Achievement by Accord: Let some corpus Flow….

Achievement by Accord: Let some corpus Flow….
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_____________________________________________________

One of the most tangible outcomes of the climate agreement announced here Friday, December 18, 2009 turned out to be Money.

The Accord, though not legally binding and thus set no goal for conclusion of a binding international treaty, leaving months, and perhaps years, of additional negotiations before it emerges in any internationally enforceable form. But money in notable quantities should, in principle, start flowing next year.

The Accord was “a big step forward” since talks on climate change in Bali, Indonesia, in 2007, when countries committed to control emissions but offered no financial support mechanisms, Ban Ki-Moon, the U.N. secretary general, said in an interview Saturday.

“This time we have $100 billion a year,” Mr. Ban said, and “$100 billion a year is significant big money.”

To Kumi Naidoo, the executive director of Greenpeace, the environmental group, the funding pledge was one of the few “plus points” in an otherwise grossly inadequate document.
The accord calls for the establishment of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support immediate action to help curb emissions and to help communities adapt to the effects of global warming.

An initial, fast-start fund worth $10 billion annually would operate from 2010 to 2012.
As per the Accord, towards a long-term finance, developed countries have agreed to support a goal of jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

Naidoo said the long-term fund needed to be closer to $140 billion annually by 2020 to be truly effective.

But he said that the decision to raise and disburse hundreds of billions of dollars to help the most vulnerable nations showed that “the principle that poor countries with least responsibility for climate change need resources for adaptation has been recognized.”

Naidoo said some of the money should go to small island states like Tuvalu that are vulnerable to rising seas and need help in starting to move people to higher ground.

Naidoo said other candidates for such funding were low-lying coastal communities in countries like Bangladesh where levies are needed to channel seawater to keep it from contaminating sources of fresh water.

Ban Ki-Moon said that he foresaw that the fund would oblige recipients to have reporting and verification systems, and that he envisaged a “comprehensive governance structure” to manage the aid disbursements.

“This is a new step toward the era of clean energy security and toward an era of green growth,” he said.

But Oxfam, the anti-poverty campaign group, immediately warned that the offers were full of “caveats and loopholes,” raising questions about whether the money would ever be disbursed in adequate amounts.

Robert Bailey, a senior spokesman for Oxfam International, said the amount of $100 billion was only half of what was needed.Bailey also warned that rich-world governments could end up diverting money from important education and health care projects in poor countries to pay for new projects like flood defenses.

There were also concerns that governments would generate money for the fund on revenue raised from private-sector activities, like taxes on trading in greenhouse gas pollution allowances.

If that turns out to be the case, then forecasting the precise amount of aid flows could prove difficult, as the prices of allowances fluctuate, partly depending on how strongly governments enforce quotas, or caps.

“If the carbon markets are expected to provide any significant portion of that $100 billion, then developed countries will need to commit to cap emissions tightly to drive demand for allowances,” said Tom Brookes, the director at the European Climate Foundation, a research organization based in Brussels.“But right now there are no caps in the accord,” said Brookes, referring to the outcome in Copenhagen.

The E U had pledged $3.6 billion annually to the initial fast-start fund. Japan and the U. S too had made pledges to that fund.

But where large portions of the rest of the money will come from remains uncertain.Announcing that the U.S would contribute to the long-term $100 billion-a-year fund, Secretary of State -Hillary Rodham Clinton insisted that those details could come later.

“There are a number of different ideas about how we can pursue the financing,” Mrs. Clinton said."The important point,” she said, was “not to talk about how we would fund money that we haven’t yet agreed to fund, but to make the agreement that that is what we’re going to do.”

Yvo de Boer, the head of the U.N. climate office had acknowledged that the Accord did not specify how responsibility for the money would be divided up among industrialized countries.
“That means we have a lot of work to do on the road to Mexico,” he said, citing the next U.N. climate conference, which will be held by mid 2010.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EU’s Frustration on Climate Accord

EU’s Frustration on Climate Accord
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
____________________________________________________

The atmosphere at the European Union pavilion at the Bella Centre was moving into that of a funeral.Depressed-looking European negotiators sipped beer from bottles in dim light while crews began dismantling food stalls, television monitors and giant displays of the Union’s blue and gold flags.

