The other day in my Politics and Society lecture we were being educated about the difference between the views of Realism and Liberal Institutionalism. Realists believe everything is about security (power) and economics (money). Liberal Institutionalists believe in a complex interdependence and cooperation.
We talked briefly about the upcoming COP in Copenhagen and were tasked with what the outcome might be as seen through these different perspectives. If it's a positive outcome, is it because the nations agree that they are all in this together and should come together to solve it? Or do they act in their own interest because they realize climate change is a threat to economic stability and national security? If the outcomes are negative, might it be because those for an agreement see cooperation as being most important, so they'll keep working to build trust in hope of future cooperation. Or is it because climate change is a Darwinian survival of the fittest test and it's every nation for itself?
The US was mentioned as a road block to reaching an agreement. I think that, in the spirit of cooperation and global security and economics, all of the other states who are eager and willing to move forward and sign an agreement should gang up against the US, put into practice that old fashioned peer pressure via embargo or whatever they need to, to give the US a slap in the face, get them to wake up and take responsibility for its role in creating the problem. Maybe then the US will also start to see its potential role and the benefits (in the form of money and power)from doing what it ought to. Come on, America. Quit dragging your feet and free-riding. You're only making it worse for yourself (and everyone else).