trends and future of sustainable development - TransEco

Every speaker expressed adherence to the argument that climate change must be taken seriously andthat it has a strong its scientific basis. This forms a possible basis for collaborative identification of allnegotiators. However, the negotiation framework itself takes this acknowledgement as a starting point,so this result is not a giant leap towards collaboration. The problem was that, as speeches revealed, theNorth and South experience climate change very differently. The North's future-oriented and rathertechnical view on the issue conflicts with South's hour of need. As a result, the barrier was more blockedthan crossed.Issue 2: Place in the North/South map and the view of ”the other side”The North-South clash can be seen in the different views about ”real environmental issues”, the Northbuilding mistrust by changing the earlier agreed text parts and debates about justice issues in the climatenegotiation context (Roberts & Parks 2006, 211-239). Taking a new collaborative approach would meanthat the representatives had to reform their identities and the conceived identities of the other side onthis North/South ”map”. There would be no more ”suffering South under continual colonzation” or”North that has to do all the sacrifices while South keeps on going and growing” (these pictures areintentionally aggravated to point out the differences).Obama places the United States on the climate change map as follows: ”As the world’s largesteconomy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressingclimate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility.” Being the largest economy, the United Statesclearly takes its place on the very top of the North – and right after this, it reminds the audience that it isnot the largest emitter. As every participant in the climate negotiations probably knew, China(identifying itself with the South) has taken the largest emitter's place, Obama's rhetoric can be seen asmixing the North-South opposition but in a rather questionable way. A modest interpretation is thatObama just wants to make it clear that the United States is doing better in the ”emissions per economicunit” scale than China. There may, however, be a broader message: namely that the North is not the onlyplayer in the field of emitting greenhouse gases in alarming amounts. In any case, the expression impliesthat ”someone else” (the world's largest emitter) has done things worse as it causes more emissions withless economic activity.How about Obama's view of the ”other side”, the South? He mentions the importance of theadaptation fund, especially for the least developed and most vulnerable countries. Otherwise, discussionof the South is neglected in the speech, except in the passages where some reference to China is made bytalking about major economies in general. This could be seen as identificationally neutral, but as it iscommonly known that the South was waiting for the North to promise some hope in the form of aid, thelack of South-related rhetoric in Obama's speech can be seen as an example of ”ignorant North”, possiblyresulting in a barrier-blocking identification.As was mentioned, Blair's role in Copenhagen climate summit has a bifurcated nature. Firstly, Blairwas introducing results of the (non-governmental) Climate Group that discussed the conflicting points ofthe Copenhagen summit, aiming to increase the possibility of an accord. However, Blair was usuallyreferred to as the ”former Prime Minister” (of the Great Britain) in the news. This association may havebeen stronger than the organizational one. Blair also still lives in the North, and is perceived as viewingclimate issues through the ”Northern lens”.141