2 years, 2 weeks, and 12 paragraphs

Delegates from over 180 countries stood and applauded.  UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said, “This is a real breakthrough, a real opportunity for the international community to successfully fight climate change.”  This was the reaction from two years ago following the conclusion of COP 13 in Bali, Indonesia.

From the Bali conference, came the “Bali roadmap,” which was to lay the foundations for a future international agreement on climate change.  To further add impetus, COP 15 in Copenhagen was set as a deadline to get a deal finalized.

Over those two years, representatives from countries around the world convened periodically at a number of UNFCCC meetings to talk and negotiate in preparation for COP 15.

Then came the big show.  There were thousands of protesters, hundreds of arrests, thousands of delegates, and over a hundred world leaders present. 

Denmark seemed overwhelmed.  So too did the UNFCCC.

So too did NGOs who found themselves the odd man out when it was revealed too many people had been granted access to the Bella Center than could safely be handled. 

So too did delegates who quickly learned that Copenhagen was like nothing they had experienced before.  There was much more pressure and few restful nights.

So too did world leaders who learned that for two years prior, nothing of note had seemingly happened, meaning that in the waning days (hours in the case of some) it was all up to them to get something done.  A great deal of world leaders further expressed frustration at being ignored.  Reports that everything hinged on China and the U.S. coming to an agreement infuriated many, but nonetheless represented a stark reminder that power still drives politics.

Finally, so too did many in the general public who watched in awe at the dysfunction and disorganization that, for 14 days, played out like a bad soap opera.

And what of the end result?

Not a binding, inclusive, and fair deal that was hinted at back in 2007 and in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen, not a political agreement that had on paper such things as emission reduction targets, but a 12 paragraph political “Accord” that promised, in essence, to negotiate some more.

Some hailed the Accord as a productive compromise.  Indeed, if averting entire failure is considered a compromise than yes, I suppose that it is.  For this reason, I will applaud Mr. Obama - with the sound of one hand clapping - for extending his stay in Copenhagen (from 9 hours to 15 hours) in order to make sure that entire failure didn’t happen. 

While China (for not being the leader that it now has to be), Canada (for obstructing negotiations and for being an embarassment), the G77 (for posturing), Venezuela (for grandstanding), and Saudi Arabia (for being Saudi Arabia) will receive my condemnation.

Others have suggested that the failure of COP 15 shows just how futile working within the UN framework can be.  Maybe, they suggest, other forums (e.g. the G20) would be better suited to achieve a deal.  Maybe, but global problems require global solutions.  One of the bright spots of Copenhagen was the tiny island state of Tuvalu, which spoke eloquently of the threat posed to their existence by climate change and became a rallying cry for many NGOs.  Their voice would otherwise have been lost if not for the UN process.

Still others have stated that at the end of the day, it is up to individual states to take action on climate change.  Kyoto, they will remind us, was binding on 37 industrialized states, but nonetheless saw countries such as Canada fail to meet their international legal commitments.  Indeed, there is truth to this, but at the same time there are consequences.  The uncertainty that exists in international relations often means states feel insecure and as such operate mindful that they are in competition with others.  A strong international agreement on climate change is the only way to remove that sense of insecurity and establish a sense of cooperation.

And what happens next?

Two options really.  First option, this Accord is a starting point as Barack Obama has said.  People will remain interested, the climate change movement that many claim has emerged from Copenhagen will only grow stronger.  Meanwhile, states will come together again in the not too distant future to build on Copenhagen, put some details on paper, and work out a way to take action on climate change that will ensure that average global temperatures do not rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius. 

Second option, the media will grow tired of the climate change story.  The public too will lose interest and the environment will fall further down the priorities list.  All the while, little will be done on climate change.  Years later people will look back at the Accord and remark in papers and in conversations that this was the closest the world came to taking action on climate change.  

After 2 years, 2 weeks, and 12 paragraphs, let us hope for Option 1.