DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) IX SEMESTER



SUBJECT: International Environmental Law

Seminar Paper
TOPIC: Copenhagen Summit And India




UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF: SUBMITTED BY:
Dr. A K Tiwari ANKIT KR MISHRA
Professor ROLL NO. : 18
B.A. LL.B. (HONS.)
Climate Change: An Indian
perspective on the Copenhagen Summit
What happens to the animals in the seas happens to us- men and women. What happens to
the forests happens to us in our bodies, since our bodies like the trees are made of the same
earth. Are not our bodies moving clay forms endowed with intelligence? A conscientious effort
at healing the earth would manifest as the ultimate healing of our own bodies- Sri Bhagavan
Amidst all this talk of saving the environment and the innumerable summits taking place across
the globe in the presence of luminaries who have done distinguished service in this field, a
thought provoking idea comes to my mind: what if all of us are actually proceeding in the
wrong direction? The answer to saving the environment is to act now. Now represents today. If
we continue in this manner of conducting negotiation between countries and designating the
success of a environment conference in accordance with the total number of countries which
attend the summit, then there is no way we can avoid this impending doom.

The Copenhagen Summit is an example where over 163 countries had come forward to be a
part of this historic summit. But the number of participation is just an indicator of the number
of voices which are waiting to be heard. It is definitely a momentous step in the history of the
Earth but still nothing changes the reality of today. Even after the other historic summits like
the Earth summit and the Stockholm Declaration much furor was raised over the issue of
environmental degradation but as soon as the representatives returned back to their nations,
all the voices were silenced.

Even the treaties which are signed at such conferences remain to be admired only on paper as
the ground reality is unaffected as ever. These multilateral, bilateral agreements and MoUs
raise global media attention but at the grass roots level, the polluters continue to pollute and
no strict action can ever be taken in the absence of strict enforcement agencies and public
awareness.

Though all this has been in the public glare for decades and reports of increasing depletion of
ozone layer and increasing temperature of the planet are almost a daily feature in our lives,
what has changed is the environment itself. The planet has lost its capacity to take further
assaults on its fragile nature and it is retaliating in the form of increasing natural calamities,
mass droughts, drying up of fresh water resources as well flooding of coastal areas. There is
no way any government of any country can prevent such natural calamities. This can be
controlled only by treating nature with the dignity it deserves. Focus must be on small actions
and not on entering into agreements and promises which are put on the back burner the
moment they are signed. This is a real serious concern plaguing the world and our repeated
laxity towards it has jeopardized the future of the entire mankind. What steps we take now
shall determine not just the future of our coming generations but also ours as well. The effects
of environmental degradation are already apparent in our times only. The statistics are scary
but this is something which is still being ignored by the top honchos of the countries while the
common man on the streets is bearing the brunt of faulty policies and broken agreements. For
the people in positions of power who live in the comfort of air-conditioners and other luxuries,
the heat of rising temperatures and droughts cannot even touch. But it is the common man
who remains the man in agony all his life and then dies suffering. The problem of
environmental protection is of more significance to the developing countries. Here the common
man is unconcerned about environmental pollution. It is more of a struggle to get two decent
meals a day for self and his family. Developing and under-developing are crippled with the
issues of poverty and unemployment. Here the focus is always on development as economic
growth is the only way to achieve a reasonable standard of living. After all right to life
guaranteed by the Indian Constitution as a inalienable fundamental right includes not just the
live with liberty but also right to live in a clean environment with a dignified right to livelihood.
Eradication of poverty is a must for improving environment. It was stated by Mrs. Indira Gandhi,
ex- Prime Minister of India, of all the polluters we have, poverty is the worst polluter.

As long as a man is not free from the vicious cycle of poverty, the idea of saving the earth is not
consequence to him. But the irony of the situation is such that it is the common citizenry who is
the most affected of the disasters resulting from environmental degradation.

