Copenhagen was, to put it candidly, a bust (is it too immature to say 'I told you so'?). I realise I'm in danger of coming off as a New Labour fan, (or worse, a Miliband enthusiast, eep!) but I'm again siding with Eddie:
We did not get an agreement on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or on
80% reductions by developed countries. Both were vetoed by China, despite the
support of a coalition of developed and the vast majority of developing
countries.
Surprise, surprise. Politician-speak is increasingly to do with spin and finger pointing I know, and perhaps it's fair to say that China is being scapegoated somewhat, but let's be honest, this veto and the attitude it implies tallies neatly with everything we know about the current regime.
Allow me to digress a little. The attitude of the Chinese government is, in my humble and biased opinion, the bastard child of communism and the general antagonism towards the west which is endemic in former European colonies/exploitees. That's right people, it all goes back to colonialism. The thing many of us Europeans (yes, I AM European) forget is that while we've moved on and gotten over it, it's not quite that simple in the developing world.
A few years ago in Zimbabwe, I was asked how racist my school was. Take note of the word "how." Not "are they racist?" Because as I was told, they're all racist, and the British are just waiting for an excuse to invade Africa again. Obviously. This mentality is incomprehensible to people in Britain and America. The idea that attitudes change from generation to generation, that people learn and grow and evolve, is a Western import, because no matter how good a country's economic growth, places like China, Zimbabwe, Cuba and Sri Lanka are bordering on stagnant when it comes to the maturity of their politicians. (India, however, seems to be the exception that proves the rule, so hopefully will also prove to be the tortoise to China's hare in an economic sense too).
In August I sat in a recording studio listening to the Sri Lankan Minister for Environment lay out his plans to demand $2 billion of the national debt be cancelled by the American government, because that was the amount of environmental damage caused by American industries. (No, I don't know how he worked that one out). I thought he sounded rather like a child complaining that the big kids had stolen his lunch money.
My point, readers, is that the developing world is playing the blame game. All well and good, if we're talking about specific wars, debts or trading, but climate change is a global issue, and developing countries need to learn that this is a global issue. It doesn't matter who was pumping out X number of tons of CO2 five years ago, or who invaded who in 1856*. We simply don't have time for pointing fingers and dredging up old arguments.
Climate change needs to be dealt with by the international community, and that should have been the beginning, middle and end of it. Blame, accusations and old conflicts will just have be put on the back burner, and the sooner that happens, the sooner we can have the coming together that Copenhagen was really meant to be.
*Grammar nazis, please feel free to send nitpicky emails about this sentence if it should be "who invaded whom in 1856," This is one of those issues I've never been clear about, and would appreciate clarification. Thankies.
P.S. There is possibly a controversial post coming up about the relationship between race and beauty.
