Is the Climate Accord a good first step?

Is the Climate Accord a good first step to tackling global climate change issues? How do you think it could be best interpreted and translated into action at an Australian level – especially vis a vis our commitments to reducing poverty in the Pacific Island Countries?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 19/01/2010 09:38:04

Well, this is the million dollar question. It’s not a good first step, because it isn’t a first step. That would have to have been the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed in 1992. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which implements the UNFCCC, but only up to 2012, was the second step. And now we are moving to a third post-2012 step. The Copenhagen Accord is stronger than Kyoto because it recognizes that all major emitters should commit to taking action to reduce emissions, not just rich countries. That’s a real breakthrough, and one which hasn’t got enough recognition yet. But the Accord also has weaknesses. Here are three:

The first is that it is a statement of principles. It needs to be converted into a legal agreement, and that will take time, and include potential pitfalls.

The second is that the Accord is only a framework. It contains no numbers. While lots of countries have said what they are prepared to do to reduce emissions, we don’t know if other countries think that these offers go far enough. In particular, China is still suggesting that the developed countries are not promising big enough emissions cuts. It is unclear how long it will take or how difficult it will be to reach agreement over the numbers.

The third is that while the Accord, or whatever it is called when translated into a legal agreement, will cover all countries, the Kyoto Protocol will continue to exist post-2012, but binding only rich countries, and not the U.S (and perhaps others – Canada?). It’s not clear to see the rationale for the continued existence of the Kyoto Protocol given the Accord, and it will certainly make life more complex to have two treaties (the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord) both implementing the same underlying agreement (the UNFCCC). But the continued existence of the Kyoto Protocol seems to have been one of the prices which had to be paid to get developed countries on board.

That’s a long answer, and I hope it makes sense. Overall, the Accord is a step forward. But there is a long way to go. There are risks ahead. And the final outcome, if there is one, will be a messy two-agreement world.

As to what Australia should do, see my answer to the Question - What are some actions Australia could take to establish credibility with developing nations?