The Hopenhagen Blog

Messages of Hope at the End of Copenhagen

 on January 2, 2010 at 3:05 am

How should we interpret last week's climate conference? Nearly everyone agrees that the "Copenhagen Accord" falls far short of what we need. Most blame either Obama or China, but I believe the likely culprit is the system of the negotiations that requires 193 countries to reach an agreement.

Despite the disappointment, the accord does have elements of a meaningful deal that we should not overlook. For the first time, all major emitters--including China and the U.S.--have made pledges to reduce their carbon emissions.

At the end of the conference I interviewed attendees and asked if they had hope we would solve the challenge.

The longest response came from Dr. Stephen Schneider, who has been studying climate science for 39 years. He lobbied the Nixon administration on this issue. Needless to say, Schneider is frustrated by progress on climate change. Nonetheless, he argued that the Copenhagen agreement is better than most people are saying.

Although the accord is a political agreement and isn't "legally binding," it was negotiated between heads of state face to face, meaning it has strong political backing. Secondly, it has "knobs that we can crank up." In a few years, if politics allows, we can use the framework of this deal to ratchet up our goals. Until then we must "stay vigilant, and maybe even a little angry."

Below is an edited version of Schneider's response.

On Saturday I also spoke with Aimee Christensen, the executive director of the Global Observatory. As she has engaged on climate issues for 17 years, like Schneider, she has a long term view. Aimee argued that the political agreement between heads of state was meaningful and she said she was pleased with the outcome. She remarked that the relationship between NGO's and politicians during these negotiations was better than during other similar conferences, and she said that she found hope from President Nasheed of the Maldives. Nasheed's country will likely not exist later this century if we have "business as usual" climate change; sea levels will engulf the small islands that make up his nation. Aimee said it was inspiring to watch Nasheed claim that this issue is not just about targets and timetables, but about people and our connection to the planet.

 

Below is a collection of additional responses: from Michael Eckhart, the president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), Bill Becker, the Executive Director of the Presidential Climate Action Project; and from three young people who are about to light candles to begin a candlelight vigil in downtown Copenhagen.

 
Act
Join our facebook page.  
Posted by Kobe Bryant on January 18, 2010 at 1:36 am

I say we all die and move to mars. End of Story. That's legit enough for me.

Posted by Amelia on January 13, 2010 at 11:52 am

Great job on Hopenhagen! I will try my hardest to stop using so much extra electricity! This is OUR world, ONLY world, and we have to keep it alive.

Posted by angel jacobo on January 11, 2010 at 6:18 am

tengo enterado que este año o el proximo se hara en mexico es cierto?
muchas felicidades por apoyar el cambio climatologico AQUI tienen a un servidor y si en algo les puedo ayudar adelante cuentan conmigo saludos

Posted by Jason Chen on January 7, 2010 at 3:16 am

I should say Gov have great power,but have they used it to protect our earth more?may less than greenpeace!Greenpeace give our belief,but Gov give pollution more than efforts of environment protection,we are not blame them,we just wanna they do more.

Posted by Jason Chen on January 7, 2010 at 3:03 am

maybe we should get a conference of NGO,but not all depend on Gov.The Govs are selfish sometimes,if tomorrow is"2012",they may destroy earth before the flood.We don't have army but we could arm ourself with our strong belief,the conscience,and so on.