The_2009_Un_Climate_Change_Conference

THE 2009 UN CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE The 15th annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, also referred to as the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15), was held from the 7th of December to the 18th of December 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark. International politicians, diplomats, journalists and Non-governmental organizations attended this conference with the ultimate aim of producing an international agreement to succeed the Kyoto Protocol when it was to expire at the end of 2012. [2] Due to various political issues, it seemed improbable that this goal would be an actual outcome of the conference. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, formulated a list of essential issues that would have to be addressed in the likely event that a climate treaty was not established, if any kind of progress was to be made. This included determining how much the industrialized countries were willing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, how much major developing countries like China and India would be willing to do to limit the growth of their own emissions, how finances were going to be assembled to help developing nations attempt to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change, and how these finances were going to be managed. [2] As expected, a successor to the Kyoto Protocol was not agreed upon by the time the conference ended. The most significant outcome of COP15 was the Copenhagen Accord, however it is not legally recognized by the United Nations, nor is it legally binding on the parties in favour of it, due to international disagreements. This means that delegates were merely allowed to express their support or dissatisfaction with the Copenhagen Accord by recognizing its existence. [7] There were several political issues that affected the outcomes of the Copenhagen Conference. Almost all countries around the world agreed that it is a necessity for greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced. However, this caused a major conflict between developed and developing nations. The poorer, developing countries felt that, seeing as how the developed countries that comprised the industrialized world were mainly to blame for the emissions that led to climate change, they should have greater cutbacks on their emissions. However, this would mean that developed countries would have to reduce their amount of industries, resulting in major economic decline. The industrialized countries were unwilling, out of fear of losing economic power, to make such large emission reductions if the competing developing countries were not going to do the same as well. [1] It also appeared that the major political powers in the world were not interested in the development of a global deal, but rather more informal, legally unbinding negotiations and agreements amongst themselves. This involved countries like the USA, Brazil, South Africa, India and China. This caused a divergence with poorer developing nations because the actions of the USA and the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) were conducted without giving thought to the Bali Action Plan that had been signed two years prior to the Copenhagen Conference. The Bali Action Plan is a component of the Bali Roadmap, which was implemented by nations participating in the COP13 to confirm a binding agreement at the COP15 in 2009. The Bali Action Plan refers to a “shared vision for long term co-operative action”, with the ultimate goal being emission reductions. [3] Negotiations were also greatly inhibited due to faults with the US political system. Unlike most other nations where the representatives were entitled to put forward commitments on behalf of the entire government, the president of the USA, Barack Obama, was unable to express any assurances without first obtaining the complete support of the Congress. This made negotiations extremely difficult for delegates of other countries as he was not able to make any contributions. [3] There was also a political dilemma concerning the European Union’s involvement with the outcomes of the Copenhagen Conference. The EU was ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the seemingly superfluous Copenhagen Accord drafted by Brazil, China, India, South Africa, and the USA. If the EU had refused to accept the Accord, many other countries would have done the same and the Accord would have remained an unofficial agreement between a handful of countries. It would have been a symbol of their failure to reach a substantial contract at the conference. [3] The Copenhagen Conference also ensued in uproar due to protesters outside the conference. Hundreds of people were arrested for occasional violent outbursts during protest marches. The aim of the protestors was to push for the conference delegates to finalize a legally binding contract. The protestors were openly criticizing the UN’s lack of action with regards to accelerating the formation of an agreement that would ease the troubles faced by poorer, developing nations, who are also being greatly impaired despite the fact that industrialized, developed nations are comparatively more accountable for the present climate crisis. [5] The Copenhagen Accord, drafted solely by the USA, Brazil, South Africa, India and China, was the resultant outcome of the Copenhagen Conference. The UN consented to unofficially recognize its existence at the concluding session of the COP15 when all delegates were present. This Accord, however, is not legally binding on any of the approving parties, nor has it been