The London Independent wrote: "A global deal is necessary to tackle global warming, but such an agreement will only be the first step. Then comes the even more difficult task of implementing the measures necessary to reduce emissions. A market-based system in which a price is put on carbon and the private sector comes up with new ways of powering economic growth is certainly the right framework." The Independent said that the debate about whether a cap and trade system, or a simpler carbon tax, would be better remained "far from settled. Certainly there should be no dogmatism about how to go about achieving this. What matters is what works. Yet first world leaders need to come together in a historic agreement on the direction of travel. And that is where Copenhagen can - and must - deliver."
Xinhua wrote: "Currently, emissions cuts apparently have become mankind's new 'moral standard.' Anyone who is slow in reducing emissions would be hastily accused of damaging people's livings and development, and regarded as the common enemy of mankind. This so-called 'moral standard' is profoundly affecting the human being's social, economic and political activities. As a matter of fact, tremendous disputes related to interests are behind the 'moral standard'."
Korea's Joong Ang Daily wrote: "A joint editorial by 56 newspapers around the globe has urged advanced countries to act first to combat the primary problem of global pollution, with cooperation from developing nations. All must remember that self-serving thinking comes at the expense of our planet and our lives. We urge the U.S. legislature to recognize this and step up to its appropriate leadership role."
The London Guardian wrote: "While the US treasury continues to oppose it, a new global tax is not going to happen. Either America must soften its stance, or it must devise its own means to raise the money. As so often before, an anxious world is warily casting eyes in the direction of Washington." The Malaysian Star wrote: "The Copenhagen outcome will be the turning point in world relations - either humanity prevails or greed dictates the dawn of carbon colonialism."
On the issue of who pays what, The Economist wrote that "settling this question will mean some differentiation between developing countries, a term that includes both industrial giants and hapless victims, whose interests are very different. Some people think this was the reason for the leaking of the Danish text. Those most offended by it are the smallest, weakest countries, which are vulnerable and emit very little. They are more interested in strong action than in who pays for it or who has to make the cuts. The calculus is different for the larger, more industrialized emerging markets, at least four of which -- Brazil, India, South Africa and China -- saw the text before it was leaked. They have more to gain from keeping the onus of action and payment on the developed world alone."
- Additional editorials appeared in the Economic Times (India), Malaysia Star, Dec. 14; Detroit (Mich) News, Houston (Texas) Chronicle, Johannesburg Times (South Africa), Los Angeles Times (Arnold), Washington Times (Lane and Montgomery), Washington Times (Ciani), Dec. 13; London Independent (McCarthy), London Telegraph, Los Angeles Times (Rutten), New York Times (Kell), Time, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12; The Age via Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), Al Ahram Weekly (Egypt), Business Week, New York Times (Guterres), New York Times (Naidoo), Time, Dec. 11.
