After Copenhagen: Hope for the future

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

CNN -- The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last December was widely portrayed as a failure. But just how bad was the result? And is there cause for optimism? CNN spoke to climate change expert Mark Lynas who was in the room with world leaders as key decisions were debated.

CNN: Would you describe the Copenhagen talks as 'a disaster'? And if so, how serious is this failure?

Mark Lynas: I would describe them as a near disaster in the sense the worst outcome would have been no agreement at all, which was very nearly the situation, right up until the end... Overall, it isn't good, but it isn't the absolute end point either.

CNN: China has been widely criticized for being un-cooperative. Do you think world leaders can move forward with a deal, despite China's attitude?

Mark Lynas: China isn't the new Saudi Arabia, who wanted to block an agreement under all circumstances. The point is that the Chinese need to feel like they are under pressure and they need to feel that they will have to peak their emissions much earlier than they want to. I don't think that makes them unique, it just puts them in a similar situation to most other countries, including the United States.

It was mainly China that tried to block the agreement in the form of the Copenhagen Accord, and I think people need to understand that so that [the Chinese] can be put under pressure in the months and years ahead.

But I think the real point is this: over the last 15 years it has always been the Annex 1 countries, the rich countries, that have been the bad guys blocking agreements; countries like the United States, Australia, Canada and Japan have all been seen as obstacles to progress.

But at Copenhagen it was a different situation, where the rest of the world was prepared to see serious long-term mitigation targets in any agreement and this was blocked by a country from the developing world. People need to recognize that the geopolitical realities have changed and campaigns need to change accordingly.

CNN: How optimistic are you that global leaders will find their way to a multilateral deal before its too late?

Mark Lynas: I don't think it's totally disastrous that we don't have an agreement now. The big emitting countries need to go back and do some thinking about all this, but they can't put off an agreement indefinitely.

(more)

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/science/0...ate.mark.lynas/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

CNN: What action would you like to see ordinary concerned citizens take?

Mark Lynas: It's a mixture of things. I think as individuals we have to be a bit less naive. It's really much more important what your electricity company does with its investments, than whether we all change our light bulbs or turn our heating down. This is a problem that will be solved by very large companies and countries.

The hippy option of dropping out and having a different lifestyle is largely irrelevant. I want to see proper, free market-based solutions and I don't see any reason why they don't exist now.

One of the reasons denial is so prevalent is that dealing with climate change is seen as a big government, taxation issue, so those on the right have nowhere to go but be in denial about the problem as a whole. I'd like to see a shift there, leaving the true Flat Earthers isolated by options that are much more market-based. Now, obviously the campaigning left will go crazy about that, but I don't mind. It's important that the debate shifts.