Don’t be so sad, Vihar. What we’ve got here is a “reality check”. The idea that we can control by fiat the word’s temperature is now being exposed for what it is: a delusion. It presupposes a level of compliance by the world’s nations that can never be achieved.

If we had a treaty, how could we prevent a country from keeping the rules and not massaging the numbers? And what would happen if the average temperature went over the two-degree limit? Which nations would be punished and how? Who would the UN call in to penalize the offenders? Obama? God?

The useless and corrupt carbon trading scheme that’s currently in operation shows the limits of the utopian thinking that has led to this embarrassing place. Let’s have a fresh start with the goals of a more modest agreement and a significant toning down of the apocalyptic scenarios.

So it seems that Copenhagen will be only nice coctail party for world elite; so is this good or bad for climate? I must addmit having some doubts about Copenhagen party in relation to clima change for two reasons.

First there is some debate on scientific field about relationship of carbon emmissions and global warming. When the data where scenarios are based has been kept out of reach from critical scientists now it is maybe the time reset the facts behind climate change.

Second there is many plans to reduce emmissions.  E.g. a finnish company is planning to import palmoil from Indonesia to produce biofuel.  In reality this means cutting down large areas of rainforest which is like removing part of world’s lungs. So one action somewhere can make emmissionload heavier.

The carbon trade scheme could be seen as farce but the sad thing is that many officials take it seriously.

From my point of view the whole Copenhagen party is nonsence.  More effective could be that e.g. G 20 would deside to apply sc Tobin tax to collect money for development aid and e.g. for devoloping alternative energy sources and their use.

Eamonn, Ari: you are tackling two issues at once, but they are different.

One issue is whether any international cap-and-trade regime is necessary. I think yes, you may think otherwise.

The other issue, however, is to what extent such a regime is achievable and realistic. We simply don’t know yet. What we do know, however, is that it was unrealistic from the very beginning to expect that the Copenhagen summit would reach a legally binding agreement. This is an important lesson.

In order to get international action going, we need to set realistic goals in the first place. More, we need an enhaced public debate on climate change (I wrote about this already: http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/heres_climate_change_wheres_the_debate )

In a nutshell - unless we involve the public in the debate, any measures taken will be sub-optimal and insufficient.

A couple of notes:

1) Some scientists say emissions are cause for global warming, some say opposite; I still think that there is need to take critical view to scientific base and scenarios related to climate change.
2) One part of public is changing old bulbs to new one thinking to save energy, one part is buying all old bulbs possible to enjoy its warming effect during winter months in northern Europe.
3) My main critic in clima debate is the lack of comprehensive approach e.g. when one action to cut emissions leads increasing emissions or other harmful effect elsewhere.
4) I said earlier that G 20 could do necessary decisions about actions their financing related to clima change;  the minimal organization for this could even be US and China with or without support of EU.

Ari, you are absolutely right to say that a comprehensive approach to climate change simply does not exist today.

The main reason for that is the lack of public consensus in developed countries on the magnitude of the problem. No international agreement can replace a genuine understanding of and commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gases emissions.

Some say that we will never be able to convince the general public (especially in the United States) that curbing emissions is essential to sustainable development. We still do not have a political compromise on sustainable development itself. Organizations such as the Global Footprint Network have calculated that the North has a ridiculously high environmental footprint.

The demand for goods and services will not diminish on its own. That much is clear. On the contrary, more and more people in developing countries demand the same level of lifestyle as in the developed countries, which means the same carbon emissions per capita, the same resources depletion, etc.

That is why the climate change debate goes well beyond the COP 15 agenda, and integrates in a much larger and more important discourse – about the management of natural resources in general.

I am looking forward to THAT debate, and I am certain that it will come. No other means will be able to “solve” the challenges we are facing today. Dialogue and common sense are the tools in order to get results.