Temperatures Sizzle as Conference Fizzles
The primary goal of the recent Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was to develop a treaty that would supersede the current Climate Change protocols that are set to expire in 2012. As reports of the results from the tenuous debate are now filtering in, it appears that no agreement of consequence was reached and that underdeveloped nations have little sincere interest in committing to a defined plan for controlling CO2 emissions in replacement of the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto protocol expires in 2012.
One of the first issues addressed by the Copenhagen accord is its endorsement to continue the terms set forth in the Kyoto protocol. This is actually one of the meatier items attached to the accord. Less noteworthy statements are of such a broad and noncommittal nature that the general populace was left disenchanted with the entire climate change conference.

While the specific political and scientific changes required for the accord to live up to its expectations remain undefined, the overall goal set forth by the U.N. led conference are actually quite noteworthy. Nations which sign the accord agree to a united effort that will limit the overall global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius. This would be accomplished by reducing greenhouse emissions throughout the industrially developed world. A problem which arose during the Climate Change Conference was that this standard was put forth behind closed doors without approval of the developing nations which took and still do take great affront at plans being made for their industrial future without their involvement.

Funding from the major developed nations supporting the accord is set at approximately 30 billion dollars for the years 2010-12. The accord further provides an initial goal of funding of 100 billion dollars per year to be reached by 2020. These funds set forth to assist still developing nations in building industrial infrastructures with functional low emissions energy production and manufacturing.

There are two areas of this broad brushstroke approach found to be confusing and disappointing. The first is that the accord sets a time schedule for this achievement to take place by 2020. Agreeing to take action fully ten years into the future is no agreement at all. The second major criticism of the Copenhagen accord is that it is not legally binding. And with so many conference attending nations already onboard as rejecting the accord and refusing to ratify its content, the nonbinding aspect becomes moot and the accord becomes a toothless endeavor. While technically an accord was reached during the Copenhagen summit, the list of nations signing on for the voluntary agreement numbers just thirty at this time.