With the end of the Conference, the entire world got busy trying to figure out how COP-15 fared and what the Post-mortem report looked like. It was almost a unanimous consensus, that Copenhagen, billed as the globe’s largest effort to combat climate change, ended in a complete disaster. No one was satisfied with the compromising and unambitious “accord” that was struck behind close doors by five of the largest nations in the world.

Climate Action Demonstration

The climate activists were unhappy off-course because the deal was not binding or ambitious and fell much shorter of what most people had expected.

The smaller and lesser developed nations were unhappy for the same reason too, but more so because prospects of international aid (read: large sums of unaccountable money) were dismissed at Copenhagen.

However, the crucial factor that no one seems to be discussing is – What next?

The failure of COP-15 has surely brought down expectations for the future and the world is busy debating if mankind is capable of solving this global threat in the first place. I feel its a good question, because if the answer is No, then we’re simply wasting time trying to please everybody.

What are the problems with reaching a global deal?

Well, there are many. Firstly, governments over the world are responsible for the consequences of any actions they take in the short run, but will not benefit from them in the long run. That is why governments around the world are afraid to undertake drastic measures that will harm their electoral popularity but will have benefits in the long run.

Also, the countries that are most responsible for climate change and therefore have the most action to take, are ironically least affected by it. The globe is experiencing its hottest decade in recent history, with the exception of North America.

A host of other reasons include lack of financial surplus this year owing to the global economic downturn, lack of political willness due to new administrations like the one lead by Obama and lack of global pressure by citizens and voters.

Whatever the case may be, the failure of COP-15 must serve as a stepping stone for future endeavours otherwise this situation may never find a legitimate solution.

There is a sincere hope that we must, as a specie, be able to resolve this global dilemna before it is too late.

Looking for places, people, and countries to shift blame to in regards to the failed Copenhagen talks? Here’s a short list:

1. OBAMA.

Photo Courtesy of: The White House

Demonized by some of the international media as someone who could have done something, but didn’t, Obama ultimately looks like he failed all of the world’s people. Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, in one of his recently published articles, said that “The president has wrecked the UN and he’s wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming.” Germans, Brits, and many more are consistently spewing their thoughts about our American president. However, does anyone take a moment to step back and look at the situation as a whole. Obama is the leader of one country. Granted, the US is the second largest carbon dioxide emitters and one of the largest developed countries that of course must play a large part in the negotiation process. Nevertheless, Obama is more of a head of a state than we believe. He cannot act without the approval of congress and we know they are just oh so busy with healthcare at the moment. Additionally, the US Congress mainly acts based upon business interests in their district. Sen. McConnell (R-KY), the Senate minority leader, acts in large part with the Republican caucus and large coal industry in Kentucky. And Sen. Inhofe (R-OK), the assistant chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, still vehemently denies the science of global warming. To say the least, there is conflicting interests (due to money, lack of sound science, or more) within the United States. Moreover, blaming the failed Copenhagen summit on Obama fails to look at other world leaders. Canada has still failed to act despite their continuous rise in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to their northern tar sands. Still, the Obama administration has done much more than any other administration in United States’ history for the “climate”, “earth”, “planet”, or whatever you want to call this luscious homeland upon which all civilization and life exists. Rising fuel efficiency standards, a House passed cap-and-trade bill, international talks, and a progressive EPA administrator, are just a few accomplishments of OBAMA. Demonize as you will, I’ll stand behind the man who is fighting quite the hidden and corporate battle that many of us, including myself, don’t fully understand.

2. The United Nations!
DevelopED countries. DevelopING countries. What’s the difference?… Anyone? And I think that’s the point. The way many see the difference between these United Nations defined targets comes down to putting a few large countries into each category and calling it a day. China and India are of course the rock-stars of the developing country sector with the United States being the figurehead of the developed country bloc. Having such ambiguous and 17 year old defining terms harms the United Nations that is already internationally viewed as a failure. More than 170 leaders attended the outcome, “the biggest meeting of heads of state and government in the history of the United Nations and possibly in history,” said UNFCCC Information Officer John Hay. “It’s the first time that heads of state and government have got involved in drafting text.” Sure, we can talk about the disgusting nature of what ever little happened within the boundaries of the Danish capital. Yet, the world focused upon a single northern European city for two straight weeks. During these weeks, the world’s people waited as a deal was supposed to be set. And even when you’re expecting it, failure still hurts. But the United Nations should not get the entire blame, regardless of its delirious definitions, incredible ineffectiveness, and hollow hope.

President Barack Obama briefs European leaders following a multilateral meeting at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Participants include British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Danish Prime Minister Lars L. Rasmussen, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel

When I said this was going to be a short list, I meant it. The world, through the international press, are rebelling against two major figureheads: Obama (and the developed countries) & the United Nations.
Obama is the leader who supposedly engineered the Copenhagen Accord between the United States, India, China, Brazil, South Africa, and a few key European leaders. “It was not driven by one leader, or two leaders, or three leaders,” said Robert Orr, the U.N.‘s assistant secretary general for policy planning. “I would have to count on two hands the number of leaders who played a really instrumental role.” Still, having a sitting US President take such a leadership role in climate change talks is unprecedented. Additionally, blaming the United Nations is usually never helpful. I guess all we can do is follow Jessy Tolkan, Executive Director of the Energy Action Coalition, and her advice of ramping up our efforts for 2010. The Copenhagen talks are over. Mexico City is only 11 months away, let’s get back to work!

Last Saturday, I giddily skipped to my computer, excited to read about the outcomes of the final day at the COP. However, after spending an hour or so skimming the web for information related to Copenhagen, I was just confused. Some articles called the COP mediocre and others argued it was a massive failure. One thing I did ascertain from pretty much all the articles is that Copenhagen was chaotic and contentious.

If anything, the perspective that Copenhagen, and the Copenhagen Accord, exemplify struggle, compromise, and an intermediate outcome seems correct. However, understanding that is difficult with the wide array of media reporting. Such a variation of perspectives is unsurprising but somewhat worrisome for the future global deal.

Notably, the perspective that nothing can ever be accomplished at the international level concerns me. Yes, the situation in Copenhagen was contentious. However, it is not indicative that nothing can ever happen as many news outlets report. By entrenching the rhetoric of animosity they are perpetuating the notion that striking an international compromise will always end in a stalemate.

I realize that reporting about the contentious nature of Copenhagen is a reflection of reality. However, it only surveys a certain aspect of reality. Productive things happened in Copenhagen aside from the walkouts and protests. The world came together. New connections were established. Novel ideas were exchanged. Therefore, more comprehensive reporting on Copenhagen would have been nice. In particular, a few more positive article would have been appreciated.

But being a big fan of President Obama, I did dash through the large gathering of people at the NGO headquarters  just to watch him talk.  Uncharacteristically, he failed to captivate the audience. Despite his opening statement that, “I come here not to talk but to act,” the audience refused to accept the targets he was proposing—17% by 2020 and $ 10 billion by 2012.

The most popular speakers with the audience appeared to be Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. Morales said, “If there is no agreement at the level of Presidents, then put it to the people. We must listen to them, That is a participatory democracy. I would even say in April, when we celebrate Mother Earth Day, that we hold a referendum to the people.  Why form all these groups?”

Chavez, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, was frustrated at not being invited to a behind the door meeting. “If the friends of the President (Denmark) are invited, are we not friends?” he commented. He proclaimed that they will never accept a document produced in their absence.The audience went into cheers as he questioned the authenticity of a text lacking transparency and democracy. As he left the floor by accusing the US of the genocide, the afternoon high level segment was closed.

As I headed back to my table, I wondered who the real culprit of the climate misery is. Sitting desperately and eyeing aimlessly around the Ostenhallen,I spotted some young people with their heads newly shaved. Being inquisitive, I approached and asked. They said they are joining the Shave Action to show world leaders that they stand with 3 billion people who desire a common goal—a legally binding treaty to save mother earth. I was so impressed! I could not help but being moved by their benevolence and sacrifice.

Yes, it is definitely not the US or the rapidly growing economies like China and India, which are hiding under the title “Developing Countries,” but rather the self interest and greed bred into human beings that is the cause of our climate misery. All through these decades, we have exploited resources and threatened our planet owing to greed. Now, big business and coal companies are trying their best to block the negotiations and climate justice to maintain their profit. To restore balance, we need to get rid of greed from society. If everyone could just be content with what he or she has, there will not be any more debate about how to stop climate change. And, the young volunteers show that the 2050-generation is ready for it. Copenhagen is such a wonderful opportunity and yet the worlds failed to fulfill the need of people owing to greed and self interest. It is very inspiring to see the young people who had come together, committed themselves and boldly fought for climate justice. I believe without a shed of doubt that they won’t let their history written for them but written by them.

Earlier in the conference, a draft text written by Denmark was leaked. The negotiators of developing countries were infuriated that a secret pact had been in development without their consent or input. Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, chair of the Group of 77 was especially critical, calling it undemocratic and a breach of the UN negotiating process.

The Danish draft text was an agreement that probably would have received no more than a few countries’ consent. Similarly, Obama’s forced deal has only gained the support of China, India, Brazil and South Africa. The majority of the UN, representing billions of people, were removed from these negotiations.

A deal written solely by Denmark is no deal at all, and a deal hammered out in the wee hours this morning at the end of the conference with no support by a majority of countries is no deal either.

The candles aglow and complemented by the natural darkness of Copenhagen provided a somber background for an uplifting vigil last Thursday night at Klimaforum.  At times touching and heartfelt, speakers ranged from the inspired to the somewhat sappy.  Two fasters forty-two days famished, NGO leaders including 350.org founder Bill Mckibben, and several amateur activist songwriters were among those who addressed the audience.  They spoke of universal commitment and the need for “The Real Deal”, their euphemism for an agreement that expands the world’s perspective and alters the actions of those who negatively impact the climate.

“President Obama’s name on a piece of paper won’t save us, “ Deepa Gupta, emcee for the evening, said as the event concluded with a rallying call in the form of reflective silence.  The audience was asked to take out a pen and write of the vision they have for the world in 2050.  Words on a page, a “simple thing” she reasoned, is the sort of offering this generation must supplement with action.   As the leaders spoke and the singers sang, the speakers offered a status quo condemnation laced with the timid optimism of a minority movement entering the global spotlight.  McKibben, a twenty-year veteran of the environmental movement offered an encouraging balance point to the audience of Bella Center refugees.  Most were members of NGO’s who had been kicked out of the main arena just as the prime event was taking place.

He told them of how he had been in Kyoto for the first major global protocol some twelve years ago and how then, in stark contrast to today’s movement, there was little to no civil society present, not to mention virtually no youth involvement.

The vigil continued with other speakers and included an opening song from a member of a native tribe in Canada.  He offered prayerful intensity as he performed his song of restrained optimism. A quasi-religious ceremony, a devout congregation, and faithful servant leaders are the hallmarks of the new environmental movement.  The only question that remains is whether their actions will stir change in their delegates, and whether their delegates will choose to answer their prayers.

Earlier today, Obama flew into Copenhagen for what was planned to be the final day of the historic Copenhagen climate summit. Last night’s negotiations didn’t provide the consensus that might have provided him an easy day of handshakes and photographs. Obama spent the day in closed-door meetings with other world leaders in a last attempt to forge an agreement.

Long-standing divisions seemed unresolvable. Press conferences were delayed and eventually cancelled.

This evening, many sources reported that a deal was close. The President’s team announced that President Obama would speak on a new climate deal at 10:30pm.

We listened, and then we tried to interpret the President’s words. What did they agree on? Who actually agreed? Was it really a deal?

Press articles with brief analyses have already been printed. We’re tired, so we’ll provide a policy analysis later. Unfortunately, there’s not a lot to analyze.

For now, we’re posting each of our first reactions to this historic event. Tonight was an experience we won’t soon forget.

Andrew: Tonight’s events confirmed a hard reality I didn’t want to accept: The United Nations climate change process cannot stop global warming. It can’t even lead the charge. The issue is too big, too pressing, too intimidating and perhaps even too unclear.

When Obama made his big announcement, I wanted to be glued to the TV. I wanted to be flabbergasted and humbled. I wanted to run my hands through my unwashed hair in astonishment. A tiny part of me was convinced that world leaders could go out on a limb and get it right.

Instead, I listened to the TV with one ear, but jumped on to ESPN to check whether Tiger Woods’ divorce was official. I thought about how good another slice of lemony apple tart sounded. Indifferent and nonplussed, I was ready to move on.

Every social strata below the UN will keep working towards 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and as much funding as possible for developing nations. I’ll remember that in a low-carbon world we might move more slowly, be more social and less wasteful, and reduce inequality across economic divides.

World leaders will have to follow as civil society takes off. And they’ll have to react as the climate makes business-as-usual more difficult.

Anthony: After spending hours following Twitter rumors and trying to interpret Danish TV coverage of the COP-15, I finally heard Obama’s voice on the White House website. I sat on the floor and listened. He first pointed out that the most important part of an international treaty is parties’ sincere participation. Kyoto was “legally- binding,” but countries didn’t follow through because there was no enforcement.

By the end, I felt encouraged. I thought maybe the major emitters would now trust each other and commit together. But now there’s news that Brazil – an inner-circle member in the last-minute deal-making – may not not be on board. Maybe the trust lasted 12 minutes?

Taylor: To me, Obama seemed tired and frustrated. I sat on the Andersen’s comfy chair staring at the front window for a while after he finished his speech. Words, words, words.

He delivered a deal. A deal? The word “deal” has been plied, pounded, and pinched into something resembling the wrinkled receipts I find in my pockets at the end of the day. I put them in there thinking those dimly-printed financial records will hold meaning later. Days later, I toss crinkled wads into the trash. Even if they were legible, I don’t know what I’d do with them.

He arrived this morning, he rammed through the ‘deadlock’, he called it a “meaningful deal,” but now I can’t tell you what we have now that we didn’t before.

A signal that world power has shifted away from the US? A social movement powerful enough to jam the gears of politics-as-usual because its vision is beyond what our politicians can deliver? A social-environmental crisis shown to be insoluble for human institutions as we know them?

Tonight’s negotiations haven’t even ended yet.

On a last note, demonstrations are going late into the night in response to the Obama’s announcement and the state of negotiations.

Activists have been calling for a fair, ambitious, and binding treaty in Copenhagen.  At the end of COP-15, we have none of those things, so I think it is fair to call the meeting unsuccessful (in the kindest words).  You wouldn’t get that impression from most of the headlines out there so don’t be fooled.

Yahoo’s headline was by far the most egregious:  “Obama says ‘unprecedented’ deal reached on climate.”  We thought there was a lot of precedent for doing nothing.  USA Today also put good news in the big letters:  “Obama: ‘Meaningful’ deal reached on climate.”  The Wall Street Journal—“Leaders Strike Climate Deal”—and The Washington Post—“World Leaders Reach Deal on Climate Change” (no link)—were also fairly positive.  The Los Angeles Times was a little more reserved, but you would still probably conclude success:  “Tentative deal reached to curb climate change”.  Both NPR—“U.S., China Reach Tentative Climate Compromise”—and BBC—“Key Powers Reach Compromise at Climate Summit”—at least warn us that the so-called deal was not perfect.

Other sources seemed to get it.  Fox News had probably the most straightforward header:  “Obama Announces Non-Binding Climate Agreement, Progress Will ‘Take Some Time.’”  The New York Times also chose not to sugarcoat things:  “Climate Deal Announced, but Falls Short of Expectations.”  UK sources were reserved as well; The Guardian bolds “Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure,” and The London Times pronounces “Copenhagen deadlock wrapped up as emissions deal.”  Al Jazeera—from the Middle East—also hit spot-on:  “Copenhagen ‘drops climate deadline.’”  TIME Magazine ponders:  “Drama at the Copenhagen Summit: Deal or No Deal?”  This is a good question to ask since nobody really knows the details at the moment.

I’m not sure what you could gather from NewWeek’s headline.  It doesn’t comment on the actual result; instead it just gives commentary:  “Why the End of Copenhagen is Good.”  The article should at least be interesting.

Other regional papers such as The Chicago Tribune, The Dallas Morning News, The Seattle Times, The Boston Globe let the U.N. meetings slip through the cracks.  You can’t really blame them though.  Even CNN failed to get a story up.  Instead they led off with the chilly weather:  “Major Winter Storm Slamming East Coast” (no link).

Hopefully, the real, un-spun story—the one that does not try to characterize Copenhagen as a success—will be the ones with the most airtime in the near future.

也许发达国家那些过着富足生活的人们并不知道气候变化对于南部那些脆弱国家来说意味着什么，现在一场洪水或者地震对于发达国家而言不过是小意外，很快就会恢复，也不会造成巨大的人员伤亡，但是对于南部的那些脆弱的国家来说，一场自然灾害可能就是末日。他们经受不起气候的磨难，仅靠他们自己，他们只能等待洪水淹没整个山庄，地震压垮整个城市。只有发达国家实际行动节能减排，减缓气候变化，提供资金和技术，帮助他们减排，这些国家才有可能度过困境。我们都知道最早进入工业化的国家在温室气体排放方面负有特殊的历史责任。他们通过向空气中排放二氧化碳，实现了国家的工业化。不论是从责任的角度，还是能力的角度，发达国家都应该制定强有力的减排目标。没有他们的帮助，南部国家根本没有可能自我修复。面对他们的可能真的是国家的消失，人民的灭亡。这些也许我们没有看到，不能想象，但是它是真正地在发生着。不论气候变化到底是发展到什么程度，一旦气候变化这个大机器开始运转，将一发不可收拾，我们的未来未卜，是否可以挽救，是否可以回头，无人知晓。

今天下午，人们在Okstenhallen听完美国总统奥巴马的演讲后纷纷在嘘声下散去，这是失望的嘘声和无奈的嘘声。我们没有听到新的减排目标，我们没有看到美国，作为世界第一大经济体，第二大排放国的先锋作用，没有看到他们真诚的态度。我难以理解，当看到图瓦卢谈判代表伊恩·福莱流着泪说：“我只是个卑微的政府职员,但是在此我却不得不为了自己国家的存亡发出如此的强硬声音。今天早上,我哭着醒来。想到我的国家可能因为一次会议的失败而永远消失,我抑制不住自己的眼泪。对于我这样一个大男人来说，在如此场合承认自己因此而哭泣是很艰难的一件事情。”同是人类同胞的，怎么会忍心置之不顾。世界不可能停止工业化的脚步，各个国家不可能不发展工业，发展科技。其实地球本身也并不是那么脆弱。之所以产生自然灾害其实是因为人类过度的使用地球资源。拿排放二氧化碳来说，地球本身不能没有二氧化碳。但是凡事都有一个限度，其实只有每一个发达国家履行自己的义务，负起历史的责任，并帮助发展中国家度过难关，世界上最主要的二氧化碳排放大国，主动控制自己的排放量，气候变化一定会有很明显的改善。我们一定可以挽救那些濒临消失的小国。

对于这次哥本哈根气候大会，从吵吵闹闹的开场，到吵吵闹闹的结束。有人愤怒，有人失望，有人沉默，有人绝望，我想不论多少的NGO在多少个Okstenhallen里举办多少个倡议活动，最后也许都完全不能改变各国的决定。但是我知道无论最后有没有一个有法律约束的协议，这样的全球性的讨论大会必然会给那些需要帮助的国家带来或多或少的帮助。

为了人类自己，我们需要找到更多的哥本哈根。

Brief Summary:

I spent half of the day in the Okstenhallen, which is the space of NGOs.  Those NGOs are coming here for  common future, instead of their political positions and own benefits.  Whatever the result of the negotiation among the heads of different countries, I will always remember the shout from the live broadcasting: “We will not wait for death quietly.”

As we know, the developed countries have to commit to historic duties, since they accomplished the progress of industrialization through emitting carbon emissions. Moreover, the developing countries are able to overcome natural disasters and reduce the loss caused by natural disasters; however, considering those poor countries, they have  already suffered from poverty for a long time, a natural disaster seems to be so overwhelming to them that they have no ability to protect their homelands. Because of the huge difference between developing countries and those vulnerable countries, the developed countries should set down ambitious targets whatever considering their historical responsibilities for emissions and present abilities.

Following the development of human beings, the whole world will not cease taking steps to industrialization and none of the countries will stop to develop their own technologies, because only development can lead people to better lives. As a matter of fact, the earth has the ability of recovering. However, the human-induced activities should be limited so as to give the earth time to recover itself. If every big emitter has ambitious carbon emissions reduction target and every developed country is involved in helping those vulnerable countries, climate change will have no chance to affect human beings! I think the Copenhagen climate change conference assists those vulnerable countries in different aspects for sure whether a legally binding agreement will be reached or not.

We should look for more from Copenhagens for human beings to acquaint the truth and contribute efforts, although they are insignificant, in order to avoid deadly disaster of this planet.