THE CONFERENCE OF COPENHAGEN

The leaders of 190 countries met in Copenhagen in December to agree a global framework which will replace the Kyoto Protocol to combat global warming, the validity

of which expires in 2012.

The world has one last chance to reach a global agreement to tackle climate change at the meeting of the UN Climate

Panel, which will be held in Copenhagen in December, said from Budapest EU Commissioner for Environment Stavros

Dimas

• The impacts of global warming and the constant changes in climate are now visible. Frequent rains and heat waves often hit

the earth, and tropical hurricanes and cyclones are most intense with devastating consequences. At the same time,

temperature and level the surface of the oceans continue to rise, threatening the ecosystem as a whole.

However, environmental issues requiring co often concealed by the contact under the mantle of deliberate indifference, leading

thus to environmental degradation. Climate change is a fact, affecting all of us accumulate for centuries owing to the man. Failure to timely and effective response will be disastrous for all, without exception, the regions and peoples of the earth.

Mankind had never faced serious and difficult challenge. Our planet in danger and we with him, the same time as salvation

depends solely on humans.

• In order to meet this nightmarish situation, which result in dramatically disturbed the ecological balance of the planet and whole

regions at risk of sinking, 120 heads of state and 192 countries participated in the Conference in Copenhagen in order to achieve a

new, global, single, universal and legally binding agreement to tackle climate change, which will replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The characterized as a historic conference was regarded by

scientists as the largest made so far. For the first time in over 17 years of discussions on climate, a large number of states become

concerned and reported objectives and proposals for saving the planet. It seems that the world community has accepted the

responsibility to take action to address the threat of climate change. On the eve of the crucial conference, an optimism had already been created for the state of discussions with many countries to express

their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the voices were missing and those already characterized the meeting as

sham, expressing their pessimism about finding a fair solution.

Objectives of the negotiations in Copenhagen Summit were:

• Setting levels of commitment by all developed countries for specific percentages of generated pollutants

• Achieving commitment for action to reduce emissions in developing countries.

•The determination of the amount of necessary international funding will be provided by developed countries to developing countries' adaptation to climate change

• The identification of means of implementation of commitments on emission reduction and adaptation in developing countries to climate change. The technology transfer, financing and capacity building of developing countries are the means of implementation

• Discussions began in snowy Copenhagen, on 7 December, promising to find a binding and ambitious climate agreement, giving the world hope for a better

future. The first official draft fell to the negotiating table early enough, according to which developed countries should, by 2020, reduce emissions by 70-85%. This was a highly ambitious project, which was rejected, as expected,

from the United States and China, for different reasons on either side, causing a strong reaction of the poorest countries. The disagreements between

developed and developing countries, and disagreements between China and the U.S., which accounts for the largest proportion of global emissions, dominated the 15th Session of the UN climate change in Copenhagen.

Developed and developing countries disagreed on the percentage reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases and on the amount of funding for the poorest countries in their efforts to tackle global climate change. Strongly dissatisfied with developments, representatives of African countries left the Bella Center, the meeting is being held, temporarily interrupting the negotiations. Denmark, which hosted the summit, accused strongly by those countries to undermine

the debate on climate change, due to negative attitudes towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions as required by the Kyoto Protocol. The fact that the poorest countries are vulnerable to climate change, with African countries to

pay the bulk of the price. Therefore, their representatives made it clear that rich countries should commit to reducing emissions and not to abandon the basis

set out in the Kyoto Protocol.

• As shown in the negotiations, developed countries promoted a new agreement without taking into account the problems and concerns of the economically weak countries. Fear of losing many of the benefits envisaged by the Kyoto Protocol, the poorest countries, have temporarily left the negotiations to return to them later. On the other hand, the rich developing

countries for the sake of economic growth, have shown great willingness to commit to major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Poorer countries, led by China, called for reducing emissions from industrialized countries, on the grounds that those responsible for the current chaotic situation. In other

side, the richest country in the Recommendations of the U.S. invoked the economic and population growth of these

countries, describing China, Brazil and India as major futures’ polluters

• The hopes for a fair, reasonable and balanced outcome through joint efforts and collective decisions have been lost. The failure appeared in sight. But personal diplomacy by U.S.

