Copenhagen: How to avoid an explosive headache

‘Imagine if you know 189 people, and you got them all together and said, “Here’s how we want you to run a significant part of your lives in the next 30 or 40 years – and by the way, you have to have unanimously agree that that’s how you want to do it.”’ That’s how Ed Miliband (not David, though they are brothers, Ed is the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whereas David is the current British Foreign Secretary) described his trip at the intergovernmental meeting in Copenhagen.

Now, the significance of this preparatory meeting, which came before the main conference in December, highlights that key problem - a unanimous agreement. It’s therefore no surprise that the optimism and determination to set legally binding targets at the summit have been excused and sidelined to some vague month next year.

Thanks to President Obama and his reported support for the Danes, the Copenhagen Summit could just be the first stage of a series of commitments that expresses intent rather than an encircling protocol. This means at the summit (the first stage) leaders will sit around, twiddle their thumbs and come to some sort of political agreement that shows their awareness. However, decisions on issues such as emission targets, financing and technology will wait at the second stage which is some time next year- the earliest (of course).

Surely, if you were trying to reach an agreement with 189 people, all with varying degrees of commitments, and knowing that each session is a never-ending debate that leads to an explosive headache, why would you prolong it?

Nayila Jibreel

Nayila is a graduate in international relations and broadcast journalism with a keen interest in development and the media. She works as a freelance journalist on for various publications (including for Progressio) with the main intention to make waves in international development.