When there's nothing, any progress is a success. Now the groaning and gnashing of teeth is over, is it be possible to evaluate the results from the climate summit in Copenhagen last month a little more calmly? I am talking of objectivity from a dual perspective: the importance of the commitments made by participants and the prospects created by these commitments: the role played by Europe. For both aspects, I believe that the assessments have been too negative. The Greens have exaggerated by proclaiming the meeting a total failure because the results did not correspond to their demands. Other forces deemed it appropriate to proclaim their total disappointment in an effort to prove that they are just as much in support of saving the planet as all the others. Others guilty of exaggeration (including Guy Verhofstadt) highlighted Europe's absence from the conclusive meeting between the old and new giants on the world stage. My two-fold remark is not intended as criticism: it is normal and even appropriate that the Greens and ecological forces in general denounce the shortcomings and criticise them in relation to what they think the ideal result ought to have been. It is also positive that Mr Verhofstadt denounced the risk of Europe being weakened at an international level if it does not rapidly progress towards political and economic unity. Those fighting for swifter progress and calling for greater dynamism and ambition are always right.
At the same time, however, it should not be forgotten that when there's nothing, any progress is a success and that the results of any action have to be evaluated by taking into account the starting point and not the ideal scenario. If not, we slide into the demagogy this column has already denounced in regard to the Lisbon Treaty: some political forces were opposed to its entry into force because three member states had not agreed to making the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding. Moreover, this treaty means that this charter will in fact be binding in 24 countries, but without the treaty the charter would be nowhere! This is enormous progress and should be celebrated. Anything else is, I repeat, pure demagogy.
Five questions that need to be asked. In the context of the Copenhagen summit, we need to ask ourselves at least five questions. Is it significant that the US (which kept itself on the margins of the Kyoto Agreement) is now committed? That China showed a willingness to sign up to the ambitious targets? That the EU confirmed its leading and exemplary role with regard to the commitments it has made and those it is prepared to meet if other countries follow suit? That the guarantee for significant funding in favour of poor countries is accepted? That a calendar has been established for future commitments?
I am not alone in seeking a balanced assessment. Not counting those doing all the moaning (not always without an axe to grind), we have been able to read commentaries underlining that “never in the history of humanity has there been such consensus on a subject of such global import”, indicating the increased global awareness due to the fact that “we are in the same boat and this boat is fragile and much smaller than we previously thought” and appealing “not to waste time and energy in reproaches and regrets” but to “go forward with determination”. The last one to date expressing itself in this sense was, to my knowledge, by Anthony Giddens, which affirmed that it was necessary to highlight the positive aspects and consider Copenhagen as having engaged the world in waging a real war against climate change by going beyond an incessant talking-shop stage devoid of any practical follow-up. The agreement reached involves a commitment between the two major powers that emit the most harmful gases into the air, the US and China, as well as India and Brazil, whose emissions are increasing massively, and Europe which states its readiness to do more if the others follow.
I am aware that for the reputation of this column and to achieve more support, it would have been more popular to line up with those doing all the complaining. It is, nonetheless, necessary to point out that many differences exist between the ardent defenders of the different positions (for example, wind energy on land and those for or against nuclear energy) and that the ferocity with which one fights over the financial aspect raises a lot of concerns because other aspects, with energy savings as the main objective, provide far more favourable prospects. This will be a subject for tomorrow. (F.R./transl.fl)