What we should know about the summit:

What is the Copenhagen climate change summit?
The UN meeting is the deadline for thrashing out a successor to the Kyoto protocol, with the
aim of preventing dangerous global warming. It will run for two weeks from 7 December and is
the latest in a series that trace their origins to the 1992 Earth summit in Rio.

What's the bottom line?
Climate scientists are convinced the world must stop the growth in greenhouse gas emissions
and start making them fall very soon. To have a chance of keeping warming under the
dangerous 2C mark, cuts of 25%-40% relative to 1990 levels are needed, rising to 80%-95% by
2050. So far, the offers on the table are way below these targets.

Who should make the cuts?
That is a crunch issue. The industrialized nations such as the US, UK, Japan and others have
emitted by far the most carbon and still emit vast amounts per person, so have a responsibility
to make the deep cuts scientists demand. But emissions from emerging economies such as
China and India are surging, and any global limit on emissions needs curbs on those nations,
too. Yet, per person, those nations have small carbon footprints and millions of people in deep
poverty 400 million Indians live without electricity, for example. So China, India and others
can argue they need to be allowed to continue to pollute for a while as they improve their
citizens' lives. Balancing the responsibilities for cuts is a key part of the negotiations.
Who is going to pay?

There is an argument that, in the long term, a low-carbon economy will be cheaper than a
fossil-fuelled one, and represents a fantastic investment. But time is short and there will be
costs in the near term. All agree that the poorest nations need urgent help. Citizens in places
from Haiti to Sudan to Bangladesh have done virtually nothing to pollute the atmosphere, but
are bearing the worst impacts of floods and droughts. Richer nations will need to pay billions
from now some call it reparations for damage to the Earth's climate. It will also cost a lot to
build the global clean energy infrastructure essential to staunch the carbon from coal and gas
power stations, responsible for a large part of global emissions. For the fast emerging
economies, such as India, the ideal is to skip the high-carbon growth phase entirely and go
straight to renewable and perhaps nuclear power. Again, rich nations will be expected to pick
up the tab. for this - if they don't, there is little incentive to stop building coal-fired plants.
Gordon Brown and the EU have suggested $100bn a year from 2020 would cover the global
climate change bill. But estimates from development groups reach up to four times that
amount. Finding a figure that all nations accept is the second key part of the negotiations.

What about carbon trading?

In theory, buying permits to pollute from those who can cut their emissions most cheaply is
attractive maximum bang per buck and a flow of cash to pay for investments. However, from
one perspective, this kind of offsetting simply looks like paying poorer people to clear up the
mess left by the rich, who can then continue to pollute. Also, if carbon trading is to cut real
emissions, the cap set on the market has to be tight and, to date, political imperatives have
overridden those of the planet. Nonetheless, carbon trading will remain at the heart of any
treaty sealed in Copenhagen, as it was in the Kyoto treaty.


Is stopping deforestation an easier way to cut emission?

About 40% of all the carbon emitted by human activity has come from razing forests. Stopping
deforestation is, in principle, cheap and simple: do not cut them down. But paying people via
carbon credits not to fell trees soon becomes complex. Who really owns the trees? Were they
going to be chopped down anyway? And how do you verify what actually happens? Finding a
solution to these issues is one of the strongest hopes for the Copenhagen summit.

What are the prospects for a Copenhagen deal?

Negotiations held in September in Barcelona were grim: all now acknowledge that no legal deal
is possible in Copenhagen. A miracle is needed for a triumph. President Barack Obama is the
one who could deliver it, but it is very unlikely. Most likely is a hopeful fudge in which all parties
remain on speaking terms and seal the deal in 2010. A total collapse would leave 20 years' of
negotiations in tatters and the world unprotected against the ravages of global warming. It is
also unlikely, but not as unlikely as a miracle.

