Editorial: Response from world leaders sad and stilted

To be a success, the Copenhagen climate summit needed to produce a legally binding agreement that obliged major emitters to meet serious greenhouse-gas targets. On that basis, it has to be regarded as a missed opportunity.

As much as the likes of President Barack Obama tried to paper over the cracks by talking of an "unprecedented breakthrough", the reality was that Copenhagen fell hostage to the gulf between the developed and developing worlds. The final outcome had been on the cards for some time, but that is scant consolation given this was an event two years in the preparation and attended by more than 110 world leaders.

If there is a silver lining, it is that so many leaders felt compelled to travel to Denmark to acknowledge something must be done about climate change. The unanimity at this level meant the conference could not be a total failure.

The fallback position was an in-principle accord that fell far short of what climate scientists demanded. At its broadest, it recognised that all countries should work together to keep the global temperature from rising more than 2C above the level pertaining before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago.

Far more pertinently, the accord prescribed the first major programme of aid to poorer nations to help them deal with climate change and develop clean energy. Richer countries will finance a $10 billion-a-year, three-year scheme to fund projects, and set a goal of providing $100 billion a year by 2020 for the same purposes.

This is a modest achievement given the huge hopes held for Copenhagen. But it did, at least, indicate the willingness of developed nations to take the lead. That is only fair because they are the major contributors to climate change.

The vast majority of the carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere is a consequence of their industrial output. Also, they are the ones with the financial means to develop alternative energy to lower their greenhouse-gas emissions. Developing nations have much to lose from climate change, or stern targets that would stifle their growth, and are ill-equipped to fight it.

The determination of China to block a single new treaty that would bind it to take action on emissions was the fatal blow. In a sop to it, the United States even dropped text from the declaration that would have set a goal of reducing global emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

That agreement could not even be reached on such a never-never date because developing nations believed it would suffocate their progress spoke volumes of the summit. So, also, did the failure to set any date for the conclusion of a treaty.

The task between now and the next climate change conference in Mexico City in 2010 will be to find a way to make China willing to accept targets. Its rapid development, and the huge increase in its emissions, means its obstructiveness must be overcome.

Business as usual for it and countries such as India is not a viable scenario. At some point, all nations will have to accept their share of responsibility for global warming and bear their part of the burden of tackling it.

Perhaps the Copenhagen summit could never have lived up to the rhetoric that preceded it. Perhaps the clash between the developed and developing world means there are never going to be dramatic turning points in the fight against global warming, only incremental gains.

But this was a meeting that attracted an unprecedented number of world leaders. The challenge put to them by scientists was the creation of a strong global agreement. Their response was sad and stilted.