Post-Copenhagen from a Geopolitical Perspective: The Us, China and Europe

Editor's Note: Writing from a European perspective, the author presents a rather positive view of what "bottom-up" approaches to climate change can bring, citing California as an example. It remains to be seen what, if any, "vast growth market" can be created. -Ed. Copenhagen has failed. The United Nations' Climate Conference has not achieved its main goals. For the time being, there is no binding agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gasses via a global verification mechanism. There is the intention of countries to limit global warming by 2 degrees Celsius at the most, but it is still unclear how this should be achieved. The negotiations have exposed deep fissures between the developed and developing countries. Yet, there is the intention to establish a global fund which by 2020 should amount to 100 billion dollars annually, to help developing countries in their transition to a greener economy and to mitigate the worst consequences of climate change. The text remains very vague on who is to feed the fund. German chancellor Merkel promised to organize an interim summit in Bonn, and in one year the heads of state will reconvene in Mexico. There is thus another second chance to meet history, but for those who followed the negotiations, it is clear that it still remains uncertain whether the states of this world are able to achieve a consensus. Is there not too much attention paid to the top down-approach? Are national governments sufficiently capable to guide the transition towards a decentralised global energy regime? What about the bottom-up approach, and how does it relate to the top-down-method?