FAIL!

The Copenhagen Climate Meeting FAILED.

They didn't come to a good conclcusion, not all together anyway.

I was talking to a friend of mine, and we were "discussing it". His msn personal message read: ‘why has the Copenhagen meeting been allowed to fail?’

because it is impossible not to piss people off when you shove however many people in a room and try to get to a single conclusion

you can't do it

and then as much as obama was trying to solve somethhing

he just pissed people off by coming to a conclusion with a very small group of people

and leaving others out

Him:

honestly, you can do it, easily, especially for something as important and necessary as this was

Me:

no you can't

if you involve developing countries

Him:

and he did, but that is because they were the only ones who actually wanted to do anything, rather than leaving others out

Me:

the developing countries need to go through the industry boom that we have already been through to get themselves out of development status

therefore they won't accept it

some will feel singled out

some will have personal grudges

some will just plain disagree

you can't reach a conclusion to single targets with that amount of people

thats like trying to get

all of year 12 and 13 to agree on what food to have (single dish) for dinner every day for a year

everyone will have some different ideas, needs and values..

which means it would probably become something vegetarian, or chicken

in this case, that was obama talking to a small group of people

Him:

I disagree completely

Me:

by trying to please everyone

they have failed

and pissed off everybody

Him:

of course there are problems, but they can be overcome

Me:

not in the short time that they have had

Him:

the simple answer to your example, is to have more than one dish

Me:

yes, but that is not what they were trying to do.

Him:

although people can always think of examples which are very irrelevent to the discussion

Me:

they were trying to decide on a single dish

Him:

and they could have tried for longer

Me:

they were trying to decide on a single standard limit... a single dish as it were

everyone the same targets

and it failed

because that can't be done

Him:

it can be done, it requires will, but it is possible

Me:

yeah, they could do it if they set a low standard

but that would piss people off everywhere

because china is not going to agree to a 20% emission cut by 2020

they are currently going through there own "industrial revolution"

which requires them to build more power plants and other polluting things, because they're not going to go completely nuclear

the only thing china has promised so far is to cut the intensity of their carbon admissions

Him:

what I'm saying is that china should want to cut more

Me:

they should, but they won't because they need to get through their revolution.

furthermore they want to maintain sino-american and sino-british relations

which are relatively new.

and if you tell them that's not allowed, they are not going to be happy...

every other country, which is now in the first world, has been allowed to go through that period. whereas by telling them they have to cut it all, means that they are not allowed to become a truly developed country

which they would percieve unfair

which when you look at it that way is understandable.

Him:

understandable, yes, but still wrong

Him:

I hate how countries are so obsessed over their economy

Me:

but without a substantial economy it would be impossible to have people out of poverty

without substantial economies there is no third world aid

it would be nice if everyone could have all of their debts written off

so all of us

the WHOLE world

can start

with a clean slate

have everyone developed to the same point, without debt and without poverty

and allow them to start again

Him:

If the richest peopple in the world wanted to solve poverty, it really would not be that difficult

Me:

yes but the richest people in the world don't want to

Him:

If countries stopped pouring money into the armed forces and into areas that matter, it would be so much better

but they should!

Me:

*I partially agree with your last statement, except for the fact that there are still issues that need to be resolved.. look at the arab-israeli crisis

that requires an army

Him

it requires an agreement, a solution involving talking

not an army

Me:

*however, the problems there are paradoxical

*and people are still fighting

Me:

which is why they should see sense and stop