José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, and Fredrik Reinfeldt, the prime minister of Sweden, which holds the bloc’s rotating presidency, were telling European leaders that to reach a strong global deal eventually, they would have to endorse the Copenhagen accord despite its shortcomings.

Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, had an air of grim resignation as he trudged out of that meeting shortly before 2 a.m.“It’s less than what we wanted, but the process has to go on,” Cowen said.

And in what appeared to be a sharp reference to the wrangling between China, the United States and African countries that had blocked a more far-reaching accord, Cowen, as he headed for the exits, shouted: “Certainly it’s not Europe’s fault!”

Reinfeldt said President Barack Obama had been “very constructive” at the talks, creating a basis for the accord by smoothing over the dispute with China over an international monitoring system for emissions.Still, the Swedish leader hinted that the Europeans had been caught badly off guard.

Reinfeldt said he had gotten his first signals that a deal had been struck while still engrossed in meetings. “We had very tough negotiations two and a half hours after I read on my mobile telephone that we were already done,” he said.

If there was a rush by the Americans to announce the deal, he said, it appeared to have been because of bad weather in the United States.

“He was in a hurry home, he said, because they were closing the airport in Washington,” Reinfeldt said of Obama. “There was a snowstorm coming in.”

Ed Miliband, the British secretary of state for climate and energy, acknowledged Europeans’ disappointment in the talks’ result but said he was “absolutely not in the blame game.” Rather, he said, negotiating strategies needed to be examined.

Delaying discussion of the toughest issues until the final moments of the conference came close to dooming the chances of an accord, Miliband said. “My biggest frustration at this conference is not talking about substance, apart from the last day, frankly,” he said. Miliband said the months of jockeying leading up to Copenhagen had resulted in some benefits.

“The process has been a nightmare, but the substance of the last year means you have ambitious targets from lots of countries,” he said.

He noted that Brazil, South Africa, India, China and Japan were among the nations that had proposed limits on their emissions before the talks.

“The success of this process has been the fact that it has concentrated minds and has made all the major players put numbers on the table,” Miliband said.

But he added: “I would have preferred a much more comprehensive agreement. I think going forward there are some difficult issues if emerging economies don’t want to be part of a legal treaty — which they obviously don’t — about what is the framework in which you operate. We do want a legal treaty, and we will be campaigning for it, but I think there are some difficult issues there.”

Jo Leinen, a German member of the European Parliament who led the chamber’s delegation, said Saturday that the talks “demonstrated the highly unsatisfactory and inefficient method of U.N. conferences” and that “deep reform of the decision-making in the framework of the United Nations” was “an urgent necessity.”

For European industry — which has long complained that policy makers in Brussels, by passing binding limits on emissions, have been moving too far ahead of the rest of the industrialized world — the result in Copenhagen could scarcely have been worse, according to one of its top representatives.

“Our major economic partners only repeated their limited mitigation commitments,” said Philippe De Buck, the director general of Business Europe, a powerful lobby group representing European industry.

Therefore the Copenhagen accord has not brightened the prospect for a global level-playing field in the future,” said De Buck, adding that “we strongly regret” that result.
He suggested that industries based in Europe would increasingly move their operations to less regulated parts of the world.

Representatives of the renewable energy industry were also bitterly disappointed at what they considered Europe’s marginalization at the talks.

“The E.U.’s strategy of leading by example failed and left them without influence,” said Christian Kjaer, chief executive of the European Wind Energy Association.

China and the United States “managed to get India, Brazil and South Africa on board” before departing Friday, “leaving it to the remaining 188 countries to work through to Saturday morning on accepting or rejecting the empty accord without changes,” Kjaer said.
Apisai Ielemia, the prime minister of Tuvalu, a small island state that could disappear under water if sea levels rise dramatically, said he was “gravely concerned” with the way the conference had gone.

Ielemia said the decision came down to “backroom deals by a select few.”

Tuvalu had pushed strongly for a global agreement that would ensure temperatures would peak at 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above average pre-industrial temperatures.
Instead, in the accord in Copenhagen, there was a reference to limit temperatures to a peak of 2 degrees Celsius and no specific timetable to achieve this.

