The party of the first part

Bolivia's ambassador to the UN explains why his country stood alone in opposing the final document at the Cancun climate talks:

The text replaces binding mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with voluntary pledges that are wholly insufficient. These pledges contradict the stated goal of capping the rise in temperature at 2C, instead guiding us to 4C or more. The text is full of loopholes for polluters, opportunities for expanding carbon markets and similar mechanisms – like the forestry scheme Redd – that reduce the obligation of developed countries to act. …

Some claim the best thing is to be realistic and recognise that at the very least the agreement saved the UN process from collapse. […] But we face an unprecedented crisis, and false victories won't save the planet. False agreements will not guarantee a future for our children. We all must stand up and demand a climate agreement strong enough to match the crisis we confront.

Good lord, don't these people understand the critical importance of reaching an agreement to continue attempting to reach an agreement to consider adopting a non-binding framework for an eventual partial voluntary reduction in some emissions?

THE NADERITES OF CANCUN: "We face an unprecedented crisis, and false victories won't save the planet" also happens to be a perfect one-line summary of why I spend so much time trying to convince people to free themselves from the Democratic Party.