Toothless Copenhagen Accord

China and the United States have both been blamed for the lackluster contents of the United Nation’s Copenhagen Accord on climate change. While the meeting, which involved 193 nations and 110 heads of state, widely recognized a definition of ‘dangerous climate change’—a global temperature rise of 2C from pre-industrial times—it contained no reference to a legally binding agreement, said the BBC. The United States is blamed for ignoring the critical needs of developing nations and striking a deal behind their back with ‘significant economies’, China, Brazil, India and South Africa. Others blame China for removing key climate change targets from the text which campaigners said would have given the accord ‘teeth’ and even made it legally binding. According to the Guardian, in a late night heads-of-state meeting it was the Chinese delegation who did not want to include industrialized country targets—as high as 80 percent by 2050 for the European Union—even though these had been previously agreed. The peaking year of 2020 for CO2 global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures of 2C, was also taken out upon Chinese demand, as was the maximum global temperature rise of 1.5C, so coveted by developing nations and small island states. One hundred and two nations poor nations represented at the conference called for a 1.5C cap said the Guardian. In its place the text shows that a rise of 2C is not a formal target but a recognized scientific view that the temperature should be held below that figure, said the BBC. The long-term target of a cut in global CO2 emissions of 50 percent by 2050 was also taken out upon Chinese recommendations. It is widely thought that China did not want legally binding targets that would impede its economic development. However China’s announcement prior to Copenhagen of a target of a 40-45 percent reduction in the carbon intensity of the Chinese economy by 2020 shows that regardless of a non-binding treaty, China’s current domestic policy to embrace a low carbon future will not change, said China Review. The Accord also promised $30 billion of aid for development nations over the next year to help deal with the effects of climate change and promises of rich nations jointly mobilizing $100 billion per year by 2020.

The final Copenhagen Accord, including all previous amendments and proposed changes are listed on the website of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, http://unfccc.int/2860.php

It will NOT get cooler

The Copenhagen global warming conference involved 193 nations getting together to discuss the threat that global warming poses to our planet and what can be done about it. The goal was to create a global agreement that extended and expanded the Kyoto Protocol so that a global organization could influence and monitor all nations' efforts to reduce their CO2 emissions.

Global warming believers did not get their way, either in extending the Kyoto agreement or in forming any global organization to tell all of the world's people how to lead their lives. But developing nations did get something:

• A promise of support for $30 billion over the first three years and a goal of growing it to $100 billion annually by 2020.
• The developing nations saw climate change as an enormous financial bonanza if, under the banner of the environment, they could get wealthy nations to transfer wealth to them.
• The wealthy nations of course saw this as a trap: Why would they want to depress their economic growth by giving money to developing nations?
• The truth of the Copenhagen agreement is that developing countries want cash from other countries with few strings attached.

So the final Copenhagen deal did not establish greenhouse gas emission targets or specifically address how nations must limit temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, but it did agree that CO2 emissions could be measured, reported and verified by . . . well, someone. That, in China's terms, means "developed countries must take the lead" in making emission cuts and providing financial and technical support for developing countries.

In truth, the world dodged a bullet in Copenhagen. There could have been significant damage to many nations' economies if the warming alarmists' full agenda had been adopted. But of course the game has not ended. President Obama, Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency all seem committed to regulating our behavior and consumption under the guise of addressing a crisis that is not a crisis. They will do so in a way that will not meaningfully reduce global temperatures, but will substantially hurt the economies and opportunities of the world's people.

Global warming - does anyone care?