The “C” rated Accord

“We have a deal in Copenhagen,” UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said, referring to the Copenhagen Accord. I rated the “deal” as a “C” Accord. But many world leaders had exaggerated the importance of the Climate Deal. They came up with a new deal at the end of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (Dec-7-18) and called it an “unprecedented breakthrough” or “a major step forward.” The fact is, this “deal” was whipped up by only five countries, Brazil, China, India, United States and South Africa for fearing that there would not be any agreed outcome from the Copenhagen Conference. Leaders of other countries (outside of those fives) were divided on how to end the Conference without an agreed negotiated text. They wanted a legally binding treaty to replace the soon-to-be-expired “Kyoto Treaty” which 187 delegations voted for in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. Reluctantly, those leaders decided to “take note” of the “Copenhagen Accord”instead of formally approving it. The text of the agreement includes a method for verifying each nations reduction of green-house gases, an emergency aid to poor developing countries and a reduction of carbon emission to keep the increase in average global temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius. The accord failed on a binding deal to reduce green-house gases and on a concrete plan to protect the tropical forests. Most of the Conference’s participants were disappointed that they did not have legally binding treaty. After two years of negotiations, in several UN meetings venues in Indonesia, Thailand and Germany, I am also disappointed that in the end of the negotiation process, we did not have a new treaty on Climate Change. From reading the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) on “Climate Change 2007”, we know that in the absence of mitigation policies, there is a possibility of disappearance of sea ice by the end of the 21st century. That there will be increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation, and in tropical cyclone intensity. Scientists have predicted the decrease in water resources due to climate change in the Mediterranean Basin, western United States, southern Africa and north-eastern Brazil. There is also a possibility of Greenland ice sheet disappearance resulting in the rise of sea-level of about 7 meters. While 20-30 percent of species assessed so far will be at risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5 to 2.5 degree Celsius. Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stress on water resources from population growth and economic land-use change. And there will be a significant future increase in heavy rainfall, resulting in flooding of many regions of the world. Climate change increases atmospheric carbon dioxide that will make the oceans become acidic. The consequences of which could be serious for all forms of marine organisms and other forms of life. I agree whole heartedly with Tara Buakamsri, a campaign manager of Greenpeace Southeast Asia, that the World must take decisive action on climate change. I don’t think we should allow world leaders to continue wasting of time making ineffective deals after deals based on their narrow local political and economic interests, thus compromising the safety of us and future generations.