Copenhagen 2009 on The Huffington Post

Richard Grenell: Obama's Popularity Isn't Translating Into Progress

2009-12-23T22:56:26Z

The White House staff should never allow Barack Obama to go to Copenhagen again. The last time Obama went to Copenhagen the United States was turned down from the 2016 Olympic bidding process in the first round. This last week, Obama went to Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference and he came up short on his goal for an international agreement on one of his priority issues. If Obama can't convince the international community to go along with one of his signature issues then the President's clout isn't what some Americans claim it to be. Other than health care reform, President Obama has talked about global warming and climate change issues more than almost any other issue during the campaign and since taking office. The Copenhagen disaster is a real sign of Obama's shallow influence internationally.

The biggest news coming out of Copenhagen, but not covered by the American media, is that Obama hasn't been able to convince other countries to act even though he is the most popular head of state. We're one year into Obama's presidency and the international community has yet to take action on any U.S. priority. You have to wonder why world leaders claim to love him but won't follow him.

Obama's popularity and charisma failed to convince the world to bring the Olympics to the U.S., to sign the Copenhagen agreement, to produce new additional NATO troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, to produce any additional action on confronting Iran's continued uranium enrichment and even to convince his own Democratic party to support some of his priority issues.

Candidate Obama received the media's overt support throughout the primary and general elections and became an international superstar. Today, Barack or Michelle Obama continue to appear on large and medium sized magazine covers from health and fitness publications to news periodicals to cooking and sports magazines and in nearly every language.

But Copenhagen has shown that we shouldn't confuse Obama's popularity with progress. He is clearly popular in other countries but it is because he isn't asking them to act. Or if he is, he isn't strong enough to convince them. They love the easy ride.

Iran's illegal enrichment of uranium is a perfect example of Obama's weakness. During the Bush administration, the president and his team were able to isolate Iran and organize the international community to produce Security Council sanctions and a total of three UN resolutions. Although forcing the Security Council to negotiate and ultimately vote on tough resolutions is never easy and always unpopular, it is an important leadership test. China, Russia and others weren't happy to be forced to confront Iran -- but ultimately Iran sanctions were passed with unanimous support.

The Obama team has chosen to take the easy and popular path. There has been no increase in sanctions or additional UN resolutions on Iran since the Bush administration ended. In fact, multiple deadlines have passed without repercussions for the government of Iran. Enrichment continues at multiple sites in Iran even though the UN Security Council has demanded the government suspend enrichment with verification.

Obama's popularity may produce large crowds and warm compliments, but one thing I learned while serving 8 years at the United Nations is to be suspicious when you are the most popular guy in a room full of international negotiators.

Kumi Naidoo: The Red Carpet Four

2009-12-23T17:39:17Z

Tonight four of my friends sit in a Danish jail, in isolation, detained without trial over Christmas and New Year. I've had friends in jail before, but never under circumstances quite as ludicrous as these. On Thursday December 19, Juan Lopez de Uralde, Nora Christiansen and Christian Schmutz's three-vehicle convoy was ushered through police lines, past sharpshooters and up to the Danish Parliament where Queen Margrethe II was hosting a banquet for Heads of State attending the UN climate conference.

Surprising, really, as this was anything but a sophisticated operation. It relied entirely on simple, readily available materials and had elements of farce about it. 'Greenpeace' signs displayed on the windscreens of limousines hired by the activists were in one case wedged in place by a pair of socks. One of the car number plates included "007" -- a reference to James Bond. Blue 'police' lights on top of another vehicle were purchased for Danish Kroner 50 (around US$ 9.60) off the internet.

Juan, dressed in a tuxedo, and Nora, decked out in a red silk floor-length gown, walked up the red carpet as "Head of State of the Natural Kingdom, and his wife". Christian entered behind them playing their official help. The trio was followed by Hillary Clinton. Once inside the great hall they unfurled two yellow banners reading "Politicians Talk, Leaders Act". Guards were so taken aback that it took them a few seconds to gather their wits and arrest my Greenpeace colleagues. Police later arrested Joris Thijssen, a Greenpeace climate campaigner, while he was eating in a restaurant the following day for alleged involvement in the activity.

Nora, 35, Juan, 46 and Christian, 37 had one goal when they set out to crash the Queen's banquet: to send a friendly reminder to Heads of State that there was precious little time left to secure a fair, ambitious and legally binding deal for the climate -- and that they should use their time over dinner wisely. These world leaders were gathered in Copenhagen for the UN climate conference -- but failed utterly to lead, and did nothing to stop global warming.

