Maybe a plenty. By getting over 190 nations and 130 leaders together for the United Nations climate change summit is already no mean feat. Raising global awareness of climate change to an unprecedented level getting world leaders to confront the issue further.
Outcome of the talks did not satisfy everyone, given the differences in priorities between developed and developing nations. For the latter, bread and butter issues come first. But countries facing immediate danger from the effects of climate change, such as small islands and those with low-lying areas near the coast, would of course make demands quite different from those of nations not at similar risk.
The Copenhagen Accord recognises the need to limit the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 deg C above pre- industrial levels. Though not a binding target, the accord gave official recognition to the widely held scientific view that the rise in global temperatures should be kept to this level. With this agreement on temperature, it is expected that countries will devise measures to cut carbon emissions accordingly.
In addition, under the accord, countries are asked to review their pledges for curbing carbon emissions by 2020. Although no country would be penalised for failing to keep to its pledge, the accord would encourage government policies to tackle carbon emissions. This would remove the business-as-usual attitude and the world may witness the beginning of a new social norm. If the countries that have made pledges remain committed to them, other countries would come under peer pressure to follow suit.
Another breakthrough was the pledge by rich nations to jointly mobilise US$30 billion (S$42.2 billion) over the next three years, and US$100 billion a year by 2020, to help poor nations adapt to and mitigate the impact of climate change. Good news for developing nations as they have long asked rich nations for such funding.
While how the funds will be disbursed remains a big question mark, another issue is how rich countries will raise the funds with present economic crisis looming and starting to see some slow recovery. Will the funds come from other adjustments by balancing the budget and through means of increased taxes or from cutting foreign aid for education and infrastructure development? Higher domestic taxes will for sure create discord, and dampen the political will of rich countries to contribute funds. But reducing support for foreign aid will not help poor countries either.
Ideally, the Copenhagen Accord should have included a provision that the rich countries pledge not to cut other areas of foreign aid while creating a global fund for climate change.
No comments:
Post a Comment