There are those who argue the Copenhagen Accord did produce notable victories. Indeed, the accord does acknowledge the seriousness of the threat posed by climate change, state that cuts should be made “with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius,” and agree to raise $100 billion per year by 2020 to help developing countries adapt to climate change and reduce deforestation. It also calls for further negotiations to set targets for emissions reduction and develop the details of implementation.
A majority of environmentalists, however, view the accord as fatally insufficient: Its statements of principle are commendable, but it suffers from fundamental deficiencies that are likely to render it ineffectual. In addition, historical precedent does not bode well for the widely celebrated pledge to raise funds for climate change adaptation in developing nations. In 2005, the G8 pledged to increase annual aid funds to all developing countries to $50 billion by 2010 with half of these funds designated for Africa. What became of this commitment? In 2009, the UN reported that the G8 needed to increase total aid spending by $29.3 billion and increase African aid by $20.6 billion to reach the original 2010 target. This once lauded pledge remains an empty promise, and there is no reason to believe that the Copenhagen aid commitment will meet a different fate.

In addition, the weaknesses of the Copenhagen Accord will stifle emission-targeting legislation in the U.S. The two major objections offered by opponents of the “cap-and-trade” emissions reduction bill passed by the House of Representatives this past July centered on expanding economies, and both are certain to reappear if the bill progresses to the Senate. At the time, a press release from the office of House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) stated, “Even supporters of the national energy tax concede that unilateral American action will do nothing to improve Earth’s environment unless global competitors like China and India curb their emissions, too.” While the U.S., the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, could certainly have a significant effect on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, rapid emission increases in developing countries do pose a significant challenge to mitigating climate change. The failure of the Copenhagen Accord to set global emission targets has weakened proponents of climate change legislation in the U.S.

Additionally, “cap-and-trade” opponents argue, with some validity, that American businesses will be harmed unless other nations make similar commitments to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Rep. Boehner’s press release objects that climate change legislation “will impose tough new requirements and increased costs on American manufacturers.” The release goes on to state that these costs will affect American jobs in one of two ways: “Either domestic manufacturers will move overseas directly, or American companies in energy-intensive industries will be driven out of business by overseas rivals that undercut their prices.” It is accurate that American businesses would be harmed by bearing the costs of buying carbon credits or paying carbon taxes while their foreign competitors enjoy a cheap supply of coal-generated electricity. In this regard then, the Copenhagen Accord does nothing to assuage the concerns of senators worried about the economic consequences of climate change legislation.

Perhaps most importantly, the conference demonstrated the serious problems plaguing the current UN climate change negotiation framework, and highlighted the difficulties the U.S. will face in attempting to lead the development of climate change legislation. The developing countries who comprise the Group of 77 threatened to walk out of the conference after stating that they were being treated unfairly in the negotiations. Furthermore, the conference was on the verge of complete failure until President Obama met with leaders from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa to craft the accord that was then presented to other nations on a take-it-or-leave it basis. The sharp divisions between developed and developing countries, and the fact that nations could only come to agreement through smaller, more isolated negotiations, raises serious questions about whether all-inclusive U.N. negotiations can ever establish meaningful emissions targets.

Although the United States did, in some respects, emerge from Copenhagen as a global leader on climate change, the more important development was the global realization that the U.S. is unlikely to be the nation that will determine the future course of climate change negotiations. Instead, it seems China and India, representing the developing Group of 77, will be the determinants of climate change legislation progress. India and China signed a five-year memo of understanding in October to present a united front in climate change talks, and they were the two primary players in directing the pace of negotiations in Copenhagen.

Unfortunately, the ascendancy of China and India does not bode well for those with a firm commitment to preventing climate change. Both nations prioritize economic growth above all else, and refuse to commit to restrictive emissions targets that could impede their rapid economic expansion. China and India will probably hamper efforts to produce a strong international commitment to preventing climate change; it seems likely that future international climate treaties will be severely limited by the recalcitrance of large developing nations eager to raise the living standards of their citizens, despite the increasing costs of substantial greenhouse gas emissions on everyone else.

The Copenhagen Accord contains admirable sentiments, but in itself does nothing to prevent climate change. The future of climate change prevention rests with further negotiations, and unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly evident that those nations likely to be most influential are those least likely to support meaningful emissions limits. At the same time, Copenhagen’s failure has made it less likely that the U.S. will make a serious commitment to reducing its own greenhouse gas emissions. The prospects for a serious global agreement on climate change mitigation are dim, and national governments may not substantially cooperate until they recognize the serious economic and ecological damage climate change could cause. They must also recognize the substantial economic benefits the development and expansion of “green” industries could bring. Hopefully, this day will not come too late.

