New and Improved Course for a Climate Regime

• Author: Kyle Danish
• Position: Head of the climate change practice at Van Ness Feldman in Washington, D.C.
• Pages: 48-48

Page 48 ❧ THE ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM Copyright © 2010, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

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

Th e fo r u m

albeit subject to very conditioned

and ambiguous language.

e agreement also includes pro-

visions on f‌inancial assistance from

developed to developing countries,

establishing an overall objective of

$100 billion per year by 2020, with

a “fast start” of $30 billion by 2012.

is pledge was central to earn the

support of the least-developed coun-

tries.

e Copenhagen talks also wit-

nessed breakthrough negotiations

in two other areas: needed reforms

to the Clean Development Mecha-

nism, and groundrules for activities

to reduce emissions from deforesta-

tion and degradation. ese out-

comes are not ref‌lected in the accord

but are no less important to the fu-

ture climate policy architecture.

Finally, the chaos of Copenhagen

seems to have contributed to the

long overdue realization that other

negotiation forums are needed.

With nearly 200 countries partici-

pating and the decision rules based

on consensus, the United Nations

framework is a recipe for continued

impasse. Expect more of the action

to move to the G-20 and to the Ma-

jor Economies Forum on Climate

Change.

For all of these reasons, the De-

cember conference may have put

international climate change coop-

eration on a vital new path. How-

ever, the likelihood that the climate

negotiations can progress from the

accord blueprint to a fully elabo-

rated program may be a function of

further developments in the United

States. Other countries have limited

incentives to follow through on

mitigation commitments without

corresponding action by the United

States. And the f‌inancial assistance

program relies signif‌icantly on par-

ticipation by the United States.

Up until now, the Obama admin-

istration has contemplated that it

would do its part through an econ-

omy-wide cap-and-trade program.

In addition to establishing a robust

mitigation commitment, this ap-

proach also would make it possible

for the United States to meet its

commitments for f‌inancial transfers

without building up a new taxpayer-

supported fund. e program could

generate international funds through

the auctioning of allowances and the

purchase of international of‌fsets.

Yet, it is far from clear that 2010

will see any U.S. legislation, and

even the options currently under

discussion are trending toward

designs that make less use of a cap-

and-trade approach. ese develop-

ments could make it very dif‌f‌icult

for the United States to do its part

in building on the Copenhagen Ac-

cord.

Asked what the Constitutional

Convention had produced, Ben-

jamin Franklin said, “A republic,

if you can keep it.” ough less

momentous than the events in

Philadelphia two centuries ago,

the Copenhagen talks established a

constructive blueprint for a more ef-

fective international climate change

regime. e question is how this

progress can survive a rocky year of

U.S. climate change politics.

Kyle danish is head of the climate change

practice at Van Ness Feldman in Washing-

ton, D.C.

New and Improved

Course for a

Climate Regime

K D

To be sure, the Copenhagen

talks did not produce a

fully realized successor to

the Kyoto Protocol. e

three-page agreement sal-

vaged from the chaotic conference

may seem like a slim result for all of

the hype that preceded COP-15.

However, the summit was by no

means a failure. e Copenhagen

Accord charts a new and improved

course for the international climate

change regime. Whether the negoti-

ations can make further progress this

year, however, is a real question.

e accord departs from the

Kyoto Protocol architecture in im-

portant respects. For the f‌irst time,

it establishes a long-term goal for

the climate regime: limiting the in-

crease in global temperatures to no

more than 2 degrees Celsius. Most

importantly, the accord breaks down

the protocol’s anachronistic distinc-

tion between “developed” countries

and “developing” countries. e

new agreement makes clear that all

major emitting countries will make

mitigation commitments. And,

indeed, countries such as China, In-

dia, Brazil, and South Africa already

have followed through on inscribing

their national commitments into the

accord’s schedule. Most scientists

believe these commitments fall short

of what is needed to avoid a 2 de-

gree increase, but it is a start.

e Copenhagen talks also made

progress on the issue of verif‌ication

of commitments. In the lead-up to

the talks, China had dug in its heels

on this issue, asserting that any such

outside verif‌ication of commitments

not supported by international

funding would be an af‌front to its

sovereignty. e accord nevertheless

opens the door for such verif‌ication,