IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iie/pbrief/pb10-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Copenhagen, the Accord, and the Way Forward

Author

Listed:
  • Trevor Houser

    (Peterson Institute for International Economics)

Abstract

Policymakers and the public had high expectations for the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen last December. Since the international community embarked on a new round of negotiations in Bali in 2007, elections in the United States, Australia, and Japan raised developed countries' climate change ambitions and a number of emerging economies--including China, India, and Brazil--announced their first ever nationwide climate change targets. Yet while political will to tackle climate change appeared to be building, international climate change negotiations were failing to deliver. The UN process launched in Bali struggled for two years to reach agreement on even the most basic issues between the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These two trends collided in Copenhagen, when ministers and heads of state arrived to find a negotiation process in disarray and no consensus text on the table. An eleventh-hour diplomatic flurry by leaders of a diverse and representative set of countries produced a political accord addressing the core issues of the negotiations. While attracting broad support among the 192 Parties to the UNFCCC, the accord did not receive unanimous approval. Instead, the UN "took note" of the agreement. This policy brief assesses the two-week conference, evaluates the Copenhagen Accord that resulted, and discusses key issues the international community will face moving forward. Author Trevor Houser argues that despite the chaos in Copenhagen, the accord is a significant step in addressing global climate change. The chaos in Copenhagen presents the international community with a unique opportunity to go back to first principles and craft a more suitable and sustainable long-term approach to this challenge. Houser calls for combining the UN process aimed at producing a legally binding agreement with a small-group process that would start work immediately on a politically binding basis--an approach that would prevent near-term substantive action from being held hostage to disagreements over legal form while demonstrating that meaningful international cooperation is possible and thus building support for a future treaty.

Suggested Citation

  • Trevor Houser, 2010. "Copenhagen, the Accord, and the Way Forward," Policy Briefs PB10-5, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb10-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.piie.com/publications/policy-briefs/copenhagen-accord-and-way-forward
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Frank Jotzo, 2010. "Comparing the Copenhagen Emissions Targets," CCEP Working Papers 0110, Centre for Climate & Energy Policy, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    2. Fouré, Jean & Guimbard, Houssein & Monjon, Stéphanie, 2012. "Border carbon adjustment and potential trade retaliation: an evaluation with MIRAGE-e," Conference papers 332266, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Rob Dellink & Gregory Briner & Christa Clapp, 2011. "The Copenhagen Accord/Cancún Agreements Emission Pledges For 2020: Exploring Economic And Environmental Impacts," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(01), pages 53-78.
    4. Karl Hallding & Marie J�risoo & Marcus Carson & Aaron Atteridge, 2013. "Rising powers: the evolving role of BASIC countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(5), pages 608-631, September.
    5. Joseph E. Aldy & William A. Pizer & Keigo Akimoto, 2017. "Comparing emissions mitigation efforts across countries," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 501-515, May.
    6. Aldy, Joseph E. & Pizer, William A. & Akimoto, Keigo, 2015. "A natural outcome of the emerging pledge and review approach to international climate change policy is the interest in comparing mitigation efforts among countries. Domestic publics and stakeholders w," RFF Working Paper Series dp-15-32, Resources for the Future.
    7. Carlo Carraro & Emanuele Massetti, 2012. "Beyond Copenhagen: a realistic climate policy in a fragmented world," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 110(3), pages 523-542, February.
    8. Robert Falkner, 2015. "A minilateral solution for global climate change? On bargaining efficiency, club benefits and international legitimacy," GRI Working Papers 197, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    9. Robert Falkner & Hannes Stephan & John Vogler, 2010. "International climate policy after Copenhagen: towards a �building blocks� approach," GRI Working Papers 21, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    10. Trevor Houser & Jason Selfe, 2011. "Delivering on US Climate Finance Commitments," Working Paper Series WP11-19, Peterson Institute for International Economics.
    11. Yongsheng Zhang, 2015. "Reformulating the low-carbon green growth strategy in China," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(sup1), pages 40-59, December.
    12. Mattoo, Aaditya & Subramanian, Arvind, 2013. "A"greenprint"for international cooperation on climate change," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6440, The World Bank.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iie:pbrief:pb10-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peterson Institute webmaster (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iieeeus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.