Does a renewable energy standard stand a chance? 
How many species do you eat in a day? 
How Chicago took the LEED in green building 
The President of the United States did several things with his agreement today with China, India, and South Africa:
- He blew up the United Nations. The idea that there's a world community that means something has disappeared tonight. The clear point is, you poor nations can spout off all you want on questions like human rights or the role of women or fighting polio or handling refugees. But when you get too close to the center of things that count -- the fossil fuel that's at the center of our economy -- you can forget about it. We're not interested. You're a bother, and when you sink beneath the waves, we don't want to hear much about it. The dearest hope of the American right for 50 years was essentially realized because in the end coal is at the center of America's economy. We already did this with war and peace, and now we've done it with global warming. What exactly is the point of the U.N. now?
- He formed a league of super-polluters, and would-be super-polluters. China, the U.S., and India don't want anyone controlling their use of coal in any meaningful way. It is a coalition of foxes who will together govern the henhouse. It is no accident that the targets are weak to nonexistent. We don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves with targets, he said. Indeed. And now imagine what this agreement will look like with the next Republican president.
- He demonstrated the kind of firmness and resolve that Americans like to see. It will play well politically at home and that will be the worst part of the deal. Having spurned Europe and the poor countries of the world, he will reap domestic political benefit. George Bush couldn't have done this -- the reaction would have been too great. Obama has taken the mandate that progressives worked their hearts out to give him, and used it to gut the ideas that progressives have held most dear. The ice caps won't be the only things we lose with this deal.
Spread the news on what the føck is going on in Copenhagen with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or smoke signals.
Comments
Post a Comment +
Bill,
Perhaps people were being a bit too hopeful that the United Nations 'actually does anything.' The first thing we learn in international relations class is that the United Nations has no power and it really is just a feel good institution. That they had been put in a corner and only allowed to come out of the corner to help to feed starving countries and clean up after disasters every once and while. It is unfortunate, but that is how it has been for some time now, not as of Obama's agreement today. His actions certainly reiterate this fact and reiterates a very scary and sad realization that we may all come to realize, true progress on a grand global scale between unequal partners (i.e. poor and rich countries) has never been possible and may never be possible. I hope I'm wrong.
I second this. Most things are accomplished on the international level by major nations. Obama rightly realized this and got what he could at the time out of the largest polluters, save Brazil. It's absurd to think that 193 nations could possibly "decide" something together, not anti-progressive.
At this point, all the administration wants is to get out of Copenhagen with a shot at passing a climate bill. I doubt they care about anything else. I don't know if they succeeded, but I know they would have been screwed if they hadn't had their "breakthrough".
Bill,
It's a cheap shot to accuse Obama of gutting progressive values. The conference was on the verge of collapse, and he at the risk of losing face, put himself on the line and managed to get key current and future emitters to begin to make commitments. Would it have been better to have a conference that ended with nothing? Think of the media response to that.
As a progressive committed to actual change I disagree in every possible way with your final statement. I did work (in my small way) to help Obama get elected, and he has returned my trust by actually working to get an international agreement to fight global warming. I frankly don't have any idea what you expected him to do, or how you expected him to do it. I think committing to a goal of funding (real) underdeveloped nations and putting public pressure on China were extraordinary, and I thank him and Secretary of State Clinton for their efforts.
Ryan -
"The first thing we learn in international relations class is that the United Nations has no power and it really is just a feel good institution."
If you don't want to be indoctrinated with tedious nationalistic tosh, you'd do well to find a better school.
The UN is where this issue will be resolved, despite White House malfeasance if necessary, and it is the UN that has the credibility worldwide (unlike Washington) to bring this about.
Regards,
Billhook
Bill,
Unfortunately, in your response you failed to point to any major movement, change, or decision that has come out of the UN that has had the teeth to create permanent and lasting change. I can point to many in the other direction, starting with tonights resolution, and moving toward open ended nuclear sanctions that rogue countries continue to ignore.
That being said, I understand that the US lacks the 'credibility' on the global stage to pull off a worldwide movement. My argument is not that they are capable, or even willing to pull that off. Instead it is that, up until this point, we have never seen the world move together, in unison. It is always power actors dictating the terms, circumstances and movement, whether we like it or not. I would argue that worldwide cooperation would make this a better world, I am just not confident that worldwide cooperation at this point with such extreme diversity of interests, wealth and military power, is possible.
