The US is to blame As editor of this blog I travelled to Copenhagen last week (14-17 december). I spend some time outside Bella Center and talked to many people there during the last week of negotiations. I was amazed at how badly the event was organized, but even more amazed how uniformly negative people where about the position of the US. It is no accident the conference ended in failure, the US made sure that was the outcome by not negotiating, only dictating their terms. Thos terms where independent of the Kyoto Treaty or the UN, and the pledges included where an affront to people that know US history of dealing with Climate Change. Ronald Reagan knowlingly ignored the problem thirty years ago, so the problem as it exists now would not have had to exist if it had not been for the corporate takeover of the US.
Vegans protesting on monday
Tuesday As the week progressed I leaned that the negotiation process had basically desintegrated. There where several drafts and the african parties wanted to walk out. at least contries pertended they where negotiating something binding, something meaningfull. The urgency felt by responsible parties (those not overcome by either hubris or greed) did not wane, only the group demonstrating this insight was run over by the US. The reality is that the meeting puts us on a trajectory of 5 degrees temperature increase. This is the most important parameter, because once it is set it will not be possible to change it. On tueasday night a draft was expected by India, but it did not come. It never came.
Media protests Wednesday saw protests. They where meant ot highlight the derrailed negotiations but only added to the mahem. In the end there is no use for demonstrations in politics. If you want something and you are a majority, you should claim the rights going with that position. Demonstrating in such a case is only strengthening a perversion of democracy and supplying your opponent with an opportunity to discredit your position. If you wathc the below video of the protest you understand my choice of title.
Locked into failure Thursday saw the culmination of the US strategy. There would be money for third world countries! THat is not the desired outcome, because it meant the US and other countries are asked to bribe the poor countries into accepting no effective framework. Hillary Clinton showed her true colors. Yvo de Boer expected a Danish draft on thursday evening, but it did not come. It could not be found. The US had essentially locked in failure by ignoring any other position. Then it accused China of not being flexible on some specific language. A trick to distract.
NGOs had to make room for heads of state.
Finale As friday arrived there was no solution in sight. The BRIC countries did not want to be in a deal with the US initially, or the other way around. In the end an Accord was made up that did much less than was hoped, no legal framwork, no new targets. The process was drawn out to januari, and a new meeting in Bonn 6 months later. The process has failed. The US intended it to fail.
YMCA Climate action (babes)
Getting shot by a deaf and blind cripple My post cop15 dip will last only a week. The facts on the ground have not changed. What has changed is the position of the US. It is quicly running out of steam economically, strategically and in terms of its access to oil. How much better would it be if the US used its power to coerce moving to energy independence than keeping its grip on oil and power. There is no reason why the states of North America should be on top of the world. The can't handle it. The country is a false trophy. It should fall apart and loose its status.
Climate Actions Future The weight put on this conference resulted in a huge disapointment. It has gotten a push and perhaps it was the wish of some to push the problem aside, onto the next generation. Nothing has changed and action is still as urgent as before. One way to look at COP15 imho is as a failed peace negotiation. Soon enough countries will start recognizing the danger their population is in and begin to treat the threat of large emitters as a direct attack on their citizen. Sadly the strategic advantage is with the countires with access to oil. This is the ugly side of the possible scenario's. The best outcome of a future treaty will be a concerted rapid adaption scheme invloving forced mitigation and possibly mass migrations to places where life needs to be less carbon intensive. If countries are not ready or able to cooperate in each others benefit let's hope nobody still has fuel to go to war.
