Obama To Copenhagen For Climate Talks

H. JOSEF HEBERT | 11/25/09 11:05 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Obama Copenhagen

WASHINGTON — Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month's Copenhagen climate summit. He will insist America is ready to tackle global warming despite resistance in Congress over higher costs for businesses and homeowners.

Obama will attend the start of the conference Dec. 9 before heading to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize. He will "put on the table" a U.S. commitment to cut emissions by 17 percent over the next decade, on the way to reducing heat-trapping pollution by 80 percent by mid-century, the White House said.

Cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by one-sixth in just a decade would increase the cost of energy as electric utilities pay for capturing carbon dioxide at coal burning power plants or switch to more expensive alternatives. The price of gasoline likely would increase, and more fuel efficient automobiles – or hybrids that run on gasoline and electricity – likely would be more expensive.

Still, there is widespread disagreement over the cost to consumers.

Obama's promise of greenhouse emissions cuts will require Congress to pass complex climate legislation that the administration says will include an array of measures to ease the price impact. The bills before Congress, for example, would have the government provide polluters free emissions allowances in the early years of the transition from fossil fuels, as well as direct payments to many consumers facing high costs.

And, supporters of emission reductions say, there would be clear long-term health and environmental benefits from shifting the a clean-energy economy.

Carol Browner, Obama's assistant for energy and climate change, on Wednesday a cited a Congressional Budget Office study that said there would be $173-a-year estimated cost to the average household by 2020 if greenhouse gases were cut by 17 percent by then from 2005 levels. But the CBO analysis also said that if the cost-blunting measures in the legislation were not taken into account, the cost to households could jump to $890 per household.

Other studies conducted by pro-industry groups have put the average household costs at $900 to more than $3,000 a year, although many of those studies do not take into account new energy conservation efforts and assume a more pessimistic view of new technology development that could bring actual consumer costs down.

But slashing carbon dioxide emissions also could save millions of lives, mostly by reducing preventable deaths from heart and lung diseases, according to studies published this week in the British medical journal The Lancet. None of the studies – either those cited by the administration or those singled out by critics – attempt to gauge a "no-action" scenario that many scientists say will have significant economic costs as well.

Story continues below
Advertisement

The White House said Obama's decision to attend the international conference in Denmark was "a sign of his continuing commitment and leadership to find a global solution to the global threat of climate change."

But Obama's stopover on the conference's second day – instead of later when negotiations will be most intense and when most other national leaders will take part – disappointed some European and U.N. climate officials, as well as some environmentalists.

Others said Obama's personal appeal will resonate with the delegates from more than 75 countries and help reset the U.S. image on the climate issue after eight years in which the Bush administration staunchly opposed mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases.

Yvo de Boer, the United Nations climate chief, said it is important for the United States to establish emissions reduction targets and a financial commitment to helping developing countries address climate change.

"If he comes in the first week to announce that, it would be a major boost to the conference," de Boer told The Associated Press. He said Obama's participation was critical because delegates "are looking to the United States to come forward."

The president's first trip to Copenhagen – just last month – was less than fruitful. He made an unsuccessful pitch for the 2016 Summer Olympics to be held in Chicago.

Obama's participation had been in doubt since it became clear that the Dec. 7-18 conference was unlikely to produce a binding agreement, The original goal of the conference was to produce a new global climate change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. But in recent weeks it became clear that delegates were likely to produce at best an outline for an agreement to be considered late next year.

The White House said Obama's commitment to a 17 percent emissions cut from 2005 levels by 2020 would be the first step toward an 80 percent reduction outlined in legislation before Congress. It said Obama is expecting "robust mitigation contributions" from China and other emerging nations as part of any final agreement.

Obama pressed for cooperation on climate change in meetings with Chinese President Hu Jintao in Beijing last week, and with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, during a state visit at the White House Tuesday.

China's top climate envoy said Wednesday his nation would seek binding pollution targets for developed countries but reject similar requirements for itself at the summit.

Yu Qingtai said it would be unfair for all countries to be required to combat global warming since most of the environmental damage has been caused by developed nations during their industrialization over the past 100 to 200 years.