The "Red Carpet Four" activity is in line with a long history of Greenpeace protests. The first occurred in 1971, when a small group of concerned men and women felt it was in the best interest of the planet to stop the US from carrying out underground atomic bomb tests on the earthquake-prone island of Amchitka, off the coast of Canada. They decided to sail to the island to bear witness. Their journey -- in an old boat over dangerous waters -- was left unfinished but captured admiration and attention from around the globe. Nuclear testing on Amchitka ended that same year.

Many would argue as I do, that climate change poses the same level of threat to life on this planet that nuclear bombs did some 40 years ago. According to Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum, 300,000 people died from results of climate change this year alone.

In the run-up to Copenhagen, civil society spent the year trying to make politicians understand that the time has come to act. That they can not play dice with the future of our children. That nature does not negotiate. More than 15 million people joined in the call from the tcktcktck campaign (which includes partners such as Amnesty, Avaaz, Greenpeace, 350, Oxfam, and WWF) to demand a FAB "fair, ambitious, binding" treaty to stop climate change. We did achieve some small victories, not least of which was that we made climate justice an issue so big and so important that neither media, nor politicians could chose to avoid the conference.

Unfortunately, it was not enough to stop the Copenhagen talks from turning to farce and delivering only an empty shell of a document called the "Copenhagen Accord". This does not mean our actions were not without impact. No, I am convinced that if we as a united civil society persist in making our voices heard, politicians will feel enough pressure that they will take the steps necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. Let's just hope it's not too late.

In the meantime, four of my friends sit in Danish prison cells. A judge has ordered their detainment until the next hearing scheduled for Jan 7th. They face three charges: trespassing, falsifying documents and impersonating a police officer (the charges are aggravated because the activists were in the vicinity of the Queen). The Red Carpet Four gave up their freedom to get a message out calling for action against climate. Don't let in be in vain. Please support our new campaign to keep the pressure on world leaders for a real climate deal in 2010.

In the close to 40-year history of Greenpeace I am not aware of a single activist trying to avoid the legal consequences of his or her actions. Between the four of them, the "Red Carpet" group has five children, aged two to thirteen, and one pregnant partner. Denying these people release, thus keeping them away from their families over the holidays, for the crime of peaceful protest is a travesty of justice -- especially when world leaders who failed to stand up for the climate have been comfortably back home for days.

Let us hope that people will be inspired by these four brave souls who were not afraid to risk their freedom to demand real action against climate change. That people will make their own efforts to act against the greatest single threat we face and join the call for the prompt release of the Red Carpet Four and other peaceful climate protesters who are still detained.

Stefan Roberts: Copenhagen was a Failure of Democracy

2009-12-23T16:26:34Z

It's difficult to pinpoint what went wrong in Copenhagen. It was, of course, the politics - the U.S. and China petrified about giving away economic superiority to the other; developing nations crying foul at the developed nations' pledges for more money - remembering the same empty words that came after Gleneagles G8 summit in 2005; too many nations vying for power and influence and in the process diminishing the potency of the few individuals who had the ability to bring nations together and craft a climate deal for the future of mankind.

But Copenhagen can also be considered a failure for environmentalists and climate campaigners. We failed to convey was the urgency that is required to effectively tackle the enormous problem that we are faced with. If we had done it right, the current administration would be less worried about a shift of economic power to China and instead be focused on building the necessary infrastructure that is needed to supply the United States with renewable energy for the 21st century.

It puzzles me that the aims and figures that come out of UN summits are always "by 2050...." What Copenhagen has shown the world is that, regardless of the promises made by politicians who have no worry about facing the consequences of falling short decades after their careers will be over, today's leaders are not taking the danger of the climate crisis seriously.

I, like so many Americans, looked to Obama on the 4th November last year, when he stood up in Grant Park, Chicago, and proclaimed to joyous crowds that "change had come to America," to make good his promise. In many ways it wasn't difficult, and in many ways it has proved impossible.

But the leadership he promised to take to Copenhagen; the old-style statesmanship that we all hoped could come from a man whose words and spirit we all felt uplifted by - even brought to tears - when he invoked the memory of Martin Luther King, of Abraham Lincoln, and, in that most defining speech of all after the New Hampshire loss in February 2008, of Moses leading the Israelites to the promised land, has failed to materialise into anything other than words.

I sympathise with those African states who refused to accept the promise of the US and the EU for money and aid to develop green economies - I don't I would either. The challenge Barack Obama has always faced, and now more than ever, is to combat the reputation of the US abroad whilst converting those who would defend it at home.

