3 responses to “After Copenhagen”

  1. carthur

    Jennifer Morgan, climate and energy programme director at the World Resources Institute, offers her thoughts on moving forward after Copenhagen.


    “..the world’s largest emitters need to step up. Europe should commit to a 30% reduction to ensure that it keeps its frontrunner position in the low carbon economy. Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia should increase their targets, adopt credible and binding domestic laws to meet current pledges, and show a clear pathway to a zero carbon economy by 2050. This would assist in catalysing further change in emerging economies.”

  2. Charles

    see: Cochabamba’s Message: Let the People Speak
    “The World People’s Summit broke new ground by allowing those most affected by a changing climate the chance to speak out about their ideas for just solutions.”

  3. John Radford

    I would like to applaud Bianca Jagger’s excellent article. She is absolutely right – the Copenhagen climate change summit ended in a shameful compromise. The end result
    was a three page document – an “Accord” (not a treaty because it is non-binding, merely stating principles of which to “take note”) which no country has signed up to in any event. It has no lawful authority or standing at all – it is a mere statement of vague intent.

    In the absence of a legally-binding treaty for nation states, how about putting the pressure on the multinational companies? Take, for example, the response of the inhabitants of the native Iñupiat village of Kivalina in North Alaska which is falling into the ocean because ice, formerly a wave barrier, is melting as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. The villagers refused to go quietly. Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corp., et al., (2008) arguably constituted an important development in rights-based litigation against those principally responsible for climate change. The suit claimed damages related to climate change against nine oil companies (including ExxonMobil, BP and Royal Dutch Shell), fourteen power companies and a coal company.

    Their complaint echoes the rights guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights in asserting that “Defendants’ emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, by contributing to global warming, constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with public rights”.

    The complaint cites the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment to show that defendants “conspired to create false scientific debate about global warming in order to deceive the public.” The suit may have been dismissed by a United States district court, but the spirit of the action deserves support.

    Manchester, UK