How effective is a non-binding climate change deal?

Melting pollar ice.

The performance of the industrialized countries, according to Kyoto Protocol, does not speak bright for this planet's future and humanity at large.If the Copenhagen accord did not act and monitor the projects to be undertaken by the developed and developing countries the situation on the planet would simply become worse.
The well-talked and publicized Copenhagen UN conference on climate change could not bring desired results as the deal to limit global temperatures rise to below two degrees Celsius was struck, but remains non-binding. Critics of the conference hold the opinion that it would be difficult to reach the target without specific commitments to reduce carbon emissions by the leaders of the industrialist countries in particular and emerging global partners like China, Brazil, India and South Africa in general.
It is understood that US President Barack Obama has played a crucial role to bring the leaders of China, Brazil, India and South Africa on the negotiating table to strike the deal “to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than two degrees Celsius”. An appendix will be added to the agreement to specially lay out each country's commitments for climate change.
On financial position there have been not many commitments. America and other developed countries committed to provide $ 30 billion in 2010 and 2012 with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation and developed countries also pledged to mobilize globally $ 100 billion by 2020. It means that the least developed and countries most vulnerable to climate change would be benefitted from the fund from 2010 to 2020.
It is true that the current problems of CO2 emissions, pollution and greenhouse gases are mainly the product of the industrialist countries while neo developed countries like China, Brazil, India and South Africa are also now responsible. Admittedly, the least developed countries should not be accountable for the environmental hazards.
Scientists and political leaders are unanimous that climate change poses serious threat to humanity, but there have been deep differences between rich and poor countries, which demand billions in subsidy to reduce their own reliance on fossil fuels; resistance to limit binding emissions; and allay skepticism raised by the 'climate gate e-mails scandal'.
China, Brazil, India, South Africa and America announced independent non-binding climate goals in advance of the conference. In Bangladesh, many old and worn out vehicles are causing environmental pollution. The government does not need money to phase out such vehicles from the roads. These vehicles should be phased out immediately to improve environment. River side should not be made dumping ground of waste under any circumstance. Municipal Corporation's may have to find suitable location for dumping of wastes. Law should be enacted to punish anybody violating the provision. Tanneries at Hazaribagh almost at the heart of Dhaka city are causing serious environmental hazards indeed. Location of tanneries needs to be moved out from the heart of the city. These are local efforts. Climate change or no climate change these should be taken to mitigate environmental degradation.
Being a lower riparian country Bangladesh is being affected by floods every year. Therefore, Bangladesh needs international assistance for dredging dried up rivers to contain waters coming from upper riparian during rainy season in particular. India may also be asked to compensate for devastating floods causing distress for the people and country's economy as well. Similarly, India should be asked to honour her commitments to supply needed waters from the Ganges during lean period to save the country from draught.
On the other hand, ancient glaciers in the Himalayas and the Alps are visibly melting while the sea ice at North Pole is thinning faster than thought due to global warming. These are the reasons for sea level rise. In course of a short time the southern region of Bangladesh in fact would be engulfed in waters. Bangladesh needs technologies from industrialized countries to save southern part of the country. The Copenhagen accord, however, committed to provide “adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building” for the implementation of adaptation plan. The government needs to prepare comprehensive plan to save southern part of the country. Deforestation is contributing 20 percent of global carbon emission. And deforestation in the Himalayan region should be held responsible for contributing to the degradation of environment. In this connection Bangladesh can claim financial assistance for large scale planting trees along the coastal belt. I understand Bangladesh is spending around $ 50 million on adaptation and will include ways to fend off rising sea levels in the line of the Netherlands.
It is imperative to address poverty problem that Bangladesh is confronted with. The government should consider adopting such projects which could provide employment to a vast section of population of the country. There is a need for concerted efforts against poverty.
The performance of the industrialized countries, according to Kyoto Protocol, does not speak bright for this planet's future and humanity at large. Copenhagen accord, however, acknowledged the impact of climate change. If the Copenhagen accord did not act and monitor the projects to be undertaken by the developed and developing countries the situation on the planet would simply become worse. Only redeeming feature of Copenhagen conference is that America, biggest emitter of carbon, under the leadership of Obama is no longer an obstacle in contrast to President George W. Bush, who failed to embrace emissions reductions.
Mohammad Amjad Hossain, a retired Bangladesh diplomat, writes from Virginia.