The United States has so much to proud of - it is and will always be a beacon of hope for those who live without free speech, liberty or accountable justice. But when it comes to its almost protectionist attitude internationally, it falls down on its promise to be a better nation for its people.

That is the change that we expected from the president, and the Copenhagen summit has reinforced what we all feared - that those brilliant words were just those and nothing else. The accord that came out of it is nothing more than just words, and it testifies to a world still deeply divided and blinded by such division when faced with the enormous challenges that climate change poses.

A. Siegel: Typing Aloud About China's Climate

2009-12-23T13:33:54Z

Many are reporting that the Chinese represented the most serious stumbling block inhibiting meaningful progress in Copenhagen.

Should we conclude that China's at fault for the world's failures to move forward?

Are the Chinese against action on climate change?

Is the Chinese leadership simply a roadblock to progress?

These are important questions to understand and consider as we strive to determine paths forward toward a prosperous, climate-friendly future.

"China is at fault ..."

As per David Robert's excellent discussion of impressions of COP15

if there's a party to blame, it's China. It's China that was off meeting with India and Brazil, trying to avoid getting ensnared in any commitments at all, forcing Obama to track them down. It was China that refused to sign off on the target of 50% global reductions by 2050. It was China that forced rich countries not to commit to 80% reductions by 2050, lest it some day have to live up to that target. (Yes, China forced rich countries to trim their ambitions. "Ridiculous," said Merkel.) It was China who, up until the very last minute, refused to agree to any international verification at all ...

It's China, in short, that was unwilling to sign onto anything but the most bare-bones framework.

Watching 'from a distance,' this is a summation of a growing impression re: the PRC position in international climate negotiations.

'Chinese are against action ...'

The Independent reported China stands accused of wrecking global deal.

China "systematically wrecked" the Copenhagen climate summit because it feared being presented with a legally binding target to cut the country's soaring carbon emissions [according to] a senior official from an EU country, present during the negotiations ... [A]ccusations ... of obstructive Chinese behaviour, reflected widespread anger among many delegations about the nation's actions at the conference.

The very thoughtful Lou Grinzo concluded:

Right before our eyes we have the development of the biggest example one could imagine of the free rider problem. If the other major emitters and potentially high emitters do the right thing and curb their CO2 pollution significantly, it will only make it easier for China to do whatever it wants. The rest of the world will leave more of our global remaining CO2 budget for China, and they will continue using vast amounts of cheap coal, burned in filthy, old-tech plants, to lower their costs so they can continue to be a low-cost producer of many products they export.

Chinese leadership a roadblock to progress

The title of Mark Lynas' Guardian op-ed makes his perspective clear: How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

Copenhagen was a disaster. ... The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication ...

China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Stepping back to consider the issue ...

Without a doubt, there is truth (and substance) to all of the above, but let's take a step back to consider the PRC's approach from a different angle.

The Chinese Leadership

doesn't suffer from rabid anti-science syndrome conditions, thus listens to their technical experts -- including their climate scientists

structure & Chinese cultural heritage are able to plan for the very long term

is growing increasingly convinced that climate change represents a serious threat to their nation

is increasingly concerned over fossil-fuel (oil and higher-quality coal) import dependencies, thus increasingly

is focusing national investment re clean energy options

wants to see serious global action re: climate change mitigation

seeking to maximize advantage to PRC through this whole process

Thus, the Chinese are acting to mitigate climate change (their clean energy investments, increasing focus on energy efficiency, etc ...) but they are (in quite realist terms) seeking to get every possible penny (whether US pennies, or the more valuable Euro version) they can get from other nations to gain advantage for the PRC over the long term.

Thus, the Chinese will play every single negotiation to the brink, giving away the absolute minimum they see as necessary, even as they are moving their own nation on a 'clean energy technology' path forward.

Thus, perhaps the reality is that the Chinese are negotiating, hard, for every advantage ... even while turning their economy on a path toward dominance (victory?) in the clean energy revolution.

Two asides ...

Some of the best commentary on this comes from koNko. In particular, I would recommend this discussion

... The accusation that Chinese were purposely trying to subvert the talks, make Mr. Obama look bad or use him as a scapegoat is frankly ridiculous. ... To suggest that China was obstructionist is to suggest they were unwilling to make compromises. ...

That they were unwilling to compromise on certian key points in the absence of substatial agreements including commitments from developed nations suggests something else: that China is not foolish to cave into demands by developed nations when recipricol compromises were not in the offer and obviously no firm agreements could be made.