Copenhagen Summit 2009
The UN Climate Change Conference (COP15) more famously known as Copenhagen Summit
held in Copenhagen, in Denmark summit from 7 to 18 December 2009, is an example step
taken by the world community to solve the global crisis of environmental deterioration. This
summit was regarded as the one stop destination for the rising ecological problems. Overall
the summit turned out to be a huge disappointment as it failed to stand up to the expectations
of millions across the world who expected this meeting of nations to deliver the final and much
needed solution to solve environmental crisis and to chart out the road ahead after the
expiration of the Kyoto protocol. Greater involvement was expected from the United States of
America, as it has the recognition of having the largest rate of carbon emissions contributing
in a huge way to the rise in global warming and all its consequential negative alarming effects.
However, the summit cannot be labeled as a complete failure.
The Copenhagen Accord, though not without its glaring faults is a small step towards greater
global cooperation and integration for achieving the larger goal of saving the
environment. Released on December 19, 2009, the accord is a three page declaration that lays
down the path for future UN climate change negotiations and to help nations for mitigating
global emissions. In the subsequent discussion, implications of this accord and its significance
for India shall be discussed.

Summary

The Copenhagen Climate Change summit was a gathering of world leaders in the capital of
Denmark over a two week period from 7th - 18th December 2009.

Aims of the Summit

The aims of this meeting was to come up with a deal to replace the Kyoto protocol, a deal
which is to expire in 2012. 15,000 delegates and officials were present, representing 192
nations, all with different expectations/aspirations of what they wanted to achieve.

What About Kyoto?

The Kyoto Protocol was a global agreement on the reduction of the main greenhouse gas
emissions that are linked to climate change and global warming.

The original meeting took place in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, when 110 governments agreed that
industrialized countries should cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% from
the 1990 level by the year 2008-2012. The Kyoto Agreement would only become legally binding
when the industrialized nations accounting for 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions ratify the
agreement.

The Kyoto Protocol was the first international treaty to set legally binding targets to cut
greenhouse gas emissions. It was finally ratified by 183 countries and the EC; the USA was not
one of them, despite having the worlds biggest economy and emitting the second largest
amount of greenhouse gases/carbon. It was signed as a framework accord in 1997 but didnt
come into effect until February 2005.

The Kyoto agreement provided a legal distinction between developed and developing nations
which the poorer countries wanted to maintain. It placed a clear responsibility on the
shoulders of rich nations, committing them to reduce overall emissions of 6 categories of
greenhouse gases by at least 5% by 2008-12, compared to 1990 levels. Developing nations did
not have any binding targets to meet; they were only expected to attempt to develop in clean
ways. Some countries like the US did not ratify this agreement thinking it unfair that they
would have to meet set targets while other countries would not. Developing countries were
concerned that any new treaty would not be as strict or legally binding. They were also
concerned that their development could be slowed down because they couldnt use as many
fossil fuels as developed nations had done in the past. However, some of these developing
countries included China which has overtaken American as the bigger carbon producer even
though per capita each person has a much smaller footprint and much ofwhat they produce is
for export to the richer nations.

During the Summit

The final few days of the summit were meant to be when the majority of negotiations would be
done so that world leaders who arrived at that time could tie things up. However, progress was
incredibly slow until Barack Obama arrived on the last day. Negotiations almost collapsed
altogether when the US, together with some other key nations together proposed an
accord. At the time this was merely noted by the UN but has since become something
more concrete. Many people thought the summit a failure, but some gems of hope can be
extracted from it, not least the fact that so many world leaders gathered to discuss what is
finally recognized as a global threat of extreme importance.


The Results
The summit did not result in the historic deal which millions of people had hoped for, but there
were some signs of progress which should not be overlooked.

It recognized the scientific case for keeping global temperature rises below the 2 degree
centigrade danger threshold (although not the 1.5 degree centigrade which many developing
nations thought necessary to protect their land and people). However, the accord did not set
any emission targets to achieve this limit so countries did not have to commit to anything in
particular. The deal was non-binding so countries only sign up to it on a voluntary basis. The
goal of cutting emissions by 80% by 2050 was also dropped. It is up to individual governments
to set their own targets of what they are prepared to do.

