This is the document that has taken many years and much blood, sweat, tears and toil from thousands of people to produce. Yvo de Boer, head of the UNFCCC, described the accord as “politically important.” It provides an “architecture for a response to climate change.”
The “LA Times” had this story this morning: Climate summit ends with major questions: ‘Breakthrough’ or ‘cop-out’? There was no formal vote to adopt the accord but the delegates “took note” of it, giving it something of an official seal of approval. It is said that about 30 nations helped draft it. “The Telegraph” has a useful Q&A on the deal here.
Clearly, there are warts but it was being touted yesterday by President Obama as a “a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough.” As everyone understands, there’s much more work to be done on the Accord to bring it into shape so that it can be fully accepted and signed as a treaty. That may take a year, seeing it finalized at next year’s Conference of the Parties in Mexico City.
There is no dearth of opinion on the accord. Many environmentalists are characterizing it as a failure. The NRDC’s Dan Lashof, however, does call it a breakthrough “…because, for the first time, all major economies, including China, India, and Brazil, as well as the United States, Russia, Japan and the E.U., have made commitments to curb global warming pollution and report on their actions and emissions in a transparent fashion, subject to ‘international consultations and analysis.'” I concur.
Mr. de Boer had this succinct summary of the outcome.
.