The White House said it will send a half-dozen Cabinet secretaries to the talks, including Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, as well as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is preparing regulations to cut greenhouse gases.

The high-profile delegation is intended to reinforce Obama's stance, despite the bitter debate in Congress. The House narrowly passed legislation requiring a cap on greenhouse gases from power plants and industry, but it's still unclear whether Senate Democrats will be able to muster the 60 votes needed to approve a similar bill.

Action in the Senate has been put off until next spring.

Administration officials don't want to repeat the mistake of Kyoto, when the U.S. agreed to emission reductions but never implemented them because of strong political opposition at home. The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto agreement.

Most environmentalists hailed Obama's decision to go to Copenhagen, even if it's early in the conference. They said it will help set the tone of the talks and reverse America's image internationally on climate change.

Said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geoscience and international affairs at Princeton University: "The U.S. has stood as the bad guy for so long that it's critically important for the U.S. president to set the tone for the meeting."

___

Associated Press writers Seth Borenstein and Julie Pace in Washington, and Jan Olsen in Copenhagen contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month's Copenhagen climate summi...
WASHINGTON — Putting his prestige on the line, President Barack Obama will personally commit the U.S. to a goal of substantially cutting greenhouse gases at next month's Copenhagen climate summi...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
267
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »   (7 total)
shaki   06:02 AM on 12/09/2009
President Obama has to cut carbon emissionsby at least 50 % as America is one of the most polluted nations in the world. America view on the carbon emssions cut is vital.
shaki   05:59 AM on 12/09/2009
President Obama needs to put his foot down .Americas pledge to cut carbon emissions considerably has to be addressed and agreed upon it is vital that Obama comes up with a plan to cut carbon emissions as America is one of the top polluted nationsin the world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
annecros   10:03 PM on 11/29/2009
Nothing is going to happen in Copenhagen. Nothing, zero, nilch, nada.

Nothing.

There will be a lot of lovely talk from a lot of elected officials who maybe made some agreements, a time ago, based upon conclusions that were based upon unrepeatable experiments by individuals who are now thoroughly discredited and will be resigning shortly.

Nothing is going to happen in Copenhagen. Most of these people need to get reelected, and most of them have to get anything they agree to past a whole slew of elected officials. They will smile, make pretty speeches that have already been rewritten to omit any AGW or AGCC refrences, will have a tasty meal and drink, then go home in their nasty and pollution creating private jets.

Now, watching the elaborate dance will be amusing, if it weren't involving trillions and trillions of dollars. But, nothing binding or of any import will come of it. These guys aren't stupid.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   09:42 AM on 12/03/2009
I think President Obama understands that the more deniers mouth off, the more desperation that indicates among your corporate overlords. The public will approve of the non-binding resolutions he makes with other countries, and the Senate Republicans will have to fall in line behind Lindsey Graham on Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey.
power1   10:51 AM on 11/27/2009
Stuzzadelic,

Are you being sarcastic?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Tom Joad   08:11 AM on 11/27/2009
Overheard in Copenhagen:

"Hot enough for ya?"

"Hey, if you don't like the weather, just wait a minute"

"The coldest day I ever spent was..."

"Will it ever stop raining?"

"See ya in H311!"
photo
filo   09:17 AM on 11/27/2009
It was so cold I saw a chicken crossing the road with a capon.
photo
DocSkull   03:18 PM on 11/27/2009
Was it Super Chicken?
photo
Tim303   04:41 AM on 11/27/2009
Sea level rise is 80 percent above past IPCC predictions.
slithers   03:43 PM on 11/27/2009
so their numbers are completely inaccurate. with all the historic sea level changes and tempurature shifts one might assume this is natural. no it's manmade and the only was to fix it is wealth redistribution.
Javani   03:58 PM on 11/27/2009
You should not mock the psudo-religious. They believe too much. They will cite the IPCC/UN despite that it is conflicted, major money comes to the UN via carbon authentication. Anything, any study, no matter how easily discredible, is believe as a matter of faith and invoked in that fashion.
Javani   04:19 PM on 11/27/2009
"tempurature shifts"

Also, I wish to point out with these religious people, these supposed proxies are not in line with, but in place of thermometer records, because the thermometer records do not fit. The invocation of supposed stats on sea rise, polar bears, on and so, are replacement retuals of faith.
photo
DocSkull   08:44 AM on 11/28/2009
I'm unaware of the IPCC making a prediction for annual sea level increases and only estimate provide an estimation for 2100.

