Die Wahrheit hinter der Weltklimakonferenz in Kopenhagen 2009
Mit Erschrecken musste ich feststellen, dass der Ausgang der Weltklimakonferenz in Kopenhangen nicht auf Nicht-Einigkeit der verschiedenen Länder zurückzuführen ist. Jedes Land hatte ja unterschiedliche Reduktionsziele für 2020 - z.B. Neuseeland 40% laut Greenpeace NZ.
Nun bekam ich durch @dustysnow von dem UK Guardian Artikel von Mark Lynas mit. Er war bei den Verhandlungen hinter verschlossenen Türen dabei.The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
Dann heißt es weiter:
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again.
Barack Obama kämpfte in den Verhandlungen, China verneinte nur.
Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again.
China spielt ein abgekartetes Spiel.
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
China macht sich lächerlich über die Welt.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Selbst ungleiche Klimaziele akzeptierte China nicht.
"Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. [...] The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point.
Die Last liegt auf den Schultern der Nicht-Entwicklungsländer. Obama und Co. waren unter Druck, das kam China zugute.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. [...] This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken.
China spielt mit uns, aber warum?
The (added: UK-based) analyst (added: George Monbiot), who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
Fortsetzung:
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
All sounds very credible and interesting read. Put yourself in China's shoes - the West has produced 90% of all the carbon perhaps since Industrial Revolution? Now when China is becoming rich, suddenly carbon production is out. Not only that - the reason they are producing so much carbon is because we shipped out our manufacturing out there because their labour costs are so cheap.
You can see their point.
Seinen Artikel schließt Lynas kraftvoll und beänstigend ab:
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action.
Mein Fazit zu dem Artikel als Tweet-Grafik:
![]()
Die passende Antwort von @dustysnow
![]()
- Be aware of Chinare