An inconvenient truth

An inconvenient truth

Mid-afternoon on Saturday December 19 and Yvo de Boer, the UN's chief climate negotiator, has just uttered the words that perhaps best describe the nature of the deal here.

Asked what it means that the Copenhagen Accord has been 'taken note' of by the parties, he replied: "'Taken note' means that it has been recognised by the parties without anyone actually having to subscribe to it."

That is the shape of success at Copenhagen.

Hailed as an "essential beginning" by UN secretary general Ban Ki-Moon, the accord is little more than a guideline for future talks. It commits no single party to any single firm action. There are no precise targets, no accountable promises, no deadlines.

Certainly, it is success clawed from the jaws of defeat. But it is an expedient success that will be trumpeted by a few as far more than it is.

In reality, this conference simply could not afford to be deemed a failure. The global momentum to recognise and act against climate change - however long that action may be in coming - stood to be lost or irretrievably damaged.

Remember Bali? Two years ago similarly tortuous talks through night and day resulted in a firm action plan aimed at achieving a result in Copenhagen.

It was to commit developed countries to legally-binding targets to limit emissions, and developing ones to come up with workable National Action Plans. It envisaged far higher levels of commitment from all sides, in terms of finance, technology transfer, clean energy development and emissions cuts. 

Two years later Copenhagen merely erects another signpost on the long road towards concrete action. Another year awaits. The next conference of the parties (or COP) is to be held in Mexico next November. Ban Ki-Moon has urged the world to make a binding deal there.

We've heard that sort of talk before.