copenhagen showdown

Yes, I agree this phenomenon is quite interesting. World politics has been gradually moving in this direction, where rich countries and poor countries confront each other, for a couple of years. The Bali Conference on climate matters at the end of 2007 was like this. Discussions on the financial crisis and world financial governance (IMF and World Bank) also pit poor countries against rich countries. Negotiations around the Doha Round for a new world trade treaty also divide the world in this way, as do discussions around the food crisis, energy crisis, etc. To my way of seeing it, when Ghaddafi calls for abolishing the security council in the UN, premature as this may seem, it is also a sign that the question of UN reform, another key question of global politics, will also end up pitting the rich countries against the poor ones (eventually), because, on the one hand China's position on most things can probably win in the General Assembly, while the rest must rely on their position in the security council (or their military power) to get their way.

As you say, Europe and the US are not exactly on the same page. Yet, they have been coordinating much more than in the past. In fact, in some ways it seems that some European countries are trying to backtrack on Kyoto, basically to let the US of the hook. I even wonder if Austrialia joined Kyoto under Rudd with a view to undermining it.

And I also agree that these conferences will not solve the problem. At least now for a while. Too many countries see their "right to grow" as a matter of national security, because in fact it is so. The US even seems to think that Europe is being too generous when it trades carbon credits with China. Unfortunately, this problem, and many other world problems, will only be solved when this kind of competition among states is put to rest.

We already know the US Congress will not pass any sort of deal that comes out of this. It's not even big news in the US. The only thing they're reporting on is the protests especially when it comes with violence. Not the under-the-table dealing going on that's turning this into a circus. This is the same paranoia over the "New World Order" hoopla during the the patriarch H.W. Bush's Administration. It was unrealistic in the first place but Americans got all paranoid over it because it essentially meant the majority of the world got to dictate terms to the US. Same mentality working here. That's why it's never going to pass Congress. So this is just a big show and you're already reading the Werstern media blaming China for any impass. So they're probably throwing everything including the kitchen sink so China protests knowing full well this was a failure from the start.

And if China wanted to play the game, it should agree to some sort of binding agreement. Then it falls back on the Western countries especially when the US Congress fails to pass any deal.

yea assassin i noticed that too. bbc and cnn tend to focus a lot more on the violent protests.

you cant really put anyone at fault here though, everyone is only acting in their best interest and what you have is a classic cooperation game where when everyone acts rationally, you get an irrational collective action. though i am quite confused, if we do have a deal here in copenhagen or in some other subsequent meetings, what are the implications on the under-developed countries' industrialization endeavours. is it gonna force them to drive up the production cost? if it does its just gonna force the wages even lower (from what lil they have) and price higher...certainly not good news for the countries that are only beginning to start producing. not particularly worried about China out of all this cuz its big enough to look after itself, though India too might be a concern. i certainly would not contend the notion that they have made a mistake by jumping into tertiary industry too early, they didnt even have enough spending, now they have to make up for all the wasted time and time is running out for them.

Originally Posted by pla101prc

if we do have a deal here in copenhagen or in some other subsequent meetings, what are the implications on the under-developed countries' industrialization endeavours.

For one, it means power production will be expensive, and the poorest men will have to pay for the most expensive method of power generation. Those who still do not have access to electricity today might never get it at all.

As for industrialization, it can't go anywhere if no pollution is emitted. For the developed countries, reducing emission is possible because 1) GDP growth is slow enough and 2) they have the technologies and can move onto less polluting, higher technology based industry. But for developing countries, getting people out of poverty requires GDP growth, and what less polluting industry can these countries have? IC fabs? Avionics? Medical units? No way! So essentially, asking the developing world to cut down on emission is just a way of telling them to stop industrializing.

You should play a game of Simcity4, It will all become clear.

never heard of that game, the last strategy game i've played is AOE2,that was back in the old days.
my point is simply that no matter what kind of deal you make now, there will be newcomers the the game that will break those rules. like how China is notorious for breaking so many rules, and Japan before that (unlucky enough to be punished by the plaza accord), and before that, if there wasnt the world wars, the way US sold those weapons would be called dumping LOL. so yeah DO expect our African and India brothas to surpass China in CO2 emission in like 30 years LOL. i dont live in Shanghai or New York so i dont care if they are underwater.

only a day left in the summit though and leaders are beginning to show up. i always had this theory that the reason each delegate (especially from China and the US) took such a hardline position is not only because this is a defining occasion and has everything to do with the economic and political landscape of the new world order (do not confuse with the dumb version with rothschild and stuff) but also because that they dont want their boss to come along and ruin everything for them. take the Chinese delegate He Yafei for example, this dude is quite popular in China right now but not among his counterparts. say if Wen Jiabao comes along and suddenly takes a softline position, its gonna make He Yafei look pretty bad, and his words wont mean anything anymore. so the best way to avoid this? make it impossible for the boss to concede without corresponding actions on the other side. i am pretty sure the American delegate has the same thing in mind. both Wen and Obama are pretty notorious for being soft.