It is now clear that we may not have a consensus deal in Copenhagen during the COP 15 summit. Some say that a deal will be possible during the next year. Martin Wolf for example says that something close to agreement exists that the world should act.

I am not so sure. It appears that many oppose any agreement, coming from different perspectives. The so-called “Climategate” has fuelled criticism of the scientific expertise used by the IPCC. The Australian Senate rejected the Emissions Trading Scheme legislation a few hours ago.

But the rifts go deeper. Joe Walsh has done a very good job on outlining those rifts – “the green in-fighting”, “the developed versus developing”, “the costs to growth and consumer prices”.

So today I would like to talk a little bit about personal responsibility of opinion makers and decision makers. I want to focus on them since we all know very well – in a global community of over 6 billion individuals we always look to them for advice and guidance.

How do these individuals manage their own, personal input to the debate? Do they follow strict party lines? Do they adhere to high ethical standards? Do they want to become famous while dealing with climate change? Do they want to become rich?

These questions may sound naïve, but they aren’t. Today we use too little of our time to try to understand the internal motivation of all those participating in the public debate. We focus on “the issues”, “the scientific expertise”, “the conspiracy”, and forget to account for the human nature of the individual participants.

Climate change is a big issue, no matter what you “believe” in. But I suspect that many “pundits” on both sides would argue with the same energy on the morality of concubinate – should the times be different.

This is not serious. More, it is damaging the debate. The use of strong words, insults, propaganda, even hate speech is deplorable.

The issues at stake will not be solved through propaganda. We need to focus on a common sense approach, accommodating different viewpoints, economic backgrounds, political traditions, and even personal preferences. We need to be ambitious - but we also have to understand that our own beliefs and convictions may appear strongly irrelevant to others.

If we really intend to agree on global action, we should address all concerns. Nobody can afford clinging to a position statement. But make no mistake – whatever course of (in)action is decided on, we will all bear the consequences.

I hope that more people will take the time and reconsider their own balance of beliefs as responsible human beings, going beyond personal weaknesses of character.