The Kyoto treaty was the previous binding agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. However the Copenhagen Accord covers much more of the world’s emissions than Kyoto did. The Kyoto protocol came into effect when 55 countries representing 55% of the emissions in 1990 had ratified it. This was passed when Russia ratified. However as the US never ratified the treaty it never got much beyond the target. Even then this was based upon 1990 levels of emissions so did not include the immense growth of emissions by developing states that had occurred by 2004 when Russia ratified. The Copenhagen Accord on the other hand countries that produce 78% of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions.

Although more of the worlds emissions are included it is not certain that it will be any more effective than Kyoto was. The amount of emissions being included does not matter if they are included but not actually going to fall.

“The pledges made by countries like Japan, China, Europe and India show a commitment to collective, transparent action on a scale never seen before,” argues Jennifer Morgan, director of the World Resources Institute’s climate and energy program. That so many countries were willing to commit to being part of the process, even those who have often been reluctant in the past such as India and China is encouraging.

Opening something to public scrutiny can often have the desired effect even when legislation fails or is not enacted. In the USA the Toxics Release Inventory created by congress in 1986 when they could not agree on regulating toxic chemicals. The act simply made public the data on the pollution. This allowed newspapers, NGOs and communities to know how much pollution companies were creating resulting in numerous lists of top 10 polluters in X. Because companies do not want this kind of negative publicity they each competed to reduce their pollution as much as possible so that they would not be on the lists.

It is possible that something similar might work in the international arena if done correctly. Various countries have now given out their targets for reductions in GHGs (or for less of an increase) and will now come under pressure to follow through.

This pressure is likely to be no less than their would have been if targets had been mandatory because there is no process internationally for punishing states that don't live up to targets in agreements. International treaties are only really binding if the countries in question believe they are and want to live up to the commitments of that treaty.

This is a commendable step in the process of making a commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions...This is a starting point, and yes, although it may not be the most ideal one, it's still a reason to believe that COP15 did in fact have an impact on 55 countries.

While it is encouraging that most countries have felt that they do need to respond and submit a target for reducing emissions for the Copenhagen accord deadline the accord itself is still essentially voluntary. It follows what China and India wanted in a agreement that would allow for developing countries to increase emissions more or less as they wished. Their submissions for the Accord show this, promising reducing emissions per unit of GDP by up to 45% for China and 25% by India are simply things that both countries would wish to do anyway. The market, and increasing demand from China and India themselves, ensures that energy is getting more expensive so becoming more energy efficient is needed to keep costs down. China also wishes to reduce its dependence upon oil imported by sea that can be easily cut off by the USA, one way to do this is to make better use of its own oil production.

The Copenhagen Accord for the first time brings together the domestic commitments on emissions reductions from both developed and developing countries and puts them into an international treaty.

Before the Copenhagen conference occurred most of the promises that have made their way into the submissions for the Accord had already been made. So for example the European Union has reaffirmed its commitment to make cuts of 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 but not the further target of 30% they were considering during the conference itself but did not step up to. These submissions therefore might represent a step forward in preventing global warming but they certainly do not represent the success of the Copenhagen conference. The conference seems to have left things how they were just before the conference started, admittedly this was a lot more hopeful position than even six months before that.

Countries like Nepal, Maldives are hardly hit by the climate change. These countries share a very unnoticeable percent of CO2 emissions. Yet, the are much affected. The countries like USA, Russia, etc produces huge amount of CO2. So, it was expected that those countries will determine to decrease the emissions by significant percent but they didn't do it.

I haven't kept track with the developments to the Copenhagen Accord since the debacle at COP15, but the accord was everything that people did NOT want in a treaty, which is namely fair, legally binding and ambitious.

By having the accord being unrepresentative of even a majority of the world's nations at the time of its drafting, it has already failed to be fair, and we all know that the targets set is anything but ambitious.

So why make an unambitious and unfair climate treaty legally binding if it really is for show than solving any problems? The nations which have added their names to the Copenhagen Accord now do help give it some credence, but do we know what the pledges are, or if they apply across the board? If it's a giant leap from what was originally handed out at COP15, then they should by all means go for it.

But logically, even though currently the accord is looking a little more optimistic than during COP15, it's not an indicator that said countries are signing on to the accord with anything substantially improved from the original agreement.

If anything, I'm more inclined to believe that more nations have jumped onto the bandwagon because the Copenhagen Accord was so unambitious that just about any nation can easily agree to it and meet the stipulated targets. Each country can even set a 5-10% reduction target above what's on the accord and it'll still fall well short of what we really need to prevent climate change.

It makes for good publicity, and those who signed up can smile to the reporters and say they pledged more than the targets set at Copenhagen. But the sad fact is, it's still not enough, and what's the point of having a treaty we can all agree upon because it can be met by any nation, but does practically nothing to solve the problem at hand? That's like setting an exam paper's passing mark at 1, and distinction at 3 marks. Everyone can easily score distinctions on paper, but nobody's actually any smarter for it, nor will they actually benefit from it.