As noted, I would strongly recommend reading the full comment which ended with this telling graphic about per capita carbon emissions:

Note that setting the globe on a path toward 350 ppm would require per capita emissions in the 2.0 to 2.5 tons range.

China ... Chinese ... China Leadership ... Chinese Interest Groups ...

The simple collective singular is far easier when thinking about, discussing the "other." "The United States believes ..." ... "The Jews think that ..." "The Chinese feel ..." While we can speak seriously of the nature and conduct of an official delegation (Lynas' claims about Copenhagen, for example), we have a real peril in that collective term "The Chinese ..." While they might not have their Jim Inhofe in a place of power, there are certainly a wide range of 'interest groups' within the Chinese government and society from factory owners, mining interests, coal-fired electricity interests, scientific institutions studying climate change, clean-energy entrepreneurs, with varying stakes in the game and efforts to drive direction. And, while far more autocratic than the United States, the reality is that a central government dictate is necessarily fully implemented across the nation without question and without undermining. There are regional vs. central government issues as well. And, increasingly, there are civil society groups attempting to impact society and governance (such as Greenpeace China, et al ...) And ...

At the moment, I am reading Bryan Tilt's just-published The Struggle for Sustainability in Rural China. Tilt is an ethnographer who spent a number of years in Futian, a rural community in Sichuan, doing "research on economic development and environmental degradation in the Chinese countryside". Tilt provides a far more complex picture (a far more complex reality) than simply "The Chinese ..."

In addition, fueling the confusion or difficulty for most "Westerners" looking toward China is a reality of a variety of cultural and other divides. Ask an average American (okay, "average" could be a problem. How about college-educated?) to name 10 European cities and describe them in some manner and you could get discussions of Rome & the Coliseum, Paris & Notre Dame, London and Trafalgar Square, Greece & the Parthenon, Berlin & the Berlin Wall, etc ... Try to elicit the same about the PRC and does anyone think that there would, writ large across American (or, well, European society of US vs China) society, be an equal level of detail and understanding?

What might this suggest for European and US policy?

If the above points are, at their core, correct, the best path for the United States (and others) might be to set out on a serious 'arms race': to arm ourselves (whether looking at this from EU or US or, well, Chinese perspective) to the greatest advantage with clean energy technology -- which includes, of course, not just energy R&D funding, but serious commitments to the deployment of clean energy and energy efficiency throughout the economy. (Clean Energy Jobs anyone?)

If the United States, European Union (French carbon tax starts 1 January on top of Europe's Cap & Trade), Japan, and others are prepared (a big question, at least when it comes to the US) to put a price on carbon while some economies aren't, then perhaps it is time for a Global Warming Impact Fee which could help compel others to take that step while protecting national economies in a fair and justifiable way.

Right now, China is committing ever more resources to seeking advantage in solar, wind, and other clean energy arenas. They look to realize that the real path to future wealth is to leap frog past polluting energy into a clean energy future. If their investments continue without matching (or larger) investments in Europe and the United States, the "Old World" and the "New World" will be beholden to China for key elements of our economies. A question to ask: does that scenario bode well for the future prospects for Old World and/or New World prosperity?

This suggests that future climate change negotiations and the prospects for mitigation of climate change would be best served by serious (crash) programs on both sides of the Atlantic to develop and deploy a broad range of clean energy systems.

Michael Kieschnick: How to Make Lieberman and Baucus Irrelevant

2009-12-23T13:32:39Z

After Joe Lieberman and 40 Republicans forced Senate Democrats to abandon real health reform, insurance company stocks jumped on Wall Street.

After the Copenhagen talks collapsed with no binding agreement to lower carbon pollution, the price of carbon contracts in Europe fell sharply.

Insurance stocks up and carbon contracts down - this is unmitigated bad news. Financial markets are far from perfect, but they got right what many pundits and elected leaders are getting totally wrong.

At the center of each disastrous case is the United States Senate, whose rules magnify corporate power to resist progressive change even when polling makes clear that change is clearly popular with the American people.

Three rules in particular stand out.

Senate rules, adopted on the first day of each session by majority vote, provide for successful filibusters if 41 senators stand firm. From a progressive point of view, this means that the 59th and 60th votes - senators like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh - all firmly controlled by corporate interests - decide policy if the minority party is disciplined.

Small states are substantially overrepresented. The Constitution provides for two senators from each state. The 640,000 citizens of North Dakota have as much representation as the more than 36 million citizens of California.

