Главная страница | Контакты | Случайная страница Автомобили Астрономия Биология География Дом и сад Другие языки Другое Информатика История Культура Литература Логика Математика Медицина Металлургия Механика Образование Охрана труда Педагогика Политика Право Психология Религия Риторика Социология Спорт Строительство Технология Туризм Физика Философия Финансы Химия Черчение Экология Экономика Электроника

Concluding remarks

While the COP in Copenhagen was one of the most chaotic UN conferences in recent history – and certainly the most bizarre conference I have attended – and while the outcomes disappointed even some observers with low expectations (except perhaps observers in the US), all hope need not be lost. First, important shifts can be witnessed in the positions of China and the United States, and the fact that these countries have agreed on something in the first place can be regarded as a success. Second, many countries seem to agree on the need for a legally binding agreement, although it will be some time before all countries are actually ready to agree on such a treaty. Third, it should be remembered that not all climate change action originates from the UN process. Indeed, autonomous action is already taking place in many countries irrespective of an international agreement, while many initiatives have also been started at the sub-national level and by non-state actors. For instance, the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has been launched independent from the international legal framework. Indeed, carbon pricing policies such as emissions trading schemes implemented at the domestic level can provide an important incentive for large-scale behavioural change, although their effectiveness in the area of climate change is not undisputed.

However, avoiding the dangerous impacts of climate change ultimately requires collective action – both in terms of reducing emissions and supporting vulnerable countries in adapting to climate impacts – and the Copenhagen Accord does not provide any firm guarantees that such action will indeed take place. The bottom-up nature of the agreement enables countries to only pledge what they are politically willing to do, rather than what is required on the basis of considerations of environmental effectiveness and equity. Although the Accord alludes to a long-term temperature target, it does not provide any pathway for global emissions to actually stay below that target, and does not specify how the remaining atmospheric space to achieve the target should be shared among countries. Furthermore, while the compliance system of the Kyoto Protocol has its weaknesses, the Copenhagen Accord does not provide any mechanism to incentivise countries to fulfil their pledges.

In sum, while I believe that Copenhagen does not need to go into history as the conference that wrecked the climate, I think that it is at best a small step forward in the fight against climate change. Only time will tell whether countries are willing to step up their efforts, and ensure that the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change are avoided.

^* Harro van Asselt is researcher at the Department of Environmental Policy Analysis of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam. I would like to thank Constanze Haug for her comments on an earlier draft.