The mountain in Copenhagen gave birth to a mouse that can hardly crawl. No legally binding agreement, only vague promises for Mexico in 2010. There are national and corporate interest- guided pledges with figures ending in 0 for a year ending in 0 (USA 18%, though). Adding confirmed proposals reduces warming by 2050 from 4.8 to 3.8C; far from the low mission path to 1.9C (IHT, 19-20/12 2009). The pledge of $100 billion per year (inflated $s? as development aid?) for climate-damaged countries is from 2020, but the disaster in the world's biggest delta, Bangladesh, is now, for all to see. Maldives, Kiribati, Tuvalu; caused by the rich.
There is a wish to have the world's major polluters, USA and China, in on an agreement, and as the USA is still to clients like Denmark and Norway the leading country, the leading text became that of the USA, as empty as Obama's statement; pushing the UN and the NGOs aside, arresting many protesters. China was different, both developed and developing, closer to the poor, even endangered countries, but attacked for resisting outside monitoring. Well, maybe they think they have been monitored about enough by the CIA that will join any team for any monitoring--nonetheless, they should have been more responsive and made themselves transparent.
But Obama's problem with the US Congress is more serious than Wen's possible problem with the Party. China is heading for global responsibility, but for the US Senate global warming is far down on the agenda. And they feel above the UN anyhow. Lobbies for the status quo are at least as strong as forces in China for lifting the last hundreds of millions out of poverty by old methods. But China has a lead on the USA in heading for green technology by green means, for domestic growth more than trade as the leading factor in the economy, and for export of green technology.
However, instead of lamenting the Copenhagen failure, what kind of conference would we like to see? Continue goal pledging and work for a legally binding accord. But then, in addition:
- how about pledges to adopt carbon (and methane!) neutral means, meaning green technologies, pledging concretely what technologies--wind, solar, geo- & hydrothermal, waves and tidal water, biomass etc.--they want to adapt where and when and how, for whom, and how they are going to mitigate the many conflicts with those against;
- how about concrete successes and failures and the mix of both, leading to inspiring conclusions, like Germany boosting renewable energy production from 1% of total output in 1995 to 14% in 2007 (see "Where's the Clean Energy?" The Nation 7-12-09);
- how about possible new, incipient technologies, including social ways of mitigating the effects of global warming?
- how about praising and prizing those up front in addition to, critiquing those behind in pledges and/or concrete initiatives?
The Copenhagen conference choreography produced apathy and pessimism, nothing uplifting and inspiring. The focus was on the fault-lines among countries, less on the conflict with a nature in search of new equilibria. It was politics as usual, with groups scoring points, with no empathy with Mother Earth, in spite of the many signs of nature in pain, dying. How about a higher level of co-existence, like a forester helping nature to thrive, harvesting what she offers beyond her needs for sustainability? Reforestation to absorb carbon and release oxygen for our human good is below what nature tells us, if we only knew better to listen. Like President Evo Morales in his brilliant heavily applauded speech.
But there is also a different approach: nonviolent struggle. We have the same right to a carbon warning for as to a warning against smoking; overdue, but better late than never. We have a right not to buy, not to import, to boycott. Facts printed on each unit, please--like on each barrel of oil (the USA consumes 20 million per day, China 5-6 million). Thus, big Statoil in little Norway is now seeing handwritings on the wall and follows in the footsteps of the NATO war on Afghanistan+ to offer their services.