What was decided in Copenhagen?

• Author: Tokar, Brian
• Position: 100,000 People Went to Denmark and All They Got Was a Lousy Three-page Political Agreement

Even before all the North American activists who went to Denmark for last December's UN climate summit arrived home, there was a palpable feeling that the outcome was very different from what we expected. While the world is still sorting out the long-range implications, a few things remain quite clear.

First, the two and a half pages of diplomatic blather that the participating countries ultimately consented to "take note" of in Copenhagen are completely self-contradictory, and commit no one to any specific actions to address the global climate crisis. There isn't even a clear path to moving UN-level negotiations forward. Friends of the Earth correctly described the so-called Copenhagen Accord as a "sham agreement;" British columnist George Monbiot called it an exercise in "saving face;" and former neoliberal shock doctor-turned-environmentalist Jeffrey Sachs termed it a farce. Long-time UN observer Martin Khor has pointed out that for the assembled countries to "take note" of the document means that not only was it not formally adopted, but it was not even "welcomed," a common UN practice.

Second, the global divide between rich and poor has never been clearer, and those countries where people are already experiencing the droughts, floods, and the melting of glaciers that provide a vital source of fresh water expect to find themselves in increasingly desperate straits as the full effects of climate disruptions begin to emerge. Not to mention the small island nations that face near-certain annihilation as melting ice sheets bring rising seas, along with infiltrations of seawater into their scarce fresh water supplies. Especially despicable was the changing role of the governments of the rapidly developing "BASIC" countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China), who claim to speak for the poor--in their own countries and around the world--when it is convenient, but mainly seek to protect the expanding riches of their own well-entrenched elites.

Third, even the meager and contradictory progress of the past 17 years of global climate talks is at risk, as is the flawed but relatively open and inclusive UN process. After the 2007 climate summit in Bali, Indonesia, the Bush administration tried to initiate an alternate track of negotiations on climate policy that involved only a select handful of the more compliant countries. That strategy failed, partly because its figurehead was George Bush. Now that the Obama administration has adopted...