Copenhagen accord – light at the end of the tunnel
|
by Clay Nesler, Johnson ControlsAs of the January 31st deadline, 55 countries had formally submitted GHG reduction commitments to the UNFCCC. These 55 countries represent 78% of all global emissions from energy use and include Australia, Canada, the European Union and its member states, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, the United States as well as 23 developing countries including Brazil, China, India, the Republic of Korea, and South Africa. Having witnessed the UNFCCC negotiations first hand, I can safely say that it would be very difficult to get 192 countries to agree to anything, much less a climate change treaty. The Copenhagen Accord, which was brokered at the last minute of the last day, may not be the legally-binding treaty many were looking for but it might just be a politically-binding agreement that we can build from.
One of the positive aspects of the Accord, besides its broad representation of major emitting nations, is the commitment to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. Adding up the Copenhagen Accord commitments, some of which are contingent on the actions of other countries, they are about half as ambitious as necessary to achieve this goal. Without a legal treaty, the burden to meet these commitments rests with national governments. This in itself is not bad, as we saw many nations, states and cities making much stronger climate commitments than their national and regional negotiators would bring forward.
Most of the work in actually achieving reduction commitments will be driven by national and state policy. Recently adopted policies in China, India and other countries to promote greater investment in building energy efficiency and renewable energy with create demand for our energy solutions offerings. Other elements of the Accord, including creation of a $30B fund for adaptation and mitigation, an agreement on deforestation, a process for international monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) and a registry for reduction targets and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMA) are all positive developments.
There is indeed light at the end of the tunnel, it is just likely to be a very long tunnel.
It has been over a month since returning from Copenhagen and I often reflect on what happened and ponder what will happen next. While many around the world viewed the lack of a legally-binding treaty as a major disappointment, I went to Copenhagen with rather low expectations and actually see some light at the end of the tunnel.
What do you see ahead as a result of what happened in Copenhagen? Submit your comments below.
 |
Subscribe to this comment's feed
