d'accord?

The 'historic' Copenhagen conference ended after two weeks of dead-lock with a haphazard all-nighter resulting in an unfinished assignment. Remind you of college anyone? The last-minute agreement which is the Copenhagen Accord has been praised by China, currently the biggest carbon emitter. No prizes for guessing why: the agreement is nonbinding, which encourages major polluters to make deeper emission cuts but does not require it. If memory serves right, thats what happened the last time with Kyoto!

The only silver-ish lining in this whole debacle is that the rich countries have pledged $100 billion a year by 2020 in aid to poor countries in order to implement green technologies. This pledge spear-headed by America already generates several doubts, chiefly - in the midst of a financial crisis, where can they get this money to simply give away?

Whilst several countries have made declarations of internal emission cuts, none of them are legally binding. Developed nations may already have the infrastructure in place in order to commit to these emission cuts. However developing countries even India and large parts of China have no infrastructure in place to deal with rapid development and growth that they foresee - with no legal measures in place, where will responsibility towards the commons come from?

The good guys and the bad guys have not changed one bit and this is disheartening to note. The United States and China are the biggest emitters and they have somehow managed to walk away without any legal bindings in spite of pressure from Japan and the EU. India's over-ambitious plans have no bearing without solid directions for their enforcement.

Inter governmental negotiations are complex as admitted by several delegates and many have expressed disappointment at the current outcome. Many others are hopeful that this is the first step towards the goal of a legally binding treaty. Lack of accountability makes environmental processes haphazard either within international or national jurisdiction. This is further reinforced by the lack of transparency on the part of governing agencies.

Quoting UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon it is a "significant first step" although he admitted that, "much was left to be done"

underwater governance

Yes, I know I'm late talking about this. But I still want to do a post about it to highlight the significance of COP15. As you may have already read, the Maldives government had a Cabinet meeting underwater to stress the consequence of global warming. As a low lying atoll, Maldives is especially at risk due to rising sea levels. Tourism and fishing are its main economies and it is deemed a developing nation.

The consensus of who should make cuts still has not been reached. Wealthy nations say that all nations should make emission cuts whilst poorer nations say that the wealthy ones should make cuts. This was the predominant argument even during the Kyoto negotiations. President Nasheed of Maldives had already announced plans for a fund to buy a new homeland for his people if the archipelago submerged. He has also announced plans to make the islands the world's first carbon neutral nation within a decade. With his ambitious plans, he certainly puts other richer nations to shame.

I'm not entirely convinced that COP15 is the answer to the current environmental problems we are facing. It is indeed an excellent effort and if a consensus is reached, will affect a small piece of the overall picture. What countries are failing to note is that environmental responsibility can be incorporated can fall within a country's own jurisdiction. What is stopping every country from taking a proactive step forward in ensuring a decent future for its citizens? Consensus reached in COP15 is not going to affect recycling programs within a country for instance. Focus on the relatively smaller matters add up to the big picture - this is not something an international treaty can mandate.

It is also unfair that rich countries are expecting poorer countries to sacrifice their own growth. It is especially unfair that most manufacturing of consumer goods used by people in richer countries are being manufactured in the third world. This imbalance of resource use needs to be addressed. Having enjoyed the environmentally expensive comforts thus far, richer countries should now lend a helping hand to the poorer nations to improve their infrastructure and manufacturing processes in an eco-friendly manner.

This is precisely what President Nasheed and many others want from the richer nations. A leg up, to compete fairly. The third world may be poor in economic terms but in terms of indigenous knowledge and natural resources, they are blessed. They are also plagued with mis-management, corruption and poverty -- all of which are hindrances to an environmentally viable future. It will the strength of COP15 if it recognizes that the fight is not between rich vs poor but a fight towards equalization. The time has come to do away with 'us' and 'them'.