Chappatte, «International Herald Tribune»
James Sadri da Egality, no openDemocracy, escreve que a única certeza de Copenhaga é que vai falhar, com um mau acordo ou sem acordo nenhum. Para Sadri isto deve-se principalmente à diferença entre as nações que mais são afectadas por alterações climáticas, e pouco podem fazer por si e com poucos recursos, e aquelas com poder para tomar decisões e responder de uma forma eficaz aos problemas ambientais. Enquanto todos não tiverem igual voz na resolução de problemas globais, qualquer tipo de acordo será difícil de se ser conseguido. James Sadri escreve que o mundo precisa de democracia:
[…] Dr. Jean Ping, chair of the African Union, said “although Africa is least responsible for global warming, it is however suffering most from the impacts of climate change”. Whether more disastrous flooding in Bangladesh, advancing desertification in Sudan or increased hurricanes in the Caribbean – no one disputes that it is those living in the poorest regions of the world who are hardest hit by climate change.
So why is it politicians from rich, polluting countries who ultimately decide how we address climate change? These politicians are not accountable to the vast majority of people their policies affect – why should they respond to the needs of people who neither fund their election campaigns nor tick their boxes on the ballot paper? Can a US President pursue a policy agenda that considers Bangladeshis and Americans as equals? Not if he wants to keep his job. Especially not when he’s trying to push through unpopular health reform at home, and needs to shore up all the support he can get.
Some people think that because Copenhagen is a consensus process, that makes it fair or equitable. But clearly incentives to reach agreement are not balanced. Failure to reach agreement will mean business as usual: no meaningful reduction in emissions in rich countries, and more destruction, poverty and death in poor countries. Rich countries have little to gain; poor countries have everything to lose.