http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/opinion/21mon1.html?_r=4&ref=opinion
The recently concluded climate change conference in Copenhagen may seem to have been a failure. No treaty was made, a lot of squabbling happened, no concrete result, so it must have been a failure, right? This NY Times editorial suggests otherwise. It says:
Copenhagen’s achievements are not trivial, given the complexity of the issue and the differences among rich and poor countries. President Obama deserves much of the credit. He arrived as the talks were collapsing, spent 13 hours in nonstop negotiations and played hardball with the Chinese. With time running out — and with the help of China, India, Brazil and South Africa — he forged an agreement that all but a handful of the 193 nations on hand accepted.
and
The other was China’s willingness to submit to a verification system under which all countries would agree to report on their actions and — assuming details could be worked out — open their books to inspection. Transparency is a huge issue in Congress, and Mr. Obama made clear in his opening remarks on Friday that he would not agree to a deal unless China gave ground.
Put this way it doesn’t seem like a failure even as we might have wanted more. Perhaps a dysfunctional process was never going to produce a good result, and the move to a functional process will require some time.