In the end it was much ado about nothing. The dust might have settled, but the debate continues about the Copenhagen Accord — the non-binding and toothless deal that does little to cement change on the climate change front.
The much-hyped, hotly debated summit initially had many environmentalists hoping it would result in a successor to the Kyoto Accord. It turns out the meetings of 119 world minds ended in mostly failure and inaction. The agreement commits the world to limiting the effects of climate change by less than 2 C. The world’s wealthier nations will create a $30-billion emergency fund to help poor nations fight climate change over the next three years. Developing nations will receive $100-billion by 2020.
While these measures appear encouraging, the amount of progress is debatable. The accord says countries will “take note,” instead of formally approving the deal. Other wording was watered down or eliminated, including the target of cutting global emissions by 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. It’s up to rich countries to set their own emissions targets; developing nations must take steps to limit emissions without actually implementing targets.
It’s no wonder judgment has been harsh. “Well-meant but half-hearted pledges to protect our planet from dangerous climate change are simply not sufficient to address a crisis that calls for completely new ways of collaboration across rich and poor countries,” said Kim Carstensen, of the World Wildlife Fund. European Union nations are even arguing about who to blame, with Swedish Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren, calling it a “great failure,” and pointing fingers at the United States and China. “The leaders were united in purpose, but they were not yet united in action,” judged United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he supports the deal, but seems more preoccupied with how the U.S. Congress will react to climate change legislation. Harmonizing Canada’s climate change policy to the U.S. makes some sense given how close the two economies are intertwined, but it also delays action and does little immediate good for Canadian industry, which remains in limbo wondering if Canada’s target to cut emissions by 20 per cent of 2006 levels remains intact.
While Canada’s continued dithering is disheartening, it pales in comparison to the stalemate gripping global leaders. The summit turned into a showdown between the economic interests of the world’s largest polluters — the U.S. and China — and nations who recognized firm emissions targets are in everyone’s interests. Our leaders failed to even target a fixed date for when this ‘deal’ will become a substantial, legally binding accord. It also ignores some environmental issues altogether, including deforestation, now destined to be ignored until the next summit. Calling the fruits of Copenhagen a first step is hyperbole even with a glass half-full mentality.
Canada shoulders part of the blame and should return to its traditional role of a world leader that’s prepared to broker deals, not a nation on the sidelines waiting to play follow the leader. Instead of the “dirty old man,” Canada should be leading the charge toward meaningful emissions targets and investment in green technology. Change poses political risk, especially with Ontario and Quebec poised to fight a climate war over Alberta’s polluting oilsands, but there’s also risk to the Tories if they do nothing. We need leadership on this issue, not more delays.