Committee chairs are selected based on seniority. This allows senators like Max Baucus to rule the Finance Committee in the interests of insurance companies for decades. In the House, where the rules are different, environmental leader Henry Waxman could challenge General Motors' representative John Dingell to a vote to chair the Energy and Commerce Committee and make climate change legislation at least possible.

It is beyond difficult to change the Constitution, but it is both possible and essential to eliminate the filibuster and elect, rather than perpetuate, committee chairs. No significant progressive change that requires Congressional action will happen without these changes. Period. Both changes will be easiest to adopt when the Senate organizes itself after the 2010 elections.

And if progressive change is not sufficient motivation, just imagine a day where Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus are irrelevant and off the front page of the newspapers and have no place on the Sunday morning talk show circuit. That is change worth fighting for.

Reverend Billy: Who's the Government? Who's the God?

2009-12-23T11:23:01Z

Christmas itself gives us the reason for our activism. The nativity story is indigenous, pantheistic, and it is radical. Animals with intelligent eyes surrounding a newborn whose mother made love to the power that we all have? This ain't about shopping. It's about starting our culture over. From the moment of that miraculous thing called birth, that glowing spark in the manger ... this is not the time to bow down to the old-timey leaders in their bunkers and jets. This is the solstice, when the light and heat increase every day. It is the promise of change and the green wild life of Spring.

I'll admit - the back room deals of Copenhagen cast a pall on efforts to change the world for the better. Obama and the Chinese have recast an old Cold War conflict, with the two world powers forcing agreements from their pre-eminent position. This is the exclusive top-down approach in which world-wide chaos - wars, hunger, disease, sweatshops - is an acceptable expense for the corporate boards. Consumerism and Militarism are supposed to continue as the reigning systems. But the force of heat and light begins to grow this week. The longest night will burn away! Amen?

We didn't have the money to fly to Copenhagen from New York. (And they haven't invented a veggie-fueled jet yet, either.) But as people return we hear vivid accounts of new relationships, movements, alliances between the global south and north. All the culture that Obama and Clinton did not acknowledge does in fact exist - is born and growing. The secrecy and isolation of the Chinese/Obama meetings says it all. The rest of us are waiting outside, with the rising seas, the fires and droughts and freak storms. It is dawning on us that the Earth is the only government and the only god.

Tom Friedman: What We Can Learn From Denmark's Green Economy

2009-12-23T10:37:24Z

Boulder delegation processes lessons from Copenhagen conference

2009-12-22T22:32:14Z

Boulder's two-person delegation returned from the United Nations' climate change conference Sunday with a renewed belief that local governments must continue to lead the battle against climate change.

Gordon Brown: A Clear Agenda for Reform in 2010

2009-12-22T20:32:23Z

When the Asian Crisis sent shockwaves around the world's economies in the late 1990s, I made proposals for a reshaping of our international institutions for new times.

We are now at the end of the first decade of a troubled new century where we have witnessed deep global economic, environmental and security crises.

And it is clearer than ever that without effective decision making at a global level, we cannot possibly meet the great global challenges: protectionism, economic instability, climate change, and threats from terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

A better international framework for cooperation is no longer just desirable in one arena: it is essential in every one.

One of the frustrations of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference was that outdated attitudes -- and a fear of change -- prevented the binding treaty most of the world wants.

That is not to detract from some significant achievements. In substantive terms the Copenhagen Accord is stronger than most commentary has acknowledged.

It sets for the first time in a United Nations context a global goal of no more than 2° Celsius of warming. For the first time, it requires all developed countries to adopt emissions caps at the same time as requiring the largest developing countries -- including China, India and Brazil -- to set out and to stand behind their emissions reduction plans.

It creates a system of transparent reporting and analysis of actions taken. And it includes funding to help developing countries tackle climate change, rising from $10 billion a year in 2012 to $100 billion by 2020.

Most importantly of all, when countries submit their final emissions reductions targets and plans, the Copenhagen Accord can and must put in place a high level of collective ambition which puts the world on a low carbon pathway consistent with the 2° objective.

But, of course, we did not get agreement to cement all this in a legally binding treaty -- and this must be our goal in the next few months.

The elusiveness of that aim reflects both the way this new world does business on environmental and other issues, and the risks this creates for the world economy.

The UN has never had the environmental, economic and social clout that should accompany its high ideals and grand aspirations -- and not just on climate change.

While peacemaking and humanitarian help has improved, the necessary capacity to prevent and resolve conflicts -- through stabilisation and reconstruction -- is developing too slowly.

