Copenhagen Results are not Pretty

The talks are over for now and most are calling the meeting a "near utter failure."

The conference got off to a rough start due to 'climategate', a series of emails leaked from the University of East Anglia that tried to add doubt to the climate change equation. The school's Climate Research Unit was hacked by an anonymous source for e-mails that might denote the theory of CO2 induced climate change. Although these e-mails show questionable office practices, the theory of climate change remains intact with little, if any, damage. The event did however raise some questions as to the transparency of climate science and need for us to continually reexamine hypotheses and utilize the scientific process. Get the full story on the mail storm from the Economist.

The conference hosted world leaders, acclaimed scientists and flashy concerts, however, the outcome is much less thrilling. There is no binding treaty. The global recession and domestic issues in both China and the U.S. have taken precedent over forming an agreement. Others believe the UN should step out of the climate business altogether because the conference seemed more like a theatre exercise than anything else. Of course the COP15 wasn't a complete loss, here are the positives from the BBC:

• An establishment of the tipping point: A near-global acknowledgement that global warming should be limited to less than 2C (3.6F), the degree of warming generally accepted as being "dangerous". Arguably, this was one of the top "successes" from Copenhagen

• "Have" countries must register their goals by next month: Rich countries must register the emissions cuts they will make by 2020 by the end of January 2010. However, there is no guarantee that this will limit warming in the future as what countries announce they will cut is up to them

• Climate coping fund established for the "have not" countries: New and additional money "approaching $30bn" will be channelled to poorer nations over the period 2010-12, and the goal of providing an annual sum of $100bn by 2020. But there remain real questions about whether a special Copenhagen Green Climate Fund will reach the target of $100bn, which many say is, at best, half of what is needed

Absolutely everyone is pointing fingers and Canada is not without criticism. Canada was charged as "fossil of the year," a title that reflects our status as an inefficient energy producing country. The term 'Hopenhagen' is now seen as a mocking, misplaced epithet, and some are even calling the meeting 'Nopenhagen' or worse, 'No-Hopenhagen', yikes.

Watch the closing press briefing from Copenhagen here. There is still a lot of work to be done. As various country agendas roll out we will continue to watch.

Will the Mexico conference be any different?