The week-long Copenhagen Summit is coming to an end and the whole brouhaha about securing commitments from nations of the world on reducing Green House Gases (GHG) has been reduced to sheer ‘mutual sharing of information about mitigation efforts.’We are witnessing a situation where there is no common goal to secure our common good.
Prior to the Summit, there have being mixed feelings on the possible outcome of the meeting and to some; If Kyoto could not do it, why should Copenhagen make it happen?
The initial foot-dragging and side-stepping witnessed in the first few days of the conference should have made the handwriting on the wall clear that the nexus between reducing GHG by 2oC and maintaining economic buoyancy is not an easy task. Investment in alternative energies is ‘not child’s play.’ It requires mammoth funds in research and development, the budget for which, most nations particularly the developed ones, are not ready to churn out.
To some of the world leaders, their arguments would obviously toll the line that the world is just coming out of the meltdowns and it might not be a popular decision to stale economies especially when the implications of doing this might be higher than those of increasing GHG.
Well, having acted out some diplomatic roles at different Model United Nations Conferences in the last two years, I can relate with how agreements might not translate into commitments. The intricacies of negotiating and securing compromises at such top levels as seen in Copenhagen call for a lot of caution. You can’t just make promises that you will not fulfil. You don’t want to please attendees at the conference and loose your position as the President, Prime Minister or Head of Government of your country when you get back home.
As a matter of fact, it needed even an eloquent and articulate Obama to intermittently look down on the podium on which he was standing; an evidence that he was reading out his comments.
To nations that were expecting this summit to mark the beginning of their reaping in hard currencies from Emission Trading, there is huge disappointment in their faces. Unfortunately they now have to look elsewhere.
The point is now that, every nation should do what it can to cut down GHG and there shall be no legal implication for any nation that is slow at doing this. The US has spoken, China has spoken.
And as the Copenhagen agreement is not legally binding, we can only hope that life on this side of the planet takes a little longer before it all comes to an end.
