Climate Summit ends with questions and hopes

“CLIMATE INJUSTICE”

After a long muddled arguments of politicians and country leaders, a deal was finally reached on Saturday (December 19), but it turned out that it does not solve everyone’s big question: ‘Is it that bad?’ From a conference that was originally intended to produce a successor to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, those gentlemen end up with an agreement among the world’s largest economies to take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions, but no formal consensus on the part of the 193 nations present — and no prescription for what comes next in the global negotiating process that is nearly 20 years old.

Nations joining the accord will, by Jan. 31, list their pledges for long-term emissions control. Developed nations will declare cuts, fast-developing nations will sign up for reductions as a share of their overall economy. That surely will affect all countries’ market consideration, along with their economic stability. “A market is an engine,” said Peter Goldmark, who directs the climate and air program for the Environmental Defense Fund. “A treaty — or, more broadly, public policy, decisions and rules made in the public space — [is] the rails.”