It isn't Brokenhagen

I was asked to submit my thoughts on Copenhagen for a round-up of expert views for the Guardian along with Nick Stern and others.

It's been heavily edited and missed out the points I wanted to make about the US so I thought I'd post my original version below.

I’ve read a lot about so called Brokenhagen and the failure to get a legally binding agreement.
 
Frankly we were never going to get one, just as we didn’t get one at Kyoto, when I was negotiating for the EU.
 
What you need is a statement of principle. At Copenhagen this was a final admission that we cannot let temperature rise 2 degrees centrigrade above pre-industrial levels.
 
And to get approval from 192 countries on this principle is remarkable, considering Kyoto dealt with only 47 nations. Copenhagen would always be ten times more difficult
 
The details and targets to meet that principle will be settled at COP16 in Mexico in 12 months time.
 
Until then, countries must show as, Ban Ki-Moon said, greater ambition to turn their backs on the path of least resistance.
 
Many of the countries have set out their own carbon action plans by 2020, be it the EU’s 20-30% cut, the US 17% reduction on 2005 levels or China’s energy efficiency target of 40-45%.
 
So let’s see them put those plans into action and put those figures in the annexes to the Copenhagen Accord. The rest of the world will follow.
 
Copenhagen’s achievements are an acceptance of the science (that was contested at Kyoto) an admission there will be global emission cuts and an acceptance that there will have to be verification.
 
Too many people spent more time naming and shaming countries then considering the importance of putting social justice at the heart of the deal, something the Council of Europe has called for.
 
US Climate Change Special Envoy Todd Stern’s comments that emissions weren’t about morality or politics, but ‘just maths’ was a crass thing too say.  And Obama pointing the finger of blame at the Chinese might be good for American politics but lousy for global agreements.
 
Any deal should be based on the principle that the polluter pays – and the US pollutes four times as much per person than the Chinese.