I think you’re right about the need for a more coherent, realistic message, and the more I hear from NGO’s and high profile commentators like Naomi Klein, the more frustrated I become as I hear about Copenhagen.

Ultimately, I think one of the problems here is that it’s much easier to make speeches that tell an audience of campaigners that they’re excused from reaching any useful conclusion because they have the moral high ground.

It’s infuriating to hear that so many groups are campaigning against carbon trading when it’s basically the only mechanism the other side (y’know, the guys who would have to actually follow through with implementing whatever gets agreed) will accept. At this point, doing anything else just seems juvenile and self serving, scoring political points at the expense of achieving anything constructive.

Granted, from my limited knowledge about carbon trading, every auction has been plagued by organisers giving away permits to the worst offenders for free, or underpricing carbon permits to such an extent that any market is essentially dysfunctional, but surely this leaves a decent point to negotiate from?

i.e. “We don’t believe carbon trading is the best solution, but if it’s the only option you’re prepared to look at right now, these auctions could at least recognise that we at least need a fair basis to start from. Surely there’s some shared ground here that fits our needs for climate justice, and yours for a workable proposal?”