|
Vision |
One of the most central
challenges of our time is the need to find the balance between global
socio-economic processes and their effect on local communities. In this
blurry situation, governments, private sector and NGOs alike take
efforts in contributing to the sustainable development of local
communities by using experience and methods already tried worldwide.
Understanding the importance and the need of interdisciplinary and open
thought is crucial in order to offer the best solution to complex
problems. Read more
Click here to view my Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| David Martin Abrahams |
|
|
Copenhagen climate conference: failure or opportunity?
|
By David Martin Abrahams
Jan 07, 2010
A rare consensus between politicians, NGO's and commentators is that the climate conference held in Copenhagen had failed in a achieving its goals. The deep disappointment stems from an almost unbridgeable gap between the urgency of the need to reduce emissions in order to prevent unrestrained worldwide temperature rise, and the "light" agreement that lacks legally binding mechanism or clear quantitative objectives to cut gas emissions.
Nevertheless, an analysis of the complex political and economic systems involves, reveals that the mere creation of an ongoing process of multilateral talks (which culminated in the Copenhagen conference) is an important achievement.
Several actors are active in the international effort to reach climate control, each has its own interests:
• Developed western countries, mostly European ones, which have already
realized their industrial growth. The economic system of these countries is based
on the tertiary and quaternary sectors (services & information); their political
system is substantially influenced by green politics. This group is an advocate of
binding steps to reduce global emissions.
• Developing countries ("The G77") that undergo continuous industrialization
processes; as such, their "pollution-meter" is still ascending. Their political
system is not stable, and in some cases not democratic. These countries agree
with the need to reduce emissions, but still want to jump on the industrial
development train.
• The United States: fully developed country, yet with firm industrial basis and
powerful pro-industry lobbies. It is hard to isolate the federal from the corporate
interests, but it is clear that except Al Gore, the US conceives even partial steps
forward as success.
• China and India: their sheer size, along with accelerated industrialization process
they undergo, causes them to support vague agreements with minimum external
supervision.
• Island states and coral states, mainly in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Those
countries are physically endangered by sea level rise due to their low, flat
geography. They fight for clear-cut decisions in order to decelerate global
warming and its contribution to the melting of icebergs.
• Green Non Governmental Organizations, whose politics is based on an
anti-institutional approach. That includes pessimistic analysis of climate change,
mass demonstrations and high media profile.
At first sight, it seems that the idea of taking global efforts to fight climate crisis, is naïve. So much powerful economic interests, social mechanisms and political concepts are involved, that an agreement seems like an imaginary goal. For example, the problem of the island states might be dwarfed facing industrial development in the eyes of the developing countries, due to the negligible economic and political importance of those island states on the world map.
Moreover, although achieving climate control seems like a win-win situation, it is not: each country, industry or NGO has its own different time line. While developed countries think in terms of sustainable development, China looks at the next decade and the island states are worried from the next year.
Nevertheless, the conference is not a one-time event but a result of several conferences held last year. Each of these conferences has drawn representatives from most countries to discuss the climate crisis. One should also take into account that the road from vision to action is complicated and long. In this case, the vision – the need to achieve climate control – has already been assimilated globally, either via UN agencies or green politics in many countries. The Copenhagen conference has succeeded in focusing global attention to the need to take action – to limit gas emissions and to draw clear time lines. Indeed, no active steps have been reached. But even so, all actors know that further steps should be taken. Therefore, the Copenhagen climate conference is no glorious success, but certainly not a dubious failure.
|
|