set as the official successor of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. This Accord sanctions the extension of the Kyoto Protocol and emphasizes that climate change is one of the most testing global crises at present. [4] It stresses that a strong political stance is required to halt climate change, acknowledging that the industrialized world is mainly responsible for the emissions that have resulted in the current climate predicament, and that developing countries’ emissions are likely to increase as they strive for industrialization, so that even though there may be a unified global objective, their methods of combating climate change may vary. It does require an evaluation of the Accord’s implementation by 2015, including reaching a decision concerning the possibility of altering the Accord’s primary long-term goals, such as the restriction of temperature increases to a maximum of 1.5°C. [7] Despite general optimism regarding the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference, a binding agreement did not come out of the conference. This was due to a number of different factors, many of which were political issues. This include matters such as the world’s key political powers not being in favour of a global agreement, the flawed US political system that prohibited President Barack Obama from pledging anything on behalf of the US government, and the unexpected dismissal of the chief Danish negotiator, Thomas Becker, who had previously established relationships of trust with developing nations, thereby eliminating any chance of collaboration with the developing countries involved. [8] The general feeling about the conference from participating nations was not very positive. Many delegates from the 187 involved countries were noticeably displeased due to their exclusion from the meeting between the USA and the BASIC group of countries that resulted in the Copenhagen Accord. This was probably the main reason why many countries refused to support it. Even South Africa, regardless of the fact that it was a contributor to the Accord, was extremely critical of the fact that the agreement was in no way legally binding. Many countries were offended as it seemed that the host country, Denmark, was attempting to enforce its position on climate change on the rest of the participating nations. Many countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Sudan, Bolivia and Nicaragua have deemed the Accord to be completely unacceptable and are in protest of the fact that proper procedure was not instituted to draw up the Accord. [6] Personally, I believe that the Copenhagen Conference did not result in a constructive outcome. It was merely a repetition of the issues discussed during past Climate Change Conferences, and the ultimate goal of the conference was not achieved. I believe that until a fully legally binding agreement is formulated, no real improvement can be made. I think that instituting penalties for not abiding by the specifications of the agreement will be an ideal incentive for countries to really make an effort to combat climate change. I believe that, seeing as how the Copenhagen Accord was only drafted by five countries, it will most likely not be successful because it would probably only ensure that the economic security of a few nations was protected. A definite expectation of future conferences would be to finally create a legally binding successor to the Kyoto Protocol. It is vital that this be achieved as soon as possible due to the short time period before the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement should have actual targets to be achieved for emission reductions, and should be supported and drafted by the majority of the nations involved. Details about financial aid for poorer countries must be determined and an agreement should be reached about exactly how much individual countries were going to contribute to or benefit from said funds. This agreement should not be biased in any way and should accommodate the economic, technological, industrial and political capabilities of all countries. [4] REFERENCE LIST : 1. Vidal, J., Stratton,A., Goldenburg, S., 2009. Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure. The Guardian,[Internet]. Available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal [accessed 14 February 2010] 2. Anon, 2009. FAQ: Copenhagen conference 2009. CBC News [Internet]. Available at: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/01/f-copenhagen-summit.html#ixzz0iRJ3Cjbn [accessed 14 February 2010] 3. Garber, K., 2009. Top 5 Issues at the Copenhagen Climate Conference [Internet]. Available at: http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/articles/2009/12/08/top-5-issues-at-the-copenhagen-climate-conference.html [accessed 14 February 2010] 4. Shah, A., 2009. COP15—Copenhagen Climate Conference, Global Issues [Internet]. Available at: http://www.globalissues.org/article/784/cop15-copenhagen-climate-conference [accessed 14 February 2010] 5. Van der Zee, B., McKie, R., 2009. Hundreds arrested at Copenhagen protest rally, The Guardian [Internet]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord [accessed 14 February 2010] 6. Alvarez, P., 2009. Copenhagen 2009 [Internet]. Available at: http://arcticfocus.com/2009/12/22/south-africa-among-countries-unhappy-with-copenhagen-accord/ [accessed 14 February 2010] 7. Wikipedia, 2010. Copenhagen Accord [Internet]. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Accord [accessed 17 February 2010] 8. Anon, 2009. Why did Copenhagen fail to deliver a climate deal', BBC News [Internet]. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/8426835.stm