There's plenty of bla­me to go around, in India among political parties, and acr­oss

RELATED ARTICLES Tapi pipeline perfect example of energy diversification: US India to move WTO this week against US visa fee hike Dr Reddy's launches lansoprazole capsules in US market Nasscom concerned over US visa probe on Indian firms Rajat Gupta to face US jury in insider trading case

the world am­ong rich and poor nations. Despite the emotional support and demands of tens of thousands of activists gathered in Copenhagen and millions of supporters at home, expectations of an ambitious climate treaty among world leaders were not so high. Clearly, it was an occasion when leaders failed their people. They simply disappeared into the night to be heard of again in their respective capitals claiming victory and a new beginning.

There was one country that possessed the unique power to change the game, but failed to use it. If the US had come to Copenhagen with a transformative and inspiring commitment to getting the US ec­onomy off fossil fuels, all the other major emitters wo­uld have stepped up their effort. The EU, Japan, China and India had all indicated that they were willing to increase their levels of commitment, but only if the US took the lead. Instead of leading, Ob­ama arrived with embarrassingly low targets and the heavy emitters of the world took their cue from him. He could not rise to the demand of the occasion; he failed his constituency to whom he had pr­omised to transform the US into something that doesn't threaten the stability of life on this planet.

The accord's great deficiency is that it sets no targets for emission cuts; earlier drafts had specific target for developed countries by 2020 and global reductions by 2050. Such initiatives are seen as important in defining a widespread shift of the world economy away from fossil fuels. The emission cuts the accord enshrines are, at least so far, significantly smaller than is needed to provide any confidence about the 2ºC target, and there is much to be sorted out with regard to getting the money it talks about distributed equitably.

In terms of substance, the Copenhagen Accord may immediately face strong criticism. Others, however, argued that the agreement did include a 2°C target and many other important provisions. Indeed, many saw the Copenhagen Accord as a concise document containing an outline of a future framework to address climate change. Nevertheless, its provisions on mitigation by developed countries are widely seen as “clearly weak” and “a step backwards from the Kyoto Protocol.” Developed countries have not committed themselves to legally-binding emission reductions. Similarly, there is no quantification of a long-term global goal for emission reductions, or specific timing for global emissions to peak. Instead, the agreement suggests a bottom-up approach whereby developed and developing countries submit their pledges for information purposes to the Convention, a method advocated mo­st prominently by the US.

The accord, however, does contain some language, reportedly a compromise between the US and China, stating that there will be some provisions for “international consultations and analysis,” a concept yet to be defined. Those actions supported by international finance, technology transfer and capacity building will, however, be subject to international MRV.

The accord also establishes four new bodies: a mechanism on REDD-plus, a high-level panel under the COP to study the implementation of financing provisions, the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund and a technology mechanism. Furthermore, the accord contains a reference to possibly limiting temperature increase to below 1.5°C, as advocated by many small island countries and others, altho­ugh only with regard to the future assessment of the implementation of the accord.

Legal and operational implications given the “exceptional procedure” through which the accord was adopted are unclear. It is very unfortunate and detrimental to those developing countries that really need it.

The Copenhagen Accord was a dilution of the Kyoto Protocol as the former had no major reference to principles of equity and environmental justice. By endorsing the Co­penhagen Accord at the just-concluded UN climate meet, India has failed to protect the interests of the people most affected by climate change not only in India, but also worldwide. India shirked its responsibility to show leadership and let down the most impacted communities in the least developed countries and island states. India was the “most vulnerable” nation due to impacts of climate change. Over 700 million Indians are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors and resources. By endorsing this accord, India has failed to protect the interests of the people most affected by climate change.

Now that the last “confusing” and “highly emotional” moments in Copenhagen are history, the question remains of how the conference and its outcome should be characterised in the larger scheme of things. Was Copenhagen a failure? There seems to be no question that deep divisions and ill will that characterised the negotiations and the resulting Copenhagen Accord were disappointing to many across the world.

On the positives of the summit, for the very first time, a majority of the world’s leaders gathered to frankly and seriously discuss climate change – now commonly re­cognised as a serious threat to humanity. Their discussions also covered a full range of formerly “unmentionable” issu­es. However, as things stand, the outcome of Copenhagen highlights that an enormous amount of work remains to be done before people can safely believe that the world has se­en a turning point in the fight against climate change. It remains to be seen whether the political and public profile created in Copenhagen can be translated into an ambitious international agreement on climate change.

The writer is a senior economist at National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, Delhi