Copenhagen: our lost chance

[marmar]

from the Independent UK:



Leading article: Copenhagen: our lost chance
Sunday, 20 December 2009


Perhaps our expectations were too high. Yet we should be clear about what precisely was disappointing about the accord that was reached in Copenhagen yesterday, and what was worthwhile. We have known for some months that a legally binding treaty was most unlikely. The crushing disappointment was that the undertaking to sign such a treaty by the end of next year was dropped from the final document. What was achieved in Denmark was no more than the old standby of diplomacy: agreement in principle. That principle is important, of course. For the first time, all the nations of the world accept that climate change is a problem and that they must do something about it.

That is, as veterans of the Rio-Kyoto process such as John Prescott have been pointing out, how these international agreements work. First, countries sign up in principle, then they work out the details of what should be done, by whom and who should pay. And the Copenhagen accord contains more than mere expressions of concern and good intentions – although not much more. It sets a C rise in average global temperature above the pre-Industrial-Revolution level as a target limit (although on the basis of this deal it is too late already). And it puts a figure of $100bn a year on the cash transfer to poorer countries to help mitigate a problem of the rich countries' making (although as David King points out today, the sources of this money are obscure). But, frankly, nobody needed to go to Copenhagen for that deal to be struck.

Joss Garman issues a cry from this newspaper's heart. He condemns Copenhagen as "a historic failure that will live in infamy". It certainly seems pitiful that a deal that has been two years in the making, and 12 days in face-to-face negotiation should have fallen so far short of the hopes invested in it. Yet The Independent on Sunday's head recognises the limits of the possible. The best that could have been hoped for was that China and America would have entered a competitive auction to bid each other down in their plans for a low-carbon future.

In that context, and we know it is unfashionable, we should praise Gordon Brown for having done as well as he could in difficult circumstances. It was he who came up with the $100bn figure in the first place and, as Kevin Rudd, the Australian Prime Minister, said during the talks: "I've got to say, without his intervention I doubt that we would be as close as we are at present to both a short-term and longer-term financial arrangement." Again, our Prime Minister has, on the world stage, confounded the caricature with which he is unfairly belittled at home. ............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-copenhagen-our-lost-chance-1845710.html

[Tutankhamun]

1. "Even though the deal isn't perfect or anywhere near what we'd hoped for,

it's better than no deal at all."

This argument is getting way too familiar lately.

[Bitwit1234]

2. And Miss Stupid of this year and every year is panning the climate change

You know, I was changing channels and saw that TNT (or one of the Turner channels) has the Wizard of Oz on. And guess what I thought of Sarah Palin.

Just think. She fits the Wizard to a T. First she is a fake. She hides behind someone else (the Oz curtain) and gives decision other people make. If they ever remade that movie, they ought to put her in the role of the Wizard because she sure has all the qualifications.

A f**king know it all that don't know nothing.