Copenhagen Fail
We all know that the Copenhagen treaty was a failure. Here might be some things you dont realize:
1) The smaller nations, the G77 bloc, dont care about the climate. They care about money. The EU offered to cut emissions 80% by 2050. The G77 ignored them. "Climate change" is a way to demand money out of the developed world. If anthropogenic climate change is accurate, and the exepected effects are accurate, then the developed world does owe the rest of the world for using up a common good. However, none of that has been proven yet, and all the developed nations want right now is money.
2) The NYT is so partisan and full of BS, I can hardly believe it. Reading this "news story" makes you think Copenhagen was some sort of success. It was worse than the expected worst case of a political agreement - there was no agreement. Developing nations simply "took note" of the accord, and have not agreed to it. Fail.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/21/21climatewire-obama-negotiates-copenhagen-accord-with-senat-6121.html
3) It represents a a shift in international institutional framework. As one delegate put it, Copenhagen was "a coup d'etat against the authority of the United Nations." The reason is that instead of the consensus building of Kyoto and the UN, Copenhagen was set up to be lead and organized by certain powerful nations to the detriment of the poorer/smaller nations. Want to talk to sub-saharan Africa? Talk to South Africa. South America? Brazil. South Asia? India. I personally think this is practical, but it is important to note the change and possible future implications.
1) The smaller nations, the G77 bloc, dont care about the climate. They care about money. The EU offered to cut emissions 80% by 2050. The G77 ignored them. "Climate change" is a way to demand money out of the developed world. If anthropogenic climate change is accurate, and the exepected effects are accurate, then the developed world does owe the rest of the world for using up a common good. However, none of that has been proven yet, and all the developed nations want right now is money.
2) The NYT is so partisan and full of BS, I can hardly believe it. Reading this "news story" makes you think Copenhagen was some sort of success. It was worse than the expected worst case of a political agreement - there was no agreement. Developing nations simply "took note" of the accord, and have not agreed to it. Fail.
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/21/21climatewire-obama-negotiates-copenhagen-accord-with-senat-6121.html
3) It represents a a shift in international institutional framework. As one delegate put it, Copenhagen was "a coup d'etat against the authority of the United Nations." The reason is that instead of the consensus building of Kyoto and the UN, Copenhagen was set up to be lead and organized by certain powerful nations to the detriment of the poorer/smaller nations. Want to talk to sub-saharan Africa? Talk to South Africa. South America? Brazil. South Asia? India. I personally think this is practical, but it is important to note the change and possible future implications.
Comments
Post a Comment