As a follow-up to "How Important Is Copenhagen" it might make sense, after some breathing space to understand what really happened in the Danish capital from December 7 - 18 of last year. Will this event shape the future of a global agreement on climate change or will it be forgotten in a few years?

Predictions

In the earlier piece I wrote that for Copenhagen "to be a success it must produce a politically binding agreement that makes compulsory emissions reductions -- from industrialized economies and developing ones -- inevitable. An eventual treaty must create a global system for trading carbon as a commodity, with liquidity and price transparency. It must provide compensation to those countries that avoid deforestation and thus preserve important carbon sinks. And it must ensure that emission reductions can be verified."

Surprisingly, the final two points -- deforestation and transparency -- received much greater attention and success than most would have predicted a priori. In some sense the REDD agreement on reforestation compensation and the movement by China to accept some level of MRV standards were the two clear bright spots in an otherwise murky two weeks. Less clear were the fates of legally binding emissions and a global carbon market.

The Copenhagen Accord

If brevity is the soul of wit, then the Copenhagen Accord may be the most clever international climate agreement ever written. There are only 12 points to this political and non-legally binding accord, each averaging a mere 100 words. The 12 points include: 

1.    Commitment to < 2°C temperature rise
2.    Reaching peak global emissions ASAP
3.    Funding transfers for adaptation
4.    Industrialized country mitigation targets for 2020 5.    Developing country mitigation actions
6.    Forestry - REDD
7.    Incentives for Action
8 - 10. Aid from the industrialized to developing world
11. Technology transfer
12. Next steps

Winners and Losers

Copenhagen refocused the climate conversation from the one taking place among 100+ nations to one happening among five countries, the U.S. and the so-called BASIC countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China). These countries flexed their "climate muscle" at Copenhagen, usurping an international process that had been in place since Kyoto.

In that sense they could be seen as winners, with the international process of negotiation and the smaller nations the losers. Barack Obama's leadership to help salvage something out of Copenhagen made him look like a winner, with Europe losing influence after all of the years of diligent work leading the COP process. Lack of a clear path to a legally binding agreement on emissions must make oil and coal interests feel like winners, with carbon price predictability and the cleantech sector the losers.
 
But what about the public and the planet? Were they winners or losers? Having the U.S. and China front-and-center on climate change is indeed hopeful, but without legally binding agreements that align with the science and bring the rest of the world along the people and the planet may be the ultimate losers.