Environmental groups express disappointment over Copenhagen Accord

A number of environmental groups and industry associations are dissatisfied with the deal, thinking that only a non-binding statement is far from enough, and not enough to provide a clear signal to the world. Huangshan Li Hujun Zhang Ridanchao from Copenhagen for the United States, China, India, South Africa and Brazil, the five countries reached the Copenhagen Accord, December 19,　　Many environmental groups expressed disappointment in the first time. "There is no justice, no ambition, no legal binding, and the leaders of the world are negligent in the issue of weather change." "Kumi Naidoo, global director of Greenpeace, said," Today, they are failing to avoid the Coumy Naidu of catastrophic weather changes.　　Cartensen Kim Cartensen, head of WWF Global Weather Action, which had also expressed optimism about the prospects for the talks, was also hard to conceal.　　It seemed to him that after years of negotiations, it was only a statement of intent that was "not legally binding" and did not provide any security for our future generations. Jeremy Hobbs, Oxfam's international executive director, said the pledge to fund 100 billion dollars was "a good goal, not a commitment."　　"In addition, as an industry association, the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) called the" interim Agreement "of just two sheets of paper insufficient to provide a clear signal to markets and investors.　　Steve Sawyer, the agency's chairman, said to the author, "We need to listen to the voices of the other 188 countries". He also believes that a clear long-term political commitment to the use of renewable energy to cut emissions will lead to more private investment in clean technology, "while a weak deal misses the opportunity for change in energy technology."　　"The Political manifesto is" a step forward, "said Jake Schmidt, director of international weather policy at the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Commission (Schmidt), though not enough. Given what the United States has done over the past eight years, America's attitude towards weather negotiations has changed a lot.　　Obama needs a manifesto that would allow the U.S. Senate to pass the energy and weather bill next spring, so that America's target of cutting emissions by 17% by 2020 by 2005 could be written into domestic law, making the US commitments meaningful. Fuqiang, director of WWF's global climate change response plan, said it was a product of political compromise. It is not a fair, just, legally binding agreement, though, as was expected. But the deal has at least "some sort of appearance", such as the $100 billion trillion annual aid package, with at least a number of targets, previously empty, especially in the United States.