Hvad gik galt i København?

Fra jp.dk – Spillet om en syndebuk:

Forklaringen på, at hverken USA eller EU havde checkhæftet med til København er, at de ikke vil acceptere Kina som et uland på linje med de allerfattigste. USA og EU finder det simpelt hen urimeligt, at de skal betale en af verdens største forurenere og mest sprudlende økonomier for at forurene mindre. Hvorefter Kina kan bruge pengene til at udkonkurrere industrien i den vestlige verden – og opkøbe værdier i de finanskriseramte europæiske lande og USA.

USA og EU undervurderede Kina. Det lyder som en troværdig analyse af, hvad der foregik bag kulisserne til Cop15. Der var tale om en magtkamp, og USA og EU kom afsted med håret i postkassen. Den danske regering og Obama blev ydmyget. Det var kun på en feberredning fra Obama, at der overhovedet kom en aftale i stand, selvom den er tæt på meningsløs.

Pas på den grønne protektionisme

Skriv under på underskriftsindsamlingen imod grøn protektionisme:

You have no doubt heard about the UN’s climate conference in Copenhagen next month. Chief among the bad ideas being touted by environmental activists and politicians in the run-up to that meeting is a proposal to permit trade restrictions on the grounds that they will help to prevent climate change (for example by encouraging governments to sign up and comply with an international agreement to restrict emissions). Pascal Lamy, director of the World Trade Organization, has even sanctioned this approach, saying that the world’s priorities should be “climate first and trade, second.” And – surprise surprise – uncompetitive industries and other vested interests have jumped on the bandwagon.

Trade – along with the increased wealth and the better, less costly products and production processes that it yields – offers people in poor countries the possibility once and for all to address chronic problems such as drought-induced famine and poverty-induced diseases. Without trade, people will be much less able to adapt themselves to the climate they face now and in the future. Meanwhile, imposing restrictions on trade will inhibit specialisation and innovation, which may slow down the development of low-carbon technologies. In other words, trade restrictions are neither desirable nor are they an effective way to prevent climate change.

Frihandel er vigtigere end COP15s klimaaftale. Især i betragtning af, at COP15 intet kommer til at betyde for jordens klima i den store helhed – men kan få enorme virkninger for den økonomiske vækst i ulandene.