habemus favam/2

So there's an agreement. But it's not a good one, and, in fact, is not an agreement at all. The COP, for the time being, "takes note" of it as a "draft decision". An elegant way to say that there is no consensus on what has been decided. The bolivarian nations, some island developing states and least developed countries didn't approve it.

What happened is that after 2 years of more or less open negotiations among all countries, the dialogue was stuck. Poor countries wanted industrialized ones to make the first move, reducing their emissions and financing mitigation and adaptation in the rest of the world. Rich countries wanted poor ones to start reducing their emissions as well before they committed to anything else.

Then comes Obama, and has a few hours long meeting with leaders from 4 developing countries who mostly care about being given the opportunity to keep their emissions uncontrolled for some more years, in order to further grow along the usual path, and makes them an offer they can't refuse. He promises US$ 100b per year as of 2020 for mitigation and adaptation in developing countries with the condition that they accept to commit to some form of mitigation actions, verified by some kind of international monitoring system.

To avoid the worst effects of climate change we needed:

- to limit average temperature increase by way less than 2°C (probably 1,5°C)

- to limit CO2 concentration in the atmosphere way below 450ppm (according to some to 350 ppm)

- to peak emissions no later than 2015

- reduce emissions in developed countries by at least 40% by 2020

- reduce emissions in developed countries by at least 80% by 2050

There's no mention of any of these goals as binding. In fact, nothing has been decided in detail at all:

- By February, all countries who have agreed will have to submit their emission reduction commitments, but they won't have to do so in a strong framework built having in mind the aggregate limits. Everyone will do what he can. And what they have showed to be willing to do is way not enough (the current scenario leads to a +3,5°C by 2050).

- There's no real agreement on what the monitoring system will look like - this is yet to be decided.

- There's no way to enforce even the targets the countries have voluntarily committed to.

This "agreement" is a step back if compared with the Kyoto Protocol. The absence of legally binding targets makes it quite useless. And it is a step back because it hasn't been produced through democratic consultations, but in a closed meeting everybody knew was happening. But, at least, it involves China, US and India (who account together for around 55% of the global emissions). EU and other developed ones will jump in as well, which will cover the great majority of the world's emissions. It is a first step and will need further improvements, new commitments, a new series of talks to be completed. US, for example, will be able to come with their new targets, when the internal iter of their Bill will be concluded. It hasn't killed the Kyoto Protocol yet, but could be considered a first decision on the type of model a new climate agreement should have. It will leave space for the discussion of the more general targets, and possibly for the adoption of an ambitious 1,5°C limit.

But it's not really deciding anything. It is a deal that will require a new deal, hopefully in the next 6 to 12 months. And this is the problem. The real losers, with this no-agreement, are the countries that are already suffering the impacts of climate change, that will experience more frequent and more severe problems, and will not really be able to solve them with more mid-term money.