Many of You Are Probably a Bit Confused by the Results of the UN Framework Convention On

by Steve Eule

Many of you are probably a bit confused by the results of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Copenhagen. Depending on which account you read, it was an unprecedented success or a complete failure, and everything else in between.

While the Chamber's Energy Institute is planning on providing a more in-depth analysis of Copenhagen in the coming weeks, I wanted to take a few moments today to discuss the main headline out Copenhagen—the so-called Copenhagen Accord, a "political" agreement reached by heads of state at the meeting.

The first thing to note about the Accord is that the COP, which is the supreme body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, did not adopt the Accord. It instead decided to "take notice" of it.

Discussions on the Accord were dominated largely by the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa. The European Union, which already has committed to a comprehensive climate change mitigation program, played a very minor role in drafting the Accord. As an aside—this should serve as food for thought for those who think the U.S. would have had greater influence if the U.S. negotiating team had had a climate bill in its back pocket—it didn't work out that way for the Europeans.

The challenge of Copenhagen was always going to be finding a way to bring the outcome of the "political leaders" process, which took place outside of official UNFCCC channels, into the official UN process and get it blessed by the full COP. Developing countries, in particular, jealously guard their prerogatives in the UN system, and they are loath to give them up cheaply. Thus, the Copenhagen Accord was viewed by developing countries as an attempt by the larger countries to initially bypass the UN process to strike a "back room" deal and then force said deal through UN process for its rubber stamp. It is not surprising, then, that it was met with resistance.

COP decisions are by consensus, and because the least developed nations, Africa, and small island states countries felt they we being shut out of the deal, they were unwilling to adopt it as a COP decision. The Copenhagen Accord is not, then, a binding decision of the COP. It's more like a statement from G20 or Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate signaling political intent at the highest level of government.

My analysis of the Accord's text itself can be found at the Wall Street Journal web site.