UN Copenhagen Conference: Success, Failure, or Something in Between?

The dust is just now settling from the UN Climate Change Conference, which ended its run last Saturday. Looking back -- admittedly with the benefit of just two days -- did the conference accomplish what it intended to do? Was it a success? Or a big disappointment?

Views are all over the board. Not surprisingly, the word from 1600 Pennsylvania in Washington, D.C. is that the conference conclusions were a "breakthrough [that] will lay the foundation for international action in the years to come." It seems rather "rich" to call the results a "breakthrough," at least if one had been expecting some sort of firm agreement with ambitious and enforceable targets.

An editorial in today's New York Times ("Copenhagen, and Beyond," Dec. 21, 2009) wrote in part, "The global climate negotiations in Copenhagen produced neither a grand success nor the complete meltdown that seemed almost certain as late as Friday afternoon [of last week.]" The editorial goes on to argue that, "For the moment it is worth savoring the steps forward. China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way that it has never been...And the United States is very much back in the game too. After eight years of playing the spoiler, it is now a leader with a president who seems to embrace the role."

From across the Atlantic, a more somber tone was generally in evidence. Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, whose government is serving as the current president of the EU, said, "Let's be honest. This is not a perfect agreement. It will not solve the climate threat."

The Economist put it more bluntly: "Even its biggest fans -- if such people exist -- would be hard put to find the Copenhagen Accord on the climate a rousing success." ("Better Than Nothing," Dec. 19, 2009). Moreover, The Economist offered its view (one that I believe we will be hearing much more about) that the overall process was nearly a flop: "The UNFCCC process...looks in need of some serious attention."

Finally, the Financial Times offered this perspective today: "As the meeting ended, Barack Obama was calling the Copenhagen accord -- the emptiest deal one could imagine, short of a fist fight -- an 'important breakthrough.' Mr. Obama's credibility at home and abroad is one casualty of this farcical outcome." ("Dismal Outcome at Copenhagen Fiasco," Dec. 21, 2009).

The big disappointment from today's review of various newspapers is the fact that The Wall Street Journal editorial team had nothing to say about Copenhagen. But that is not entirely a surprise since the Journal devoted its entire editorial column today to lambasting a cobbled together health bill that the U.S. Senate seems poised to approve. Nevertheless, the Journal will undoubtedly chime in very soon.