Climate change is a phenomenon that has been taking place for over billions of years on the face of our earth. Many a times, this phenomenon has resulted from activities of living forms. Ironically, at other times, it has forced life forms to evolve. Among the climate players, oxygen producing life forms (plants, algae) are the most important.

• Multiple Greenland glaciers suddenly leaped into retreat, spilling larger and larger amounts of ice into the sea. Similar is the scenario on the Antarctic Peninsula.
• Studies have revealed that storms have been steadily getting more intense and destructive. Hurricane Katrina brought that point home to the U.S. by nearly wiping New Orleans off the map.
• Scientists have also announced the record retreat in Arctic sea ice.
• Also, there has been a measurable slowing of the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic – the deep ocean current that drives the Gulf Stream, moderates temperatures worldwide.

So, we can say that Climate change and global warming are natural phenomena which have accelerated due to human activities and which now pose a grave challenge in front of all of us.  Now let us have a quick overview of the policies framed to fight this issue.

It define categories of countries depending upon their economic power, Firstly, the industrialized countries known as the Annex I countries, the second one was formed by the developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries and the last group consist of the developing countries are not required to reduce emission levels unless developed countries supply enough funding and technology. The restriction on the countries serves three main purposes- it avoids restrictions on their development, because emissions are strongly linked to industrial capacity they can sell emissions credits to nations whose operators have difficulty meeting their emissions targets they get money and technologies for low-carbon investments from Annex II countries. The only quantified target set in the original FCCC (Article 4) was for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Since, the UNFCCC was established the countries have been meeting annually in the Conference of Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change. 

• commitments to reduce greenhouse gases that are legally binding for annex I countries, as well as general commitments for all member countries;
• implementation to meet the Protocol objectives, to prepare policies and measures which reduce greenhouse gases; increasing absorption of these gases (for example through geo-sequestration and bio-sequestration) and use all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, clean development mechanism and emissions trading; being rewarded with credits which allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home;
• minimizing impacts on developing countries by establishing an adaptation fund for climate change;
• accounting, reporting and review to ensure the integrity of the Protocol;
• Compliance by establishing a compliance committee to enforce commitment to the Protocol.

Under the protocol 37 Annex I countries (industrialized countries)Commits themselves for reducing the emission of four types of green house gases which includes carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of gases ( hydro fluorocarbons and per fluorocarbons) produced by them. It was decided that the emissions of the green house gases should be reduced by 5.2% from the 1990 benchmark level. Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents when computing overall sources and sinks.

• International cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation actions, including thorough vulnerability assessments, prioritization of actions, financial needs assessments, capacity-building and response strategies, integration of adaptation actions into sectoral and national planning, specific projects and programmes, means
• Incentivizing the implementation of adaptation actions, and other ways to enable climate-resilient development and reduce vulnerability of all Parties, taking into account the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, especially the least developed countries and small island developing States, and further taking into account the needs of countries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods.
• Risk management and risk reduction strategies, including risk sharing and transfer mechanisms such as insurance.
• Disaster reduction strategies and means to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

India also hoped for specific adaptation strategies to be formulated to help the world cope with climate change. India itself is facing and will face the severe impacts of climate change in the future. High degree of climate variability results in floods, droughts and other extreme events in India. As a result, India has to spend 2% of its GDP on adaptation strategies to fight with climate change and this figure is likely to go up.

India also hoped for a global agreement which puts in place a collaborative R&D effort among developed and major developing countries, to bring about cost-effective technological innovations and transformational technologies which can put the world on the road to a carbon-free economy.

In Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s own words, “Our people have a right to economic and social development and to discard the ignominy of widespread poverty. For this we need rapid economic growth. But I also believe that ecologically sustainable development need not be in contradiction to achieving our growth objectives. In fact, we must have a broader perspective on development. It must include the quality of life, not merely the quantitative accretion of goods and services. Our people want higher standards of living, but they also want clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe and a green earth to walk on.” This statement by our Prime Minister clearly brings out the expectation of the nation in the Conference of Parties 15 at Copenhagen.

• First, ‘Had Copenhagen Conference achieved anything meaningful, which can be called as a ‘success’, anything which contradicts the view that Copenhagen was a waste?’
• Second, ‘Does the accord cover all the important discussions and issues that were on the table in Copenhagen?’

We would try to answer these questions separately in the following paragraphs.

