This past December, more than 120 Heads of State and Government traveled to Copenhagen, Denmark to participate in the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15).  The Conference, lasting for close to two weeks, was intended to be the launching point for a comprehensive worldwide agreement on how to most effectively combat climate change.  Even with the best of intentions, however, few who attended the Conference have expressed much satisfaction with the progress made and eventual outcome of the meeting.

The proceedings were plagued with administrative and logistical difficulties and contentious moments between some of the world’s biggest carbon emitters.  For example, as estimated by one attendee, some 45,000 people attended the Conference – great turn out except that Copenhagen’s Bella Center where the event was held can only accommodate 15,000.  Aside from the obviously cramped quarters into which Heads of state, their delegates, journalists, representatives from NGOs, and others were overcrowded, even greater difficulties hindered the progress of the discussions. 

Most notably, in the months since the conclusion of the event, media outlets reporting on the outcome have discussed the often indiscreet confrontations between the United States and China, the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide.  Britain’s Telegraph reported that “…the UN Summit teetered on the brink of collapse amid a row between China and the US” noting that the disagreement between the two nations “effectively paralysed [sic] the summit.”  Time magazine reported in the midst of the Conference that “Discontent is only escalating as talks remain stalled three days before the end of the summit over an impasse between the two countries with the most influence: the U.S. and China.”  The two nations disagreed, it seems, on several points but most vehemently on the issue of measuring emissions reductions.  The United States insisted that any actions taken by the Chinese to reduce carbon emissions be “independently verified and proven.”  For their part, the Chinese took a staunch stance against such a process.  In the end, it seems that the one point that almost all in attendance can agree upon is that the disagreement stalled at the least, and derailed at the worst, the entire Conference. 

In the end, after nearly two weeks of meetings, very little came from the Conference.  According to US officials quoted in the Telegraph article cited above, “developed and developing nations [agreed] to ‘list national actions and commitments.’”  In addition to such lists, participants agree on a mitigation target of two degrees Celsius – exactly how to reach that target, however, remains unresolved and yet to be seen. 

Many Heads of State and Government are openly expressing their discontent and dissatisfaction with the less-than-impressive progress made at the Conference.  Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, for example, stated to an English-language Indian newspaper that “’We were able to make only limited progress at the Copenhagen Summit and no one was satisfied with the outcome.  And yet, there is no escaping the truth that the nations of the world have to move to a low greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficient development path.’”  English-language Malta newspaper The Independent conveyed the intense disappointment of Malta’s Prime Minister, Dr. Lawrence Gonzi, soon after the Conference’s conclusion.  Dr. Gonzi noted that as an island nation, Malta is especially concerned over issues related to rising sea levels and hoped that the world would begin to understand the plight of such nations as they consider how to address the issue of climate change on a worldwide level. 

While finger-pointing and blame continues to be assigned to various nations for their perceived lack of commitment to the conference in Copenhagen, environmentalists realize that the world and environment is still the biggest loser in the failed outcome.  L. Hunter Lovins provides an eye-opening editorial in the February 2010 edition of Sustainability: The Journal of Record.  She notes that even if the Conference did not achieve its intended outcome, a legally binding commitment to effectively combat climate change, it did leave a lasting footprint.  With some 45,000 people in attendance, the emissions associated with the event will surely have an impact on the environment even if the discussions that took place during may not.  She reminds readers that, “The ugly reality…is that the Earth doesn’t care who emits carbon, when it got burned, or who pays for mitigation,” and concludes that given the political infighting on the world stage today, effectively addressing climate change will likely continue to fall into the hands of local and community groups, individuals, environmentally-conscious corporations, and NGOs.