The copenhagen meeting had not been an entirely vain attempt
With the closing of the Copenhagen Meeting, we have unfortunately achieved no more than three years of unbinding-agreement under which no legal constraints are applied. Is such an ending really the worst ever? Or is the new page of history not as blank as it is seen as?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
110 political leaders met to discus one issue – the environment
A meeting as large scale as this one has never taken place before; the fact is that the meeting took place for the sake of the environment. This opens a new window, it shows that political leaders are aware that human conduct is having an impact on the environment and it is down to political leaders to change the status quo. Even if nothing substantial was achieved by way of emissions targets, procedurally, Copenhagen has opened the door for more such meetings to take place with each country knowing that they all see the environment as a problem which they need to resolve.
Public awareness was heightened
Whilst the outcome of the talks in terms of legally binding emission agreements were not as successful as first imagined, the amount of publicity these talks have gained will have immeasurable benefit for the future.
If we look over the last two weeks and the controversy that has been involved it was inevitable that no fixed agreement would be reached. However, the controversies with China almost pulling out and Denmark accused of being a bias host, the media coverage was substantial. This has made the public more aware of how much the environment is a pressing issue that needs addressing right away. Rather than seeing the environment as a far removed issue, the Copenhagen conference has resounded to the public that world leaders are recognising that something needs to be done now before it is too late. This will undoubtedly influence the public’s behaviour, not only in how they act, but in what they buy, who they vote for and the values they teach their children.
What do you think?