Copenhagen Update: Walkouts, Protests and Kyoto, Oh My
Posted on December 16, 2009 by
Protesters gather outside the City Hall Square in Copenhagen to form the logo for the 350 campaign, which calls for carbon emissions to be cut to 350 ppm. Image credit: canada.com
Don’t let the relative lack of American media coverage fool you: Drama has been high at the climate change summit in Copenhagen.
Earlier this week, several developing countries threatened to walk out of climate change negotiations, claiming Western countries were meeting in secret to fast-track a treaty that would limit greenhouse gas emissions. This isn’t the first time this summit has seen possibilities of walkouts — various countries have voiced similar threats, but by the end of the day, all was abandoned. No one has walked out permanently, and negotiations are continuing.
Protesters are gathered outside the complex and around the city on a constant basis, urging the world leaders inside to take action.
And then there’s Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol is the current international climate treaty in effect, signed and ratified by 187 different countries. The United States is conspicuously absent from those 187 nations. What world leaders are hoping to do in Copenhagen and in future climate change summits is to examine Kyoto and decide whether to extend it or replace it, and if the decision is made to replace it, devise a new treaty that will work for all parties.
In a nutshell, the crux of the matter comes down to developing nations vs. wealthier nations. Under Kyoto, developing nations aren’t required to curb their emissions, whereas others are expected to make significant cuts by 2012. Developing nations are now worried they won’t be offered the same break under a new treaty, which would put a strain on their already-struggling economies. On the other hand, several European countries as well as Japan and the United States are claiming it’s time for everyone, regardless of wealth, to step up and do their part. After all, according to NPR, Indonesia is the third-biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, and Indonesia is not exactly a major player on the world stage.
Of course, requiring these developing nations to curb their emissions will, in turn, require wealthier nations to pony up some money to help them do that. Exactly how much money will be needed is another topic of debate.
What’s your opinion on this? Do you think Kyoto needs to be replaced or extended? If replaced, what should it be replaced with? Do you think developing nations should be required to curb their emissions alongside wealthier nations? Would this be a boon to their world standing or a threat to their fragile economies? Please share.
I don’t think walking out is a good plan. If anything, it smooths the way for those one is protesting to do what they want because one’s voice of dissent isn’t there.
What I find disturbing is the fact that these conferences and agreements are being made without either the science solidly behind it or any real democratic input from nations, for actions that are tremendously costly to some nations, including the U.S.
The reality is that this is the second time that public policies have been pushed throughout without the verifying science. The first was the Montreal Protocol Treaty on banning CFC’s with the claim that the hole in the ozone layer was causing global warming. The treaty was signed and the CFC’s were banned, however, clearly to the extent that there is global warming, that was not the cause, 20 years later and now they are doing the same thing with CO2, again with either absent or discredited science.