Why Copenhagen was a Success

Reading accounts from the European press, and from some U.S. ngos, multiple adjectives such as “abysmal” sit in front of the word, failure, when describing the Copenhagen Accord. And while we have no time to lose spinning our wheels in negotiations that don’t get us closer to binding commitments to reduce carbon pollution threatening lives and economies, we need to recognize the significance of what did happen. We also need to remember that a binding agreement was not the goal at Copenhagen. It was a step in a two-step process to get to a binding agreement.

Larry Schweiger, President of National Wildlife Federation got it right when he said, “We’re not done yet.” And yet, if we are truly realistic about the work ahead, we should recognize we’ll never be done. From now and for the foreseeable future, we will have a never ending list of “To Dos” to get us to the low carbon economy we need to survive. And every one of those to dos, will build a healthier, stronger economy, improve our national security and protect the planet for future generations.

So why was Copenhagen a success? First, all the emerging economies now have a “To Do” list of their own. Without China, India, Brazil and South Africa agreeing to emissions reductions and a system of verification, Copenhagen would have been a failure – with them, the world community has now moved to a new level of engagement and collective responsibility to address global warming.

Secondly, China shifted. Difficult for us to get our heads around the significance of this. China is a closed society -- a commitment to participate in a verification process is transformational. Without President Obama’s leadership in convincing China to step up and step into this new world of transparency, nearly half of the world’s carbon pollution would have been ignored. And that would have been a failure the planet could not have endured.

Third, developed countries for the first time agreed to take responsibility for the global warming impacts our standard of living will cause on poor countries. This is an admission that developing countries have long awaited. Because of Copenhagen, there is no turning back to the days of ignoring our own complicity. We are now addressing not only the causes of global warming, but also the effects, and the solutions.

The financing plan of $100 billion includes accelerating the availability of energy efficiency and clean energy technology. As President Obama pointed out, millions of people in the developing world are still living in abject poverty without electricity. Clean energy technology will give millions a better standard of living without contributing to a worsening of the climate crisis. Bringing these technologies to a mass market is where America can, and should lead. That choice is up to us.

Fourth, the world community has finally tackled deforestation. For the first time, there are substantive agreements to reduce deforestation – one of the most cost-effective and common sense solutions to reducing carbon emissions. Tropical deforestation accounts for nearly 20% of carbon emissions, and reducing deforestation will also provide multiple benefits for indigenous cultures, local economies, watersheds, and wildlife.

Fifth, thanks to President Obama, the United States was a leader in these negotiations, not an observer whining on the sidelines. President Obama spent hours in one-on-one negotiations with the Chinese and in meetings with other world leaders. This level of involvement was unprecedented and absolutely essential to the final outcome.

Last, and certainly not least, let it be clear that the science of global warming was never in doubt. In fact, the agreement to not let global temperatures rise more than 2◦ C wasn’t good enough for many developing countries that insisted it be 1.5 degrees (and for good reason). President Obama signaled to the world that while there is more work to be done, we all should understand that what we do will “ultimately be dictated by the science.”