Copenhagen: The world’s best spin-doctors couldn’t put much of a glow on the Copenhagen summit. Representatives of 120 countries gathered in the Danish capital with solemn pledges to draft an international treaty to fight man made climate change, but all that emerged was a vague text with a few good intentions and no firm commitments. It's not much comfort to think that no treaty might be better than a hastily composed bad one.
What failed in Copenhagen was not so much the willpower as the approach. In the style of the UN, everyone had a seat at the table, every voice counted, and every ephemeral coalition of countries needed only shout to make itself heard. More modest processes could address the summit’s original goal - limiting the human contribution to any increase in average world temperatures to no more than two degrees, compared to pre-industrial levels.
Much had been accomplished before Copenhagen. But much remains to be done to keep this diplomatic fiasco from turning into an economic and ecological crisis. President Obama already takes climate change seriously and the Chinese government has come to realise that it must do something, for domestic as much as for diplomatic reasons. The EU, which offered serious pledges of further emission cuts, could mend fences with the poorest nations, which will need foreign investment to cope with the new demands.
The next steps could include stronger regional agreements, even bilateral ones. Little by little, a pragmatic approach — as opposed to the maximalist UN way — could put pressure on refusniks into joining.
In the longer term, all governments have the same interest. They want to encourage the massive private investment - hundreds of billion dollars annually - needed to make much of a dent in man-made emissions of greenhouse gases. For the money to be channelled into the new technologies or processes, businesses need carbon price predictability, and a level playing field. Copenhagen didn't provide either. But the fight is far from over.