President prevented, according to many observers, but the failure to produce the expected result would give the key solution to environmental problems and enhance public

confidence in the face of those who govern them. The last-minute efforts between the U.S., China, Brazil, India and South Africa led to a highly controversial agreement. An agreement is not binding, serving only the interests of those who created it, meaning the global pollutants. It seems that the U.S. and China holding the key to the negotiations and decided to use the last

minute, leaving out any discussion of the vast majority of States Parties. Despite internal disagreements, the European

Union (EU) adopted a key role in facilitating the outcome of the Conference.

• The non-binding agreement in Copenhagen recognizes the need to cut emissions with the main objective to contain global warming below 2

degrees Celsius, to avoid natural disasters such as floods, heat waves, the extinction of various species of flora and flora and the increase in

ocean levels. The new draft Declaration sets a target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. It

sets voluntary commitments by large developing countries to reduce emissions, but without giving specific figures for the reduction by 2020

and to impose clear deadlines. However, calls for the adoption of a legally binding treaty by the end of 2010 and referred to a review in 2016, the

draft Declaration, which would revise the threshold of 1.5 degree Celsius. The Agreement provides for the establishment of a climate Funding

Mechanism for developing countries, which manage capital totalling 100 billion dollars annually. The EU pledged to contribute an amount of 10.6 billion dollars, and Japan promised to provide the amount of 11 billion dollars. The American superpower on the other, merely amount of 3.6 billion dollars. These funds may be used by developing countries to

combat deforestation, to switch to green growth, reduce emissions and to protect themselves from the inevitable impacts of climate change. In

addition, developing countries agreed to take unilateral action to reduce their emissions, if they receive adequate financial assistance from

developed countries.

• The agreement makes no reference to the request by developing nations for an extension after 2012, the

Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding text, or provide for the creation of a control mechanism

limiting the pollutants. The Agreement is designed to not adopted by 193 countries who took part in the

conference. If some countries object, it will be adopted only by those who support it. Delegations of

Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua already disowned the agreement, stressing that adiafanos

up and that will help address global warming.

• The epilogue of the Copenhagen Conference was written in a non-binding and without tangible results agreement. So step

forward is estimated that never happened. The dominant model of economic growth, unfortunately, seems to prevail over the

inelastic need for maintaining ecological balance, putting several under-voices-at risk the future of coming generations.

The rich nations showed no concessions available to developing countries. The strong opposition of China to a system that

would control greenhouse gas emissions and U.S. reluctance to make new commitments to reduce emissions were the two

biggest obstacles to an agreement. African states fought for strict limits on emissions of industrial nations and called for

substantial financial assistance. The rejection of these African countries continues to be in difficulty and compromise Copenhagen was disappointing for them. All show that

Copenhagen has left a great opportunity to address the impact of climate change. Humanity is facing an extraordinary situation.

Therefore, if we do not work to take decisive action as climate change directly threaten the planet.

BUT WHY THIS FAMOUS CONFERENCE FAILED IN NEGOTIATIONS????

AND THEN WE SAY THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAVE THE WORLD

• But why did we get here? Since the first days after the end of the session the powerful of the world are starting to throw the ball to each

other to relinquish responsibility for the fiasco. One, however, is obvious and we know from the period of Kyoto. If the U.S. and China, both major polluters of the planet, which together account for 42% of global emissions are not legally bound to reduce their emissions in

future is very bleak. The European Commission president Barroso expressed his

disappointment over the agreement, stating that it differs markedly from the expectations of the EU It is obvious that the EU after a slow

but steady shift in the center-right government and the commitment of the economic policy of the neo-liberal doctrine has lost its aura of

viable and sustainable eco-profile that was forged during the 90s. The inability of the EU take a clear position and play a dynamic role in

international politics is cyclical, but structural problems. While Europe is progressing economic integration, leaving the policy of integration

to hover the more vulnerable and unstable is to take political initiatives internationally.

• Effective global governance for such a critical issue such as climate change challenge remains dominant after the failure of

Copenhagen. The model of neoliberal capitalist globalization that destroys the environment and economies worldwide is in deep

crisis. Alternative model will give way to the major problems mentioned above sought. The democratic settlement of

globalization, strengthening the UN and the upgrading of its political role in connection with the mobilization of people can create the conditions for a new sustainable and socially just

reality. The left movements, ecological movements in local and

international outreach, NGOs, active citizens, scientific agencies continue to provide consistently battle for a development that

meets the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to a similar standard of living, a development

that will gradually ease the gap between developed and developing world. To change the economic and development model locally

and globally, the awareness and active mobilization of citizens is a necessary condition