Introduction One week conference was held in Copenhagen in Denmark for two weeks; in December 2009 to fight against global warming, an effect of greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. The participants included countries all over the world. President Obama of the U.S. was optimistic and had hoped that U.S. would be at the front line in the fight against global warming. However, expectations of the meeting failed even after about 45,000 people participation. This essay will discuss why the summit failed to accomplish its expectations. Two theories, neo-realism and neo-liberalism will be the basis of the discussion; with reference to the climate politics on the basis of international relations. International relations include law, economics, ethics, strategy, philosophy, culture, environment and policy analysis (Relations 1). The theories of the approach, realism and neo-realism will also be discussed including their characteristics. Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change The Copenhagen summit was meant to create unity in reduction of greenhouse gases by involving countries all over the world. The inclusion was meant to allow all countries to play a role, whether big or small towards this event. This happened later after the introduction of the Kyoto protocol. Due to increased greenhouse gases emitted mostly by the developing countries, there was need to raise an alarm so as to reduce the influence of the gases to climate change and global warming; that had been seen to have negative impacts on the environment. The Copenhagen summit proposed for Copenhagen Green Climate Fund which would raise $100 billion annually to assist the developing countries; to protect themselves from global warming and to adapt to climate change (Wynn 1). The summit also emphasized on saving the tropical forests so as to stop depletion of carbon sinks. Farms and forest clearing contributed about 33% of the greenhouse gases. The Kyoto protocol seemed to omit some of the crucial areas that contribute to global warming. This is because it excludes green house emissions from shipping and aviation which emits about 5% of total GHG. Kyoto protocol had planned to reduce emissions by introduction of carbon trading in the markets. The emitting countries were supposed to be paying for the emissions they made (Wynn 1). Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism Theories These two international relations theories seek to explain different arguments but they apply some assumptions which are quite similar to each other. Neoliberals say, “International cooperation could be achieved gradually and with effort and facilitation from cross border institutions” (Taylor 1). Neo-liberalism accepts the fact that states are the key actors in international relations. However they do not underestimate the influence of the non states as well as the non governmental organizations. They argue that states can cooperate if they know they will benefit at the end of the deal. This theory also considers economic factors in relation to open, free markets and institutionalism. Neo-realism, “underestimates the ability of states to cooperate and overemphasize the inevitability of conflict” (Taylor 1). Neo-realism argues that nations are inclined to influence of external factors; and that there