"That being said, I understand that the US lacks the 'credibility' on the global stage to pull off a worldwide movement. My argument is not that they are capable, or even willing to pull that off. Instead it is that, up until this point, we have never seen the world move together, in unison."
Sure we have. It is called "responding to a collective threat" and the global left did pull it off prior to the Iraq war, just like they have with climate change.
We did it globally with the millenium celebrations too. And Y2K. God, don't forget that bogeyman that made everybody rush out to buy technological fixes to keep the tech bubble floating until after the elections.
Historically, we did it globally in WWII, responding to the "collective threat" of the Axis powers.
The thing is, the media world we find ourselves living in today is so different than the decentralized and local lens media world of the past.
Manufacturing universal consent is always a dangerous business, though.
It is always top down, and manufactured by the entrenched global power elite through use of global media technologies.
Which means, really, you will NEVER get everyone in the world to agree with you.
This is hard for American exceptionalists to accept.
The UN is a forum and nothing more. Within that forum, the agreements and disagreements between different nations play out, and that in itself is progressive. As long as these agreements are taking place within the COP framework, which they are, the UN continues to be relevant and essential. It's a success, and by showing up and taking the discussions seriously, President Obama is affirming the importance of international negotiations.
Remember, the alternatives are war, coercion, and inaction. That we're debating over whether or not the agreement is good enough is much a better place than a world where big polluters aren't talking and Europe mobilizes armies on behalf of Africa to go to war with the US or China.
Get off this "big polluters" balogna. Our air quality here in the US has done nothing but improve over the last decade or two. And our temperatures are not increasing... rather decreasing.
Go after the brown cloud in Indonesia. Go after the smoky smog in China and India. Use THEIR money not ours to help cut down on visible greenhouse haze plus invisible CO2.
If you want the US to decrease CO2 from coal electric plants... remove the horrible restrictions on nuclear plants you "progressives" have instituted over the years.
I would happily agree to a $5 increase on ALL income earners to fund quick nuke plant construction. I will never participate in unfair cap'n'tax surcharges... nor any silly UN sanctioned gifts to the likes of Hugo Chavez the sulfur queen. Capitalism rules! And it will continue cleaning up it's own messes if and when liberal socialist regulators go the way of the dinosaurs... poof.
Hi again UVINDEX,
Re "air quality here in the US has done nothing but improve over the last decade or two", yet it remains carcinogenic in both New York City and Los Angeles and many other places in the U.S.
Re "brown cloud in Indonesia. Go after the smoky smog in China and India",
to what extent is this pollution caused by the externalizing of production from the U.S. and other developed countries onto Asia. And what part of this pollution comes from massive destruction of rainforests to fuel the wasteful consumer society of which the U.S. has long been the leader, and thereby setting an atrocious example for the rest of the world?
I'll let someone else take you up on the nuclear matter if they wish to bother. Cheers!
And so... what would you propose as an alternative? Live in caves?
The unions demanding uncompetitive wages/benefits drove us (and EU and Japan) to China and India. The companies succumbing to the union nonsense are falling like flies into BK. Meanwhile Target and Walmart are crammed full of the "externalized" production as a result.
Follow the money and you will always find the answer. Destroy all money by printing too much of it and sooner or later your wish will come true: "Too much "consumin' out there" will cease. Enjoy your cave.
Bill, I'm sure you're tired.
I worked on your step it up campaign, and I want us to get a deal. But to criticize the greenest possible president who has done so much to turn this country around, spending $80 billion on clean energy through the completely revamped DOE with VC funding for renewable innovation that is essential to solve climate change here and in China... well, you lose sight of the big picture.
Get some rest, and get back to the fight. But don't lash out at the ones on our side. We need all the help we can get. Once the Fossil Party gets back in we are lost. Lets not hasten it.
"Once the Fossil Party gets back in we are lost."
That's funny *(^_^)* Thankfully also true. Hurry up Nov 2010!
The first thing us "Fossils" need to do is scrap all the restrictions Progressive Soup people have placed on construction of nuclear power plants. If silly France can do it so can we. Just get out of our way.
Wonder where Obama thinks he'll get the $30B over 3 years to give away to people like the sulfur dictator Hugo? Certainly not from me. I have self-enacted a "freeze" on any and all existing or future money grabs that increase even a penny more of my already obscene tax burden for climate aid and health care entitlements.
English Chunnel broken down because of freezing weather!!
Maybe B'Crock O'Blather should take a trip to GB to see how "global warming" is going!
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580631,00.html?test=latestnews
"LONDON — British media say four trains with more than 2,000 passengers aboard have broken down in the Channel Tunnel due to wintry weather."
Of course you would. I've heard it. Too many times to count...
I don't know how you forgot the response to this one, I'm pretty sure you've read it.
.
JBAILO (DELAY AND DENY),
Really? You're going to come in here with that crap...today? You have the biggest balls.
Bill-
I have enormous respect for your writing and your work organizing Step it Up and 350.org, but I agree completely with Susan. Your anger is misdirected. Get some sleep, then refocus your energy on the U.S. Senate, which is the biggest barrier to real progress on global warming.
See my post http://www.grist.org/article/the-copenhagen-accord
-Dan
Very well said, Dan and Susan.
Maybe the Chinese will lend us the money to give them aid (ha-ha).
If you have liberal President, a liberal House, and a Democratic (if not liberal) 60 seats in the Senate, and still nothing happens, don't you have to conclude that climate legislation is not what people want?
No, you don't. In any other country, a majority like we have of about 57 (pro-climate voters) of Senate Democrats who want climate legislation would be able to enact it.
Here we have two things working against that.
1. In this country alone, 57 is not a working majority. You have to have 60 to overcome The Fossil Party votes.
2. Those 57 votes are an undercount of the nation's wishes. The US is not represented per capita, one man one vote in the Senate. Voters in little isolated backward rural states (Nebraska has 600,000 people) have multiple times the voting power of urban educated voters in states with big cities (California has 30 million people)where many more people have to have college educations to work and live there. (With education comes understanding of the danger we are in.)
The result is the Senate is skewed to anti climate votes. If we were accurately represented per-capita in the Senate; the agreement would be about 85%, not 57%.
No, you don't. In any other country, a majority like we have of about 57 (pro-climate voters) of Senate Democrats who want climate legislation would be able to enact it.
Here we have two things working against that.
1. In this country alone, 57 is not a working majority. You have to have 60 to overcome The Fossil Party votes.
2. Those 57 votes are an undercount of the nation's wishes. The US is not represented per capita, one man one vote in the Senate. Voters in little isolated backward rural states (Nebraska has 600,000 people) have multiple times the voting power of urban educated voters in states with big cities (California has 30 million people)where many more people have to have college educations to work and live there. (With education comes understanding of the danger we are in.)
The result is the Senate is skewed to anti climate votes. If we were accurately represented per-capita in the Senate; the agreement would be about 85%, not 57%.
Susan is correct. Mark Pitts has come to a mistaken conclusion.
Did we forget? THE HOUSE passed a bill. This is all about the Senate and the awkward structure emphasizing the ignorant. Oklahoma has the same amount of votes a California. See?
There is more than one way of bringing about the changes we need to reverse the CO2, so rationalizing that your lobbying scheme can't work because you don't have the numbers to pull it off, is a de facto admission you will never succeed.
Which makes this strategy a failure.
Pull the troops and money off K Street, and out of the Beltway.
Put troops back in the trenches on the front lines. Send the proverbial lawyers, guns, and money to local, state and regional fights. And wage a PR campaign instead to influence public opinion the same way the enemy does.
Hit 'em where they live.
Susan & Christopher,
The polls (not the Senate) show you are incorrect. The majority of people (70% I think) are against any legislation that would raise their utility bill by $10 a month.
The majority does, however, favor a miracle that costs them nothing.
Mark
Yeah, for example, on another issue like healthcare, both the Republicans from Maine are vehemently against any reform proposal. This is especially the case if the reform includes a "public option."
Yet, their constituents significantly favor reform with a public option. The only logical conclusion is that, on this issue, the Senators are not voting in the interest of their constituents, but of their national party. This didn't used to happen all the time. But with the nation more partisan and polarized, it's become more common.
I would argue they aren't even voting their party's interests. They are voting their funders' interests.
The political system is just too damn corrupt at this point in history to be able to use it to bring about the necessary changes environmentalists need to see get enacted.
Change the strategy & tactics is the only ethical solution to the conundrum.
Unless of course you are a big fan of repeating the same behavior over and over so your result will remain the same. Also known as voting for the Democrats.
Which IS what Susan, et al are arguing for, against all logic and reason.
Their way or the highway, and let's face it. The climate change movement vacuumed up all the money and air time away from the environmental movement the minute a former US vice president became the face of climate change because he lost his day job.
Al Gore is no friend of the environment.