The  talks of the Conference resulting in the adoption of an agreement between China - the U.S.. This agreement was primarily drafted  by the U.S. to combat global warming. Eventually, this agreement was signed by the U.S., India, China, Brazil and South Africa. The U.S. described this agreement as “reasonable”, while some developing countries reversely described it  as “unacceptable”. The agreement sets a target determining the maximum increase in the temperature of the earth by two degrees Celsius during the period that preceded the industry era. The excess of the temperature increase over this target is being blamed for the dramatic climate changes. Natural disasters in many regions were thus caused, such as  the increase in floods, droughts, landslides, sand storms and rising sea levels. Still, the agreement did not specify how to control this temperature rise[1].

The agreement ensures the allocation of $ 30 billion for the next three years to poor countries to confront the dangers of climate change. This amount will be raised up to $ 100 billion by 2020. Obama noted that reaching a legally binding convention on climate change will be very difficult and will need more time. He added that waiting for this convention to emerge means that there would be no progress in reaching it. He also said that although the current agreement is not legally binding ,his country has decided to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Countries’ comments: [2]

1) Egypt:[3]

·        The outcome of the conference is not enough to meet the challenges and negative consequences of the climate change.

·        The conference a lost opportunity for the world to reach an acceptable deal to fully and effectively implement  the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.

·        African countries request that the rise in global average temperature be limited to one degree and a half only, since the two degrees of increase sought be developed countries will cause increase in African continent temperature would range from about 3-4 degrees leading to the sinking of many countries consisting of small islands.

2) Arab League:

·        The conference outcomes should include two entirely separate tracks, first, additional responsibilities along with a commitment period for developed countries, and second, binding decisions on long-term cooperation under the umbrella of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol.

·        Setting a boundary between reduction commitments for all developed countries and the voluntary activities of developing countries which should be consistent with the interests and priorities of national development.

·        Provision of financial and technical support, and capacity building for developing countries .

3) U.S.:

·        The agreement shall be built on in the future as the progress so far falls below expectations.

4) U.K.:

·        This agreement is good a start but it needs to become legally binding as a matter of urgency.

5) E.C.:

·        The non-binding nature of the agreement is disappointing.

6) France:

·        The agreement is incomplete but it prevents major developing countries such as China and India, from freely resorting to environmentally harmful practices.  

7) United Nations:

·        All commitments made in Copenhagen did not rise up to what scientists expects, but it will and provide financial resources necessary to combat global warming.

Another round of climate talks will be held in November 2010 in Mexico, aiming at making up for the failure of Copenhagen and at reaching a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol. However, there are no guarantees that the failed objectives of Copenhagen could be met in Mexico.