New York Times: Fault Lines Remain After Climate Talks

January 4, 2010
Green Inc. Column

By TOM ZELLER Jr.
NEW YORK — The recently concluded climate talks in Copenhagen suggested to many commentators and participants that the global community, as represented by the United Nations, was incapable of broad agreement on just about anything.

Others argued that such judgments were too swift and praised the outcome — a five-page document — as an historic first-step toward meaningful global action on the climate.

Opinions have been as varied and discordant in the aftermath of the meeting as they were at the sessions in the Bella Center in Copenhagen, where thousands of delegates argued and postured — to uncertain ends — in the twilight of 2009.

For the past two weeks, those involved in the conference and onlookers alike have traded a variety of “I told you so” denunciations of the meeting; celebrations of its perceived collapse; and mild praise for the ability of nearly 200 nations to come together and, at the very least, agree to keep talking — essentially what the Copenhagen Accord accomplished.

With the new year just getting under way, it is likely that a good deal of finger pointing — and finger wagging — is yet to come. For now, the following reactions from a cross section of politicians, industry representatives, authors, environment advocates and others suggest that, if nothing else, the fault lines that preceded the conference are still very much in place.

President Barack Obama said on “PBS NewsHour,” a U.S. television program:

“I think that people are justified in being disappointed about the outcome in Copenhagen.”

“It didn’t move us the way we need to,” he said. “The science says that we’ve got to significantly reduce emissions over the next — over the next 40 years. There’s nothing in the Copenhagen agreement that ensures that that happens.”

Naomi Klein, author of “The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism,” wrote on HuffingtonPost.com:

“If Barack Obama had come to Copenhagen with a transformative and inspiring commitment to getting the U.S. economy off fossil fuels, all the other major emitters would have stepped up.”

“Instead of leading,” she said, “Obama arrived with embarrassingly low targets and the heavy emitters of the world took their cue from him.”

Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, wrote in an op-ed article for USA Today:

“The case for the U.S. entering into an international global warming treaty took a significant blow at the latest failed United Nations climate conference in Copenhagen. Not only did the conference fail to reach a meaningful agreement, but that failure will further jeopardize any action on global warming by an already skeptical U.S. Senate.”

James E. Hansen, a climatologist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Yes! Magazine:

“The proposals discussed in Copenhagen were like the indulgences of the Middle Ages.

“The sinners are the developed countries, which are responsible for most of the excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. They want to continue business as usual, by buying off the developing countries.”

Elliot Diringer, vice president for international strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said last month:

“These pledges are not binding. They are statements of intent, not obligation. But that is not what disappoints me. I never expected Copenhagen to produce more than a political accord.

“What troubles me is that governments did not resolve to move next to a legally binding treaty. That goal was part of the tentative agreement announced by President Obama. But then he left, and in final deal-making, it somehow vanished. The negotiations will of course continue. Governments agreed they’d meet next year in Mexico, the year after in South Africa. But with what type of agreement in mind?”

Steve Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said:

“Discussions on the accord were dominated largely by the U.S., China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The European Union, which already has committed to a comprehensive climate change mitigation program, played a very minor role in drafting the accord. As an aside — this should serve as food for thought for those who think the U.S. would have had greater influence if the U.S. negotiating team had had a climate bill in its back pocket — it didn’t work out that way for the Europeans.”

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE