UN Climate Change Conference 2011: US not keen on legally binding agreements

DURBAN: The United States doesn’t consider the scientifically determined goal of containing global temperature rise to two degrees above the pre-industrial period to be an “operational cap”. The global temperature goal was written into the Cancun Agreements which was adopted by all countries at the UN-sponsored talks last December.

The US said it viewed the two degrees guardrail as an “important and serious goal”, and as “a guide to action we take” but that it was not a serious cap. “It is important and serious and it is a guide. But that is different from being an operational cap, that we must meet... We don’t see it akin to a national target,” US special envoy on climate change Todd Stern said.

This view of the global temperature goal could well be an indicator of the United States’ approach to climate agreements that are not legally binding. Washington has touted the Cancun Agreements as an example of how countries come together to effectively deal with climate change without the Damocles sword of “legally binding” hanging over them. The Cancun Agreements were decisions taken and accepted by the Conference of Parties under the UN Convention, therefore not legally binding. The United States has described the Agreements as “morally binding”. “No one takes COP decisions lightly” US Special envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern said.

The inclusion of the temperature guardrail into the Cancun Agreement was significant. It was the first time that an agreement under the UN explicitly incorporated the science-determined cap. The UN’s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change had warned that the rise of global temperatures beyond the two degrees limit would lead to irreversible and catastrophic changes.