It was one of those things when it comes to writing this blog; I had every intention of making comment on Naomi Klein's opening comments at Klimaforum09. Klimaforum09 is an alternative climate change forum for NGO's, protest movements and groups not associated with the status quo. Their purpose was to give a different way of looking at things. The preamble to their declaration stated:
There is a solution to climate change. What people and the planet need is a just and sustainable transition of our societies to a form that will deliver a more fertile planet and more fulfilling lives to future generations.
We, participating people and organisations at the Klimaforum09 in Copenhagen, call upon every concerned person, social movement, cultural, political, economic or other forms of organization to contribute to this necessary transition. It will not be an easy task. The climate challenge is indivisibly linked to other critical ecological problems as well as to complex social issues.
The tone adopted by Ms Klein was dismissive and devisive about COP15. She was even critical of Hopenhagen, which she dismissed as being corporate driven. She pointed out that a major sponsor was Coca-Cola, for example. She wanted unrest, such as happened in Seattle:
Down the road at the Bella Centre [where delegates are meeting] there is the worst case of disaster capitalism that we have ever witnessed. We know that what is being proposed in the Bella Centre doesn't even come close to the deal that is needed. We know the paltry emissions cuts that Obama has proposed; they're insulting. We're the ones who created this crisis... on the basic historical principle of polluters pays, we should pay
I was going to write, what's the matter Naomi, jealous that Hopenhagen has better schwag and tees then your summit has? I was going to say that climate change is bigger then any one group and whether she may like it or not, big business, multi-nationals have to be a part of the equation of the solution.
By the way I still do believe it, all sides must sit at the table as equals to discuss and bring about solutions that will bring down the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and commence the cooling of the planet.
Then i read this headline:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak
It seems a draft treaty for Copenhagen was leaked to the Guardian. The draft treaty, which was written ahead of the conference, because that the way these things operate, seems to be different then Kyoto in the idea of who should bear the brunt of it all. The document, which can be read here.
Developing nations are very angry over it since they are the ones to bear the responsibility for cutting carbon emissions. It's as if, should interpretations be correct that to sell it to the developed world, its being made not so bad. To quote the Guardian:
The document is also being interpreted by developing countries as setting unequal limits on per capita carbon emissions for developed and developing countries in 2050; meaning that people in rich countries would be permitted to emit nearly twice as much under the proposals.
In fact the numbers quoted for carbon emission is on the order of "Not allow poor countries to emit more than 1.44 tonnes of carbon per person by 2050, while allowing rich countries to emit 2.67 tonnes." I suppose the thinking goes along like this, geez it's not as if those poor people have anything that makes CO2 gas, I mean they just use wood for fuel, the walk everywhere and have barely subsistent agrilculture and work, so they don't need to use as much. I mean look at the West, we've got SUV and jets to travel around the world going to conferences such as this. We've got microwave ovens and home theatre, no one can expect us to GIVE that up. It would be cruel and inhumane.
If I can be a bit serious, the West has such a large carbon footprint that cutting back as dramatic still makes the reduced level at double the people in developing nations. Again, we've got SUV's, and they don't.
I wonder about a few things, is this one of those 'the ship of state is the only one the leaks from the top', is it a trial balloon and that the real document will seem so much better in comparison. Which is rather wrong, why not start with a decent draft rather then give a bad one so that the final crappy one will seem great in comparison.
It could be a very concerned person who looked at the draft and realized it was so horrific it needed to be exposed to the light of day.
Will it mean Copenhagen is a failure? Or perhaps something good can happen, that the West now chasticed for trying to pull a fast one, will come to the table and really discuss the issue of global warming, climate change and reducing CO2 emissions.
By the way, one of the world's eminent scientist on global warming is hoping for a failure. He believes it the only way to save the planet.