• Let us start with small things first. The publicity and awareness campaign by governmental and non governmental organizations is something which we cannot ignore. The huge awareness it had created among the mass is a matter of appreciation. The more people learn or know about an issue, the more they strive to work on solving it. Ultimately if the people themselves pledge to reduce their everyday carbon footprint, the issue of climate change will be curbed in no time.
• Secondly, the emergence of the Basic Four as a powerful decision making group. This shift of power from the developed world to developing nations was also something notable in the Copenhagen conference. This results from the fact that the developing countries are the ones which can do a lot to prevent global warming by ‘developing’ in a carbon-friendly manner. This is surely an achievement for India in the world forum.
• The third important achievement of the Copenhagen Conference is that green growth became the prevailing economic model of our time. The idea that addressing climate change is bad for the economy of a country was buried at Copenhagen. Both developed and developing countries have announced low carbon economic plans and are moving forth with those.
• Fourthly and most importantly, the very struggle to reach an agreement at Copenhagen shows that climate policy has finally come of age. When interviewed by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, the president of COP15 during its high-level stage, Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said: “The top leaders were taking Copenhagen seriously as their deadline and delivered beforehand. Had Obama not been due to attend, I doubt whether the US would have begun committing on long-term finance – which is historical. Had Lula not been due to attend, Brazil would hardly have raised its level of ambitions. Had Wen not been due to attend, China would probably not have opened to some level of international insight as to what it is doing – which actually is a globally politically significant admission.” The onset of a kind of climate politics, which eschews hot air for real action, is a sign that global climate talks have moved beyond symbolic rhetoric,” writes TIME.

Though the summit was full of chaos, confusion and disagreement, it is a trend setting conference. With 110 world leaders present and a single issue on the agenda, there has never been a meeting like this.  If Copenhagen was tough, Mexico City will be tougher. The toughness of the negotiations shows that climate change has moved from hot air to economic reality. There is no doubt that it would be harder and that is a good thing.

In this case, our answer is ‘No’.
As already stated, the Copenhagen Accord is a hastily framed document. Consequentially, it has a number of shortcomings.

• An unnamed U.K. official was reported to comment on the accord as ‘anti-democratic, anti-transparent and unacceptable’. This is quite true. BBC's environment correspondent said: “While the White House was announcing the agreement, many other – perhaps most other – delegations had not even seen it.”
• Again, the accord does not contain important measures to fight climate change like-
• There are no specific emission reduction targets in the accord even for developed countries.
• Though it recognises that the global temperature has to be reduced to 2°C, but it does not have any specific commitments to achieve this aim.
• The accord talks about setting up of the Green Climate Fund, but contains nothing regarding disbursement of the same.
• The accord has got a provision proposing the setting up of a technology mechanism, but contains no further details.
• Also, missing from the accord are references to continuing with the Kyoto Protocol or any other legally binding agreement, limiting emissions offsets, the financial governance structure, or focussed green technology development.
• But by contrast, market-based mechanisms and REDD-plus (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) find a prominent place.

Overall, we can say that the accord is a poorly framed document by handful countries that undermines the other 160 plus nation out of 193 states present at Copenhagen. The summit had many other detailed negotiations and issues which could not be concluded due to ‘unbalanced’ interests and hence could not find their place in the accord.
Though his document can in no way be called a comprehensive one that protects everyone’s interests, it is an ‘important beginning’ and the path forward is difficult, which the world has to cover to protect ‘life’ on earth.

• India, South Africa, Brazil, China and other developing countries were entirely successful in ensuring that there was no violation of the mandate for the Bali Action Plan negotiations on the enhanced implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Despite relentless attempts made by the Annex I Parties, the Conference succeeded in continuing the negotiations under the Kyoto Protocol to establish the commitments of the Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol for the post-2012 period. So, the major outcome of the Conference is, therefore, the fact that the negotiations under the UNFCCC will continue to proceed in two tracks as set out in the Bali Road Map.


• Also, he had said that the Copenhagen Accord was a major success for India, as all of India’s interests were protected in it.
  • The Copenhagen Accord does speak of “cooperation in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible”. However, the Accord explicitly recognises that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries.
  
  
  • Reference to a specific numerical target in terms of emission reduction has been avoided in the Accord because of the insistence of the developing countries, particularly India that a global goal should be expressed only in terms of limit in increase of temperature and not in terms of a quantified emission reduction target. This is because such a target would result in a binding commitment for the developing countries who do not have such obligations under the UNFCCC.
  
  
  • Under the Accord, the developed country Parties have agreed to setup a Climate Fund named “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to provide resources approaching US$ 30 billon during the period 2010-2012 to support the adaptation and mitigation actions of the developing country Parties.
  
  
• He has also said that India played a key role in the negotiations together with China and hence had come to the forefront of decision making process. Its technology development mechanism was accepted by the states present at the conference, which says about creating a network of technology innovation centres to fight climate change.

So, India is in a good position at and after the Copenhagen Conference. There is no doubt about the minister telling the truth. But there are some serious matters which lurk underneath this apparent good news.

This could become a bone of contention over “sovereignty” in the future. Praful Bidwai, who in his book, An India That Can Say Yes: A Climate-Responsible Development Agenda for Copenhagen and Beyond, criticizes India’s stand at the conference and India’s climate policies like anything. It argues that the climate policies in India are framed by diplomatic bureaucrats who see climate change not as an issue of equity, environmental effectiveness or development, but as a geopolitical threat to limit the Indian elite’s freedom to consume by maintaining high emissions-intensive GDP growth.

The book goes on to say that ‘India’s climate policy cries out for reform. This can only happen if the government treats climate change not as a diplomacy issue but as a development and equity question, pays heed to the needs of India’s underprivileged and poor, reconstitutes the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change, and involves non-governmental experts and civil society representatives in policymaking.’