The Copenhagen summit ended yesterday, late at night, although in official practice games were concluded to early morning hours. The result for some (Especially China and the United States ) is a narrow victory, for others (island countries and the poor in general) was a stinging defeat , but the overall impression is that it was a tie refers to all , to use football terminology, the "return match " to be held here one year. With the arrival of
Barack Obama on the night of 17 it seemed that you were to find a final agreement , and in fact a sort of agreement was found, but certainly not what scientists, environmentalists and developing countries expected. Obama has now declared that we should have settle for an agreement, even if imperfect , but it seems that what is found completely wrong.
The most important point, that you notice is that there are no constraints . We can not speak therefore binding treaty (this, hopefully, will be signed between one year), but in a sense of what the Chinese delegate said two days ago, and that is just a "political agreement of some kind. " The only figures that have been made are those of maximum increase in average global temperature set at 2 degrees centigrade, and aid to poor countries. But if the bottom of the agreement may also be good (10 billion by 2012, 50 by 2015 and 100 billion by 2020), on increasing the temperature does not go well at all. Most scientists agree by saying that, as is the situation for now, if we set the limit to 2 degrees, in all likelihood it will increase the temperature of 3 to 3.5 degrees. What the island countries asked, to avoid being inundated by the rise in ocean levels, was that the temperatures were to be raised to a maximum of 1.5 degrees. ( Marco Mancini)
Four controversial issues
limit temperature rise to 2 ° C and 1.5 °
The first step is to increase the maximum threshold average temperature due to global warming: the second of three successive drafts agreement provided that the threshold, now set at 2C, was raised to 1.5 C. For many island states this half-degree temperature would end up in more water.
No 50% cut in emissions by 2050
The second point that opponents of the complain is the suppression in the third draft, the commitment to reduce global emissions by 50% by 2050. This is, in this case, an element that was part of the second draft, and has since been deleted.
No extension of Kyoto beyond 2012
Thirdly, developing countries require that there be international agreement in the eventual extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, with a new application period (Kyoto II) from 2013 to 2020.
Still no binding cuts by 2020 is missing
Finally, the draft agreement, the overall percentage reduction in global emissions by 2020 by most advanced countries, because the text does not yet contain any plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Member States should adopt by January. These goals, more often, are also considered more important by the experts, because if approved leading to lower emissions gradually, without forcing countries to cut even more onerous and difficult between 2020 and 2050.
limit temperature rise to 2 ° C and 1.5 °
The first step is to increase the maximum threshold average temperature due to global warming: the second of three successive drafts agreement provided that the threshold, now set at 2C, was raised to 1.5 C. For many island states this half-degree temperature would end up in more water.
No 50% cut in emissions by 2050
The second point that opponents of the complain is the suppression in the third draft, the commitment to reduce global emissions by 50% by 2050. This is, in this case, an element that was part of the second draft, and has since been deleted.
No extension of Kyoto beyond 2012
Thirdly, developing countries require that there be international agreement in the eventual extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012, with a new application period (Kyoto II) from 2013 to 2020.
Still no binding cuts by 2020 is missing
Finally, the draft agreement, the overall percentage reduction in global emissions by 2020 by most advanced countries, because the text does not yet contain any plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions, Member States should adopt by January. These goals, more often, are also considered more important by the experts, because if approved leading to lower emissions gradually, without forcing countries to cut even more onerous and difficult between 2020 and 2050.
From flickr's photostream jetalone 
