Following the failed climate summit in the Danish capital last December, Europeans are looking for a new direction in the fight against global warming. Many saw the weak agreement as a dead end, others saw it as another stop on the journey. Discussing whi

Public Forum: Copenhagen - climate cross-roads or cul-de-sac?

Hello and welcome to Public Forum,   our political debate programme

before an invited audience at   the European Parliament in Strasbourg.

Our topic today -   climate change after Copenhagen.

The summit in December produced   a lot of heat, but not much light,

and certainly not the binding commitment   which many hoped for.

Is climate change a dead issue politically,   even if the threat remains real?

Can we ever get worldwide agreement   on a subject as big and diverse

With me in the studio   to discuss all this are:

Peter Liese,   a German member of the EPP;

Yannick Jadot,   a French member of the Greens;

Global Director of Energy and   Climate Change Policy for Dow Chemical;

while our studio audience is made up of   economics students from Paris

let's remind ourselves   what happened in Copenhagen,

12 days of negotiations   for an agreement that lacks ambition.

aims at limiting global warming   to 2 degrees Celsius by 2050

but doesn't establish the necessary   constraints to make it happen.

So, no decision on the reduction   of greenhouse gas emissions.

We must wait until January   for the targets to be defined.

who has called into question   the UN system of negotiations.

This system is at the end of the road.   We want to change it.

It's a miracle that we produced anything   that could be called an agreement.

It's unfortunate   that it's not more ambitious.

But it's an agreement that moves   things forward, that's incontestable.

These mixed feelings   were shared by Barack Obama,

who called the agreement   significant but insufficient.

The US President, who did battle   with the Chinese leader,

acknowledged that achieving   a binding agreement would be hard

At Copenhagen, the US committed itself   to spending over $3.5 billion

to help countries most vulnerable   to the effects of climate change.

In total, industrial nations will earmark   more than $30 billion by 2012.

That's not enough   to calm the fury of NGOs

who are united in their denouncement   of a shameful agreement.

with the promise of delivering   a binding agreement

that effectively tackles climate change.   Today there's nothing on the table.

It's extremely disappointing and it brings   shame on all the world's leaders.

Copenhagen is done and dusted   and there's still much to be done.

The next meeting will be held in Germany.

Angela Merkel announced negotiations   in 6 months in Bonn

to prepare the next climate conference   planned in Mexico at the end of 2010.

Peter Liese, let me come to you first.   On a scale of 1 to 10,

how much of a disaster   was Copenhagen?

It was no disaster,   but it was very disappointing.

So it is disappointing, especially   when we all know what we need to do.

Every year that we lose   makes the challenge even bigger.

we can still keep the temperature   under 2 degrees,

but we need to invest   much more and faster.

That makes it politically more difficult.

But you asked if the issue   of climate change is dead.

I don't think it's dead.   There is a momentum.

Maybe we all expected too much   from Copenhagen to solve the issue.

We have achieved something.   For me the most important thing

is that the world community   is committed to the 2 degrees target.

And the emerging countries,   like China, Brazil and India,

were ready to agree that   they also have some responsibility.

I think these are two positive points, but   the negative points are more important

We need to invest more   and we need to fight more.

Yannick Jadot, do you go along with that -   some progress but not enough?

No. We're in a situation where the goal   is to limit global warming to 2 degrees,

is in fact a trend towards warming   of at least 3, 3.5 or even 4 degrees,

because of the richest countries,   the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

So we're way below the commitments   expected from the richest countries.

On the other hand -   and the report didn't mention this -

the head of the Framework Convention   on Climate Change, Mr de Boer,

who's the boss of climate negotiation,   said during the negotiations:

"The emerging economies are doing   what is expected of them."

China, by reducing the carbon intensity   of its economy,

Brazil, by fighting against deforestation,

the commitments of South Africa,   Mexico, Indonesia.

All that fell within   what they were expected to do

in the context of the fight   against climate change.

That was not the case   for the rich countries.

The failure of Copenhagen   is firstly a failure of world leadership.

It's too easy for Mr Sarkozy, Mrs Merkel   or Mr Brown to say it's the UN's failure.

their inability to set binding targets   in an international negotiation.

who'll probably be the new Commissioner   for Climate Action in Europe,

It's a crisis of leadership,   not a crisis of the United Nations.

Russell Mills,   from industry's point of view,