In this paper, authors Nigel Purvis and Andrew Stevenson argue that the most dangerous thing Europe and the United States could do is ignore the strategic implications of Copenhagen and fall back into old strategies with a new sense of patience. They recommend a fundamental shift in thinking.
Climate change is a term that almost every educated person uses today. Hot days, as summer approaches, are quickly interpreted as tangible signs of global warming. Sudden, unanticipated events like torrential downpours
Gro Harlem Brundtland, - former Prime - Minister of Norway . and now a UN r , envoy on climate change, says that environmental concerns will have r to be followed - by decisive political action
THIRTY-EIGHT years ago, Indira Gandhi was the only Prime Minister to attend the historic UN Con- ference on Human Environ- ment in Stockholm in 1972.
The curtain came down on the 15th Conference of Parties (CoP-15) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen on 19 December 2009, almost a full day beyond its scheduled closure. The conference had been preceded and accompanied by worldwide hype and exaggerated expectations, fuelled by governments and civil society groups alike.
One of the promises emerging from the confusion of the Copenhagen climate talks focused on climate finance. Ramping up to US$100 billion a year starting in 2020, the promised finance would support developing countries in adapting to climate impacts and adopting low-carbon pathways.
Climate change requires us to move away from traditional thinking of sovereign states and boundaries, to cross-border cooperation and thinking of the commons and equitable sharing of ecological or carbon space.
For the EU, the Copenhagen climate summit has been seen as a wake-up call. Sidelined in the final hours, the EU was left to publically accept a deal which fell well short of its stated demands. This paper discusses what the EU could do to get off the sideline and regain some of the initiative on climate change.
