A series of political events from the last days darkened the perspectives of a significant outcome from the Copenhagen Climate Council (3C). This is very unfortunate because of the enormous amount of political and media energy thrown in the preparation for the event over the last few months. The need for a far-reaching and binding global agreement on climate-related targets is beyond doubt and this is not my point here. What I am really concerned with, is that after the dramatic failure to which the Climate Council is ever more surely going, it will be even harder to get world leaders on the same wavelength about climate change again. Even the desire to meet may not be there, let alone the minutest climate packages and legislation they have to work out at home.
There were many indications that the full-blown PR campaign for the 3C will not be matched by appropriate results. First it was the disagreement of the EU ministers about the way to finance the change of energy system in the developing world. The stubborn new member states put a spoke in the Union’s plans to play a leading role at the summit. This was reconfirmed a few times on different occasions. How much countries the size of Hungary or Bulgaria had missed I will leave for a further discussion.
Then, the APEC countries yesterday solemnly agreed to work towards an “ambitious outcome” in Copenhagen. According to US Deputy National Security Adviser Mike Froman, the countries came to realize it was unrealistic to expect far-reaching agreement when the summit is due only in 3 weeks.
Today was the final nail in the Coffin of the Copenhagen Climate Council (4C) when Denmark called for a global deal to be signed in 2010. The best thing the Nordic diplomacy can do now is to avoid a spectacular failure and gain some time for negotiations. Nevertheless, I think the agreement that there will not be an agreement is sealed. The reasons: lack of leadership, lack of environmentality in the world leaders, and the financial system, whose inherent structure is inextricably in opposition to the notions of sustainability, abundance, efficiency and goes entirely against the carrying capacity of the Earth. Yes, the financial system – the same financial system which astoundingly flopped but we did the utmost to save it and breath fresh life in it .
Above all the reasons though, one is worth paying particular attention to – the politicizing of the problem. The media were obsessed with Copenhagen and politicians were constantly asked questions about it. The result – I doubt experts were and are seriously talking about particular measures, definitions and technology. All those lawyers, industrialists, engineers, researchers, ecologists ,etc should have been given the mandate and the time to work out solutions for the grave danger which is fast approaching. What happened however is so typical for the unaccomplished global governance. Diplomats created diplomatic logic for something that has nothing to do with diplomacy, and eventually the whole effort to change the status quo fell victim to the clumsy international political set-up.
We have had conflicts for ages but our beloved politicians still do not know how to solve them. We have had the right technology for decades but still do not use it for the sake of the profit of the few. We have always lied to ourselves that we are facing better problems and we can solve any problem. Can we really be so naive? Is it not time to talk the talk and think smart? Or is it the time to continue our tribal diplomacy?