Where do we go from here? That is the question after Copenhagen. We have to begin by understanding the lessons of what went wrong but also recognise the achievements that it secured.
This was a chaotic process dogged by procedural games. Thirty leaders left their negotiators at 3am on Friday, the last night to haggle over the short Danish text that became the accord. To get a deal one needed urgent progress, but five hours later, they had only got to the third paragraph.
The procedural wrangling was, in fact, a cover for points of serious, substantive disagreement. The vast majority of countries, developed and developing, believe that a lasting accord that protects the planet can only be constructed if all countries' commitments or actions are legally binding. But some leading developing countries currently refuse to countenance this. That is there was no agreement that the political accord struck in Copenhagen should lead to a legally binding outcome.
There was no agreement on 50 per cent reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on 80 per cent reductions by developed countries. Both were vetoed by China, despite the support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing countries. Indeed, the old order of developed versus developing has been replaced by more interesting alliances.
Would it have been better to refuse to sign and walk away? No. Of course, it was right to consider whether one should sign. But to have vetoed the agreement would have meant walking away from the progress made in the last year and the real outcomes that are part of this accord, including finance for poor countries.
Some of the strongest voices urging that agreement on the accord were countries like the Maldives and Ethiopia.
Countries signing the accord have endorsed the science that calls for limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. For the first time developing countries, including China, as well as developed countries have agreed emissions commitments for the next decade.
If countries deliver on the most ambitious targets, the world will be within striking distance of what is needed to prevent warming of more than 2C. These commitments will also for the first time be listed and independently scrutinised, with reports to the UN required every two years.
The talks established an unprecedented commitment among rich countries to finance the response to climate change: $10 billion (Dh36.7 billion) a year over the next three years starting to flow now rising to $100 billion a year by 2020.
In the months ahead, these concrete achievements must be secured and extended. Developed nations in particular, such as Australia, Japan and the EU nations, should deliver on the highest possible emissions cuts. And as the US Senate considers its legislation, it is important it delivers not just the 17 per cent reductions offered so far but the deepest possible.
Finance for poor countries must flow straight away. Developed countries must also agree on new ways to raise revenue to meet these commitments, which the working group established by the accord will propose.
The developed world should also mobilise all the countries that want a legal treaty to campaign for it. The voice of small island states and African countries were the most resonant at these talks. For their people, most vulnerable to climate change, they know we must have a legal framework. Together the developed world will make clear to those countries holding out against a binding legal treaty that it will not allow them to block global progress.
There is a wider question, too, about the structures and nature of the negotiations. The last two weeks at times have presented a farcical picture to the public. The developed world cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way. It will need to have major reform of the UN body overseeing the negotiations and of the way the negotiations are conducted.
The challenge is not to lose heart and momentum. The truth is that the global campaign, coordinated by green NGOs, backed by business and supported by a wider cross-section of the public, has achieved a lot. One would never have had targets from so many countries, the engagement of leaders, and the agreement on finance without this sort of mobilisation.
My fear that Copenhagen would pass people by without comment turned out to be unfounded. But the lesson of ‘Make Poverty History' is that this campaign must be kept going and built upon. It needs to be more of a genuinely global mobilisation, taking in all countries.
No campaign ever wholly succeeds at the first time of asking. The world should take heart from the achievements. The road from Copenhagen will have as many obstacles as the road to it. But this year has proved what can be done, as well as the scale of the challenge we face.
- Ed Miliband is the UK's secretary of state for energy and climate change.
