Possibility beyond Limitations?

There is a general consensus that the Copenhagen Climate Change talks did not fully achieve what they set out to achieve, some argue that the agreements that were made were a vital first step, that progress towards anything will be slow but the point is that progress is being made. Others take a harder line, that the talks resulted in an empty document and that this is not enough to constitute any kind of progress. However the main question facing us now is not whether or not COP15 was a success, but what practical steps can be taken in order to keep momentum going.

The conference held with Ed Milliband and The Prime minister was brought together in order to try and answer this question. The Prime minister began by thanking the NGOs and the climate change groups for their continued support; he briefly summarised the conclusions of the talks, that the 2C agreement had been reached which was a positive step, however he made it clear he was disappointed with the lack of a legally binding agreement in this area. He talked positively of how emerging market countries had accepted the emissions plans and England’s encouraging role in pushing towards some kind of agreement as talks began to dwindle into nothingness towards the end; He asserted that without Copenhagen the majority of the countries that have agreed to some kind of emissions cut would not have done so otherwise. He did not attempt to idealise COP15, he reasserted that the agreements made were not perfect and were flawed by ‘a handful of countries’ which stood in the way of ‘global progress.’ He also made it clear that ‘threats and fear’ cannot be allowed to dominate proceedings. Another problem he drew attention to was the flawed decision making process, that a vehicle could not be found to get people moving in the same direction together. It seemed that he was suggesting everyone had things to lose and gain in the face of climate change and due to these differing agendas, nothing could be truly agreed on as there seemed to be no genuine common ground. The countries were acting independently rather than trying to find a global solution. What he believes needs to happen now is an audit for transparency in order for countries show clearly what they are doing in terms of trying to reach the goals set in Copenhagen. Although transparency is a good thing when it comes to any kind of political agreement, it is unclear how such a thing can be achieved.

He finished his speech by stating that ‘enough good will exists in the world to allow change to happen’ and that the agreements that have been made have been made possible by the climate change organisations that have kept ‘the flame burning for a climate change agreement.’

Milliband followed the Prime ministers speech, he quickly ran through what he believes we have to do now in order to keep the ball rolling: Firstly he stated that the domestic campaign is the essential building block of our role in negotiations; not only ecologically but economically our country depends on it. Secondly he wishes to drive towards reaching a legally binding agreement, however did not provide information as to how this was going to be achieved. Thirdly he believes that greater ecological ambition needs to be expressed by richer countries as the difference between a small change and a large change from these countries will make all of the difference. Fourthly he expressed disappointment in the negotiation process in Copenhagen; although he gave credit to the UN and stated that without it the talks could not happen at all, the procedural arguments were not a good way to run negotiations as they delayed them further. Finally he reassured the conference that any kind of fundamental change can only happen with time, there must be some kind of struggle and long determination to achieve goals as large as the ones attempting to be achieved in Copenhagen.

The two main problems from the Copenhagen talks seemed to be to do with the actual negotiation process put in place by the UN which in turn lead to a reluctance to sign a legally binding agreement. I think if the talks eventually happen  in Germany there should be less priority put on the procedure and more of a concrete agenda set in place; once this agenda has been set prior to the actual talks, the countries who need to negotiate should be allowed to take the time to talk to each other about this agenda which all should be able to agree with. The Prime Minister emphasised the fact that a vehicle could not be found that could take the talks forward, this vehicle therefore must be found prior to when the talks actually happen in order to allow progress and give all of those present a common goal.

Personally I don’t think Copenhagen has really changed anything, our attitudes must remain the same and the same action must be taken to keep momentum going. The talks didn’t fully achieve what everyone wanted and because no legally binding agreement was signed there is a chance than nothing will happen, therefore speaking of ‘what needs to happen next’ is a meaningless statement. Continuity and consistency are the only things that can be certain to help facilitate change, not only in the home but in every aspect of life, what needs to happen is a reappraisal of values in the face of changing needs for a changing time. No longer can people look at themselves from the same perspective, there needs to be a compete overhaul of how people think, which will lead in turn to changing what people do. This is really what needs to happen, as long as people remain in the right frame of mind then a question such as ‘what to do next?’ won’t need to exist.

However a hopeful disposition is necessary, therefore the conclusion of the talks must be seen as a positive step, the only thing that can be done now is to persist in the things that were being done before to an extent that surpasses previous efforts in order to ensure that there are more talks which will ensure more progress.

Tweet This Post