The following post is rather philosophical and "brainstormish" in kind, but hey, it deals with ... echoes.
Both the UK's PM Gordon Brown, who attended 4 of the 11 days of COP15 in Copenhagen, and Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for energy and climate change, have been quite outpoken regarding the results of the Conference that brought together delegates from 193 UN member countries (including some 120 country leaders).
In an opinion article in the guardian.co.uk, Sunday 20 December 2009 20.30 GMT, Ed Miliband, UK Secretary of State for energy and climate change, attributes the failure of COP15 to agree a) on 50% reductions in global emissions by 2050 or b) on 80% reductions by developed countries on vetos by China. He acknowledges what he considers the achievements of the Conference and argues that "... we should also mobilise all the countries that want a legal treaty to campaign for it".
Now, he adds that there is a wider question, too: ".. about the structures and nature of the negotiations."
And he asserts,, echoing the views of his PM, said to be expressed in a video at the 10 Downing Street's site tomorrow, that: "We cannot again allow negotiations on real points of substance to be hijacked in this way. We will need to have major reform of the UN body overseeing the negotiations and of the way the negotiations are conducted."
Now here are my comments:
1) Whereas I "hear" Mr. Miliband's point re COP15 blockers, IMO there are alas inevitable comparisons with those who block a deeper EU.
2) I am not sure what structure or choice of structures Mr. Miliband has in mind. It has come to my attention that some are speaking of a separate body, to the UN, that deals speficially with Climate Change issues, independent of the UN. I am thus tempted to be reminded of the World Trade Organisation (153 members) and the alleged by many inability of the Plenary meetings in the Ministerial Conferences of WTO on Doha or the periodical meeetings of permanent delegates or experts or national delegates in specific committees in Geneva to make the WTO "work" towards a result on Doha.
Towards a Global Government:
Many conspiracy theorists argue that Global Warming is used as an excuse to set up the body and instruments (eg the aid to be given to less developed and developig countries to adapt to a reduction in CO2 emissions) that will lead to, in effect, a Global Government (or governance).
Well, I do not know whether such "conspiracy" exists or not, but IMO, the time is coming if not having come already, for a World Democratic Body (eg in the form of a World Parliament of elected members, plus a Senate (a la USA) or Council (a la EU) and a President (a la USA or a la EU) and cabinet (maybe a la European Commission) to be responsible not binding instruments for one specific area where global (Global Warming) or near global (world trade) but in all those where "subsidiarity" dictates that solutions/laws/agreements are best not at the national or regional (eg EU, African Union, Mercosur, etc) level, but the World level.
IMO these areas are many, they have become many due to the developments around the world in recent decades (developments of various kinds, political, technological, cultural, economic, social, general systemic, etc) and the existing systemics.
Many, very many, will disagree, speak of national sovereignty, national interests, some may even say that this should be needed in the future but not now. Well, IMO a world government will be needed at some point or another. Either now, to deal with avoiding the effects of global warming and creating a level playing field for businesses (especially small ones) and people around the world, or later, but in order to deal with the crisis and the effects on the global warming or other problems of global dimension.
Some may be even tempted to argue that the next Mayflower(s) will not be ships but spaceships, taking people to a New World outside this planet. But more on such futurist (?) considerations in Echo 2 or 3.
Echo 1, Version 1: December 21, 23:30 pm CET