The legally binding Kyoto protocol is currently preserved. The accord aims to provide funds to
help developing nations adapt to climate change - $30 billion/year until 2012 and $100 billion
by 2020. They also agreed to provide finance to help prevent deforestation which accounts for
about 17% of carbon emissions.

Reasons for Hope

Considering the US did not even ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the fact that their President attended
the Copenhagen summit and was a key player in coming to some kind of agreement is a huge
step forward.

As of 18th February 2010, 61 countries, accounting for over 78% of global emissions from
energy use have submitted their mitigation pledges including representatives from both
developed and developing nations - something which has never happened before. These
include all the EU countries, the USA, China, India, Indonesia and Brazil. It is notable though
that Brazil is so far the only Latin American country to have signed up and that only 6 out of a
possible 55 African countries have too. That leaves 137 countries which have not made
pledges. While these pledges are a good start it is said that if achieved they are only half of
what needs to be done in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

Climate-gate

Attention was unfortunately diverted from the summits ideals when a leak from some private
e-mails between members of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) became
international news. This served to undermine the authenticity of their reports on Climate
Change which so many world bodies were relying on for accurate information. In the UK data
from the MET Office was quickly released in order to counteract this and show the public and
leaders alike that there was still huge amounts of data in favors of the arguments put forward
regarding climate change by the IPCC.

The People Movement
The Copenhagen Climate Change Summit saw an international movement of people involved in
demonstrations and protests. On December 12th 2009 a march of up to 100,000 protesters
took to the streets of Copenhagen. Many thought it hypocrisy that leaders should be turning
up in limousines and private jets!

The Wave was a peaceful demonstration in London where people marched to Parliament to
demonstrate their support for a strong treaty in Copenhagen. It was attended by about 20,000
- 40,000 protesters (estimates vary wildly!) with another 7,000 in Scotland. They were
marching with three goals in mind:

to ask developed countries to cut their emissions by 40% by 2020;
increase the UKs renewable energy supply and
provide $150 billion a year to help poorer nations cope with the impacts of climate
change.

The UK government was already the first in the world to set its own legally binding law in
October 2008, committing to 80% cuts in all UK carbon emissions by 2050, including aviation
and shipping. This was largely the result of a grassroots campaign.

Implications of the Accord

The highlights of the accord deal with greater potential for involvement of the US towards a
global climate change regime, inclusion of developing country reduction plans in global
reporting and increased financial support for developing countries. But the severe limitations of
the Copenhagen Accord ditch the situation regarding environment protection in uncertainty.
The reasons behind the dubbing of the conference as a failure include no binding GHG (green
house gases which are the main reason for rising levels of global warming) emission reduction
targets, lack of a deadline or consensus to formulate the path after the expiry of the Kyoto
protocol and absence of much needed reform of the Clean Development mechanism market.
Also concerns of aviation and maritime emissions still remain to be addressed. Nevertheless,
the conference and its subsequent achievement cannot be termed as a complete failure.



Climate Change and India

We have the moral responsibility to bequeath to our Children a world which is safe, clean and
productive, A world which should continue to inspire the human imagination with the
immensity of the blue ocean, the loftiness of snow-covered mountains, The green expanse of
extensive forests and the silver streams of ancient rivers
These were some golden words by our very own Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh which
is the dream of every global citizen. The Copenhagen summit has captured the imagination of
the people. Suddenly everyone seems to be talking about environment. Talks are being held;
cover page stories are running in all major national dailies; everyone it seems wants to save the
environment. Awareness is at an all time high. History however favors India as the concept of
environmental protection is not a novel idea in India. Recent Parliament legislations as well as
judicial decisions reveal that the corridors of power are not lying in wait for an international
policy to be formed on the lines of the Kyoto protocol but have in itself taken steps to preserve
the fragile ecosystem of our planet. India was one of the first countries in the world to enact
and implement environmental legislation in accordance with the Stockholm declaration 1972.

