The climate change talks at Copenhagen, despite last-ditch efforts by President Obama and many others, went on through the night, into the morning and then into the early afternoon.  In the end, no legal agreement, though they do have a “Copenhagen Accord” with a maximum temperature agreement, financial support, deforestation agreements, and lots more that will be analyzed for months. If you have heard that Obama accomplished a lot in Copenhagen, that depends on what you mean by “a lot”.    You can download the accord and read it: Copenhagen Accord (182 kB)

Here is the final statement from Yvo de Boer. You can read all the documents and see archived video on the UNFCCC site.

“Briefing the press at the end of the two-week conference, Yvo de Boer said an accord has been reached that has significant elements, but that is not legally binding.

He described the accord as “politically important,” demonstrating a willingness to move forward. It brings together a diversity of countries that have put in place a letter of intent with the ingredients of an architecture for a response to climate change.

The key points of the accord include the objective to keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; the commitment to list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012 and USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing, as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.

The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from now.”

The accord is a political agreement only, not  binding, and it’s primarily to reduce emissions on a voluntary basis without legal oversight.  The accord is called operational. That means the money pledged by countries to help poorer countries adapt and develop will be available to them.  Yvo  de Boer calls it “politically significant” but without legally binding requirements I don’t see how the U.S. and China and India will do what needs to be done in reducing emissions.   I do believe that most people in the U.S. government want to do what is necessary but there is strong political opposition from some anti-science right-wing Congressmen who are  most concerned with protecting their own state interests.

What would have helped get a legally binding document?  For one, stronger reliance on the science, and a strong climate change bill (as opposed to a cap and trade, or a jobs and energy bil) passing through the U.S. congress before this conference.  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has made a big deal recently of focusing on climate change from the perspective that it’s all about “jobs, jobs and jobs”.   No it’s not, it’s about science, the climate, the forces of nature that we will soon be unable to turn around,  and the future of humanity on the planet.  But such is the intelligence [...]