Stacy and all, It was a trainwreck to be sure, though the silver lining for me (and this will sound self-serving since it is the area of my current research), is that perhaps now we can stop thinking that the multilateral process is the single best (if not the only) way to fashion a global response to climate change. Perhaps the failure (or at least significant failing) of the multilateral process, depending on how lots of different groups react to that failure, can create the conditions whereby climate change becomes embedded in a multitude of processes in a serious way. This may be naive. We may ultimately need a binding, specific, enforceable and enforced climate treaty to spur significant action--I hope not. Given the size of the task that responding to climate change represents in terms of socio, political, and economic systems, we (academics, the media, environmental activists, people) have probably been naive to put so much emphasis on a single mechanism that has never worked that well for large complex issues that require expedience. That's not to say that multilateral negotiations and treaties have no role in the response to climate change--they are and can be crucial (which is why we're all so upset right now)--but we may need to be more creative in thinking about their place in the overall global response.
My two cents. Cheers, Matt > I have read much of this exchange with interest. > However, I am having trouble understanding some of the various > contributors' reluctance to simply say that the summit was a near total > and complete disaster: The outcome nearly totally meaningless with a > complete lack of serious progress on even a single one of the major issues > on the table in the years and months before the summit. I must say I was > pessimistic going in, as were most people of course, but the near complete > lack of progress stuns even me. I thought we would at least be assessing > how far major states and groups of states had moved in the last days or > hours. No. I think I assumed that, In other words, having a summit would > at least force the parties closer together and closer to some sort of set > of goals - or produce even one interesting idea in a mad panic to salvage > something. No. In my view, this simply did not happen. It strikes me as > the worst of all possible outcomes: total failure, but without a general > media and public knowledge that their leaders failed them completely. In > fact (in my view), the summit has dramatically lowered expectations of > future climate change cooperation in nearly every way. Where once major > states at least aspired rhetorically to a functioning global regime, even > this goal is gone. This GEP-ED stream has confirmed this view, rather > than moderated it, for me. Things in the exchange noted as "progress" > are, well, stunningly insubstantial. The world remains on an accelerating > emissions track and an accelerating climate change trend. There is not a > single decision taken in Copenhagen - much less in the totally empty > "accord" - that alters this even in the least. Not even one of the vague > promises made even bends those curves, much less reverses their direction > at any point in the future. > > Occasionally on this list we have discussed the need to give our students > hope and positive examples other (allegedly) empowering optimistic frames. > I wonder what the value is in suggesting, to 20 year olds in 2009, > anything besides the fact that their leaders have failed them in truly > catastrophic fashion. > > I would truly love for someone to convince me that the more dire and > negative assessment possible is the wrong one, but the coverage of the > summit and this GEP-ED exchange (to date) have not done so. > > --Stacy > > Matthew J. Hoffmann Associate Professor Department of Political Science, Univ of Toronto Department of Social Sciences, Univ of Toronto Scarborough
