To anybody interested in the future of the earth's climate, the conclusion of the Copenhagen conference represents either colossal disappointment or profound rage. The financial pledges-- if honored-- that rich nations made to poor nations will do nothing to combat global warming. The few climate related agreements that were made were of zero substance, especially when compared to what the situation demanded.
The sorrowful outcome, however, could have been predicted in the conference's first week, based on two seemingly unrelated events: The conference showcased the largest police action in Denmark's history (including mass arrests of "troublemakers"); while also producing the largest ever boom in limousine rentals. Both happenings helped reveal the true nature of the conference, spelling doom for climate progress.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
Contrary to the hopes of billions of people, the talks were a purely elite
affair. Many of the thousands of delegates sent to the conference
were not looking to save the planet, as advertised, but were looking out for
the national interest of their native governments. Most of these countries are
dominated by the "special interests" of giant corporations.
Big business in the rich nations used the conference as a cynical maneuver to
maintain their economic dominance over the "emerging business" in the
developing countries. This fact was at first obscured by technical
language, until the now-famous "Danish Text" was leaked to the press in the
first week of the conference.
This document was a conference proposal written by the U.S. and England, though
submitted by Denmark. The
Danish Text proposes that developed
nations -- the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc. -- be
allowed to pollute twice the amount of developing countries -- China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. -- for
the next fifty years.
If enacted, the corporations of the developing nations would be forced to
function under an incredible economic handicap. Their governments would
have, of course, rejected such nonsense, giving the U.S. delegates
the needed excuse to blame China for the
failed talks (the U.S. media has
done this with absolute disregard for facts).
The Danish Text also proposed to move future climate talks out of the realm of
the too-democratic UN into the U.S./Europe dominated World Bank. Obama has thus surpassed
his predecessor in the realm of global arrogance.
However, the U.S. torpedoed
the talks long before they ever began, forcing the international media to
campaign in favor of "lower expectations." The New York Times explains:
-- when Mr. Obama and other world leaders met last month, they were forced to
abandon the goal of reaching a binding accord at Copenhagen because the American political system is not ready
to agree to a treaty that would force the United States, over time, to accept
profound changes in its energy, transport and manufacturing [corporate]
sectors." (December 13,
2009).
Instead of building upon the foundation of the already-insufficient Kyoto
Protocol, the Obama administration demanded a whole new
structure, something that would take years to achieve. The Kyoto framework
was abandoned because it included legally binding agreements, and was based on
multi-lateral, agreed-upon reductions of greenhouse gasses (however
insufficient). Instead, Obama proposed that --each country set its own
rules and to decide unilaterally how to meet its target." (The Guardian, September 15, 2009).
This way, there is zero accountability, zero oversight, and therefore, zero
climate progress. Any country may make any number of symbolic "pledges"
to combat global warming, while actually doing very
little to follow through -- much like billions of dollars rich countries pledged
to Africa that have yet to leave western bank accounts.
Obama's maneuvering to ruin Copenhagen was
correctly assessed by Canadian writer Naomi Klein, who
said that Obama, like Bush, is "using multi-lateralism to destroy
multi-lateralism." This means that Obama is participating in
international organizations like the UN Copenhagen conference, with no
intention of reaching agreements. Once the U.S. blames its
overseas rivals for the failure to "cooperate," a more independent path can be
struck.
This is reminiscent of Bush's path to invading Iraq: he used the
UN Security Council
to pass resolutions against Iraq, which
helped him weaken Iraq while
strengthening U.S. public
opinion. But when the Security
Council wouldn't agree to an invasion, Bush assembled a pathetic
"coalition of the willing" to attack, completely abandoning the UN (Obama
appears to be following an identical approach with Iran). U.S. corporations
wanted to dominate Iraq's huge oil
reserves and other treasures, to the detriment of the corporations within Europe, Russia, and China.