Do you have a source for your assertion?
marbiol   10:44 PM on 11/26/2009
Based upon what we are learning from East anglia data dump, perhaps the copenhagen summit should schedule an additional half day session to discuss how much weight the IPCC report--and other "peer-reviewed" publications should now be given.

It is clear from some of the emails that FOIA requests were ignored/delayed. These instances need to be investigated by the appropriate legal authorities.

IF some of the data manipulations--and I dont just mean tranformations, normalizing, or standardizing procedures--but the [possible] insertion of questionable data to make a model performed to prove a hypothesis.

Even more troubling from the policy standpoint, however, are the [apparently] questionable lines of code imbedded in some of the computer programs. IF--and I say IF--the models cannot be reproduced by otherscientists using the same programs and data sets have not been "overly corrected" then we DO have a problem.

Since government--and global--policy on climate change is being driven by publications and conclusions based upon these models and data sets we need to move slowly and CONFIRM the validity of the conclusions in the IPCC report. There are some people pushing for the blanket retraction of all publications from certain scientists and institutions. This my be overkill---unless, of course, the allegations about these data, models, & conclusions are found to be true.

Finally: why isnt THIS story THE LEAD? Who care what governor's front yard got TP'd; or how there's this 6'8" superchick [let me take back--SHE SHOULD BE!!]
photo
Tim303   04:42 AM on 11/27/2009
"Trick" means "a clever way of crunching numbers." Like the "tricks" you can use to differentiate. It doesn't mean "deception."
photo
DocSkull   03:12 PM on 11/27/2009
You can see the reason for their confusion. The only tricks they know are the dirty kind. They're unfamiliar with the kind that takes knowledge and skill.
Javani   04:00 PM on 11/27/2009
Trick?

How about "hide"? It means hide, right? Or do the 43 Holy Climatologists of the Peer Review Cabal have an alternative English dialect?
marbiol   12:05 AM on 11/28/2009
I never used the word "trick"--I was, however, referring to some of the questions raised by people reviewing the computer codes--NOT the emails. And, by the way, NONE of the statisticians (or even quantitative ecologists] I have worked with, or studied under over >30 yrs has EVER referred to a data tranbsformation, normalization, standardization, or smoothing as a "trick". I guess I have lived in a cloistered scientific community of 5 states & 3 countries.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung   09:38 AM on 12/03/2009
Or when firefighters use dynamite to blow out an oil fire, or somebody slides down a handrail on their skateboard, they aren't deceiving the fire or the handrail, they are using the dynamite and the skateboard in difficult, impressive ways.

"Cool trick!"
photo
T Specter   05:17 AM on 11/27/2009
You are attempting to perpetrate a hoax.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Tom Joad   08:14 AM on 11/27/2009
so, marbiol (I assume that means marine biologist), tell me about the coral reefs...
marbiol   12:14 AM on 11/28/2009
I’d like to be able to comment intelligently, but I’ve never worked on coral reef systems. You see, there are NO coral reefs in the Hudson River, Gulf of Maine, Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay.

There are coral reefs in the Arabian Gulf (predominantly “dead” in Kuwaiti waters because of the colder winter temps; and we never really worked on any in Abu Dhabi).
SFlorida has reefs (but none to my knowledge in the inshore waters of the Ten Thousand Islands mangrove ecosystem,Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor, and the tidal rivers of Florida’s springs coast.

So…my experience with coral reef ecosystems is nil.

However, I am sure you can do simple searches on Yahoo or Google and learn that the 1st “bleaching” events took place in 1979—just after James Hansen et al predicted a new ice age!

