China is to blame for the failure at Copenhagen.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the failure to reach much of an agreement on climate change at Copenhagen. AoSIS and the G77 pushed too hard preventing a deal between negotiators. The US would not shift their position. Chavez and other left wing Latin American governments tried to destroy the Copenhagen Accord. And finally China refused to budge on anything of significance getting more inflexible as the conference went on. So as the final spanner in the works does China have to carry the can?
You can also add to the debate by leaving your comment at the end of the page.
China leading other developing countries made it absolutely clear that she was/is not going to do anything about climate change. There were no official documents signed. There was no accountability for countries violating tentative/unofficial ones.
America in turn, led developed countries into being non-cooperative. All the ambassadors of countries interested in something real/tangible coming out of the conference, walked out; somewhat miffed.
Bad-eggs: China and America really messed things up.
China just made sure no country would be shackled/coerced by the U.S.
And there 'is' a tentative agreement , that though not binding is important. Countries 'know'/understand what they need to do and how to accomplish it And have the flexibility/freedom/luxury to do it on their terms without being watched by a hawk by America(the main culprit of the crises(financial,climate & food), which would, if it were realised be intolerably hypocritical.
China stands up for the BRICs
[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/china-blamed-copenhagen-climate-failure]] China took a stand and pushed the U.S around like America normally pushes other countries around.
The China played the over-the-top drama-queen, Wen JiaBao strutted out of the conference, leaving an ancillary subordinate to talk to Barack Obama. After the exposure of the Danish text(And the implication that developing countries would have to take on the brunt of climate solutions and forced to sign after superficial discussion) it was fairly erudite and something like this would happen in response. Developing countries, especially the ones rising to becoming developed soon would/did feel bullied and take on the role themselves.
The director general of the Swedish environment protection agency outrightly blames China for no deal, Lars-Erik Liljelund, said: “China. China doesn’t like numbers."
which is ironic since Chinese mathematicians have shined throughout history.Yes China is to blame for no deal but also for making it certain that no one will pushed around and people/countries will have the flexibility and information/education to take care of the crisis on their own terms.
India , Brazil should also be credited.
And America by not doing anything herself, despite expressing her mea culpa whilst coming with the sole intention of bossing developing countries around; didn't help matters for herself.
No the U.S is
America had a pivotal role to play in the conference , China had expressed intentions of non-cooperation unless The U.S of A was/is in it for the long haul:
Obama was all talk and no action(except maybe in the long-term ;as usual). Overall: A huge disappointment.
Gordon Brown blames both China and America for not stepping forward and getting a lot of other countries to naturally follow suit.
The two gave other countries an excuse to childishly wail, "They pollute a lot more than us, why should we stop?"
The EU showed a good initiative in promising to cut down by 30 percent.
no smaller countries less responsible for poulltion are:
When countries 'least' responsible for pollution that have the least to lose from a deal/'cleaner environment' did not agree to a deal, did not show any tremendous gesture of moving forward and ceasing to pollute. How can big polluter(china being the biggest) countries(who have corporate empires, booming economies and a lot more at stake from cutting it) be blamed?
power plays,capitalism an imbalance of resources/strength and therefore resentment,competition and insecurity are to blame.
China being the biggest polluter in the world by being obstinate and obstreperous en-flamed all the above mentioned factors to great heights; stunting progress on the issue, by allowing other countries to follow suit.
Copenhagen talks are irrelevant.
The whole climate showdown in Copenhagen was a charade. A mere exercise to paint a picture of a strong willed American leader clashing with the bad guys, China. Of course there were other countries with their own inputs and agendas of differing merit but there was never really going to be any chance of a substantial agreement being made and even if there was an agreement made, that doesn't mean such an agreement would necessarily have been beneficial to the planet.
Eventually, when the political conditions are right, the world leaders will agree to an international emissions tax. We know this will happen because the Bilderberg Group have made it quite clear that this is on their agenda. This will allow them to create a worldwide supranational government to police it and ironically, supposed greens/ liberals will demand it for the sake of the planet.
It is ironic because the 'planet saving' tax will enslave and further impoverish less developped economies and create a global economic hegemon with accountability to nobody.
African tribes which have so far escaped the rule of money will have to pay tax on the methane emissions from the cattle they keep for subsistence, forcing them to either become capitalist or die of malnutrition.
In the developped countries millions will be forced into fuel poverty while the rich get to keep their gas-guzzling lifestyles. The middle classes will be able to afford renewable energy, in fact they will be able to profit from selling excess energy they produce with their dometic wind-turbines and solar panels, while the working classes have to pay ever increasing prices.
The gap between rich and poor will increase instantly.
It is however not time for this yet. We are still in the stage of convincing people that they need an international eco-tax and eliminating those who might prefer national sovereignty and democracy to supranational bureaucracy.
What stance China, Venezuela or any presently independant state takes in Copenhagen is irrelevant. They are just flexing their proverbial muscles because they can, while they still can.
What do you think?