Beginning with the Water Act 1974, a series of laws have been passed by the Indian parliament
to prevent environmental degradation and to follow the principles laid down in the Stockholm
Declaration namely Air act, Environment Protection act, wildlife act and forest conservation
act. The Stockholm Declaration on human environment resulting from the United Nations
Conference on human environment gave a much needed impetus to the concept of Sustainable
Development late back in 1972. Though the term sustainable development was first used in the
Cocoyoc Declaration, it attained much fame after the report of the Bruntland Commission in
1987. It mainly refers to utilization of natural resources of the world in such a planned way that
the ability of future generations to sustain themselves is not impaired. It adheres to the idea of
Inter- generational rights. In fact the idea that, for the benefit of future generations, present
generations should be modest in their exploitation of natural resources has found wide spread
international approval since the Maltese Proposal at the UN General Assembly of 1967, which
contended that there was a common heritage of mankind and that this also required legal
protection by the international community. This whole concept is based on the idea that
natural resources such as sea bed are not the fruits of the labor of present generations and thus
these resources can only be exploited with adequate consideration of the rights of future
generations.

Unfortunately, Climate change has become the utmost issue which cannot be ignored; its a
challenge which requires an ambitious global response. It was through various protocols like
Kyoto Protocol, conferences like Copenhagen regarding environment that we have made steps
to arrive at an outcome that can be said to be worthy of the expectations of the concerned
global citizenry with their active involvement by conducting debates and seminars etc. on the
very same issue.

Developing Countries bearing the Brunt:

In todays world, need for environmental protection cannot be isolated to any one area or
nation of the globe. It is a global issue which needs to be addressed as such. Irrespective of the
development level of a country or its physical size, problem of deteriorating environment
concerns one and all. Despite of the political division of earth into different countries with their
own right to sovereignty, the winds that blow over the countries are one. An example to
illustrate how environmental degrading activities in one part of the world affect the other parts
is the case of Germany and Switzerland. During a fire accident in a warehouse in Switzerland,
agricultural chemicals, solvents and mercury flowed into the river Rhine. The impact of this was
felt in Germany as millions of fish were killed and drinking water sources were also polluted.
Examples such as these are manifold. The brunt of pollution caused by developed countries
over the years is being felt by developing nations like India and entire south Asia. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its fourth assessment report submitted in
2007 that the presence of green house gases known as the culprit for rising global
temperatures like carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide has increased to alarming levels such
that never been seen before. Also the report further states that one of the first countries to
face adverse changes in climate due to global warming will be India. The consequences which
shall ensue include droughts, famines, floods, and tectonic movements. Catastrophic events
just waiting to happen. Extinction of valuable animal and plant species is also another major
effect of global warming.
Melting of glaciers would lead to a rise in sea levels which in turn would lead to inundation of
the coastal areas with flash floods and the like giving further rise to mass spread epidemic and
in consequence death of millions of mankind. It is not that the seriousness of the situation is
unknown to the people in power. But the problem remains that by the time our political leaders
wake up to reach a solution to a problem, years have passed and several disasters have already
taken place. It is as if the value of human life is of no significance whatsoever. 2010 has already
recorded the warmest temperature ever and the summer has just begun. The problem goes
deeper and then it remains limited to not just environmental pollution but includes within itself
all the various situations which arise out of such degradation. Climate Change has direct
relation to the respective societies in concern with problems in relation of water as relatively
small climatic changes can cause large water resource problems, particularly in arid and semi-
arid regions such as northwest India, extreme temperature and heat spells, seasons like
monsoon get affected as decline in summer rainfall, also Indian population being
predominantly involved in agricultural activities gets affected as even a small increase by 1?
C could increase the rate of evaporation by 5-15% with reduction in rainfall, shortening on grain
fill period leading to food insecurity issues etc. Delayed monsoon causes failure of crop leading
to the situation of mass farmer suicides. Under extreme indebtedness, the poor peasants
dependent on the success of their crop choose to end their life leaving their families behind to
fend for themselves. But the burden of responsibility for the above cant be shifted only to
developing countries instead, its the developed countries who have been emitting carbon-
dioxide in the earths atmosphere for years and later with the path of development adopted by
countries like India and China started emitting the greenhouse effect gases trapped and cooling
down at low rate with protection of suns harmful UV rays.