You can check out the journal “Coral Reefs” -—there are quite few articles on bleaching—temps, CO2, sedimentation, nutrients, et al have all been implicated.Note that increased tempos of recent years HAVE occurred in the past--with NO reports of bleaching.
From what I have assimilated, MANY of these bleaching episodes are associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. We have seen the effects of ENSO of benthic organisms in a number of Florida rivers (freshwater) and estuaries-- and others have seen ENSO effects in marine fishes and benthos.
photo
Stuzzadelic   10:14 PM on 11/26/2009
Wow! Obama may be the greatest U.S. president since Washington. He has so much on his plate it is really extraordinary what he has been able to accomplish in less than a year. More than his predecessor did in all eight years!
slithers   06:44 PM on 11/26/2009
the whole thing is a shame.

first, we don't need a UN treaty to cut emssions. our nation does not answer to the UN or any other nation.

second, the carbon output global warming tie simply doesn't exist. look at the 100,000 year climate cycle. we're right in sync with the cycle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
billhodges   07:37 PM on 11/26/2009
This is all a money and power grab by the UN and those leaders that want to see a global government.

The exposure of the UN's own research center on global warming clearly shows that the cause of climate change are not mankind. It is the normal cycle of change that we can neither change or stop.

Obama seems to be more concerned with the success of the UN's drive to be the center of world governance and the redistribution of wealth around the world. I have a serious problem with this and many other things he is doing within the country.

If he was serious about true global warming caused by man he would wait until the investigation of climategate is completed.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Tom Joad   08:16 AM on 11/27/2009
yes, it's "them"..."they've" been out to get "us" forever. Thanks for the insightful exposee...
photo
Mikedsole   07:47 PM on 11/26/2009
Hey why don't you do a little experiment if you do not believe in global warming or climate change.

Go enter an air tight room without plants. I think you will find real soon what is happening to the planets atmosphere will happen to you, only much more rapidly.

I really can not believe that some people are so ignorant and sorry to also have to say stupid that they believe eroding +90% of all plant life while polluting the air with Co2 is not going to have an effect on the environment. Come on! Just think for a moment!
CO2feedsPlants   11:33 PM on 11/26/2009
what? eroding 90% of plant life? There are more trees in usa now than when pilgrims arrived.
slithers   02:09 AM on 11/27/2009
that's just silly
JShep   03:52 PM on 11/26/2009
The US did not pass the Kyoto treaty and our emissions have only been reduced by 6.0% between 2000-2006. On the other hand, the 27 EU treaty signers have increased their overall emissions by 0.1% over that same period and Canada has increased by 21%. Looks like there would be more pollution reduction in the US if we didn't sign on to the new Copenhaven treaty.

Let's not overlook the portion of the Copenhaven treaty where the US is expected to fork over $50 billion a year to third world dictators for their so-called adaptation to global warming. Hopefully our senate will never buy into this insanity.
photo
Mikedsole   08:10 PM on 11/26/2009
You are wrong with that the US reduced by 6% it increased see here
http://www.geois.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/InfoGraphic-Kyoto-Protocol.jpg
photo
Mikedsole   09:01 PM on 11/26/2009
NOAA has a cool animated visualization of the temperature in August compared to the historical average.

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail.php?MediaID=301&MediaTypeID=2
photo
mergina   03:05 PM on 11/26/2009
Looking upon this beautiful blue jewel we live on from space, it is hard to imagine that the people ruling its inhabitants are so callously removed from the reality of the urgency to keep it our home. Leaders around the world have recklessly embraced greed as their master at the very expense of trying to keep this planet, our home, OUR ONLY HOME, inhabitable for us as a species. The planet is not dying, but all on it and around it is, and most of it is DUE TO US. Ours is indeed a species that ONLY seems to act when we are at the precipice, with absolutely NO OTHER OPTION. If it is not already too late to step back from that ominous void, it soon will be. Do not count on world leaders to make much of a difference soon enough. Do not count on the rich or corporations to act soon enough, for the very greed that is the reason for our inevitable demise is their creation.
la2010verdad   07:55 PM on 11/26/2009
Boo hoo hoo
photo
Mikedsole   02:27 PM on 11/26/2009
If Obama doesn't commit to the treaty then he's history for me!!! Then he will have to put down an "iron fist" to make the change happen, i.e., actions not words, is what counts for me.

