Copenhagen: a failure on the part of politicians

Around 60,000 people converged on Denmark’s capital city, Copenhagen, for the United Nations Climate Change Conference. World leaders and high-level officials from nearly 200 countries worked around the clock in order to try and reach an agreement on how to tackle the threat of climate change. For two weeks, the eyes of the world were fixed on this monumental summit. Now, with world leaders back in the safety of their own countries and the smoke cleared on proceedings, we are left to consider how two years of negotiation and the participation of the world’s most powerful figures have fallen so far short of what is needed.

Heads of State have argued that criticism leveled at them for failure is unfounded, and that progress has been made, and that the outcomes of negotiations are ‘meaningful’. In particular, recognition of the scientific case for keeping temperature rise to 2°C within the accord has been labelled as an important step forward. Yet, paradoxically, as support for the science was established, political will to act appeared to disintegrate. Rather than a binding treaty committing countries to meaningful greenhouse gas emissions cuts to ensure a temperature rise of no more than 2°C, we have been offered the ‘Copenhagen Accord’; an agreement that cuts should be made, but with no mention of actual numbers.

In keeping with the closed nature of discussions, which saw civil society locked out in the cold, literally and figuratively, the Copenhagen Accord fails to address the plight of millions of people living at the frontline of climate change that have been or are likely to be displaced as a result of deteriorating environmental conditions.

It appears that, despite surprising alliances built between developed and developing countries, a deal on tackling climate change was blocked by a handful of states. The two countries with unique leadership potential, China and the USA, have notably failed to protect anything beyond their own self-interests. Under questions of sovereignty, China blocked all proposals on the verification of emissions reductions targets, meanwhile President Obama failed to make any commitments beyond a pledge to back the $100 billion fund proposed for long-term adaptive financing.

A non-binding treaty devoid of explicit commitments cannot be seen as anything other than a failure on the part of politicians.

Now more than ever, we as individuals must recognize our potential power to affect change. Our votes and our voices will be instrumental in ensuring that our governments do not run and hide from the challenges that climate change poses, but instead embrace the opportunities that will arise from the expansion of green technologies and alternative economic approaches.

EJF believes that urgent action must be taken to prevent the worst case scenarios of climate change being realized. This must include a legally-binding treaty that protects those displaced by climate change – climate refugees – with an accompanying financial arm and an expansion of national renewable energy portfolios.