(Thumbnail image: Environmental Protection Agency)

Two weeks, 193 countries, and one non-binding agreement later, the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference is finally over. 

That much everybody agrees on.

But whether an accord on emissions, monitoring, temperature, and aid to poor countries will result in reducing global warming is open to debate.

We’re looking at reactions to the Copenhagen compromise with perspectives from The New York Times, Mother Jones, and Russia Today.

The New York Times’ John Broder explains why it was so difficult to hammer out an agreement. He blames it on:

“…delays and diversions created by a group of poor and emerging nations intent on making their dissatisfaction clear…[it] raised repeated objections to what its members see as the economic and environmental tyranny of the industrial world…”

Wait a minute, writes Mother Jones contributing writer Bill McKibben – The New York Times misses the point completely. Here’s his take:

“The bravery of the small nations in standing up to the pressure from the big ones is the wonder of this conference.”

Laura Emmett of Russia Today explains that – for some -- the talks were really more about economic aid for these developing countries -- not concern about the environment. They say:

“…this summit was never about climate change and that the real goal was to force countries to act against their national interests in the name of preventing global warming.”

So, what do you think about the climate change deal? Do you think countries will even abide by the pledge to curb emissions?

Writer: Paula Hunt