China has already made cuts voluntary, and they will achieve their targets easily, without any adjustments.

Embargoes are indeed easier. But Iraq has much to thank America for, however reluctantly they will admit it. Problem is America holds such a great sway over this world in innovative, economical terms. Take down America by embargoes, and you take down the dollar with it. China and Japan will never accept such embargoes, they hold nearly all their reserves in dollars.

Besides, I don’t think it’ll work. Embargoes are good when they are directed at a state that does inhumane things. What they’re doing know is milieu neglect. Not anything less worse, but less vivid and morally problematic to many. Stopping flows of oil will not hurt just America: Countries that sell oil often depend on oil sales; prices will fall thanks to lowering demand, and the sellers will be as hard hit as America. You could impose extra taxes to punish Western countries of course. But the World Trade Organization wouldn’t accept that.

No I definitely think that a climate bill with legal force, sanctions and a cap and trade system is the best way forward. The best we can say at this moment is that Copenhagen didn’t rule it out.

Imposing sanctions can be done, but it only works if everyone joins the game. One opt out, and others will be very reluctant to pay. This was Kyoto’s problem: Many joined, but some major players did not join forces. Why would anyone pay for pollution, if America, as the world’s second biggest polluter, doesn’t take it seriously?

We won’t get anywhere if cheats aren’t punished. But if we want to be able to punish those who cheat, we need both rules and all the participants of the ‘pollution-game’.

All I’m suggesting is we don’t need to wait. If a bloc of third world countries impose sanctions now, that could have a real impact. If nothing else, it could bring a lot of pressure to bear to ensure that the next talks result in strong emissions reduction targets with enforcement clauses that bite. There’s no reason why the world needs to wait for the UN.

I blame Canada for not living up to their word, but the same goes for Norway (and many other countries). When you set limits, you need sanctions to strengthen them. Copenhagen gave us neither of those. This means we will have to do more to get a good deal, which will hopefully happen next year.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m on your side in thinking our efforts miss the point. It is not our interest we are defending in Copenhagen, it is our interest we are defying by not agreeing on a good deal. It has left us with a framework however, maybe that’ll create room for something better. Many issues that have been discussed were pointless. They knew all along what needs to be done, and each country knew, more or less, what other would and would not accept.

Lobbying and ongoing discussions in the months to come must create a bigger consensus before talks are started.

They have demolished hopes, that much is clear. But there are outlines, ‘gentlemen’ agreements as you’ll almost be inclined to say, that we’ll have to cling on to. I don’t think Brazil will pose a big obstacle, they’re not entirely senseless there (not at all actually), and China has so far been more decisive in acting than America (regardless of what their reasons were).

Whether or not Copenhagen is a failure will become clear next year. Until then, I will label it as a big let-down.

http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/12/beyond-copenhagen.html