Nations pledge new emissions goals in Copenhagen Accord
By Alex Chen
Feb. 8, 2010 9:44 p.m.
Nations submitted their pledges for emissions reductions under the Copenhagen Accord two weeks ago, creating a landmark class of commitments by the European Union and countries such as the United States, China and India.
Under the new agreement, China has pledged to reduce its per capita emissions by 40 to 45 percent below 2005 levels, and the European Union has pledged to reduce general emissions by 20 to 30 percent below 1990 levels.
“One of the real breakthroughs of the Copenhagen Accord is that, for the first time, it includes pledges from both the developed world ““ the U.S., the European Union, Japan, other major industrial countries ““ and pledges from the developing world, including major emitters like China and India,” said Cara Horowitz, the executive director for the Emmett Center on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA, who had traveled to Copenhagen to observe the negotiations.
Unlike previous agreements that end in 2012, reached at Kyoto, Japan, this year’s negotiations have created unprecedented participation and cooperation between developed and developing nations, Horowitz said.
The Kyoto Protocol was consistently criticized for its emission lowering requirements, which were only required for developed nations and not for developing nations. Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol was weakened after the U.S. refused to ratify the treaty.
But not all that emerged from Denmark warrants optimism, said Paul Bunje, the executive director of the Center for Climate Change Solutions at UCLA.
The Copenhagen Accord rose above a climate of discontent as negotiations were stalled until the final days of the convention. With little hope for a full replacement to Kyoto, the leaders of five nations ““ the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa ““ met in the waning hours of the convention and scrapped together an agreement that many believed lacked true direction and legal commitment.
“The Copenhagen accord is pretty weak. It’s not binding. It’s a political commitment the countries can choose to make or not, and they can set their own emissions goals,” Bunje said.
With no legal binding to the Copenhagen Accord, the creation of and adherence to the terms and goals submitted two weeks ago are completely in the hands of each nation.
For example, the target reduction of the U.S. is only in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, well below the goals of other industrialized nations.
Because of its large economy and few years of climate consciousness, compared to the market shift toward cleaner energy sources by many such as the European Union, the United States has clearly not committed to the same degree as other major industrial countries, Horowitz said.
Even with the lower pledge, the U.S. still faces the obstacle of legally and logistically binding itself to fulfilling its emission cutting goals.Â
“The United States’ commitment is contingent on the U.S. taking domestic legislative action because without approval of Congress, through a climate energy bill of these levels of reduction, they are unlikely to be adopted or achieved,” Horowitz said.
Even with the House passing a climate bill over the summer, it is still to be determined whether a comprehensive market plan for emission reductions can be passed through the Senate, with the Obama administration focusing on the health care debate and Senate Democrats losing seats and majority powers, she added.
But President Barack Obama has included increased funding for alternative energies, such as nuclear power, as well as a placeholder for a deficit neutral market plan for emissions reduction in his budget proposal, which was released last week.
The inclusion of such a placeholder makes easier the possible implementation of a market system such as a cap-and-trade system designed to cut emissions to the United States’ pledged level, Bunje said.
But until nations such as the U.S. can legally acknowledge and commit to the Copenhagen Accord, its effectiveness will continue to be in question.
“At minimum, (the Copenhagen Accord) indicates that there was a degree of consensus arrived at and willingness to continue negotiating as part of the process,” Bunje said.