In the past, Pacific islands like Tuvalu have worked in tandem with their larger neighbors Australia and New Zealand at United Nations conferences. But they appeared to be sharply at odds in Copenhagen.

In an apparent reference to noisy campaigns led by some nations at the front lines of climate change during the two-week conference, Tim Groser, the New Zealand minister of trade, criticized the “extremist negotiating culture” of some delegates.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Accord On Climate Change

Accord On Climate Change:

Statement To be Submitted in Rajya Sabha
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________

Jairam Ramesh,Minister of Environment will be presenting a Report of the Accord arrived at Copenhagen Climate Summit, in Rajya Sabha on today Monday- December 21, 2009.Certainly he will have to assure that India’s sovereignty was very much protected under the red lines earmarked and not transgressed his declaration in Parliament ahead of the summit.


The minister had called on Congress President, Ms Sonia Gandhi, on Sunday and briefed her on the deliberations of the two weeks long conference attended by 193 nations around the globe and provisional deal cobbled together by a small group of Basic Bloc wherein India a member and with U.S, for combating the global warming.

Mr Ramesh, who was part of the Indian negotiating team, earlier said on the outcome of the crucial negotiations in the Danish Capital that the accord was "a good deal."The Minister is understood to have taken the view that the Copenhagen accord is the first good step holding
That it was good for India, the world and good for Earth.

Ramesh had earlier said that the Indian side "had very fruitful discussions with Obama and that "India has a good deal."

At Copenhagen, the Prime Minister, Man Mohan Singh had said that there is no question of making India's unilateral commitments as internationally and legally binding.

Man Mohan Singh also said that there was no question of making our unilateralcommitments internationally legally binding, we will reflect them in an international agreement in a suitable way but we are not going to take any internationally legally binding commitments. That is simply not on the cards”. Ramesh said in Copenhagen, quoting the prime minister as having said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Deal Away From Goals

A Deal Away From Desired Goals
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
_______________________________________________
President Obama succeeded in his job at Copenhagen while broking for a climate deal with a group of leading nations that provides for monitoring emission cuts by each country despite no global target for cutting greenhouse gases, and no deadline for reaching a formal international climate treaty.

Actually the deal falls far short of many countries' expectations for the summit and leaves a complete plan for climate change potentially years away. Although the agreement included some major players -- China, India, Brazil and South Africa -- it was not universally agreed upon by the 193 nations attending the summit. In fact, some leaders left early Friday in apparent frustration.

The climate debate shifted to the domestic stage. Though Obama voiced hopes for greater results, the modest agreement may help the administration as it presses Congress to pass landmark climate-change legislation. By not committing the United States to new standards and by insisting on monitoring cuts made by other nations, the administration can say passage of domestic legislation would not put the United States at a competitive disadvantage with other nations, particularly China.

While Obama too attended in the meeting of developing nations on late Friday , December 19, 2009 conceded its limitations- "Today we made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen.It is going to be very hard, and it's going to take some time" to get a legally binding treaty. He aadded "was not achievable at this conference."

In the deal, spelled out in a three-page document, each country needs only to list its current domestic pledges for emissions reductions and to promise to allow monitoring of their progress. It also outlines steps to help poor countries go green and prepare for the impact of a warming Earth.

But it sparked a rebellion among more vulnerable nations. They said they could not accept an agreement that lacked deep emissions commitments from the industrialized world.

"The science tells us we must act now, and urgently," said Ian Fry, climate-change representative for Tuvalu, which may be submerged by rising seas in a matter of decades. "To use a Biblical allusion, it looks like we're being offered 30 pieces of silver to bargain away our future. Mr. President, our future is not for sale." The summit venue burst into applause.

European officials, for their part, made it clear that although America's climate-change goals had improved compared to where they were under the Bush administration, they still were not in line with those of the European Union and Japan.

"This accord is better than no accord, [but] it wasn't a huge step," said European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso. "The level of ambition is honestly not what we were hoping for."
Barroso and Swedish Prime Minister Frederik Reinfeldt said the EU would stick to its target of reducing emissions 20 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, rather than going for the 30 percent goal they had pledged in the context of an ambitious agreement.

