Verified answer

Both are failures. The Kyoto Protocol required the Developed Nations to bankrupt themselves while developing nations could pollute as much as they wanted. The Copenhagen Summit ran into similar problems especially when the #1 gross emitter of greenhouse gases wanted to continue their double digit annual increase in green house gases. The United States and the other developed Nations said that we can't have to different guidelines and that it is unfair to have the developed nations foot the bill for everything.

Yes, the Copenhagen Summit was a success in that agreements were arrived at to kill the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.modernghana.com/news/254288/1/copenhage...

According to the Kyoto Protocol, the developed world was to shut down their industries while the developing world would take up the slack by accepting the factories and plants exported there from the developed world.

http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

Basically, it was a jobs export program that had nothing to do with ameliorating atmospheric CO2, let alone global warming.

http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=...

The new protocol agreed to at Copenhagen is that the developed world will still be shutting down their industry, but Africa will have their politicians paid off by the cap and trade tax and an international finance tax of 2% on all international transactions in return for preventing any industrial development there (Africa).

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:gZzKvikaaakJ:...

In return, India, Brazil, South Africa, and China, where most of the industry will now go, have not yet pledged to do much of anything beyond energy efficiency programs, yet.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&si...

Note, that the new protocol still has nothing to do with CO2 abatement, nor global warming amelioration in that it would simply move our industries to India, China, Brazil, and South Africa rather than eliminate them. However, this seems to be what Obama wanted all along, so yes, the Copenhagen Summit 2009 was a great success.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/science/earth/19...

If anyone at the Copenhagen Summit ACTUALLY believed in minimizing CO2 emissions...

...They would have had a VIRTUAL meeting instead of attending via Limo & Jet.

It's all about TAXING fossil fuel use NOT eliminating it.

The Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012. The Copenhagen Summit was held to negotiate the next step after Kyoto.

However, because several countries like the USA have not yet passed laws which will regulate carbon emissions, it was not possible to reach a concrete agreement at Copenhagen. Instead they laid some groundwork, and there will be another conference in Mexico City in 2010. Hopefully by then we'll have passed legislation that will allow us to commit to concrete emissions reductions and come to an international agreement like we did in Kyoto.

no longer something Emma, a huge fat no longer something. properly, different than the horrendous carbon footprint left with the aid of each and all the doolallies of their inner maximum jets and limo's! humorous isn't it how no longer something has been stated with the aid of a unmarried one in all them over this exposure as a fraudulent surmisation of the melting of the Himalayas? seems that the guy in fee of the employer advising a number of those heads of state hasn't any skills interior the situation. he's a railways engineer and now has various agencies offering 'green situation' documentation to each form of taxpayer funded climate substitute companies. plenty as we concept, a rip-off, a money maker! The idiots would desire to be scarlet with mortification. sure, we do and could care approximately our planet yet we would desire to forget approximately relating to the crazies who're being worthwhile out of sh*t!

I believe that one of the few benefits that came out of the Copenhagen Summit was that of a bunch of frequent-flyer miles for those attendees travelling via commercial airline.

Oh.... I almost forgot..... and for those attendees who enjoy caviar, there was plenty to eat.

I think that just about covers everything.

I believe it was entirely successful. A bunch of world leaders expended a bunch of fossil fuels to meet together and argue with no resolution. This was the best outcome one could hope for.

It was not successful; the 'big offenders' did not agree to anything of importance, just to meet again in five years. The only people who benefited were those who served the conference and the Middle-East Oil Producers who filled all those Jumbo Jets with jet fuel.

The whole thing is embarassing. We need to know how much of what we've been told is a lie before we go on.

By failing miserably, it was a success for humanity. Yes.