The Copenhagen climate change summit ended last Friday having attracted a great deal of attention from the international community. No legally binding agreement was made so the level of success of the conference is unclear. As a result there are many different opinions about the degree of progress made on climate change policy. (Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification, 2009)
Naturally those who expected a legally-binding treaty were disappointed and a lot of critics have dubbed the summit a "failure." But the American president thought differently. Obama said significant consensus had been made at the summit. The Chinese government also believes that the Copenhagen conference made positive achievements as a result of the joint efforts of its participants. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said negotiations will continue in 2010 as the conference did not achieve all that was hoped. Whether or not the Copenhagen conference failed is determined by the way in which success is defined. Take the Korean War for example. Neither America nor South Korea succeeded in their goal of defeating North Korea before Christmas in 1950. But after the war, both China and America announced they had won. This was because they felt they had achieved other successes. China reached its goal of preventing America bombing its northeastern territory and pressing America back to the 38th parallel. America, on the other hand, succeeded in restoring South Korea's rule of the southern part of the Korean Peninsula.
If the Copenhagen conference was "human beings' last chance to save the Earth", it needed a legally-binding agreement which supported action to reduce global warming. Based on the terms of Bali Road Map, the conference was supposed to review the Kyoto Protocol and reach an agreement establishing targets for greenhouse gas emissions reductions for 2012 and beyond. But due to various disagreements between the nations involved, the summit failed to reach an acceptable comprise. Having failed to achieve the objectives outlined by the Bali Road Map, it is reasonable to consider the conference as a failure. Prior to the conference some countries claimed failure in Copenhagen was not an option. Now they are either unwilling to admit the failure or are attempting to blame other countries. No country will concede that failure was caused by its refusal to assume responsibilities and find a suitable comprising ground for their interests. (Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification, 2009)
Any perceived failings of the conference were due to each country's desire to maintain economic development, an objective which is always prioritized above safeguarding global security. Developed countries have a national consensus for further development. They do not think it necessary to curtail their development in order to fight the global warming. As a result, they have to make enormous efforts in upgrading regulations and improving emission reduction technology to cut greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining development. In the meantime, their net economic output may decline. If their peers adopt the same measures, they will be under more pressure to reach their emission ...