In Copenhagen the 19th December 2009, US President Barack Obama said:
“After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear. First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change.
I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 per cent by 2020, and by more than 80 per cent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page. Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if — and only if — it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.”
A few notes :
- transparency is evident when real-time, and REAL transparency can be achieve this way, it is not complicated, something like
cashflow.
- not infringing upon sovereignty : well, individual freedom is what the USA is all about, so a more participative distributed democracy can only match that ideal.
- accountability : as soon as real-time transparency is achieved, accountability is the efficiency ratio in the column next to the balance.
I can only agree, but it is going to be a lot of work!
Here we do it with the WEA (World Environment Action).
