Hundreds of the world's leaders meet in an unprecedented forum; millions of dollars are spent; weeks of negotiations about a threat that faces the population of the entire planet culminate in what seems more like a collective statement of vague principles than the legally binding, enforceable set of standards that many had hoped for. And yet, I can't help but feel that it wasn't so terribly bad.
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, Copenhagen triggered some significant achievements in terms of global activism. I can't help but feel that perhaps for this alone, the conference was worthwhile. The challenge of climate change—like other important global issues—is going to need grass-roots activism to take place around the world. And Copenhagen saw at least two unprecedented moves in this direction: An unprecedented newspaper editorial that was run by over fifty different newspapers, in 20 different languages, around the world. And the largest petition in the history of the world, organised by Avaaz.
The deal wasn't what most activists had hoped for. There was much fighting—both between richer countries and poorer countries, and amongst the poorer countries themselves, whose interests are of course, not identical: Some are oil rich and have an interest in retaining their thriving industries; others, most notably India, China and Brazil, are powerful, emerging economies; still others, like Vanuatu, are small island states that face the possibility of being wiped off the map unless a good enough agreement is both reached and enforced.
The agreement at Copenhagen is not sufficient. About that there is no doubt. But, even though time is indeed precious, what has now taken place is an important start. And, as has been pointed out, the spirit of willingness and cooperation amongst some of the biggest polluters is, ultimately, more important than a legally binding document. After all, who would enforce such a document on the biggest polluting countries? If, once legal commitments are made, China or India or the US were to decide to breach their obligations, what international mechanism would be able to prevent them from doing so? It would seem, then, that a genuine desire for change might be as important, or perhaps more important, than legally binding documents. And so, the seemingly genuine spirit of understanding of the fact that something must be done, and the emerging willingness to invest some of the resources of the world's biggest economies in green technologies, may indeed be cause for some very, very cautious optimism.
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, Copenhagen triggered some significant achievements in terms of global activism. I can't help but feel that perhaps for this alone, the conference was worthwhile. The challenge of climate change—like other important global issues—is going to need grass-roots activism to take place around the world. And Copenhagen saw at least two unprecedented moves in this direction: An unprecedented newspaper editorial that was run by over fifty different newspapers, in 20 different languages, around the world. And the largest petition in the history of the world, organised by Avaaz.
The deal wasn't what most activists had hoped for. There was much fighting—both between richer countries and poorer countries, and amongst the poorer countries themselves, whose interests are of course, not identical: Some are oil rich and have an interest in retaining their thriving industries; others, most notably India, China and Brazil, are powerful, emerging economies; still others, like Vanuatu, are small island states that face the possibility of being wiped off the map unless a good enough agreement is both reached and enforced.
The agreement at Copenhagen is not sufficient. About that there is no doubt. But, even though time is indeed precious, what has now taken place is an important start. And, as has been pointed out, the spirit of willingness and cooperation amongst some of the biggest polluters is, ultimately, more important than a legally binding document. After all, who would enforce such a document on the biggest polluting countries? If, once legal commitments are made, China or India or the US were to decide to breach their obligations, what international mechanism would be able to prevent them from doing so? It would seem, then, that a genuine desire for change might be as important, or perhaps more important, than legally binding documents. And so, the seemingly genuine spirit of understanding of the fact that something must be done, and the emerging willingness to invest some of the resources of the world's biggest economies in green technologies, may indeed be cause for some very, very cautious optimism.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment