The Copenhagen Climate Accord was a failure of historic proportions that is hardly worth the paper it is printed on, says Malini Mehra. In this week's Green Room, she says climate negotiations need to adopt a new approach that can overcome barriers like national self-interest.
We are making a huge miscalculation by allowing the major emitters knowingly to sacrifice the poor and vulnerable parts of the world in exchange for their 'right to pollute'
Climate negotiations will never be the same after the Copenhagen climate summit, and the accord reached in the Danish capital may very well prove to be the Munich Agreement of modern times.
The document was an appeasement to major polluters that condemns the world to runaway climate change and declares war on our children.
The conference in December ended with an "accord", with no legal status and dubious value, as one of its key outcomes.
The political agreement was simply "noted" by governments, not adopted by them. Its very existence, however, could now undermine the architecture established by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to combat global climate change.
There is much that is wrong with the agreement.
It is not legally-binding, contains no mid-term or long-term targets for emissions reductions, and - critically - does not refer to a "peaking" year for global emissions in order to keep within the "safe" limit of 2C (3.6F) warming since pre-industrial times.
It has also failed to follow the guidance of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which indicates three benchmarks for avoiding dangerous climate change:
• Developed countries must reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020 from 1990 levels
• Global emissions must peak and then begin to decline by 2020
• Global emissions must decline by 50% by 2050 from 1990 levels.
The Copenhagen Accord contains a reference to the 2C limit, but does not endorse it.
Munich famously produced a "piece of paper" - like the Copenhagen Accord?
Given that there are no targets, no peaking years, no trajectories for emissions reductions, only vague rhetoric, this is effectively an agreement for business-as-usual.
The Potsdam Institute on Climate Research estimates that a business-as-usual accord will actually set the world on course for a 3-4C (5.4-7.2F) temperature rise.
As this is a global average, the actual warming in many parts of the world - especially in the higher latitudes - will be much larger.
Small island states have feared this for some time, hence their plea that warming must not exceed 1.5C in order to ensure "island survival".
An accord too far
The Copenhagen Accord is a cruel blow for millions around the world who had put their faith in their leaders to deliver on climate protection.
Never before had such a constellation of groups and institutions come together: civil society, faith groups, business and industry, the investment community, scientists, engineers and professional organisations.
Even the UN itself, which ran an unprecedented "seal the deal" campaign, called for urgent action.
Leaders responded to the call and came to Copenhagen, but they did not deliver.
This is a failure of historic proportions because an "encore" will be very difficult.
Bloc politics at the UN are now at least a decade out of date, and have not permitted the creative emergence of hybrid coalitions from North and South
We now have the modern equivalent of the Munich Agreement.
In 1938, European powers sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler's aggression, thinking this would appease his territorial hunger.
The consequences of this gigantic miscalculation became evident with the unfolding horrors of World War II.
Now we are making a huge miscalculation by allowing the major emitters knowingly to sacrifice the poor and vulnerable parts of the world in exchange for their "right to pollute".
They will put a positive spin on the document, saying it is just a first step; but the reality is that countries as disparate as the US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, China and India have no intention of committing to a legally-binding global climate regime, now or in the future.
Instead, we now have an anaemic "pledge and review" system, which provides little guarantee that emissions will decline as rapidly as they must.
What Copenhagen made blindingly clear is that the world has changed.
We are in a new geopolitical era.
Gone are the days of outdated divisions of the world as "developed" and "developing".
Nations like China and India showed that they were the new power players and would act as nakedly in their self-interest as western powers.
It was their double act, with the US, that delivered this agreement - backed up by a pliant, if somewhat discomfited, Brazil and South Africa, and bounced it on to the rest of the world.
A key lesson from Copenhagen is that the new world order simply does fit comfortably with the archaic systems and processes of the United Nations.
The problem is not with the UN itself, but with its antiquated processes.
Bloc politics at the UN are now at least a decade out of date, and have not permitted the creative emergence of hybrid coalitions from North and South.
Copenhagen made depressingly clear that "political realism" has trumped "climate realism" and that the "G2" powers are incapable of providing global leadership.
We will have to look elsewhere for solutions.
The US and China, aided by others, have acted in their short-term political interest thinking they will be able to "manage" their way out of climate change.
But the climate system is oblivious to the vaunted ambitions of temporal nations, and a kicking is around the corner.
Those who have acted in their national short-term self-interest will find that their actions do not serve their long-term interests in a climate- and resource-constrained world.
The collateral damage of their decisions, however, will be tragic for those less able to cope.
The good news is that nothing is stopping the emergence of new players.
What we need is leadership.
Instead of dysfunctional and anachronistic groupings such as the G77/China, we need new groupings of nations that recognise the perils of climate change and increasingly see their interests as interdependent and intertwined.
Many of the nations that are putting their faith in strong de-carbonisation and green growth national plans - such as the Maldives, Costa Rica, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, the EU and others - now need to make a common cause.
They need to cross failed "North/South" lines and devise a new politics of climate common security and collective economic prosperity.
With the next climate conference slated to take place in Mexico in November, there is everything to play for.
It may well be that Cancun can, what Copenhagen could not.
Malini Mehra is the founder and chief executive of the Centre for Social Markets, which specialises in corporate responsibility, sustainability and climate change
The Green Room is a series of opinion articles on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Do you agree with Malini Mehra? Is the Copenhagen Accord worth the paper that it is printed on? Did the summit in the Danish capital show that national self-interest will always come first? Is there no hope of a legally-binding global agreement on climate change?
Kyoto resulted in a legally binding agreement, but very little came of it. Why should we think that Copenhagen was likely to have been any better. Instead of trying to get every country to agree on common points, is it not better to have individual countries take the initiative. At least that way real results can be achieved.
the world must finally come to grips with the problem of overpopulation!!!
robert p. curtin, santos-brazil
As time passes the list of options to avert runaway global warming gets shorter. Luxuries like avoiding binding commitment in favor of voluntary changes go away if global warming is to be stopped. The need for voluntary efforts don't go away but instead get stronger but now binding law is necessary as well. Perhaps lifting mandates will be a luxury for future generations if man survives but not now.. One consequence of the wimp-out in Copenhagen is absolute need for nations and industry worldwide to collaborate on shielding technology to protect the Earth from incoming solar radiation.. This is in my opinion is the cup likely to prove poison chosen by inaction in Copenhagen.. Even so considering where we were choices were slim but awareness has increased which is something no one can deny. With heart, good luck and the best intentions of all it's quite possible even for a corporate world to see the light before the upcoming meeting in Cancun, Mexico in December. This may not be the outcome many sought in Copenhagen but it may be the reality of the way forward. A path that leads somewhere and gives the world time to come to it's senses. The world is awakening and I believe it is still possible to save the life in the Sea. Peace and cooperation is the way forward and with the power to communicate the internet provides great things are possible.
Dale Lanan, Longmont, Colorado, USA
I don't understand how the author can count Brazil as one of the countrie that helped the USA to dismantle the Kyoto Protocole and also as one of the climate champions at the same time. It's also obscene how Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela's roles can be ignored.
Yes. Copenhagen was FAILED Munich of our times. "Eco"gabblers failed to "move" money. Victory for mankind and nature.
Jan N., Brno, Czech Republic
Lets face it we're stuffed. Man made climate change is fact, human greed is fact, human stupidity is fact. We need to start planning how to cope with the change, we are not going to stop it.
Steve, Rabaul, Papua New Guinea
So many fools and liars denying the overwhelming evidence for anthropogenic climate change! I suppose they think the glaciers retreating, the permafrost and Arctic icecap melting, the plants blooming and birds migrating earlier, are all in on the evil socialist conspiracy, or are receiving government funding.
Nick Gotts, Aberdeen, Scotland
Copenhagen failed because of the extremists who are 'predicting' everything from wars, famines, epidemics, to 'complete Himalayan ice disappearance in 25 years' using only 130 years of questionable science data, relative to a planet that is over 4 billion years old. Let's think 'green' and create incentives for using technologies and habits when interacting with the earth: increase recycling by X%, increase reforestation by Y%, increase renewable energy use by Z%, etc. Also, if the 'developing' world thinks they are going to receive a Treasury-to-Treasury transfer of funds (only to end up in Swiss bank accounts owned by government members), forget it!
Julian DeMarco, Chicago, USA
The Munich accord was not a failure, it bought time for the allies to prepare for the comming storm and enabled a more competant leader to assume the mantle of leadership against a very real emergent and tangable threat. In contrast what is disappoining about AGW is the amount of money, time, human efforts, and overtly manipulated human emotions, in exactly the same manner as the propaganda department of the National Socalists against a derided minority. Today we have created all western consumers as "Carbon Jews" that are cast as the perpetrators of a a non existant problem, just as the blame for economic failure in the 30's German economy was planned and portraid by the government run media. Here we have an abject failure of human objectivity and a repeat of all of the same "herd instincts" that deflated our dignity only 70 years ago. Just imagine what we could have achieved to eliminate poverty and hunger instead of wasting our efforts on "hot air". AGW is the abject failure here, noting else.
Christopher Smith, Christchurch, N.Z.
That Copenhagen was controlled by the corpulations should surprise no one. That we allowed them to is criminal. Rather than Earth Hour, a sweet but so last century symbol, lets vow to have a 'no buy week'. Unannounced in such a way as they can't prepare for it, the supply chain would have conniption fits, conveyor belts would overflow around the world, and we would be voting with our money. What the megas do is immaterial....it's what we do that counts. Want to slow global warming, buy local. The average container ship on a single roundtrip to LA, to China and back, burns 3.3 million USD in fuel...each trip. Each vessel makes, on average, 20 trips/ year. There are 4800 ship in the fleet.We're the ones financing those ships, with our lust for cheap plastic items..
John Winter, Clarksburg, WV USA
Until it can be credibly established what part of climate change is natural and what is man- made (keep in mind that Mother Nature is a female and may have already decided to show who is in charge) all we have is uninformed scare mongering.
G. Reinis, Lafayette, California
rob butterwick. thats obviously crap. why the hell would capitalist, growth obsessed governments with massive economic incentives to be pro growth, anti environment, even agree with the science if it was bogus. its not in their interests. cuts in living standards is simply not a vote winner. your argument, i suppose is they are lying to impose greater tax. if so they seem to be failing miserably to impose it esp in the scandalously extravagant US. so why bother even agreeing with the science if they could get away with it. it doesnt add up. with those sorts of interests opposed to change, it would it be impossible for even a small fraud to continue for long, let alone on this scale and in science, which is self correcting by in nature. for heavens sake, get a grip, denialists !
Malini Mehra what you should have said in your opening paragraph
"....climate negotiations need to adopt a new approach that can overcome barriers like the pesky public uncovering the truth and the bare facts that man made global warming is a scam."
Unless and until China agrees to some form of reliable and objective 3rd party monitoring there will be no agreement. Their primary trading partners are already giving up the advantage of poor (unjust quite frankly) labor laws, non-existent adherence to what limited job site safety and environmental safety laws there are, and a disdain for international copyright and patent laws to Chinese companies if they give up on 'environmental protection' laws and restrictions as well they will simply take over manufacturing and industrial fabrication completely with an even greater impact upon our planet's ability to sustain the human race.
Daniel Stith, MIddletown, USA
Don't believe the naysayers claiming that the US is full of climate change deniers. Just go to the website of any major U.S. city and see what municipal governments and ordinary everyday citizens are doing. Time magazine (U.S. edition) did an expose on the climate change denial machine. Time reporters followed the money and it lead right back to conservative think tanks and oil companies. The oil companies created a front organization that used the same tactics that "Big Tobacco" did in denying cigarette smoking was dangerous. And Climate Change is the scientific term not global warming. Climate change covers in cooling and warming.
green in Pa, East Coast, USA
Take the long view - it doesn't matter, except to the human race. If the 'climate alarmists' are right (and anyone who takes the trouble will find that they are right about warming - never mind the causes for the nonce), then the problem will rather take care of itself, and take care of us perhaps into the bargain. Where's the problem? Good riddance to bad rubbish, if we go - or not?
D. Fear, Heidelberg, Germany
First of all I feel the need to apologize for those comments of my fellow Americans disparaging global warming. Too bad they can't trust scientists. It's a wonder that they don't feel safer living in caves and burning tallow for light. Anyway, I think that Copenhagen failed because - irregardless of the evidence - industrialized nations still can't take this threat seriously. People are notorious for ignoring a problem until it's nearly a disaster. Unfortunately, with this problem once it becomes a disaster there's not much we'll be able to do.
Paul Measeles, Monmouth, Oregon, USA
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" - Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Philip Thomas, Cardiff, UK
There was no plan B in Copenhagen. If carbon reduction does not work, and it will not if the causes of global warming are elsewhere, then what do we do? Decisions have to be made for some nations which will disappear under water, entirely or for the most part, such as Vanuatu or Bangladesh. Problems which occur in some warm areas of the globe will move north, such as malaria, locusts, deserts, etc. All sections of the world will have to change the way they practice agriculture, their building codes, etc. The fact is that we have a problem, and no one is really looking at it. Politicians who speak very stridently about global warming and the necessity to reduce carbon are only using this as a platform. They don't prone anything serious within their own country to reduce the demand for energy. For them it's just a gimmick, and I am now convinced that they don't believe in it themselves; so why should we? The first problem to look at should be the reduction of the population, everywhere. And I mean reduction, not to settle for no population growth. But that would take a major paradigm shift in all the countries of the world, except China. Who cares that the Copenhagen conference got nowhere. Its agenda was faulty anyway.
Marie-Thérèse Daulard, La Rochelle, France
A word to the conference-goers: Hopenhagen was the last chance. The last chance to save the planet. Hear me? Hopenhagen failed. There is now no more chance left. Not one. Now would you please all gather on mountain tops and throw yourself collectively into the abbyss, thank you, good riddance. Take your own words seriously for a start. I'll just try to make do in the meantime.
DirkH, Hamburg, Germany
The strident fanaticism of environmental groups is no different than religious zealots proclaiming supremacy of their cause.The alarmist tactics do not help create dialogue and only help to polarize the factions. The fact is that global warming is a natural process that will remedy our polluting the earth by exterminating us;Darwinism will determine if we will evolve or go like the dinosaurs.All very natural and scientific.
Werner Brooks, Toronto,Canada
"The fact that all climate research has for years been suspect and now has been found to be scientifically false proves that no agreement will ever be reached and this makes me proud to know that once again sanity may come about within my lifetime against insane socialist ideals and false scientific assumptions." This statement represents what is wrong with America today: The general population has an incredible deficit in understanding what science is, and what scientists actually do. Rather, they depend upon media outlets to misrepresent scientific facts, like "Climate Gate", an incident so trivial it doesn't even deserve a nickname, let alone to actually stand as evidence in the debate of a scientific theory. If Jason Houlden, who said that quote, had any idea of the scientific integrity that contributes to climate change, he would not be making such false statements. Or he would continue making such statements, further accelerating this nation into a state of "ignorance is bliss".
Mike Robitaille, Boston, MA, USA
The Copenhagen accord was farce even before the negotiations began, because much of the evidence in the IPCC contained in the various assessment reports was a complete fabrication or a manipulation of the data including Michael Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph and the recession of the Himalayan glaciers. Apparently the IPCC is completely unaware that for the last eighteen thousand years the glaciers have been receding and the sea level has been rising continuously all without the benefit of human help, just like in the previous 14 interglacial periods in the last two million years. For more information check out www.theskyisnotfalling.ca
Bruno Wiskel, Colinton, Canada
I have a mixed feelings with this article. A lot of political leaders and scientists were gathered in Copenhagen. May be Copenhagen Climate Summit could not bring any solution. But, it was the appraisal of poor countries to speak their vulnerable conditions to the world leaders. However, I would like to see this Copenhagen Climate summit in a positive senses. This summit might not be succeed but, it brings a lot of hope for the poor countries. At least,through this summit, poor countries were raised their survival and they got a chance to focus their fear and plea as warming must not exceed 1.5C in order to ensure their survival.
Engr Salam, LGED Bhaban,Dhaka -1207
Even though global warming, whether exacerbated by men or mice, looks likely to cause major population relocation and industrial re-engineering in the mid to long term, it is of secondary significance, and a distraction from the main environmental threat: overpopulation. We can deal with rising oceans, droughts, the ravages of bushfires, and hurricane winds, but choke us with water, food, and resource starvation due to overpopulation, and life becomes hell. Admittedly, population stress is self-levelling to a degree, as witnessed by the BBC's recent report of 100,000 suicides in India each year. Remember: _Every_ country can be affluent, if only it manages its population according to its resources.
Erik Christiansen, Melbourne, Australia
This is an interesting article, particularly in respect to changing geopolitics and lagging institutional organisation, but I would like to see much more defined suggestions of solutions to the political problem. How *does* the world go about getting nations not to pursue their own short-term self interest? But also: how is it that seemingly no-one saw that the institutional organisation was outdated? Why was there no criticism of the mechanisms nations were supposed use to come to an agreement? Why did no-one take a step backwards and look at this before Copenhagen? I do not follow the study of this sphere very closely at all, but I read most climate-related articles I come across, and I can't recall this ever being discussed. And now - how could we improve the mechanisms and the institutions? Am I naive in assuming these would even have an effect? My belief is that the best strategy for tackling climate change would be to form huge research and development funds for renewable energy and energy efficiency technology, perhaps along the lines of the ITER project. If clean energy is cheap, most of the problem falls away. PS: Neal J King, nice to read an intelligent and coherent post.
Patrick, Brisbane, Australia
I see a lot of people from the USA who are pretty much what people around the world (and within the US as well) call "global warming deniers". They are very vocal, so they may make it seem like all Americans deny global warming. I think that global warming is very much created and exacerbated by humans. With that said, I think governments and environmentalists should not go after corporations with such gusto, should not look for people to blame, and should not propose solutions that are too radical. Too much ambition and too much change simply makes the opposition stronger and less willing to compromise (the same could be said about politics in general). The government must actually create incentive (and jobs) for companies to start lowering emissions through the use of cleaner, more efficient energy. That way, people will be more "green" without feeling that way. In other words, make it lucrative for companies and consumers to promote cleaner technology instead of trying to shove the "you are destroying your world" agenda down people's throats. I feel small steps towards cleaner technology is better than radical changes that some environmentalists and governments forcefully call for (only to be shot down). And regardless of your opinion on the origins (or lack thereof) of global warming, few can really fight against cleaner air for us as well as later generations.
YH, Los Angeles, USA
Malini Mehra is a bit behind the times. Does she not realize that in the new age of AGW reality; citing the IPCC as evidence, (just one in your article) immediately invalidates all of your argument.
Giles Gaskell, Flint, Michigan, USA
I'm so happy to see the climate change deniers speak up! I'm on the side of the non-human species. If these troglodytes are successful in convincing us to do nothing about climate change and population growth, the planet will eventually become unsustainable for human life. Think of all the other species who will thrive when we've finally extinguished ourselves. Apparently homo sapiens is going to turn out to be an evolutionary dead end. Oh, you don't believe in evolution? Well...bye bye! My only regret: I'll be dead and won't be able to say "I told you so."
Richard Posner, Portland, Oregon, USA
It's sad how many of the American posters here have been taken in by the 'AGW fallacy' propaganda. If you have a scientific background and look at the data readily available, you will see that the concerns are real and based on facts. As for lack of European competitiveness, well, I'd venture to say that this is perhaps a time for cooperation, not competition. I also think it's amusing that Rob Butterwick decided to copy paste part of Don Swinscoe's post :-) The BBC had a wonderful article on their American pages the other day. Search "Turkeys voting for Christmas"
Crispin Moorey, Kobe, Japan
No country can not pull out and drag others to follow the reforms. Every country must follow their own advice to others and work harder to be genuinely powerful in runaway climate change. Consensus can't be forced instead countries must lead others by example. If I look at my national figure of GHG emission, it is 5% in comparison to China-20.7%, US-15.5%, EU-11.8% and Japan-3.3%. Pulling out from consensus brings further delay on the most critical issue. Whereas, If Countries like India cooperates in effort against the climate change means focus on 5% effort share and save future of 17% people of Indian origin. That way India is getting benefited. Secondly, if India can move forward, more pressure can be made on the major polluting blocks like China, US and EU. The natural system is most justified system. Comparing man made issues with the natural issues is a blunder particularly when every society or country has their own stratifications. The most important fact is that we can not afford any delay at such a critical position when we have already crossed 385 ppm level, 35 ticks above the safe level. On one side reforms are being delayed for some reasons and on the other side human population is constantly rising. No one is their, to raise the most critical issue. The land area of India is one third of US and China. The population of US is one fourth of Indian population. China at 1.34 bn figure has successfully implemented 'Single Child Policy'. India's Population is nearing 1.2 bn and in few years it will cross China's figure but no politician, no media intellectual's talks about this issue. But they are fully justified in highlighting the emissions of US, China and EU. I do not understand without controlling population how things would be managed. The present definition of 'development' is more vehicles, more houses, more 4 lane -6 lane roads, more shopping malls, more air conditioners
... I do not understand this type of development. I do not understand what the meaning of industrial, engineering, mining growth rates is when most precious things are being rapidly destroyed.
Sanjay Singh Thakur, Indore,India
The real elite, the hydrocarbon companies who are now spinning money from man's misery, will be chuckling all the way to the bank at the results of Munichagen. I have to admire them for misrepresenting the coming crisis as a scare and spreading the idea of a shadowy conspiracy of environmentalists with huge success. Their PR liars and spin-doctors actually cut their teeth with the tobacco companies. Unfortunately this issue is far more serious: millions will die in wars, famines, epidemics and natural disasters. This is common sense, not a vehicle for collectivists and profiteers, but it is hard to change the habit of a century.
Nicholas Rice, Isle of Man
Copenhagen failed because the concept of man made climate change is a lie. Look at the latest environmental tragedy about happen in Brazil, the huge proposed dam on the Xingu river. This will destroy massive areas of rain forest with so much habitat lost for people and nature. The power will not be worth it. Brazil does not need the water. Brazil would be better off burning natural gas for power and work on controlling its population. Carbon dioxide at 288 ppm in the atmosphere as a THE driver of any climate change? Hardly. Carbon is not the enemy.
Eastvillage, New York City
The science behind the climate predictions is, unfortunately, all too solid. However, it is also rather complex; and the conclusions that one must draw from it are not comforting, as they require actions that will depend on increased cost and technological breakthroughs - which are notoriously hard to schedule. Further, these developments will cause economic loss to the entrenched interests that have dominated the last century, and that wish to continue dominating the present century.
Neal J. King, Munich, Germany
The disconnect between Mehra and reality puts one in the mind of Through the Looking Glass. It's time all these alarmists gave up the hoax and found something useful to do. I tell them with all sincerity-- your game of charades is up. Time to move on. Don't feel bad. Foolish doomsday cults have been with human beings throughout human history so perhaps you can latch onto the next one.
Kent Rebman, Brownsburg, IN USA
"Absolute tosh! The truth is that the Emperor has no clothes! Copenhagen was a failure because there are too many people who think (but don't necessarily say) that AGW is at best questionable & at worst complete rubbish." Gotta love scientific refutations that require neither evidence nor reason. Just believe and the inconvenience vanishes, eh? Th evidence and science supporting Climate Change are strong, but strong evidence unfortunately has little influence on fundamentalist dogma. The evidence for the theory of Evolution, Plate Tectonics, and Gravity for that matter, are as good as fact, and yet 40% of the US and a growing number in Europe, believe fervently that the Earth is 6000 years old. How can you educate that kind of ignorance - the kind that corporations so depend on and encourage?
Don Swinscoe, Silicon Valley,USA
I doubt that the plans you mention of future IPCC-driven "climate conferences" will materialize. Designing non-democratic methods to bypass a non-alarmistic world is not very helpful. There're few countries of the world where people think that climate change is a top priority. Even the UN itself doesn't regard climate change as a pressing issue but rather poverty, terrorism and other social issues.
Jacob Stueckelberg, London UK
It is increasingly obvious that the Global Warming Gurus have no clothes. Things periodically get warmer, then they get colder all without any influence from our CO2 emissions. Besides, why deny plants the very air they breathe. In the final analysis, animals (including us) need plants far more than plants need us.
Robert Appel, Glenview, IL USA
The very idea of adopting any climate legislation which would re-distribute wealth from the richer nations to the poorer nations is not only absurd but only shows that the current mindset throughout Europe is one that if you cannot compete, then level the playing field so you can. If Europe is to compete then it needs to stop it whining and socialist agendas and come back to capitalism and common sense. The fact that all climate research has for years been suspect and now has been found to be scientifically false proves that no agreement will ever be reached and this makes me proud to know that once again sanity may come about within my lifetime against insane socialist ideals and false scientific assumptions.
Jason Houlden, Omaha, Nebraska, United States of America
Global Warming is a farce!! It's a Lie!! Here in the United States we will not fall for the socialist Ideas that have perverted Europe and the rest of this World!! There is not enough valid proof to sacrifice the economic survival of the US. If you follow the money you will find that Global Warming is about money and the shift of power more so than the protection of poor country's!! Its laughable that so many people in this country and Europe have been fooled ounce again!!
Jonathon Tomlinson, Seattle, USA
'assuming Copenhagen failed, we can say with relief and satisfaction that common sense and rational thought, and the true scientific data were the victors and all those who saw through this hypocrisy and unfettered lies, of global warming, man made. sadly, the elite, seem intent on resurrecting this awful corpse of AGW instead of leaving it for dead, and buried. I wonder how many will be lured into believing all the nonsense that will emerge. so called carbon capping, limits on emissions etc. and more money in the bank accounts of hypocrites such as Al Gore and the chairman of the IPCC, Pachauri. It is sad that some are still wedded to the mistaken belief we are making the planet uninhabitable by carbon dioxide. when far far back levels were much higher, and thne there was no such thing as the Bilderbergers, trilateral commission, Bohemian Grove etc. To inflict some nasty agenda on all of us using the pretext of global warming. For this is what has been happening. I just hope enough sensible people and the media are awake enough now to see this nonsense for what it is. Keep burning the coal!!!!!!! And oil.
nick-ynysmon, brynteg, anglesey, united kingdom
What we need is leadership' Amen. The world is full of leaders but is completely devoid of Leadership. This is the best analogy I have seen yet on Copenhagen.
Chiranjit Basu, Stockholm, Sweden
Absolute tosh! The truth is that the Emperor has no clothes! Copenhagen was a failure because there are too many people who think (but don't necessarily say) that AGW is at best questionable & at worst complete rubbish. They don't want to commit to major policy change when they can't accept the evidence. The more alarming the warnings get, the more sceptical they become. Take a tip - go back to the evidence for AGW & set it out publicly & openly so people can understand it. The mantra of 1000 or 2000 or 10,000 Scientists all saying that AGW is real is meaningless. I bet they all claimed they could see the Emperors clothes too...
Rob Butterwick, Peterborough