In 2012, the Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes and global warming runs out. To keep the process on the line there is an urgent need for a new climate protocol. During the conference in Copenhagen 2009 the parties of the UNFCCC met for the last time on government level before the climate agreement is renewed. Therefore, the Climate Conference in Copenhagen (2009) is a positive step to bring consensus among the countries before a final strategy is chalked out to protect the earth’s environment and it is a very important one indeed.
Many commentators are discussing about the successes and failures of the Copenhagen Summit. However, it is really very difficult to come up with a clear picture as no legally binding agreement is made. Some of the vital points that are important for analyzing the Copenhagen summit are as follows:
* Acknowledgement of the impending crisis: The (so-called) Copenhagen accord “recognises” the scientific case for keeping temperature rises to no more than 2 degree Celsius.
* A legally Binding Contract by next year: A proposal attached to the accord calls for a legally binding treaty to be pinned down by the end of next year.* Financing for the poor nations: The climate agreement says that developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries. Developed countries set a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. The funds will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral.
* Separate emission reduction norms for developed and developing countries: The mitigation plans (For climate change) are included in two separate annexes, one for developed country targets and one for the voluntary pledges of major developing countries.
* Checks and Verifications for developing countries: The Copenhagen accord says that the emerging economies must monitor their efforts and report the results to the United Nations every two years, with some international checks to meet Western transparency concerns but “to ensure that national sovereignty is respected”.
* Protection of the forests: The accord “recognises the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests”, and agrees to provide “positive incentives” to fund such action with financial resources from the developed world.
* Carbon trade: The accord acknowledges the importance of use of the carbon markets in facilitating the enhancement of cost-effective techniques and to promote mitigation action plans.
The issue that is being addressed by the convention is really very big and all 115 countries that participated in the Copenhagen Summit have to do more than just lip service to save the world from the perils of global warming.
The summit is stated to be the one last step to save the Kyoto Protocol and given the attendance of the summit it can be said that nations have raised to the challenges of the global warming. There is a consensus that steps must be taken to stop global warming but it remains to be seen how much is translated to reality. Critics of the Copenhagen Summit have come up with following points to doubt the outcome of the “Copenhagen Accord”.
o No legally binding agreement: No legally binding agreement was made so the level of success of the conference is unclear. As a result there are many different opinions about the degree of progress made on climate change policy.
o No emission cut-off target for the developed countries: The spirit of procrastination has dominated the deliberation of the Copenhagen Summit. The developed countries have again avoided any clear-cut cut-off targets for now. This will be a difficult topic to find consensus in the future as well.
o No real agreement to finance the projects in developing countries: Although it is stated that the developed countries will pool in some $ 100 Billion for the projects in developing countries but then again it lacks and backing in terms of words.
o Consensus on sharing the responsibility elusive: The impending issue of environmental crisis is staring all of us and the Copenhagen Summit didn’t act as an ice-breaker between the developed and developing countries. Various groups are acting as an independent entity and are focusing on few issues only.
In a nutshell, a lot is promised but what is promised has to be fulfilled. This precondition is missing from the Copenhagen Accord. It remains to be seen how the world will reciprocate to this impending ‘Humanitarian Crisis’.
0 comments on "The Copenhagen Summit:Drama ?"
Subscribe in a Reader
Post a Comment