Why copenhagen summit failed
From wikiWHYfiles
[edit] Introductory Note
|
|
[edit] Reason
Copenhagen Failed! Do not let a political scam "Copenhagen Accord' fool you. It is just another self-saving swindle by the establishment and a self-serving act by the rich and powerful. The United Nations finally disclosed that they have no power in global democratic governance and allowed just five national leaders supported by a twenty other opportunists to decide on the world's future. Poor country leaders, their people, and civil society were shutout from one of the worst democracy killing acts ever on earth. Twenty thousand people from across the world, leaders from 119 nations, representatives from 193 countries did not come to Copenhagen to see just a handful of people making the decisions of our destiny. Now they with a world of people watching from home will never trust the United Nations processes to democratically make decisions for the world. USA President Barrack Obama should not have tried to save the Copenhagen Summit. As a leader who emerged with the promise to change the practices of establishment, he should have made his usually world assuring speech and left, therefore leaving the Climate Summit to fail. This could have helped the cause of the climate sustainability movement to evolve a true climate deal on earth. However, Mr. Obama had clearly demonstrated why he is the main man in global politics today. While the negotiators were playing "Age of the Stupid", Obama worked his usual charismatic charm and usual sharp mind to make common sense look genius. Walking into the newly power hungry BASIC – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – this one smart man saved the negotiating clowns of the COP15 circus an ultimate embarrassment. The Europeans were made to look really stupid in this game,|
|
[edit] Related Articles
[edit] More
- The Copenhagen summit failed to achieve a meaningful multilateral commitment to deal with the climate crisis, but all is not lost. Despite the current impasse between the US and China, pressure from civil society may still force a binding agreement by 2012, says Mark Hertsgaard.
- Sustainability is at risk of being abducted by consumerism and the notion that we can buy our way out of the environmental crisis. We need to reconceptualise the relationship between society and the environment as an ethical one, argue Michael P. Nelson and John A. Vucetich.
- The Copenhagen climate summit turned out to be little more than a charade. Major nations refused to make firm commitments to reduce carbon emissions or even engage in an honest discussion about the consequences of failing to act, writes Bill McKibben.
- Portraying climate change negotiations as a clash of competing national interests misses the point. The real issue is linked to an economic system dependent upon endless growth, even if this 'growth' does not deliver better lives for people, writes Jayati Ghosh.
- For the solution to the climate crisis to be effective, it must address questions of justice and equity at a systemic level. In recognising this, three prominent voices call for an agreement based on sharing economic power and the repayment of climate debt.
- Market fundamentalism has proven incapable of preventing multiple financial crises and catastrophic climate change. Yet even global warming is being sold as a business opportunity, proving that the economy still prevails over planetary integrity, writes Jeremy Seabrook.
- While climate change is an environmental problem, the way we deal with it will have a massive impact on economic development and inequality on a global scale. A transfer of wealth and power from the global North to South is essential to averting climate catastrophe, argues Tim Jones.