After the signing of the Accord, the actual plight of the developing countries has received global
recognition. Several developed nations including the US have pledged to give greater financial
and technological support to the poor countries affected by the rise in global warming. Only
with greater development can these countries like India hope to solve environmental issues.
The aim is to achieve a balance between environment and development without adversely
affecting the growth of either as both are essential for continuance of the human race on Earth.

Indo-China Relations

What was the main surprise element of the Copenhagen Conference was the strong alliance of
the BASIC nations (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). This bloc was formed after an
agreement signed between them on 28
th
November 2009. These four had agreed to act jointly
at the summit or to walk-out of the conference if their proposals for minimum emission cuts
were not agreed upon by the developed nations of the world. However the good that came
out this alliance was the development of strong ties between India and China dissolving the
long- standing indifference almost bordering on hostility between the two nations. Though the
recent controversy that arose about claims being made in China as to the status of Arunachal
Pradesh threatened to disturb the calm that has existed on the borders of the two nations for
so long, yet due to the summit a new friendship it seems has been forged. This definitely is
good news for India as strong Indo- China relations will increase the Indias status in the world.
China is one of the rising super powers and maintaining good relations with neighbors has
always been an integral part of Indias foreign policy. In todays times both the nations need
peace and stability and are interested in development. Fostering of bilateral ties between them
will lead to new prospects and opportunities for the citizens of both the nations.

This year is historic in the growth of India China relations as it marks the 60
th
anniversary of
the establishment of diplomatic relations. Thus the Copenhagen accord brought out the
position of India in the world community. It made the developed countries to sit up and notice
the emerging potential of the Indian markets and it was soon was evident that India would not
be ignored anymore. Also, the openness of china for a new relation with India based on mutual
interest puts the future of India on an altogether different plane. These two countries together
shall put the Asian community on the global map and also it will further accelerate the
fulfillment of the long desired goal of India of becoming a super power.

Negotiation Difficulties: Pressure on Developed Countries and Kyoto protocol

International negotiations to deal with the global warming problem are currently posing
problems because countries like US are refusing to take responsibility for contribution to the
global warming problem as they are afraid it will affect their economies and the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) percentage or for that matter their progress. Instead, they politically pressurize
developing countries like India to take meaningful action and equal measures as per their own
i.e. developed countries precautionary principles. The differences between developed and
developing countries can be made when we talk about the per capita emissions of carbon-
dioxide. In 1996, the emissions of one US citizen were equal to 19 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 17
Maldivians, 19 Sri Lankans, 107 Bangladeshis, 134 Bhutanese or 269 Nepalese.
This is because of their lifestyle, due to which emission by industrialized countries is termed as
luxury emissions. But the lower per Capita emissions of developing countries are because a
large number of poor people do not even have access to basic amenities. Therefore, they will
need share of ecological space to increase, which belongs to them and can be termed as
survival emissions. Hence, richer countries have to decrease their per capita emissions
and to deal with it the Kyoto Protocol on 11
th
December, 1997, adopted under the Article-3 of
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which lists the principles of:

Benefits of present and future generations
Equity, and
Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities of nations.

According to the protocol, adopted under the FCCC in 1997, a timetable was laid down for
industrialized countries to reduce their GHG emissions. According to the protocol, industrialized
countries had to decrease their emissions at least 5.2% compared to 1990 emission levels, by
the 2008-2012 periods. Now, with these objectives industrialized countries want to save their
shimmery, sparkling skin as its developed in all aspects so all they want is meaningful
participation of developing countries like BASIC, this is all because US wanted to be on the safe
side, protecting their economy. They are afraid that industries, jobs, developed status will move
from them to others like China, India etc. But the condition of reduction in levels of emission of
carbon dioxide is like asking them to freeze at their current level of development. This amounts
to static global inequality, by accepting that some same countries will always be more
developed than others in the world. Therefore, all that US have done is that, to be sure to meet
the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol in the cheapest ways, without compromising its
economy and pushing the Flexibility mechanism and the Clean Development Mechanism
towards developing countries. Under this development whereas, countries like US play safe
with minimum reduction in per capita and enjoying the perks as mentioned above. Equitable
sharing of atmospheric space has become a critical issue especially for countries like- India,
China etc. for their future growth. Seeing the scenario, the issue of Global warming was dealt
worldwide along with active participation across the globe and addressing the very same, giving
it an international platform.

