The New York Times described the deal as both a “big step forward,” with international negotiations having stumbled in recent years, and “quite modest” because it didn`t require the changes scientists say are necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.  John Vidal criticised in The Guardian that the Cancun agreements do not play a leadership role, did not specify how to finance the proposed climate fund and that they did not say that countries should “peak” their emissions within ten years and that they should reduce them quickly in order to have a chance of avoiding warming. The postponement of decisions on the legal form and level of emission reductions required was also criticised.  Professor Kevin Anderson described the Cancun agreement as “astrology” and said science suggested an increase in global average temperature of 4°C, possibly as early as the 2060s.  The Cancun decision also launches an “international assessment of emissions and emission reductions linked to quantified macroeconomic emission reduction targets” process for Annex I Contracting Parties. This should be done in a “rigorous, robust and transparent manner to promote comparability and build trust”. The text also focuses on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), as well as emission credits from market-based mechanisms, taking into account international experience, i.e. the Kyoto Protocol and other agreements. As the WRI analysis shows, attention to these issues is essential to establish a transparent and functional system. The decision also provides a mandate for developed countries to develop low-carbon development strategies or plans. (Kelly Levin) This summary follows the following pattern.
Click here to jump on a particular topic: contrary to the high profile of last year`s meeting in Copenhagen, expectations for this year`s Cancun meeting were modest. The mantra of the negotiators was to achieve a “balanced package” of measures to promote the fight against climate change; At the same time, they have avoided or attempted to avoid contentious issues regarding the allocation of emission reduction commitments. A standing committee has also been established to ensure that the Fund is not empty by assisting the COP in mobilizing financial resources and in measuring, reporting and verifying their availability. The Committee will also support the COP in making climate finance coordination more coherent, both within and outside the Fund. . . .