No doubt it’s tough to stare down emissions targets in the midst of a global recession. With so many individual interests squaring off against global interests in the carbon-reduction game, it’s surprising that delegates to the UN Climate Change Conference have been able to hammer out any sort of a framework. But they have.
The proposed Copenhagen Accord seeks to limit increases in world temperature (compared to “pre-industrial times”) to 2 degrees C “to avert impacts such as floods, heat waves, species extinctions and rising ocean levels.” The Accord also sets out carbon emission reductions worldwide by 50 per cent by 2050.
It sounds like, in the final hours of the negotiations, various parties are coming in with a hose and watering down the language, such as leaving the timeframe the Accord must be finalized by open-ended. As the minutes tick by toward day’s end, I hope that the thousands of determined individuals at the conference can keep the Accord meaningful.
Our biodiversity and our security depend on action, and I think our sense of hope for the future does as well. It all depends on whether we’re prepared to make sacrifices and endure change today that will lead to a much healthier tomorrow. Or, that is, whether our leaders are prepared to sign on the dotted line and make those changes.
What do you think: Is it better to have a watered-down agreement than no agreement at all? Or should we hold out for a more ambitious Accord?
