "2 degrees" thing might just be a pipe dream. And the U.S.'s 17 percent emissions cuts are really a 4 percent cut below 1990 levels - the benchmark the rest of the world is using - and it's inadequate by a factory of 10. Still, it's not like Obama could get 67 votes in the Senate to ratify anything decent that might have come out of Copenhagen.
A real hero who rose out of the past two weeks is Tuvalu - a country most of us had probably never heard of before Copenhagen. Here are some critiques of the agreement from their point of view:
Half a dozen developing countries led the charge, blasting the document as a cozy backdoor deal that violated U.N. democracy, excluded the poor, and doomed the world to disastrous climate change.
"It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future," said Ian Fry of Tuvalu, a tiny Pacific island whose very existence is threatened by rising seas. The draft set a commitment to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), but did not spell out the important stepping stones-global emissions targets for 2020 or 2050-for getting there. It did not identify a year by which emissions should peak, a demand made by rich countries that was fiercely opposed by China. And, under it, pledges are voluntary and free from tough compliance provisions to ensure they are honored.
And then there's the point of view of the climate scientists who say the agreement "falls perilously short of what is needed to stave off catastrophic global warming."
What many had hoped would be a planet-saving treaty locking major economies into strong commitments to shrink their carbon footprints came out as a three-page political accord with key numbers yet to be filled in.
"The easiest yardstick to evaluate is the 2-degree [Celcius] target," said Andrew Watson, a professor at the University of East Anglia in Britain. "This agreement will almost certainly not be sufficient to enable that target to be met - legally binding tough limits in place over the next few years would be needed for that," he told AFP by email.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Nobel-winning U.N. science group, warned in a benchmark 2007 report that if average temperatures increase by more than 2.0 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels, it could lead to runaway climate change and severe impact.
We have already traveled 0.7 C along that path. [emphasis mine] |
