Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Because the protocol was ratifi ed so late in its fi rst term, many nations
and NGOs alike have treated it like a trial to create the institutional and
economic mechanisms needed to implement a more rigorous treaty after
2012. The two COP meetings prior to COP15 in Copenhagen were
particularly forward-looking and began sketching out potential modifi -
cations of the Kyoto Protocol that would lead to a more effective
and truly transformative treaty. A surge of optimism accompanied the
election of Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency in 2008, because
Obama promised to rejoin the UNFCCC process and develop a carbon
cap and trading system in the United States. Australia experienced a
change in leadership and became a Signatory, indicating that momentum
was
gaining.
Unfortunately, this momentum seems to have stalled if not reversed
at the most recent Copenhagen meeting, which failed to produce the
binding treaty it promised and, according to many, lost ground compared
to previous COP meetings (Athanasiou 2010; “Summary of the Copen-
hagen Climate Change Conference” 2009; Gomez 2010). The UN
process, which is typically marked by evolving consensus over agreement
language, devolved during the Copenhagen meeting. Just when it seemed
that the meeting would fail to produce any agreement, Obama crashed
a backroom meeting between top negotiators from Brazil, China, India,
and South Africa and brokered what resulted in the Copenhagen Accord
(“President Obama's Dramatic Climate Meet” 2009). The long-term
emission reductions that were included in earlier versions of the agree-
ment were omitted in the end, although an agreement in principle to cap
temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius was reached. A bloc of devel-
oping nations vehemently objected to both the content of the accord and
the processes by which it was negotiated, but in the end the majority of
nations endorsed the document.
Moderates and long-time observers of the process argue that the
Copenhagen Accord paved the way for incremental progress toward
more profound commitments. Timmons Roberts wrote illustratively in
his blog on Copenhagen (2009): “In the end, we got an inadequate deal,
but it was a realist's deal that may lead to some forward progress.”
The UNFCCC and Environmental Justice
Drawing on Clemens and Cook's (1999) criteria, I would score the
UNFCCC as moderate in all three categories. Diversity of attendees is
restricted by typical hard-law privilege of government offi cials. As a
result, the social cleavages that are emphasized are those between North
