Comments on: BBC World Service: Who is to Blame at Copenhagen?

By: Meg Boyle

Meg Boyle — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:01:01 +0000

In practice, the UNFCCC is currently far from the “one party, one vote” system it purports to be. Nonetheless, surely the way to bring equity back into the conversation is not to move away from the UNFCCC solely toward a major economies process where the most climate impacted countries do not have a seat at the table and where entrenched interests and status quo geopolitics hold even more sway than in the UNFCCC.

By: Teryn Norris

Teryn Norris — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:19:05 +0000

The participant nations to the Major Economies Forum on Energy & Climate have a combined total population of around 4.2 billion. That's over 60% of global population, basically constituting a supermajority of the world. That would be considered democratic by any reasonable definition, but regardless, those countries are where the mass majority of past and future emissions will originate, and it's a setting that can actually produce meaningful results in terms of mitigation. If we stick with the same old UNFCCC process, the result is likely to be no significant treaty and therefore catastrophic global warming. That's not an outcome I'm willing to accept.

By: let me make sure I follow you

let me make sure I follow you — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:08:49 +0000

let me get you straight Teryn – because Tuvalu held up the UN process because of, I dunno, they were worried about the complete death of their country, we should turn over climate decision making to the dramatically undemocratic process of the WEF? Replace a “unfair” democracy with a complete non-democracy?

Am I the only one here finding that argument totally nonsensical?

By: Nikeairmax90

Nikeairmax90 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:06:06 +0000

We all hope a good result of this talk and then we all act as the spirit of this talk!

By: Teryn Norris

Teryn Norris — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 00:29:53 +0000

“But the idea that the World Economic Forum – one of the most deeply undemocratic, corporate controlled decisions venues in existence – should replace the UN as the decision making body on climate policy? It’s perhaps the most preposterous thing I’ve ever seen on this site.”

What’s truly undemocratic is a process that allows a country like Tuvalu, a country with only 12,000 people, have an equivalent vote as China and India, countries with populations over 1 billion. That’s what the UNFCCC process does. It’s the same thing that makes the Senate undemocratic, and why many progressives are pushing for a change to the filibuster rules.

By: Anon

Anon — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:45:10 +0000

gosh, a lot I could say about your talk on the BBC and little time…

But the idea that the World Economic Forum – one of the most deeply undemocratic, corporate controlled decisions venues in existence – should replace the UN as the decision making body on climate policy? It’s perhaps the most preposterous thing I’ve ever seen on this site.

Who needs social movements, we can just tell the profit-driven powers that we’ll shut up, and just sort it out without us…yeah that’s working great already, why bother doing anything?

By: FYI

FYI — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 02:34:19 +0000

Note that Mr. Norris has worked in circles around Obama.

“he supported successful advocacy to achieve a $150 billion clean energy investment platform for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign”
… etc