The IPCC notes that climate change is limited only by a “substantial and sustainable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.” While the benefits of presenting a single global temperature threshold as a dangerous climate change can be discussed, the general scientific view is that an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees Celsius would be an unacceptable risk – potentially leading to mass extinctions, more severe droughts and hurricanes, and an arid region. While it is not clear that global warming will cause “sudden and irreversible changes” in Earth`s systems, the risk of exceeding the threshold only increases if temperatures rise. Support for developing countries. The agreement should, overall, define the mechanisms, sources and levels of support to be provided in a final agreement on adaptation, capacity building, forestry and the use of technology in developing countries. It should define the initial nerage and a regular filling schedule; establish criteria for determining country contributions and/or eligibility; rely on existing multilateral financial mechanisms instead of replicating them; Provide for greater representation of developing countries in the management of climate finance; and to recognize all multilateral and bilateral sources of funding. The head of the Chinese delegation said: “The meeting had a positive result, everyone should be happy.” [125] China`s Prime Minister Wen Jiabao said the weakness of the agreement was due to mistrust among nations: “To meet the challenge of climate change, the international community must build trust, build consensus, make vigorous efforts and strengthen cooperation.” [128] Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said, “We can be satisfied that we have managed to get through” and that India “did pretty well in Copenhagen.” [129] On Friday, December 18, the last day of the conference, international media reported that climate talks were “in disarray.” [3] [4] [5] The media also reported that instead of a collapse of the summit, only a “weak political statement” was expected at the end of the conference. [6] [7] The Copenhagen Agreement was drawn up on 18 December by the United States, China, India, Brazil and South Africa and was considered a “valid agreement” by the United States government. It was “taken into account” in a debate by all participating countries the next day, but not “adopted” and was not adopted unanimously. The document recognizes that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of the day and that measures need to be taken to keep the temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.

The document is not legally binding and does not contain legally binding commitments to reduce CO2 emissions. [8] A framework for mitigation commitments. The agreement should clearly define the extent to which mitigation commitments are defined and how they should be reflected in a final agreement (for example. B by “annexs” or “schedules”). In accordance with the UNFCCC principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” it should allow different forms and levels of commitment depending on national circumstances: the White House does everything in its power to remove any mention of global warming from government documents. But the Pentagon could end up backing down. The Tuvaluan delegation, led by Ian Fry, played an active role in the conference and attracted media attention. The country presented a proposed protocol that would have imposed deeper and legally binding emission reductions, including for developing countries.