It has come now to the police beating protestors. Tensions are extremely high at the Copenhagen climate talks. Security in the conference center apparently is afraid that their safe bubble will burst if they allow Friends of the Earth to remain inside. How ironic is that? I’m tempted to make this a rant post, but I will try to focus on one theme: negotiating.
Since before Barcelona, over a few weeks ago now, it seems there has been virtually no movement on the most important aspects of a climate agreement. How much will countries commit on paper to reduce their emissions? How much money will wealthy countries commit to help developing countries make sure global emissions reductions are sufficient to avoid catastrophe? 
The purpose of ‘negotiating’ is to determine who should do how much – the idea being that negotiating Parties come to the table with at least some flexibility. Hence, one problem in most people’s minds. Some Parties (e.g., US) have come to the table with zero flexibility on how much global warming pollution they will reduce.
Complete inflexibility actually means that Parties are not negotiating at all – they are in Copenhagen just to convince all the other Parties to accept their position. So, the other Parties (e.g., EU), who have already stated some flexibility in their position (20 or 30% emissions reductions by 2020), effectively remain inflexible as well because the conditions for changing their positions rely on the flexibility of other Parties.
But the talks in Copenhagen should not be negotiations anyway. ‘Negotiating’ has a similar connotation as ‘bargaining,’ where everyone tries to get the best deal even if it hurts the other person. We cannot solve global warming with this approach. In actuality, it’s even worse than this! The predominant attitude is that a ‘deal’ can be reached where nobody has to sacrifice anything. This relates to our US climate legislation, which commits to spend zero public dollars on the worst problem of human existence. US policymakers have negotiated away any possibility that the legislation will work.
A saner attitude toward developing climate policy in Copenhagen is for countries to come to the table explaining how they can help solve this crisis. Think of it like your little brother has just fallen into a frozen pond. Who can run the fastest to go find help? Who has a rope? Who is the strongest and can try to pull little brother out? Who has ideas for making sure little brother doesn’t fall in again?
The EU is offering to cut 30% emissions, but only if others will do more? The US will not commit to reduce one whit unless China agrees to complete transparency? Right now countries are using lack of action as leverage to get other countries to do more. But let’s be clear that lack of action means more pollution, and therefore is a decision to cause harm. The approach that ‘I will if you will’ in this case is blackmail, hostage taking, and a game of chicken all at once.
This is not a climate bazaar, where everyone is trying to get the best deal. This is a global problem that everyone needs to come together to solve. Either we all get a good deal, or there is no deal.
