Sigh(s)

Depressing post from the BBC's Richard Black on the implications of the, uh, "Copenhagen Accord" on climate change negotiations; the way collective action will be manifested; and the future of the UNFCCC as a mechanism for international coordination. Some key points:

What appears to have happened is that the UN process was effectively ambushed by countries that perhaps don't want there to be a UN process.

...
Intriguingly, the morning after the deal was announced by White House press release, it wasn't clear whether it counts as an agreement within the UN system or whether it lies outside. If parties had adopted the deal, it would be a UN issue. But they didn't, because there was no consensus; instead governments only decided to "take note" of the accord.
...
During their discussions afterwards, several delegations suggested this means it isn't a UN agreement - and various UN officials gave different interpretations. If it turns out not to be a UN agreement, then - at the extreme end of things - the UN climate convention could effectively be dead as the powerful world's favoured instrument for controlling emissions. A deal made at a UN summit would move outside, being a free-standing arrangement effectively decided by the 26 countries involved in the drafting. It will mean that a select group of countries - the G20, or thereabouts - will basically decide what they want to do, and then do it.
...
Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance? Is it the end for the idea of global, negotiated governance on other environmental issues?

Maybe this post should be called "Collective Sighs Post-COP15". I'm really interested in seeing where this issue of environmental governance and international environmental regimes go ... We should ask Wara or Weyant when we get back to Stanford.