The United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15) made of 193 parties came to the end on the 18th of December. The result of the week Conference has been an “accord that is not legally and politically binding”. It is an accord without numbers. The key points include the objective to keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; the commitment to list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012 and USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing, as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry. The agreement, proposed by the US together with BASIC (Brasil, South Africa, China and India) and supported by European Union, in the first time, due to the dissent of seven countries – Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia , Costarica, Sudan e Tuvalu – came to a standstill because of the UN mechanism that need unanimous approval to become effective. It has been then necessary to resort to a technical expedient to make the text of the agreement formally accepted by the Conference of the Parties. Ultimately, a way forward was found. Instead of adopting the Copenhagen Accord, the conference would “take note of” the Accord. This has given all countries a way to whole heartedly support the deal. The Accord is then voluntary, only countries that wanted to take part had join up.

Whatever the result, the Copenhagen summit had the high value to provide a clear and very precise picture of what is the today global geo-political and economic situation and its “equilibria”. The European Union has confirmed its characteristic of being an “economic giant” and a “political dwarf” and its weakness – that should decrease thanks to the Lisbon Treaty – in speaking effectively with “one voice”, only way to weigh in the renewed international context. United States and China, the two missing powers in the protocol of Kyoto, have been the “major players” in the Copenhagen summit, in witness, from one hand, of the new economic and foreign policy made by the USA, marking the time with a drastic shift of their political and economic interests towards the Asia-Pacific Region, from the other hand, of the emergence of the People’s Republic of China, non only as “economic giant” but also as fundamental actors in the definition of the “global governance”. And this is something that make us think, considering that China is today “the most carbonic power” ahead the US.

The deal conducting to the Copenhagen Accord has been mostly entirely played by the so-called new “G2”. But the USA had to face two crucial and clashing issues with China, since the transfer of funds from the industrialized countries (like US) to the developing countries (like China) as specified in the Accord, could be a mean of competitive advantage for China respect the US. Further, the opposition made by China in accepting international monitoring on the use of funds, as foreseen in the Accord,- China consider the international monitoring a interference in its internal policy – point out the need of binding whatever grant to the “principle of transparency”. In terms of emissions, the promise made by China was that of reducing the “carbon intensity of its development”. But, to which extent is realistic to think that countries like China or India could “tax” their development? A development that often involves just a minority of the population located in specific areas of the country considered. India, one of the Basic, is a good example of that: 400 millions of people live without access to electric power.

European Union, world economic power, get know-how and technology that let it be an economic leader in the environment field, able to lead what is called the “third industrial revolution” based on power saving and renewable energy, involving both, industrialized and developing countries. Industrialized countries could transfer knowledge and advanced technology to those countries that have not yet developed the second industrial revolution. An action like this, could make developing countries skip a phase of the industrial revolution: the transfer of knowledge and technology for setting in place plant of renewable energy, to countries where there is not yet electric power, would promote sustainable economic development. Further, a positive loop would be created, where both, developed and developing countries could take economic advantage. Given the competence and the strong will of the European Union to play an active and effective role in the international seats, why it has had a marginal role at the Copenhagen summit? An answer could be found in the perception that the other countries have of EU: a “collection” of states, with a “collection” of policies, shared, but “ not binding”!

Emanuela Scridel is an Economist – Expert in International Strategies and E.U.