Super Eco

Photo credit: america.gov, flickr

We're sure you've all heard the news on the climate change accord at Copenhagen: a last-minute deal that falls far short of both global consensus and original goals, leaving smaller nations and many environmentalists feeling betrayed. Emotion is still running high, fingers are being pointed every which way, and nobody seems quite sure whether the whole thing is a conservative success, a decent first step, a neutral flop, an outright failure or a political travesty and environmental tragedy.

Let's look at some of the recent analyses:

• Is the weak agreement Obama's fault? The European reporters I met wanted Obama to lead their nations—lead the world—when in reality he leads a country whose progress on climate change is many steps behind the developed world. (Grist)
• Renewable energy outlook brightens The wind market is heating up in India and China, and some see China solidifying its position as the world's renewable energy trend leader if the United States does not come up with a green energy policy. (Seeking Alpha)
• An outright failure Low targets and dropped goals make Copenhagen's weak agreement an outright failure. (The Guardian)
• What's missing from the current agreement? The most important part of this deal is what's not in it. Crucial unresolved questions will continue to dog climate negotiators into 2010 and beyond. (Treehugger)
• Improved position for Obama at home President Obama may have improved his chances for passing global warming legislation in the Senate by forging an interim international agreement here that puts both rich and poor countries on a path to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. (The New York Times)

It's hard to end the year on such a limp note. We have to hope that individual nations will honor the pledges they've made. We have to hope that these lukewarm results don't have a chilling effect on our ability to affect real change to the conundrum of climate change.