Damian Ryan, senior analyst, The Climate Group
"The winners are the Obama administration. The outcome should be acceptable to Congress...The most disappointed is the European Union (Photo: The Climate Group)
The Copenhagen Accord has been called many things—a crime, a cop out, a first step, a breakthrough. What would you call it?
It is a leap of faith because it leaves it up to governments to introduce climate actions, as opposed to the Kyoto Protocol’s specific emissions reductions targets.
Some people say we need a top down Kyoto-style approach otherwise we have no certainty.
Others prefer a bottom-up approach that says it is better to get started now rather than trying to find a perfect deal. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good, they say. This is the side I would be on. To dismiss the Accord now would be premature.
In the best-case scenario we have a stronger agreement because we have got China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other developing countries into an agreement where they will take action.
In the worst-case scenario it could have weakened what we already have. We need to see action in the next 6 to 12 months, or we will be in trouble.
What actions would make the Copenhagen Accord a success?
In the U.S we need to see Congress pass cap and trade legislation, the Waxman-Markey bill, to ensure at least the 17 percent emissions cut promised.
But as Congressman Markey said in Copenhagen, there is space to make this bill stronger. If Congress reacts well to President Obama’s claim he’s delivered China into a deal, we could see the U.S go for a 20 to 25 percent cut.
If China and India deliver schedules for their actions, and also allow those actions to be monitored, reported and verified (MRV), that would send a powerful signal.
Developed countries should be entering their emissions reductions targets into the Accord by February 1. If we see increases—for example the EU going to 25 or 30 percent—that would be a better basis for engaging developing countries: but not if they simply offer the same numbers as before.
Finally, if we quickly get the short-term funding to 2012 that would provide political good will.
Doesn’t the lack of a deadline for a binding deal make the Accord toothless?
If there is not a clear timetable for pulling everything together then that raises questions about the substance of the Accord. There is a review period but other than that there is no mechanism to ratchet up action. We need that structure in place because without it countries will not engage.
Why wasn’t there a more ambitious agreement? What were the biggest obstacles?
It came down to the U.S. dependence on Congress and its current level of ambition: a 4 percent emissions reduction from 1990 levels was perceived as a weak target.
Until it saw the U.S. move China wasn't going to move and the U.S. would not move unless China moved more on MRV. The rest of the world was waiting for those two.
If the U.S. had moved, the EU would have gone to 30 percent, putting pressure on Australia and Canada. For this domino effect to happen the U.S. and China needed to go in tandem. But neither moved on from the positions they arrived with.
So who were the winners and losers?
The winners are certainly the Obama administration. The outcome should be acceptable to Congress. They can say they got China and India on board. Obama brought back something much better than what Al Gore got from Kyoto.
