In the category of "you couldn't make it up", I for one never expected anything of it in the first place.
For all the talking, it is the norm whatever the agreements that they are not ratified and don't commence.
What is a real example of saying one thing and doing something else in politics, is that there has been a very expensive cost of running this jaunt when we haven't yet recovered from a global credit problem and if we are looking for examples of how to reduce CO2 and global warming, just how much was used up getting all those muppets and lackeys from all over the globe to Copenhagen, keeping them there and then getting them home again?
But he was not offering anything, which was why it was rejected. USA did not commit to money or realistic reduction in pollution/carbon; they were never going to, which is why they lead a well orchestrated ´show´of support without giving anything.
Unfortunately, the EU, pushed along by Gordon Brown, have already committed to huge reductions in carbon output which will cost billions to implement. Our major trade competitors, such as USA and China, have signed up for nothing, so EU manufacturers will have to bear the costs of this added to their products while USA and China ignore it.
On TV news yesterday they said that 1200 limousines had been laid on for the delegates and some had arrived by private jet. 41000 tons of CO2 created and they agreed to all meet up again in Germany next year and then again in Mexico later in 2010. The Americans think that technology will save us from any climate change effects but why can't they do these meetings using video-conferencing and use technology already in place? Crazy!
Its going to take a lot of rockets all firing at the same time to shift the earth from its normal `axis wobble` which has happened throughout time and causes global warming. The global warming which is a natural occurence is what causes a rise in CO2 gases, not the other way round.
I admit though it would be nicer to have a less polluted and healthier planet.