The Conference of the Parties (COP) in Copenhagen ended with an outcome that is seen universally as less than satisfactory. Two years ago the Bali COP had clearly laid down a roadmap and generated expectations that by the time the Copenhagen meeting took place the world would reach a legally binding agreement by which the challenge of climate change would be met effectively. Unfortunately, this did not come about and what we have as the outcome of that meeting is an accord by a limited number of countries, which is in no way legally binding even on those who are part of the accord. In some sense, there is, therefore, as much work to be done in arriving at an agreement as was perhaps the case a year ago. Some would even feel that we may have regressed in our efforts and the momentum that existed even a few months ago has probably been dissipated.

The positives from Copenhagen can be listed as the fact that this accord lays down a limit of 2 °C as the increase in temperature that the parties to the accord have clearly specified as the ceiling acceptable, and which human actions must target now. It is for the first time that such a limit has been agreed on, which by implication suggests that anything above this temperature increase could be deemed as dangerous. It needs to be kept in mind that Article 2 of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) clearly lays down as the central objective of the Convention, "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner."

The other positive feature of the Copenhagen accord is the clear mention of funding for the developing countries up to a total of US$ 30 billion for the period 2010-12. However, some of the important but allied issues with these two figures of 2 °C and $ 30 billion have not really been dealt with. In the case of the 2° temperature increase the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has clearly stated that to attain this level of stabilization of the climate, global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) will have to peak no later than 2015. This makes it critical that countries come up with emissions reduction targets at least for 2020 that would result in peaking of emissions as close to 2015 as possible. On the issue of financing of actions in the developing countries, the institutional arrangements by which flows would actually take place have not been specified; nor have they been discussed in detail to come up with a consensus. There are doubts being expressed in several influential quarters about the ability of the UN system to manage resources for mitigation and adaptation on such a large scale for actions in the developing countries.

The less than satisfactory outcome in Copenhagen is now also giving place to doubts on whether the forging of an agreement under a multilateral system would be feasible at all, if not impossible. They point to the experience with the Kyoto Protocol which was agreed on in 1997, ratified only eight years later in 2005 and implemented only in part globally - or not at all by key countries like the US, which refused to ratify the Protocol. While there are celebrations and considerable satisfaction among those who continue to believe that human actions have nothing to do with climate change, rational individuals across the globe and an overwhelming majority of world leaders are quite distressed at the lack of progress towards a global agreement in Copenhagen. The very fact that over a hundred world leaders participated in the UN Secretary General's meeting on climate change in New York on September 22, 2009 and an even larger number attended COP15 in Copenhagen shows that leaders are responding to the demands put forward by their citizens for adequate and early action to deal with the threat of climate change. Hence, it would be reasonable to conclude that they would want to seek some approach by which this growing challenge can be met effectively worldwide.

Answers, in my view, lie in large-scale initiatives by civil society, business and government at the local level. The nation state and an assembly of all the states of the world have actually failed to make adequate progress and arrive at an agreement that would be effective. The only option in reality would be to ensure mass mobilization of civil society, including business and industry, to take actions by which not only can we adapt to the impacts of climate change, but also make certain that effective mitigation is taken in hand globally in keeping with the principles of the UNFCCC and the essential character of the Kyoto Protocol. But, in order to bring about such a movement across the globe leadership would be required among persons with some standing in society in every country and every sector of human activity. Can we look for such leaders and look up to them to take action? If we don't, the impacts of climate change can overwhelm several societies and the cost of mitigation to be taken in hand, if compelled by the course of future developments, could mount to levels that would prove excessively high for different societies, even for those who choose to ignore the problem completely.