Copenhagen Walk Out

So, representatives from the African countries have walked out from key working group meetings as a protest against the developed nations' plans to scrap Kyoto, as stated by the BBC and the Financial Times.

What dows this mean? Roughly, that developing nations including the African countries, Brazil, China, and India want to keep the Kyoto protocol in place, specifically the measures that legally bind the developed countries (that is, the USA, the European Union, and the other 'first world' nations) to cuts in their carbon emissions, a measure that does not extend to them. If scrapped, Kyoto would be replaced with a new agreement that binds everybody to emission reductions, legally.

Again, the old argument that 'you polluted first while growing, now it is my turn and screw the consequences, you clen it up'.

While I understand this mindset, I have to say I find it particularly surprising in the cases of China and Brazil. The former is well on its way to becoming the world leader in clean technology if it keeps this pace, and binding itself to do so legally would only make it official and could only work in their favour financially, as other countries would surely start buying Chinese-made wind turbines and solar panels. Brazil, in turn, is the world leader in bioethanol production and use, which gives it an edge in this scenario, and with the Amazon rainforest, it literally controls one of the world's biggest carbon sinks.

So, why this stubborn opposition to scrapping Kyoto in favour of a much more committed agreement?

The reasons might be varied, and mostly political. I think there's also an inherent fear to commit to something that might prove to be beyond the current technological prowess of the nations involved. To this I say, don't fret and embrace the agreements, and commit yourselves to emissions below (way below) 1990 levels. It is most certainly the only way to slow down and start reversing climate change. To comply with a low-carbon economy, innovation will have to be the name of the game in the years to come.

And what happens if no agreement is reached in Copenhagen? My personal stance is that we each have the moralimperative to reduce our own carbon footprint and demand of our leaders, at least at a local level, to do as much as possible to promote a more eco-friendly economy. If our leaders don't do it, we as citizens and voters, and as consumers and business-owners, should go straight at it. Curiously enough, this is the same spirit of this Timberland campaign. Food for thought, if nothing else.

One thing is certain: those countries who go to war against climate change and carbon emissions will reap the benefits of a war economy, with none of the moral damage it carries. Innovation has always proved to be one of the driving forces of economy and one of the factors that make our lives better. And those nations that embrace this and innovate will not only help stop climate change, they will also make a killing in the process.