If he doesn't then he is just one of "them", and not one of us, the people. He's then not a man of change but only of false hopes and promises. He would have failed a the leader we elected.

How did that go again, "Fool me once, shame one you. Fool me twice,.... .sorry not going to happen again Mr. Bush. Ah, I mean Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
care4mypeeps   06:13 PM on 11/26/2009
Our President is Not a dictator and he will never lower himself to put down an iron fist of any kind.
I am proud of the Intelligence of our Commander and Chief and the deliberate manner in which he governs.

For those with buyers remorse for what ever reason who refuse to give our Presient the time to adjust to having the wieght of the world on his shoulders while they whistled dixie while the Bush Administration ran this Country into the ground leaves us scratching our heads.

What is totally clear is the deliberate sabotage directed at our first African American President from those on the Far Right while the cowards in the middle of the Republican Party find a corner to hide from the fall out of having a differing opinion.

We are All allowed to disagree with our president and offer constructive criticism but what is happening in some cases is cloaked in hatred against our President while wrapped up in the American flag.
slithers   06:50 PM on 11/26/2009
as if that doesn't happen to every president
photo
Mikedsole   07:40 PM on 11/26/2009
Don't take my post as "anti" Obama. I voted for him and was ashamed when Bush was elected.

Fact is with the climate issue Obama must to be strong. Very strong!!! If not he will not get the change in direction that is required. On this subject we have been thinking and talking for decades but have had zero action. So, action is what I expect at this point, nothing less. And, it can not be that the US not be part of such an important effort.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
omobob   12:09 PM on 11/26/2009
The conservative agenda continues to confuse politics and science. This is not about science but the conservative self aggrandizers who a use newfound sense of entitlement to stifle any sense of scientific curiosity into the earths future climate. Wielding charges of fraud, as if they had been personally offended. like a little boy who just discovered Dads shot gun.
mikefina   09:27 AM on 11/26/2009
Dear World,

Ignore the Shiny Object. He cannot deliver on the promises he will make. You've been fooled enough, as the troop escalation shows, vis-a-vis a "Peace Prize" winner. Don't be fooled again.

If you want to be taken seriously, then confront the duplicity and fecklessness of our President. Call him out on how, SPECIFICALLY, he will coalesce the varied forces in Congress to ACTUALLY deliver the Greenhouse Gas reductions you desire of the USA.

It won't happen. So why indulge him? Time to be sturdy, no longer smitten.

Sincerely,

mikefina
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
care4mypeeps   06:34 PM on 11/26/2009
Mikefina would you ever show such blatent disrespect for The Bush Administration? We are trying to move forward together and the boldness to say the worst thing about our President has to be asorbed and processed so that the contamination of the gall that these anti- President Obama zealots continually deluge us with criticizing Everything that he does is astounding.

The new Blight on our society is indeed the Republican Party and their paid political assasins who kill progress and grind the House and Senate chambers to a halt while distorting everything that comes into focus.

This is the real story here, so when you and all those like you who obstruct everything with great arrogance remember the millions who are not drinking the Republican kool-Aid and are not drunk with your rhetoric.
mikefina   09:49 PM on 11/26/2009
I disdain the previous Administration. You lost traction right out of the gate.

After that, the syntax-free stream-of-conciousness riff that your random-word-generator program poured out, left me cold.

Your opening paragraph is incoherent.

Please try again.
chrisfrmchi2   04:54 AM on 11/26/2009
A message to the environmental movement

This is James Corbett of corbettreport.com and I come here today with a message for you.

You the environmentalists, you the activists, you the campaigners.

You who have watched with growing concern the ways in which the world around us has been ravaged in the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

You who are concerned with the state of the planet that we are leaving for our children and our grandchildren and those generations yet unborn.

This is not a message of divisiveness, but cooperation.

This is a message of hope and empowerment, but it requires us to look at a hard and uncomfortable truth:

Your movement has been usurped by the very same financial interests you thought you were fighting against.

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20091125_e­nviro_mess­age.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEggt0ldQUI

Twitter Edition