Who benefits from a solid Copenhagen treaty and who does not? Who wants to see it fail?

In December, the UN is meeting in Copenhagen to discuss a follow treaty to Kyoto to reach reductions in the CO2 emissions. Right now it is highly debated if the summit will result in a solid treaty. Who would be interested in a failure of the treaty? Which company should support the process towards a solid treaty. Let's discuss it here!

Who would benefit from a solid reduction of CO2?

• Renewable energy industry (SolarWorld, GL, Suzlon, etc.)
• Nuclear industry (Coal plants would be reduced and replaced by nuclear power plants until renewable sources are reliable enough)
• Battery manufacturers (It would give a push towards PEVs and they need batteries, many batteries)
• Insurance companies (Why? Simple: Less CO2, less water level rise, less floods and more stable weather, thus less cases for insurances to cover)
• Local economies (Do you believe that it possible to ship a 50m turbine blade from China to the U.S.? And that cheap and at high quality?)
• ...
  

Who would benefit of a failure of the climate talks?

• Oil rich countries
• Countries with many ressources (coal, copper, etc.)
• Major companies like Siemens, GE (because they offer everything from gas plants to coal plants)
• Car companies (No need for further improvements in efficiency standards, etc.)
• Airline industry (No need for emission trade for them)

Anything else? Shoot me an email to extend the list ...