What was the outcome of the Copenhagen negotiations?

Let me tell you a little bit about the ins and outs of this climate conference.

Developed countries, such as Europe and the United States, have high emission reduction standards, while developing countries (China, India, etc.) are technologically backward and generally do not reach such low emissions. In fact, developed countries have a high degree of total carbon dioxide emissions due to their high degree of industrialization, while developing countries emit more carbon dioxide per unit of output than developed countries, but the total amount is small, so it is the developed countries that have a significant impact on global warming. Europe and the United States raise emission standards to curb the development of developing countries

Either buy his latest emission reduction equipment and emission reduction technology, and spend our foreign exchange reserves; Either slow down our economic development and not pose a threat to them.

If the negotiations fail, European and American countries may form new barriers in the form of carbon tariffs, and the biggest victim must be China, because our current GDP growth is largely dependent on exports. At this stage, domestic consumption is still seriously insufficient, and Premier Wen's latest report points out that there is overcapacity in 19 industries. The troika of economic growth "exports, consumption, investment", the first one is not working, the second is not up, and the "investment" with high hopes will bring high housing prices, inflation and other problems, ** will become very uncomfortable.

Therefore, if the talks collapse, China will suffer greatly, export will be more difficult, unemployment will increase, economic development will slow down, and so on.

But the latest result this morning was that no resolution was passed, and the meeting was postponed. That means everyone has to discuss again, hehe. Developing countries such as India, Brazil, and China have big differences with Europe and the United States.

The full name of this climate summit is the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Fifth Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

In view of the expiration of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, the international community urgently needs to make new arrangements for greenhouse gas emission reductions and reach a new agreement on addressing climate change from 2012 to 2020. If this agreement can be successfully produced in Copenhagen, it will point out the direction for human society to respond to climate change in the future.

If the Copenhagen climate summit fails to reach a new agreement, it will be difficult to connect efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there will be no common global document to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The international community cannot afford to bear a heavy price. The costs are manifold, not only political, but also reflected in many aspects of social development and human history.

Many environmental groups have warned that the collapse of the global climate system could be devastating.

All countries attach great importance to this summit and regard it as a stage to reflect their own influence. Many people have described this summit as the most important international conference since the Yalta Conference in 1945.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities" precisely because of the differences in the level of economic development, historical responsibilities and current per capita emissions of countries. According to this principle, developed countries take the lead in reducing emissions and provide financial and technical support to developing countries. Developing countries, with technical and financial support from developed countries, are taking measures to mitigate or adapt to climate change.

The main controversy is between developed and developing countries. There are two factors that stand in the way of a comprehensive climate agreement in Copenhagen: medium-term emissions reduction targets for developed countries and funding.

Developing countries have demanded that they must adhere to the dual-track negotiations on the UNFCCC and the Protocol, and one of the current focuses of struggle is that some developed countries advocate merging the dual-track negotiations into one track and completely abandoning the Kyoto Protocol. If the Kyoto Protocol were abolished, "common but differentiated responsibilities" would have little substance. Therefore, "whether it is a dual-track system or a two-track system is the focus of debate among all parties at this conference".

At the conference on the morning of the 7th, groups of developing countries spoke one after another, resolutely expressing their intention to hold negotiations on the two-track system.

On December 19, Greenpeace strongly condemned the arrogance of developed countries at the Copenhagen climate summit to "accept the agreement or give up". While the heads of state of the developed countries claimed to have reached an agreement and got up to make their way to the airport, the Copenhagen climate summit ultimately failed to produce a legally binding agreement. People are still left with confusion and confusion.

Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace's international director-general, warned that the world is facing a crisis led by developed countries, whose leaders have not reached a historic climate agreement to avoid climate deterioration out of concern for the future of the world's hundreds of millions of people, but have betrayed the present and future interests of the world's people to avoid facing the thorny problems head-on.

In a statement, Greenpeace said the current agreement did not include strong measures to push developed countries to reduce emissions, which was a huge concession to polluting industries.

The Greenpeace statement also said that while the agreement on climate issues will continue to be discussed next year, the Copenhagen climate summit failed to produce a "legally binding document", which is a golden opportunity.

The organization also acknowledged that the outcome of the Copenhagen climate summit also contained some "positives", such as provisions for the creation of a new climate** body, and an agreement among developing countries on the massive financing needed to improve the climate, so that developing countries could protect their forests and move on to a low-carbon development path, while helping developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change.