@T: ALWAYS THE TWAIN

Here are some useful sites for those interested in the events, personalities and conclusions of the last fortnight:

· http://en.cop15.dk/

· http://unfccc.int/2860.php

· http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/climate-change/copenhagen-2

· http://www.copenhagenclimatecouncil.com/

· http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/default.stm

Now what to make of various global leaders’ attempts to persuade, criticize or strong arm others into defined targets, implementation timetables, funding allocations and international monitoring……………WELL……………………

You know how in those disaster or alien invasion movies like ‘Independence Day’ and ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ where all the nations unite to fight off and defeat a common enemy and at the end of the movie there are saccharin sweet scenes that show LOVE IS UNIVERSAL and that, ultimately, we all belong to the same family (and regardless of cultural differences we all care about our families):

Hmmn………………..

Let’s just say that we should hope the Martians don’t invade us any time soon because, if they did, we wouldn’t stand a chance. It’s pretty clear from Copenhagen 2009 that national vested interests would mean NO country would be prepared to make concessions for the greater good and our species’ survival.

The Martians would find us as divided over climate change (including whether it even exists) as they would over whether there are aliens and how many troops each country would be prepared to put into battle against them.

Yes, it’s a ridiculous scenario but it also highlights some of the absurdities of high-level politics. LOL.

Now, please will readers also excuse this observation of an even bigger paradox:

· FOR DECADES DEVELOPED COUNTRIES COMMITTED US$ TRILLIONS IN AID TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES TO EVOLVE THEMSELVES INTO INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS, away from their agricultural heritage.

· This was regarded as a means by which to improve their GDP and export capabilities beyond growing vegetables and fishing and — in the parallel process — to enable them to enjoy equivalent political democracy, educational provision, as universal a healthcare system as affordable and secure housing and policing which the developed countries enjoy.

· YET NOW THE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES ARE OFFERING AID IN EXCHANGE FOR THOSE VERY SAME DEVELOPING COUNTRIES NOT TO INDUSTRIALIZE THEMSELVES BECAUSE IT’S APPARENTLY CAUSING POLLUTION AND INCREASING CO2 EMISSIONS.

Plus monies to help them in case the sea levels rise as a result of climate change and entire villages get destroyed.

This paradox aside, the US delegation seems to have made misjudgments in the way they negotiated with the Chinese delegation. It’s worth bearing in mind that, unlike President Obama, the Chinese government does not have powerful green lobby groups pressurizing them into action or to grandstand to win opinion polls and elections. The fact that they had been progressively opening up to conducive negotiations at Copenhagen 2009 seems to have bypassed President Obama’s advisors.

Prior to Copenhagen, the Chinese government had been commended for its collaborative efforts and leadership in its climate change approach:

· http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/graham-chinas-leading-the_n_379069.html

· http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/25/content_12538131.htm

· http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/23/climate-change-copenhagen-china-india

Ergo, it’s unfortunate that President Obama made the speech he did and offended the Chinese government. If a Chinese person, out of goodwill and greater good interests, proactively offers to take action and then the other party turns around on a world stage and, effectively, says they don’t believe the Chinese will do what they say, then that is an insult.

If China offers to take action — no matter how small the step and without someone watching over them and micro-managing them, then they WILL take action. Moreover, NO ONE likes to be micro-managed or coerced into action. They like to be trusted with getting on with their responsibilities and being collaborative.

Copenhagen 2009 is an example of different cultures not quite getting each other’s meaning and intent — whether that is developed and developing or climate change campaigners and skeptics.

Hopefully, 2010 will bring better understanding.