The Disaster In Copenhagen

I think by now almost everyone realizes that the conference climate held recently in Copenhagen was an unmitigated disaster. An agreement was finally reached, but it is a pale imitation of what really needs to be done. The Copenhagen agreement would actually do little to nothing to stave off the impending catastrophe that global climate change will bring if not stopped.

I think that most nations went to the meeting with good intentions. They know that something must be done. But once the negotiations got started, it seems like trust went out the window. No one wanted to be the nation that suffered the most to change global climate change, so each nation began to act in its own best interest instead of what's good for everyone.

The developed nations decided they couldn't cut back too much or they would wind up like the developing nations. The developing nations decided if they cut back too much they would never catch up with the developed nations. It became a stalemate.

Now there is talk of changing the process before the next meeting of nations, to avoid another stalemate. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says the process must be streamlined. But how is this going to be accomplished? Wouldn't any change tip the balance toward either the developed world or the developing world?

I don't believe either side would let the other side get the advantage. The developed world may have the economic and military advantage, but the developing world has the most countries, a much larger population and most of the world's raw materials. Each has a certain amount of power it can wield over the other.

What is the answer? I really don't know. Somehow, trust must be re-established. Only then can a solution be reached that would be fair to all nations -- both developed and developing. I am not very optimistic about this happening. Greed, selfishness and fear are powerful human emotions, and are not easily overcome. Has humanity come this far only to fail -- a failure that would put in doubt its continued existence?

One of the finest and simplest explanations of what happened in Copenhagen is at the BBC blog Ethical Man written by Justin Rowlatt. Let me leave you with some quotes about the situation from his blog.

"The reason Copenhagen foundered was because most countries refused to set aside their narrow national interests for the long-term future well-being of the entire planet."

"The conference degenerated into the equivalent of a land-grab - not for territory on Earth, but for atmospheric space and the right to pollute it."

"This was, after all, a conference of nation states, and nation states exist to promote national interests. Indeed, the conference was a graphic demonstration of the fact that what is in the best interests of a country is not necessarily in the best interests of the people who live in it."

"But it is hard to be optimistic. It is rare that nation states put aside national interests for the greater good of the world. Can you think of any examples of when they have?"