Moving Forward From Copenhagen, Or Getting What We Need

Nearly two months after the end of the conference, there is still a lot of debate about the outcome of Copenhagen: did it pose a serious step forward or is it now an archetype of missed opportunity? The faith community worldwide has continued to voice its disappointment, and push for a comprehensive plan to ensure that we protect the Creation and assist with adaptation and mitigation in developing nations. In the United States, debate about a climate bill continues to simmer, even if it feels like it has been moved to the back burner.

In the immediate aftermath of Copenhagen, I was surprised. While the Copenhagen Accord was less than I wished, it was definitely more than I expected. While national representatives spent much of the first week using the forum as a venue to publicize their national concerns, the heads of state who arrived in the final two days got down to business and focused on hammered out a political agreement, if not a legal one. We got a framework and first steps from key emitting nations, billions of dollars to help developing nations adapt to climate change, and key steps to protect forests. Really, it sounds impressive, except for the significant concern that “roadmap” will really only serve as a way to track rising emissions.

Last Friday, I heard an even more convincing argument for optimism from S. Jacob Scherr, Director of the International Program for the National Resource Defense Council. He pointed out that political will – like was built by the heads of governments in Copenhagen – will be essential in bringing about national action. He pointed out that even binding treaties are ultimately voluntary, and I was reminded of the many nations that ratified the Kyoto Protocol only to announce in the last few years that they will not meet their 2012 targets. The Copenhagen approach focuses on spurring national action now instead of waiting for a legally binding agreement; it is a “grassroots approach,” if one can refer to national governments as being grassroots.

The first key test of the Accord came at the end of last month, the deadline for nations to report their climate change plans to the United Nations. Over 40 countries have done so. You can read their submissions at the UNFCCC website. Additionally, the NRDC is tracking the commitments of key emitters.

As always, the question now and moving forward will continue to be one of political will. The United States played a key role at Copenhagen in helping get countries agreed to the Accord, but it will be difficult to sustain a leadership position unless Congress passes a bill that shows we are serious about our climate change goals. As always, I will continue to hope. Perhaps, with some luck and considerable political will, the result will be like that in Copenhagen. I won’t necessarily get what I want, but we will get some of what what we need.