Copenhagen aftermath

The newspaper de Volkskrant from Holland acknowledged that Copenhagen delivered a disappointing result but focused on the positive: the fact that at least the problem is being addressed.

"Climate change is now an international problem par excellence. It seems inevitable that all countries will be brought into negotiations sooner or later. At the same time, it is nearly impossible to get 192 states of varying size and with diverse interests to reach a unified stance."

"But there is a glimmer of hope. All of the participants in the climate conference know that the talks will continue. And possibly, those actors will be watched by the public and by activists and NGOs with a more critical eye than they have been up to now. Because one thing was attained for certain: the climate will never disappear from the political agenda."

Likewise, Britain's Guardian newspaper saw positives alongside negatives in the outcome of the conference. On the bad side: "A considered reading of the accord, which was its only tangible output, reveals that it is not just inadequate but in fact utterly empty."

On the plus side, however, is "the novel manner in which this ultimate failure was reached."

"As the sight of the daily chaos (of Copenhagen) drops out of view, it becomes easier to appreciate that the rich world was forced to haggle with the bigger emerging economies on more equal terms than ever before."

In other words, "while the Copenhagen product is every inch the sham that campaigners say it is, the Copenhagen process has set important precedents," the Guardian wrote. "Most obviously …the sheer fact that it took place – and at such a high political level – means it will probably do so again."

Taking a harsher line, left-leaning French newspaper La Libération oozed disappointment in the "large countries which, in a delirium of diplomatic ineptitude and the blindness of superiority, torpedoed the binding worldwide accord" they had hoped for.

The paper pitched for the EU to take immediate, unilateral action: "Eco-reformers need to focus on the US and China," it wrote; "after that come the nations that are a bit more environmentally aware, particularly in Europe. But these cannot wait until there is an international agreement. It is much more important for them to become instructive with their actions. If the EU took the necessary actions from its side, it would jump to the head of the movement. Then the fiasco of Copenhagen could be overcome step by step."

In Switzerland, Zurich's Tages-Anzeiger also focused on results; those who come up with solutions will ultimately benefit in the end, the paper wrote.

At the conference, "concrete solutions were presented on how to reach a climate-friendly future and at the same time remain economically profitable. Numerous companies seemed to have little patience for the political lethargy … The biggest climate-change effect will be felt by those companies and countries that start preparing now. They will be the ultimate winners," the paper said.

German editorialists were less inclined to focus on positive signals from the conference. The Sueddeutsche Zeitung called the Copenhagen summit an "insult to the world community," noting that "never were expectations for a climate conference higher, and never before were so many heads of state and government officials in one place, meeting to solve one single problem. But they didn't solve it - they made it worse."

"As if they were replaying an old, bad film, the heads of the most powerful nations came up with aid funds to silence the developing nations. They bought their way out. Instead of mutually promising a much-needed rejection of the destructive path of economic development, they agreed on a vague and distant goal. It is like agreeing on a place to meet, but not a time."

Meanwhile, advocating a just-do-it approach in the wake of the talks, the Frankfurter Rundschau sent a strong warning to voters and the politicians they elect: "There is no point in allowing the UN Climate Conference circus to continue its performances. The only chance that remains is for the big heat-producers of the planet to lead by example - without any stipulations about taking others along for the ride, if need be. Fifteen countries on Earth are responsible for 80 percent of C02 emissions around the world; in Copenhagen they all said how important climate protection is to them. Now, the politicians of these countries need to make the necessary changes. And if they don't the voters have to deal with it - and vote them out of office..."

Finally, the Stuttgarter Zeitung expressed the disappointment felt by many in Europe when they compared US President Barack Obama's focus on China and other developing countries with his relative lack of interest in the European negotatiors.

In the wake of the conference, "we need to keep up the ambition of climate protection, and keep the expectations in a realistic framework," the paper wrote. "But one prerequisite for this is the recognition that it will be really hard for Europe to effectively influence the USA. The trans-Atlantic relationship is coming up on hard times. Barack Obama showed one thing for certain in Copenhagen: His focus will be on the trans-Pacific axis with China.

Compiled by: Jennifer Abramsohn
Editor: Ranty Islam