By last Sunday, 55 developed and developing nations had announced greenhouse gas emission reductions in accordance with a deadline set by the Copenhagen Accord emerging from December’s UN climate change conference.

A senior EU climate change negotiator, speaking to this paper on condition of anonymity, said that “there is nothing new: many pledges are conditional. This is still not reassuring vis-à-vis reaching the two degrees Celsius target (global temperature increase above pre-industrial levels) agreed to in Copenhagen”.

Similar dismay at the limited impact of the Accord submissions has been expressed by the United Nations’ senior climate change adviser, Janosz Pastor, and leading environmental NGOs.

The two degrees target itself is now under attack by several leading scientists and research centres as well as by over 100 vulnerable developing nations, as being too weak to stave off catastrophic climate change.

Hastily negotiated by 26 heads of state or government during the final day of the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC-COP 15) and based on a draft agreed by US President, Barack Obama, and China, South Africa, Brazil and India, the weakly-worded three-page Accord was stridently opposed by five developing countries in the closing plenary session. So it could not become an official decision of the conference, delegates merely “taking note” of its contents.

Subsequent speculation about the Accord’s legal nature and implications has been rife, in particular as to whether it would help or hinder negotiations leading up to the 16th conference in Mexico starting on 29 November.

Contrary to the designs of the Danish presidency to collapse talks into a “single track” leading to a Copenhagen agreement – an approach supported by most developed nations, not least the EU, but strongly opposed by developing nations – the COP 15 agreed to extend its two “negotiating tracks” for another year; one on the Kyoto Protocol and the other on further actions under the UNFCCC for action on mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology, framed by a “shared vision”.

Meeting in Delhi on 24 January, the major emitting developing nations – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – strongly supported the two-track approach “facilitated” by the Accord and announced their intention to financially assist vulnerable developing nations.

Some submissions sent into the UNFCCC secretariat, notably those of China and India, did not mention the Accord – nor did the UNFCCC executive secretary, Yvo de Boer, in his comments reported in a press release issued on Monday. A majority of the 194 UNFCCC parties have yet to announce whether they will “associate with” (support) the Accord – although media reports indicate support from this week’s African Union summit.

In contrast, the US submission – conditional on legislation hoped to emerge from US Congress before the next UN conference and delivering a very low cut of about three per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – strongly supported the Accord, while not mentioning the two-track process.

Any improvement in the current offers (not legally binding) by other emitting countries and the EU hinges on the uncertain prospects for US legislation, due to the recent loss of the Democrat Senate seat ensuring the Administration the majority it needs as well as the looming Congressional elections in the autumn.

Next Thursday’s European Council is expected to discuss latest climate change developments and review the Union’s position on key issues.