But Obama, as well as many U.S. environmentalists, said this agreement represents a turning point in international climate policy because it means the developing world, which will account for nearly all the emissions growth in coming decades, has joined in committing to cut carbon output.

The goal was to get the big emitters in the developing world under the tent with some sort of credible monitoring regime," said David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center.

In fact, there was almost no deal in Copenhagen at all. The contentious talks appeared to break down at several points over recent days, with rich and poor countries at odds over nearly every issue. A group of developing nations staged a temporary walk out earlier in the week, and on the last day of the summit the talks seemed on the verge of collapse.

Obama had scheduled a private evening meeting with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, whose nation, other leaders have said, poses the greatest challenge to forging a global pact. China had strongly resisted proposals for independent monitoring of each country's claimed emissions cuts, whereas the United States has said such scrutiny is integral to a meaningful deal. Wen had earlier declined to attend a pre-plenary emergency meeting with Obama and other world leaders, sending an aide instead.

But when Obama arrived for his meeting with Wen, he discovered that the Chinese leader was in a meeting with the leaders of India, South Africa and Brazil. Obama opted to join them, although at one point he threatened to walk out if no deal was reached. There, the final stages of the agreement came together, sources close to the talks said, with Obama discussing specifics.

Both the United States and the major developing nations agreed to list their existing pledges to fight climate change, and promised unspecified action to prevent the Earth's temperature from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius. In addition, they will provide information on their progress, which would be subject to international consultations and analysis.

To seal the deal, however, the United States had to sacrifice its goal of enshrining a global target of reducing greenhouse emissions in half by 2050 -- something developing countries, concerned the impact this would have on their economies, were reluctant to embrace. The deal also does not set a 2010 deadline for reaching a formal treaty, which several nations had sought.

Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, said the administration made big concessions because it was unwilling to walk away from the deal. "Failure was not an option," Helme said, "so this deal traded off cutting global emissions in half by 2050 for a better transparency package that insures those promises will be kept."

Yet some environmentalists questioned how a document with an uncertain mandate could provide the foundation for a legally binding agreement.

"This is a sort of 'incomplete, I didn't turn in my term paper,' when it should have gotten a failing grade," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It's fill in the blanks, fill in the numbers."

Even on the question of financing to help developing countries cope with climate change, which had appeared to be one of the talks' few tangible outcomes, the document was short on specifics. It included $10 billion in annual funding from rich nations for the next three years but set only an aspirational goal for raising $100 billion in annual funding by 2020.

It doesn't say what the level of public financing will be," Meyer added. "It could be 2 percent, with 98 percent coming from the carbon markets."

Throughout the negotiations, Obama officials advocated a strong provision to ensure the United

States' economic competitors were cutting emissions, saying it was essential to satisfying senators back home, who have yet to pass climate legislation. "It's important that the world knows the Chinese are keeping the promises they are making," Markey said.

The decision to remove a 2010 deadline for reaching a legally binding treaty was significant, because scientists have warned that the longer nations wait to make deep greenhouse gas emission cuts, the harder it will be to avert dangerous climate change.

The deal does include language calling for completing a scientific review of the accord by 2015, the same year the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will issue a comprehensive assessment of the latest scientific findings on global warming. But the document calls only for "consideration of strengthening the long-term goal" of reducing emissions.

Obama conceded that the commitments included in the deal fell far short of what scientists have said is required to avert dangerous warming. "We know that they will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050," he said. "But I want to be very clear that ultimately this issue is going to be dictated by the science, and the science indicates that we're going to have to take more aggressive steps in the future."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copenhagen Adds Value To Obama in U.S

Copenhagen Adds Value To Obama in U.S
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
__________________________________________________________

The crucial Copenhagen climate conference might have failed as it did not resulted in a consensus despite President Barack Obama's presence at the summit but his attempts that brokered a US-BASIC political deal was hailed by Congress leaders here as "commendable".

Top Congressional leaders praised Obama for reaching a "breakthrough" agreement with China, India, Brazil and South Africa but said this is just a beginning to advance climate change objectives. "The President's personal involvement, and the efforts of Secretary (Hillary) Clinton and her negotiating team, have been extremely focused and commendable," House Majority Leader Steny H Hoyer said.