Any movement toward reduced emissions cannot ignore the two largest emitters in the world: China and the US. Both industrial powerhouses produce a combined 40% of all greenhouse gases. If neither country is at the heart of climate change efforts from the beginning, global attempts to reduce emissions will be useless. By taking the lead, however, tangible US and Chinese carbon reduction policies will provide the international community with a workable goal. Of the two nations, the US, rather than China, is best positioned to take the lead on climate change. China, then, will do its best to follow the United States. Underdeveloped nations similarly turn towards the US for tangible greenhouse gas emissions reductions, realizing that, without the US, any emission reductions on their part will be a drop in the bucket. Without US leadership, an international climate change movement is impossible.

If the U.S. leads by example, the rest of the world will follow. The EU has already pushed Washington to set clear emissions reduction targets for the next few years and has pressured President Obama to take a more hard-line approach to climate change; they are on board. More importantly, China, surprisingly to some, has also shown its willingness to cooperate. Just a day after Obama announced concrete targets on emissions reductions, President Hu Jintao followed up with China’s own pledge. In the coming years, China will have to walk a fine line between environmental protection and economic growth. China has realized, however, that the two are not mutually exclusive but are, in fact, intertwined; without limiting the effects of climate change now, China stands, as all countries stand, to limit long term growth. As the world’s single largest emitter of carbon, China recognizes that it will shoulder much of the blame for—as well as the negative natural effects of—climate change if it does tangibly limit greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. can expect an increasingly cooperative partner in Europe and China on the issue of climate change.

In particular, U.S. leadership on climate change has the potential to capitalize on China’s increasing willingness to cooperate on this particular issue by creating a precedent for further opportunities for more extensive bilateral cooperation in the future. The President’s recent tour of Asia produced little progress in Sino-American relations, as both countires failed to agree on issues ranging from human rights to China’s consistent devaluation of its currency. Obama, however, did make small breakthroughs on climate change. The series of practical measures announced during Obama’s meeting with Hu Jintao —including an electric-vehicles initiative and energy efficiency plan—suggest that emissions regulation may be a bridge towards stronger alliances with China. Leadership, however, must come first from the U.S., as Hu Jintao will likely be unwilling to act without assistance and promises from developed countries. There is strong public sentiment in China that the U.S. is urging its economic rival to embrace clean energy only as a means to undermine the Chinese economy. If Washington takes the first step in this regard, however, it can reassure the Chinese by debunking any suspicions that the U.S. is trying to gain an economic advantage over their country. Strong U.S. leadership on climate change will likely result in better relations between the U.S. and China.

Another concern that other nations have expressed is that unlike China, a relatively young and still developing industrial power, the U.S. has historically emitted more total climate-altering gasses than any other nation in the world. Therefore, the U.S. has the heavier obligation to take the lead on climate regulation especially since underdeveloped nations, which emit the least carbon, would receive the brunt of climate change’s devastating effects. If the worst offender of climate change is unwilling to step up as the leader, it would be difficult to justify the participation of anyone else.

Obama, as well as the Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, agreed in November that no binding follow-up to Kyoto would be reached in Copenhagen. In reality, what is to be the upcoming failure to act in Copenhagen is just another symptom of general inaction by all countries involved, none of which is willing to make the first move. The U.S. Senate has bound Obama’s hands, refusing to pass the cap-and-trade program unless China and other developing nations make a commitment, too. China and India, on the other hand, will only institute broader and more drastic measures if the U.S. promises substantive emissions reductions. Mutual hesitancy has certainly delayed any prospect of a binding international agreement.

For the U.S. to take leadership, Congress should not make legislation contingent upon the actions of other countries, but instead push the cap-and-trade system through, knowing that other nations will then jump on board. Doing so would demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is serious and committed to combating climate change. The Senate, however, has been particularly resistant to addressing climate change. Obama, already entrenched in difficult battles on health care and Afghanistan, may lack sufficient political capital to persuade reluctant senators. As a result, liberals run the risk of having to water down the current bill even farther than it already has been watered down in order to pass something.

Any reasonable carbon emissions bill that emerges from Congress will provide the U.S. with momentum that will then lead to a global emissions reduction agreement. Copenhagen will test how receptive the world is to American leadership and a global initiative against greenhouse gas emissions, but environmentalists should not expect much. At best, as former vice president Al Gore notes, “a very significant framework … can still be completed.” Instead, policymakers should place their hopes on the US and push for American leadership in a warming world.