The main conclusion drawn by all the media from the Copenhagen Summit can be summarized in a basic message: there has been no progress and the political leaders have limited themselves to signing a declaration of intent. This being true, as it basically is, the most worrying thing is that no progress has been made to avoid this subject situation in the future. Let's look at it, applying game theory, as a variant of the classic prisoner's dilemma.

Obviously, from a broad and long-term economic point of view deadline, climate change constitutes a serious and real threat to each and every country, since all would benefit from a global reduction in emissions that would reduce the ferocity of climate change. However, not even the major emitters alone can curb the phenomenon with domestic actions. International cooperation is needed.

However, from a short term point of view and taking into account the local repercussions on the industry in each country, the starting point of the different governments will be very different.

From this narrow perspective, developed countries, led by the United States, would be the losers of a binding international agreement , since they will have to limit their emissions and make a multi-billion dollar contribution to adaptation to the impacts of climate change in the countries at development. The so-called "emerging countries", such as China, are in an analogous status , since they will have to limit their emissions in some way, but are unlikely to receive a large contribution from these funds.

On the other hand, the least developed countries would be winners. First, because they will receive large amounts of funds to mitigate the impacts of climate change, and second, because there are no emission limitation commitments on the table.

If we analyze the events in Copenhagen, we will see that, sadly, some of the major obstacles during the negotiation fit into this cold and somewhat simplified conceptual mold.
But the most worrying thing is that this vicious circle may be repeated sine die in all future international negotiations. Even if a agreement is reached next year on 2020 commitments, it will then be necessary to set limits to 2050, and so on and so forth.

It is therefore essential that long-term emission reduction targets be established as soon as possible deadline. Scientists set the necessary global emission reductions and, on this basis, limits must be established for the different States. Both the criterion of CO2 allocation per capita or per unit of GDP are controversial and should be based on specific guidelines for some countries. Other more imaginative formulas are possible, although they are more difficult to verify. But if we do not have the courage to opt soon for any of them, or for a combination of them, the climate negotiations of the coming years will be marked by hostility, chauvinism and the search for local profitability. There may be many more Copenhagos to come.