US brokered a political deal with India and three other emerging economies over non-legally-binding emission cuts which was rejected by an overwhelming number of developing nations which called it one-sided and "suicidal".

However, Congress leaders, in their initial reactions said the "breakthrough," including transparency measures, a mitigation target of two degree Celsius and a financing mechanism, was "an important step forward that lays a key marker both in the global fight against climate change and in US participation in such efforts".

As consensus for a deal to tackle climate change eluded the 12-day Conference of Parties (COP), Obama pushed for a pact during parleys that went down to the wire.
Terming it as a bold agreement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said this will help secure a safer, cleaner and more prosperous future for the world.

"This Copenhagen Accord was made possible by strong US leadership and recent investments in our national energy policies. This agreement was also aided by constructive engagement with the world community a result of President Obama's leadership," he said.

This is a significant and historic agreement, but there is more negotiating and trust building to do before there is a treaty for the Senate to review," Reid said.

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said: "The agreement... could not have been reached without President Obama's active involvement and leadership".

Senator Barbara Boxer, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said for the first time, the world's major emitting countries, including China and India, have committed to specific actions to cut emissions. American leadership, especially Obama's personal engagement, fundamentally changed the dynamic at the global warming talks, she said.

With Obama on his way back from Copenhagen, the American media said the deal falls short of key goals, even though it could be considered as a breakthrough by some. "The deal falls far short of many countries' expectations for the summit and leaves a comprehensive battle plan for climate change potentially years away," said The Washington Post in its news dispatch from Copenhagen.

The Wall Street Journal said Obama's very presence made a "significant breakthrough a political imperative, no matter how flimsy".

"The agreement addresses many of the issues that leaders came here to settle. But it has left many of the participants in the climate talks unhappy, from the Europeans, who now have the only binding carbon control regime in the world, to the delegates from the poorest nations, who objected to being left out of the critical negotiations," The New York Times said.

The Post said, the deal, under which each country needs only to list its current domestic pledges for emissions reductions and to promise to allow monitoring of their progress, sparked a rebellion among vulnerable nations. "No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world's No 1 emitter," it said.

The accord, The New York Times, said provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward national pollution reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard.

"But it was an equivocal agreement that was, to many, a disappointing conclusion to a two-year process that had the goal of producing a comprehensive and enforceable action plan for addressing dangerous changes to the global climate," it said.

Finall we all can say that Obama administraion is also a benificiary of the Accord!

Copenhagen’s Operational Accord?

Copenhagen’s Operational Accord?
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)

_________________________________________________________________

The UN climate summit could reach an accord,which was ,finally passed on Saturday December 19, 2009 after two days of intensive negotiations and backroom maneuvers. The Accord, proposed by India and four other countries, is now ''operational'', a relieved UN chief said.

Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmuessen, who chaired the UN-sponsored meeting, acknowledged the lack of consensus and the inability to get the deal adopted. But after a break in the plenary session with a number of countries supporting the accord, the Conference chair announced the decision to “take note” of the agreement instead of formally approving it.
The Accord that is meant to be a first step towards fighting the climate change which affects millions worldwide was still held up for hours by four countries.

Tuvalu and Sudan said it was too weak, while Venezuela and Bolivia were upset because it had not been negotiated in the open form by all the 192 countries attending the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference.The stalemate lasted seven hours - including three adjournments - after the final plenary session of the conference was convened at 3 a.m. Saturday, already 12 hours behind schedule.

But when it was reconvened after the third adjournment, the chairman took just 30 seconds to say this conference was "taking note" of the Copenhagen Accord, and brought down the gavel before any of the surprised delegates in the main plenary hall could react.

The chair's only concession to the countries with objections: The countries that approved the Accord would be listed on the title page, he said.
Once they had taken in what happened, almost all the delegates stood and applauded loud and long. Soon afterwards, a relieved-looking UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came out of the plenary hall to tell the media: "Finally we sealed the deal."

