Are you serious when you say that the US pay a FAIR share? Over the 2010-2012 period the European Union contribute with $10,6 bn and Japan with $11 bn while the US with a mere $3,6bn. US contribution is about 1/3 of EU’s one and even less than Japanese one and you call it a “fair share”?

FYI: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-20-a-preliminary-assessment-of-the-copenhagen-accord/

@Madam Miaow: the pleasure was mine. Sinophobia, I think is a convenient means to defend the status quo, not just in Britain, but certainly in the U.S. as well. The way to cut through this is to bring the best quality information to light, which is what bloggers like you and me try to do. Good luck for the new year!

@Patrick Lynch: Thanks as always for your thoughtful comments. I don’t think the US was successful in selling the 17% below 2005 levels as you say; indeed a lot of parties certainly called out the US on this. However, I think we also need to consider what the emissions reductions picture looks like after 2020, i.e. 2025, 2030, 2050. Under the U.S. plan, it does achieve 80% reductions by 2050 from 1990 levels. Here too a more reflections on Obama’s actions over the past year: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/climate_action.html Excellent point about the true meaning of per capita, though. As much as bottom-up measures like business solutions and individual volunteerism can help, a top-down reorg of our institutions is instrumental.

@Calvin Quek: I can understand the frustration and disappointment of many following the conclusion of COP15. It is very clear that we are far off the mark at this stage. Yet, one thing we can say is that talks did not collapse, which was not so clear in the final 24 or 12 hours of the summit. That we now have a path forward, though not perfect, should keep climate warriors living to fight another day!

@Elizabeth: Very incendiary and I’ve largely tried to stay out of this bickering. The most balanced analysis I’ve seen on this comes from journalist Jonathan Watts, which you’ve probably seen by now: http://www.danwei.org/foreign_media_on_china/danwei_interviews_jonathan_wat.php
I don’t agree with everything Jonathan usually writes, but I think he is spot on on this one.

Happy New Year everyone!

Your thoughts appreciated.

EJW

I would like to add one more bad to the list. The United States clearly lags in what it intends to do. The US promises (3-4% from a 1990 base) were never sufficient, and clearly the US needs to do a lot more. It was successful for the most part in selling the misleading 17% number and shifting attention to China and India (for obvious reasons, China makes a better villain/scapegoat in the US). No matter what other countries do, the US has to do much more. Whether it can happen remains to be seen.

Another part of this story is the failure of media to deal with the idea of total emissions versus per capita emissions. Per capita is the only fair measurement. Until we consistently use per capita comparisons, we will get no where. The large population countries cannot and never will accept total emission agreements. To do so would be suicide for their governments. Won’t happen.

The media also at some point needs to get more sophisticated in its analysis of what per capita means. It needs to be clear that this does not mean individual changes and sacrifices necessarily, but often means institutional changes. (Pentagon anyone?)

The other worrisome thing is the tendency in the US to tie global warming measures in with trade and energy sourcing issues. Both of these can become distractions that distort what is likely to be a difficult enough struggle against the energy industry in the US and the flat earthers.

Obama needs to call some of the corporate leaders who are opposing progress to Washington and ask them if they really want the US government to become their enemies. Remove all of their tax breaks, audit their overseas operations for corruption and bribes, make permits more transparent and difficult. He can make them come around if he chooses.

Thanks again for the analysis. I feel that the best thing out of Copenhagen may be the realization of just how difficult this is going to be, and a clearer sense (after the whining dies down) that any solutions that are not “win-win” will fail.

I enjoyed hearing what you had to say when we were on the BBC this week. I’m alarmed by the Sinophobia of our British press, though, and the hysterical attempts to blame China like some pantomime villain. Those old colonialist attitudes never go away.
http://madammiaow.blogspot.com/2009/12/is-new-independent-newspaper-regime.html

Looking forward to your analysis of China’s role. Whatever your criticisms of China, I’m confident you won’t be adopting the same tone.