For anyone mildly interested in what was accomplished these past two weeks in Copenhagen, it is easy to be disappointed. Walking downstairs this morning, The Washington Post cover greeted me with one of many depressing headlines I’ve seen today: “Climate Deal Falls Short of Key Goals.” Skimming articles on the web, titles clearly exhibit anger and frustration at the perceived lack of progress at the UN Climate Change Conference.

The obvious question is “What exactly is in that non-binding accord that the US, China, India, Brazil, and several others signed at the conference?” The Huffington Post has a clear and succinct summary of the press release that was given to the media here.

First of all, various countries have made nonbinding commitments to reduce emissions by 2020. The US has pledged a 3-4% reduction from 1990 levels. The EU, on the other hand, has pledged a 30-40% cut and Japan a 25% cut. President Obama addressed this disparity in his press conference (I highly recommend reading the entire transcript here), stating:

“I think that the one principle that I brought to this is that whatever commitments we make, I want to be able to be sure that they’re actually commitments that we can keep.  So we tried to be modest in what we thought we could accomplish.  I think there was interest on the part of some to, for example, increase our mitigation targets.  Although when you look out in the years 2025 or 2030, our goals are actually entirely comparable with Europe’s.  On the front end they appear to be less, because frankly, they’ve had a head start over the last several years in doing things like energy efficiency that we care about.”

Secondly, there was significant pressure put on increasing transparency amongst nations. This is a particular source of contention between the US and China, the two greatest emitters in the world. Without a clear verification system, countries fear that others will cheat and get a significant economic advantage above the others as a result. Hilary Clinton spoke frankly about her inability to move forward without progress on this front, telling the press:

“There has to be a willingness to move toward transparency in whatever forum we finally determine is appropriate. So if there is not even a commitment to pursue transparency that is kind of a dealbreak for us.”

The third, and largest development at the conference was the commitment by world leaders to spend $30 billion over the next three years and $100 billion by 2020 to help poor nations grapple with the effects of climate change and help them convert to a cleaner economy without impeding economic growth. The US is willing to contribute to this fund as long as all major nations, China and India in particular, are willing to submit their reductions to transparent verification.

As expected, rainforests received a substantial amount of attention and discussion at the conference. Six countries – Australia, Britain, France, Japan, Norway, and the US – have all agreed to spend $3.5 billion to help fight deforestation. This program will run from 2010-2012. Though there was a lot of hope that negotiators would finally develop a legal and undisputed framework for reducing deforestation, known as REDD, leaders could not come to agreement and there were concerns about rich nations being willing to finance the program. This is not to say that the REDD program has not made progress as some of the money from the $100 billion fund could go towards helping prevent deforestation.

While these developments are certainly a disappointment compared to the optimistic predictions that circulated prior to the conference, the lack of progress in Copenhagen highlights for the general public how truly difficult the task at hand is. For the first time, the world is facing a common crisis whose solution will have severe economic and political implications. Obama recognized the difficulty of negotiating an international agreement given these circumstances, stating at his press conference, “Climate change threatens us all; therefore, we must bridge old divides and build new partnerships to meet this great challenge of our time. That’s what we’ve begun to do here today.” David Fahrenthold, in a Washington Post article, also recognized that we underestimated the difficulty of the political task at hand:

“Just because climate change doesn’t respect borders doesn’t mean borders don’t matter. In past months, the Senate climate debate has shown that, despite exhortations that the problem threatens every American, many senators have focused on their states’ interests first. In past weeks, a similar dynamic has played out among nations. Altering the dynamic of future conferences will require finding a way to make them feel their short-term national interests are served.”

As we look into the future, especially here in the US, it is important that we fight to get climate change legislation passed in the house. Currently, senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) are working to draft a bill. With the Copenhagen conference reaching a close, the focus will switch to ensuring that next year at the UN Conference in Mexico City we overcome some of the obstacles that we encountered at Copenhagen and make progress where we failed.

Check out some great pictures from the conference here!

See it, Save it

- daphne