"It has been a long and interesting couple of days," Ban said, referring to the negotiations after US President Barack Obama got together with the heads of India, China, Brazil and South Africa Thursday evening to stitch the Accord together.Ban, who had not gone to his hotel room for two nights and had slept for a total of two hours during this period, said: "Bringing world leaders to the table paid off. This may not deliver what everyone hoped for, but it's an essential beginning."Four benchmarks:

According to the UN chief, the Accord had the four benchmarks. They are- a common long-term goal of keeping global temperature rise within two degrees Celsius; a commitment by all countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases that are warming the atmosphere; progress on tackling deforestation and the start of a fund which developing countries - especially the poorest ones - could use to cope
With climate change effects.

Ban pointed out that the Accord was backed by money - $10 billion a year for the next three years, and then $100 billion a year that the US government had promised to put together from all sources around the globe.He added that now there was "convergence" on "transparency" over actions taken developing countries to control their greenhouse gas emissions, referring to a long-fought dispute between rich countries and emerging economies.

The Copenhagen Accord would "launch a new era of green growth", Ban was confident.
He listed the next steps in the process - turning the accord into a legally binding global treaty; the launch of the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund; and "turning our backs on the path of least resistance when it comes to mitigation actions".The Accord had to be passed by the plenary session of the conference so that these steps could now be taken, explained an expert on UN procedures.

Ban said: "It's a political accord, but with immediate operational effect."He expected the fund to have $10 billion next month. The Accord also says developed countries should report their mitigation actions by Feb 1, 2010, while large developing countries like India and China had to report their "mitigation ambitions by the same deadline.

Asked why the conference used the phrase that it had "taken note" of the Accord, Ban explained it was to satisfy "some member states that were still reluctant. These are very difficult and complex negotiations".The UN chief could not give a timeframe within which the Copenhagen Accord would be turned into a legally binding treaty, but said he would do his best to complete the process nextyear.

The deal was brought to the plenary as a draft document but was strongly opposed by Sudan, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela and some other countries on the ground it lacked specific targets for reducing carbon emissions. They contended that it was
One-sided and suicidal.

Several countries including Japan, Germany and Britain besides Maldives supported the deal.
It is to be noted that earlier Rasmuessen had said, "If we strictly stick to the principle of consensus, this (the US-BASIC accord) cannot be adopted". Thus later he himself quoted this and said "I really regret it for this reason that we cannot adopt this document".

"It is true that this document cannot be put into operational effect. It is true but it is a reality," he said. But also said that Denmark can be proud of its efforts to secure an agreement.

The 3-page US-BASIC accord, taken as a final conference draft, contained elements like limiting temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, factoring in overriding priorities of poverty for developing nations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Copenhagen Treaty

Copenhagen Treaty
(Madan Menon Thottasseri)
___________________________________________
US President Barack Obama reached a climate agreement on Friday with India, South Africa, China and Brazil. The deal outlined fell far short of the ambitions for the Copenhagen summit.

Here are key points from the agreement, which is titled Copenhagen Accord.

Long-Term Goals:

Deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science...with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.
Legally Binding Deal?

A reference in an earlier draft to adopt a legally binding climate agreement by next year was missing in the final draft. This upset the EU and a number of other nations, such as the Pacific island country of Tuvalu, which fears being swamped by rising sea levels.

Financing For Poor Nations:
The text says that Developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries. It mentions as particularly vulnerable and in need of help are the least developed countries, small island developing states and countries in Africa.

Developed countries set a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. The funds will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral.

An annex carries the following short-term financing pledges from developed countries for 2010-2012:
EU - $10.6 billion
Japan - $11 billion
United States - $3.6 billion

Emissions Reduction:

Details of mitigation plans are included in two separate annexes, one for developed country targets and one for the voluntary pledges of major developing countries.

These are not binding, and describe the current status of pledges -- ranging from under consideration for the United States to Adopted by legislation for the European Union.
Verification

A sticking point for a deal, largely because China refused to accept international controls, the section on monitoring of developing nation pledges is one of the longest in the accord.

It says emerging economies must monitor their efforts and report the results to the United Nations every two years, with some international checks to meet Western transparency concerns but to ensure that national sovereignty is respected.
Forest Protection

The accord recognises the importance of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals or greenhouse gas emission by forests, and agrees to provide positive incentives to fund such action with financial resources from the developed world.

Carbon Markets:
Mentioned, but not in detail. The accord says - "We decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets to enhance the cost-effectiveness of and to promote mitigations actions."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~