COP15 summit fiasco

WHO is to blame for the COP15 summit disaster? The US? China? The EU? The G-8? In fact, all of the above. It was a coming together of states that killed off a vital resource for the world: Trust (Christian Schwagerl in Der Spiegel)."
"Copenhagen showed us the new normal: the U.S. has lost influence, China plays spoiler, and tiny nations veto anything they don't like (Leslie H. Gelb in The Daily Beast)."
Mark Lynas (guardian.co.uk) writes: "Copenhagen was a disaster. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful 'deal' so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen. […] I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying 'no,' over and over again."
China, paddled at times by India, pushed aggressively to nullify all the crucial carbon emission restraining figures that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to hold back temperatures to 2°C, was removed. The global target of 50% emission cut by 2050 was also expunged. China even demanded the removal of the 1.5°C target, which was saved only when President Nasheed of the Maldives, backed by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, pointedly asked China: "How can you ask my country to go extinct?"
After much squabbling, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and the US, led by a desperate President Obama, negotiated a nonbinding deal to hold back global temperatures to 2°C above pre-industrial levels by 2050. However, the announcement of rich nations contributing $100 billion a year over 10 years to help poor nations restrain their carbon emissions and cope with climate change adversity was the highlight of the COP15 conference.
The low point of the conference, as reported in the media, was China's attitudes and behaviour. When President Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton proposed a proviso requiring all nations to comply with outside monitoring and "transparent verification," China rejected it vehemently and Premier Wen Jiabao even left the conference center angrily and afterwards snubbed President Obama in two previously planned bilateral and multinational meetings (John Lee, Dec. 21).
In desperation for a deal, Obama compromised to accept an accord that merely requires developing countries to self-report their emissions every two years.
China's design, as opined by an analyst, was to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time." Even though China is strong in wind and solar technologies, its growth, and increasing global pre-eminence, is based largely on cheap coal energy. The Chinese leadership wants to preserve this coal-based economy as long as it can.
Many of us see both success and failure in the COP15 deal -- although, the failures are mostly talked about in the global media. It was a success, given what was realistically attainable, and a failure because of unattainable expectations that had been ratcheted up far beyond what was realistic. It's certainly a step in the right direction.
The conference witnessed the participation of the whole world (193 countries) for a national and global cause. The poorest nations, for the first time, made their presence recognised. The African countries established themselves as a force to be reckoned with when they walked out en masse fearing that the Kyoto Protocol would be disbanded. The aggrieved small island states, especially the Maldives and Tuvalu, also had their voices heard.
The deal would benefit the poorest and the hardest hit by climate change. For example, Rwanda with current per capita emissions of 0.35 tons could receive carbon credits for remaining below two tons and engage in carbon trade with any country that exceeds its cap. This naturally offers an incentive for poor countries to adapt to climate change and adopt new emission reduction technologies.
Like Rwanda, Bangladesh, which contributes about 0.3 tons of CO2 per capita annually, would also be rewarded immensely by the cap and trade regime. Like many other aggrieved nations, the country needs climate change adaptation funds now. Some estimates claim that the adaptation projects would cost Bangladesh about $5 billion. This amount isn't too high considering the dreadful prediction that the rising sea level would devour 17 percent of the country, leaving nearly 20 million dead and homeless.
One other positive aspect of the deal is its near uniform treatment of the big economies. This is a clear break from the asymmetric Kyoto Protocol, which is environmentally and economically untenable.
One serious concern is that the deal is not legally binding and whether the transparency deal agreed to in principle can be put into practice in a meaningful way.
As for the US policy makers, three big issues remain to be tackled: Translating the pledge of a 17 percent cut in US emissions from 2005 levels, working with others to deliver $100 billion annually for 10 years to developing countries by 2020, and engaging in a long-term effort to augment the ambitions of several major developing countries. The world now has to wait and see what actions the US Congress take.
It seemed, at the end, that the spoiler countries were happy going home while the losers, whose people may be submerged under water by rising sea levels in a decade's time -- if not earlier -- returned in discontent and dismay. These nations may now look to the December 2010 meeting in Mexico. Hopefully, a legally binding international protocol would be crafted to facilitate the developing nations with the means to help themselves and deal with the dilemma of climate change irreversibly.
Rich nations, already industrialised by cheap carbon based energy, must sacrifice much more by reducing carbon emissions by at least 200% instead of the proposed 80% and also sacrifice some growth for a decade, allowing the poorer nations to catch up.
The COP15 fiasco has displayed what many had been forecasting -- a challenging global leadership for the US, with China waiting as a thriving spoiler. Resolution of global issues may no longer be dictated by a powerful few "from top down" it will possibly be the outcome of a wholly different "coalition of the willing."

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan, founder of politiconomy.com, is a Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.