Who speaks for Earth?

Ban Ki-Moon, Secy general, UN, made a plea to world leaders to trust, negotiate and cooperate to tackle climate change. ‘I visited the Arctic. I saw the remains of a glacier that just a few years ago was a majestic mass of ice. It had collapsed. Not slowly melted — collapsed… The Arctic could be virtually ice-free by 2030… I was alarmed by the rapid pace of change there.’

‘Climate change is the preeminent geopolitical issue of our time. It rewrites the global equation for development, peace and prosperity. It threatens markets, economies and development gains. It can deplete food and water supplies, provoke conflict and migration, destabilize fragile societies and even topple governments.

‘What is needed is political will at the highest levels — presidents and prime ministers — that translates into rapid progress in the negotiating room.’

And here’s the latest from the top three polluters have to say:India is prepared to set non-binding targets to track its progress in reducing carbon emissions, reports AFP. That's the word from Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh: ‘We are already taking a number of actions that will result in significant reduction of our greenhouse gas emissions. We are in a position to quantify these reductions into a broadly indicative number that can be shared with the rest of the world. I see no problem with that.’

Meanwhile, the latest from China is that avoiding a 2 degree rise is not practical. The Guardian reports: "You should not target China to fulfill the two degree target. That is just a vision. Reality has deviated from that vision," said Dai (deputy chief of China's Energy Research institute). "We do not think that target provides room for developing countries." China argues that its priority must be economic growth to relieve poverty among its vast population.

The mother of polluters, the US has a similar thing to say. US Energy Sceretary Chu, believes the ‘United States can bring and can agree to is certainly unknown but I think probably 40-30% (cuts) might be too aggressive for 2020 for the United States.’ This is being interpreted as political feasibility, not technical feasibility.

Clear indications that Copenhagen will be just another junket trip? It is time for citizens to speak out and lead their leaders, maybe.