From Copenhagen, An Arduous Path Forward

• Author: William L. Thomas
• Position: Counsel in the Washington, D.C., office of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
• Pages: 51-51

MARCH/APRIL 2010 ❧ Page 51

Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, March/April 2010

Th e fo r u m

From Copenhagen,

An Arduous Path

Forward

W L. T

Whether COP 15 and

the Copenhagen Ac-

cord mark the begin-

ning of a promising

new chapter in cli-

mate diplomacy remains to be seen.

Perspective is hard to attain today,

not only because of a natural ten-

dency to indulge thoughts of “what

might have been,” but because a fair

assessment of the summit’s implica-

tions will turn largely on actions

taken, or not taken, by the major

players in this saga in 2010 and

beyond. As the Obama administra-

tion signaled before going over to

Denmark (and most stakeholders

came to grudgingly accept), a com-

prehensive global treaty was not in

the of‌f‌ing. e last-minute, highly

political accord ref‌lects an ef‌fort by

several key heads of state to secure

something of value; time will tell if

it marks a “breakthrough” of lasting

consequence.

Optimists can point to develop-

ments at and post Copenhagen as

harbingers of favorable things to

come. Nations participating in the

accord agreed to seek to limit aver-

age global temperature increase to

2 degrees Celsius or less, and made

progress on an issue that has long

vexed negotiators: the monitoring,

reporting, and verif‌ication of na-

tional mitigation actions. e accord

also manifests developed countries’

commitment to provide substantial

funding for developing country

mitigation, adaptation, technology

transfer, and capacity-building. Fol-

low-on emission reduction pledges

f‌iled with the United Nations by

countries emitting two-thirds of the

world’s carbon dioxide (including

the United States, China, several

European Union nations, India,

and Brazil) af‌f‌irm pledges made

in Copenhagen and, if honored in

keeping with upper range estimates,

could have an important impact

going forward. e unprecedented

degree of public-private collabora-

tion underway to enhance corporate

GHG performance and competi-

tiveness, expand the role of carbon

f‌inance, and spur deployment of

low-carbon technologies and services

is also meaningful.

e framers of the Copenhagen

Accord left much of the heavy lift-

ing for another day. e United

States, for example, has still to

forge political compromise around

measures to generate cuts in green-

house gas emissions at levels being

contemplated under the framework

conceived in Denmark. e scale

of this national challenge, and that

of securing the promised mitiga-

tion and adaptation funds (e.g., the

$646m requested in f‌iscal year 2011

for State Department and U.S. AID

initiatives covering adaptation, clean

energy, and sustainable landscapes),

will remain hard to overestimate

until policymakers can articulate

approaches that more closely ref‌lect

the balance of prevailing American

sentiment vis-a-vis other concerns,

chief‌ly the economy and global

competitiveness, unemployment,

and energy security. Leading emerg-

ing economies that have registered

pledges, such as India and Brazil but

especially China, will be pressed to

provide the degree of transparency

necessary to assess their perfor-

mance.

e combined threats associated

with climate change and biodiversity

loss call for a deeper commitment of

resources and investment from both

public and private sector sources,

and thoughtful use of incentives

and other policy instruments that

harness market forces to generate

sustainable benef‌its. ese include

measures to reduce GHG emissions

from deforestation and degradation,

or REDD. Governments, com-

munities, and project developers

are designing national-level REDD

programs and integrating formerly

isolated site-based projects into full-

scale national programs that address

forest-related and cross-sectoral de-

forestation and degradation drivers.

Over the past decade, project

developers have documented the

ef‌fectiveness of REDD projects to

contribute to climate mitigation,

biodiversity conservation, and com-

munity benef‌its. Funding of REDD

endeavors by both bi- and multilat-

eral government sources is expand-

ing but still limited, and nowhere

near the $10–30 billion estimated

to be annually required to address

deforestation and forest degradation

at the global level. us, a notable

accomplishment in Copenhagen,

and one that aligns well with do-

mestic legislative proposals was the

agreement to create a mechanism to

mobilize funds to reduce emissions

from REDD and support conserva-

tion.

e broader implications and

enduring signif‌icance of COP-15

will come into sharper focus in

months ahead. With persisting un-

certainty in both the international

and domestic policy arenas, business

leaders should continue to inform

ef‌forts in both spheres and adopt

management strategies that posi-

tion for success under a range of

scenarios, working closely with their

stakeholders. Meanwhile, between

Copenhagen and Mexico City (and

likely, beyond), negotiators in U.N.

and other forums can meaning-

fully advance the climate cause by

improving, and expanding the role

played by, carbon f‌inancing mecha-

nisms.

William L. Thomas is Counsel in the

Washington, D.C., ofce of Skadden, Arps,

Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.