Building on these lines 15
th
Conference of parties in Copenhagen was to enhance the long-term
cooperation on Climate Change and India is resisting the call by developed countries to take on
specific targets for reduction of emission which has increased alarmingly, over the past decades
because of developed countries. Therefore, UNFCCC itself should not require the developing
countries to allow per capita GHG emissions to exceed the average per capita emissions of
the developed countries and the reduction should also be only there for the developed
countries as was mentioned in the so-called Annexure-I countries, recognized in the Kyoto
Protocol Policy criticized by developed countries like US, Russia etc. by saying that this action
is very different from binding International commitments.

An International agreement is to promote National interest of the respective parties and not
merely a collation of nationally determined steps. Therefore, inability to reach certain targets of
renewable energies under a national plan will have all together a different consequence on an
international agreement.
Signing Copenhagen by India and China, have attracted lot of criticisms from other developing
countries as a shameful act increasing the whirl of anger not only
surrendering ourselves to the US Imperialism and the terms of agreement, also
the secrecy way adopted by the terms, indicating lack of democratic principles. The agreement
mentions no legally binding emission cuts for industrialized countries, hence letting them go by
their own ways. Given the fact that prior conference, many other industrialized countries had
promised reductions (The European Union for instance had unilaterally agreed to reduce its
emission by 20%, and the UK by 40%), it is clear that the US arrogance has come to light. Thus,
more importantly developing countries like India have been given an option to voluntarily
reduce in emission of GHG which indirectly eliminates the distinct margin between the
developed and developing countries. Again India should make an effort to reduce the emission
not in competition with developed countries of course but because, we Indians do care about
the ecological balance around us and not because US has asked us to do so, simultaneously
with funding and renewable technology, an aid from industrialized countries which is very
essential for following the path of Sustainable development. On the other hand, developed
countries by sending eminent personalities to India and convince its people has always
built political pressure and in turn, we consider them the neighbors wholl guide us, instead
they tend to take undue advantage of developing countries like India and achieve their own
prosperity fulfilling their motives.

Environmental issues are to be dealt with mutual cooperation and understanding. The
protection of human environment is a major issue which affects the well being of people and
economic development throughout the world. It has become an imperative goal for the entire
mankind to defend and improve the natural environment. This goal cannot be achieved alone.
It has to be pursued in harmony with the established goals of peace and of word-wide
economic and social development. At every level in the community down to the basic level of
the common man, a sense of responsibility has to be cultivated towards Mother Nature without
any consideration for fulfilling our selfish vested interests.

Though the world has been segregated into different continents which are further divided into
nations and states, these differences must not deter us accepting our role towards fulfillment
of the common aim of saving our race from total annihilation. In order to work out a final
solution for saving the planet, we must look into the eyes of the starving masses affected by the
fury of nature punishing us for our silent crimes towards it in destroying its fragility and then
there shall be no further need for any negotiations or discussions, only implementation of the
long known solutions.

