Post-Copenhagen

Indeed, Copenhagen has been a disappointment, but not unexpected. The great divide between the rich and the poor is nothing new either. As for the final agreement reached, I am on the critics' side: It is a "cop-out". The agreement is there for the sake of having an agreement. Perhaps to justify Obama's Nobel Prize.

To my understanding the main rift between the rich and the poor nation stamps from the fact that developed nations does not want to be legally binded by an agreement unless the same happens to the poorer nations. And, they are not willing to commit the money to help the poorer nations. This is what I think: If the rich nations aren't willing to commit the money to help the poorer nations, they have no right to legally force the poorer nations to cut emissions. On the other hand, if they do commit a sufficient amount, which we all know add up to be less than the cost of the Iraq war or the bank bailouts of America alone, then I am all for legally binding the poorer nations to cut emissions. After all, it is your money.

But no, the rich, as always, want something but don't want to give anything. Yes, they agreed to $10 billion, but $10 billion can't buy you majority share in Barclays. Not even close. Who are you kidding?