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference -
December 2009
The Copenhagen Accord
The 15th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the 5th session of the
Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol took place
in Copenhagen and was hosted by the Government of Denmark. Also sitting were the thirty-
first sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for
Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), the tenth session of the Ad hoc Working Group on
Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), and the eighth
session of the Ad hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention
(AWG-LCA).
The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference raised climate change policy to the highest
political level. Close to 115 world leaders attended the high-level segment, making it one of the
largest gatherings of world leaders ever outside UN headquarters in New York. More than
40,000 people, representing governments, nongovernmental organizations, intergovernmental
organizations, faith-based organizations, media and UN agencies applied for accreditation.
COP 15 / CMP 5 was a crucial event in the negotiating process.
It significantly advanced the negotiations on the infrastructure needed for effective
global climate change cooperation, including improvements to the Clean Development
Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol.
Significant progress was made in narrowing down options and clarifying choices
needed to be made on key issues later on in the negotiations.
It produced the Copenhagen Accord, which expressed clear a political intent to
constrain carbon and respond to climate change, in both the short and long term.
The Copenhagen Accord contained several key elements on which there was strong
convergence of the views of governments. This included the long-term goal of limiting the
maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-
industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. There was, however, no agreement on how to do
this in practical terms. It also included a reference to consider limiting the temperature increase
to below 1.5 degrees - a key demand made by vulnerable developing countries. Other central
elements included:
Developed countries' promises to fund actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
to adapt to the inevitable effects of climate change in developing countries. Developed
countries promised to provide US$30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and to mobilize
long-term finance of a further US$100 billion a year by 2020 from a variety of sources.
Agreement on the measurement, reporting and verification of developing country
actions, including a reference to "international consultation and analysis", which had
yet to be defined.
The establishment of four new bodies: a mechanism on REDD-plus, a High-Level Panel
under the COP to study implementation of financial provisions, the Copenhagen Green
Climate Fund, and a Technology Mechanism.
The work of the two central negotiating groups, the AWG-LCA and the AWG-KP was extended
by the COP.

Conclusion
On 18 December after a day of frantic negotiations between heads of state, it was announced
that a "meaningful agreement" had been reached between on one hand the United States and
on the other, in a united position as the BASIC countries (China, South Africa, India,
and Brazil). An unnamed US government official was reported as saying that the deal was a
"historic step forward" but was not enough to prevent dangerous climate change in the future.
However, the BBC's environment correspondent said: "While the White House was announcing
the agreement, many other perhaps most other delegations had not even seen it. A
comment from a UK official suggested the text was not yet final and the Bolivian delegation has
already complained about the way it was reached 'anti-democratic, anti-transparent and
unacceptable'. With no firm target for limiting the global temperature rise, no commitment to a
legal treaty and no target year for peaking emissions, countries most vulnerable to climate
impacts have not got the deal they wanted." The use of "meaningful" in the announcement was
viewed as being political spin by an editorial in The Guardian.
Early on Saturday 19 December, delegates approved a motion to "take note of the Copenhagen
Accord of December 18, 2009". This was due to the opposition of countries such
as Bolivia, Venezuela, Sudan and Tuvalu who registered their opposition to both the targets and
process by which the Copenhagen Accord was reached.
The UN Secretary General Ban-ki-moon welcomed the US-backed climate deal as an "essential
beginning" however debate has remained as to the exact legal nature of the Accord. The
Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific case for keeping temperature rises below 2 C, but
does not contain a baseline for this target, nor commitments for reduced emissions that would
be necessary to achieve the target. One part of the agreement pledges US$30 billion to the
developing world over the next three years, rising to US$100 billion per year by 2020, to help
poor countries adapt to climate change.
Earlier proposals, that would have aimed to limit temperature rises to 1.5 C and cut CO
2 emissions by 80% by 2050 were dropped. The Accord also favors developed countries' paying
developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation, known as
"REDD". The agreement made was non-binding but US President Obama said that countries
could show the world their achievements. He said that if they had waited for a binding
agreement, no progress would have been made.
Many countries and non-governmental organizations were opposed to this agreement, but,
throughout 2010, 138 countries had either formally signed on to agreement or signaled they
would. Tony Tujan of the IBON Foundation suggests the perceived failure of Copenhagen may
prove useful, if it allows people to unravel some of the underlying misconceptions and work
towards a new, more holistic view of things. This could help gain the support of developing
countries. Malta's Ambassador for Climate Change, Michael Zammit Cutajar, extends this to
suggest "the shock has made people more open to dialogue"