Meanwhile, the International Monetary Fund was built around national states with protected economies; and the World Bank around the reconstruction of war-ravaged economies.

But today's economies are no longer sheltered and local but interwoven and global; not even the biggest can be insulated from instability without wider international cooperation.

And development now also entails funding adaptation to -- and mitigation of -- climate change; as well as new ways to fight poverty, such as through trade and economic development.

So a new level of global cooperation for sustainable prosperity and peace is the only way to take millions out of unemployment and poverty, to prevent millions more being abandoned to climate change catastrophe, and to protect us all from the threats of terrorism and nuclear proliferation.

Our collective failure so far to match global action to these global needs is all the more disappointing because a shared global ethic is emerging.

The universal response to the banking crisis has been a call for fairness and responsibility. The crisis of climate change has at the same time evoked calls for us to recognize our dependence upon each other.

In every one of the world's many religious faiths there is a common thread of compassion: a recognition that we should do to others as we would be done by.

And as global communications networks bring more and more people together, we are finding that the values they share are a greater inspiration to action than those which divide them.

The world has accepted shared responsibility for the environment, yet we have no adequate institutional means to turn that responsibility into reality.

We see the need for better management for the global economy to enable strong, sustained and balanced growth but have not given the G20 or the IMF the tools to achieve it.

We have accepted the responsibility for global financial supervision but have not yet given the Financial Stability Board sufficient strength to organize it.

We have publicly taken on responsibility for the Millennium Development Goals -- but no one body has the responsibility for ensuring they are delivered.

And we have even accepted 'the responsibility to protect' -- our duty to save civilians from genocide and war crimes -- but have seldom implemented it in practice.

So our global ethic lacks conviction without better ways to make decisions as one world.

Far-seeing people will tell us that the first years of the coming decade are probably the only times when fundamental change is possible and if we do not take it we will not be able to maintain the benefits of an open global economy and harness globalization to achieve a better, more prosperous world.

For as the balance of economic power changes over the next two decades, new and stronger power-brokers may be less willing to embrace change.

My fear is that, by that time, a new kind of environmental, economic and social protectionism will be our fate; threatening prosperity, our environment and ultimately global stability.

To avoid this race to the bottom, I propose that we discuss five inclusive reforms in the way the world seeks global solutions for global problems.

On climate change, I propose that we strengthen the UN environmental institutions, providing for clearer decision-making powers, a stronger role in ensuring the transparency of actions, and a clearer role in ensuring flows of climate finance.

Building on the Copenhagen Accord, it is particularly important that the UN has a proper system of transparency from all its members.

This would help remove one of the stumbling blocks to the legally-binding climate change treaty that Europe and most of the rest of the world desires and supports. It is clearly important that the world knows what its collective effort against climate change is achieving.

Second, I propose that the G20 -- now charged as the premier global economic forum -- finds better ways of recognizing the needs of all continents and ensuring outreach to, and representation for, all 192 countries.

Third, the world needs better rules and procedures for addressing economic instability; so alongside the G20 I propose that the IMF -- working with a greatly strengthened FSB -- becomes akin to an independent bank, responsible for independent surveillance to ensure early warning for, and the prevention of, crises.

This should be the basis for the G20's work.

Fourth, the World Bank, IMF and regional banks -- often through more representative trust funds -- must be reformed with the expanded financial power they need to help tackle climate change, instability and poverty.

Fifth, as I have said before, we need to address the challenge of rebuilding failed states and post-conflict countries with better mechanisms for stabilization and reconstruction.

These major changes in the way the world works are, I believe, the first steps towards a truly global society.

All require countries to reconsider entrenched positions, but each should be discussed and refined and we should then make this our clear agenda for reform in 2010.

Philip Radford: Carbon Price Drops Are True Signal That Copenhagen Was a Cop-Out

2009-12-22T18:25:02Z

Was Copenhagen historic or a failure (or both)? To discern the value of the Copenhagen deal through the din of spin, look no further than the 9% drop in the European carbon market on Monday, where confidence vanished following the President Obama's "historic accord."

Last week, President Obama made an audacious effort to save what was a floundering process in Copenhagen. Unfortunately, his administration's claim of "historic accord" is little but spin. What the world was waiting for -- the sinking island nations, the 300,000 that the World Health Organization says die each year from global warming, and the carbon markets -- were binding agreements to cut carbon pollution, end tropical deforestation by 2015, and provide financing to assist developing countries in leap-frogging dirty development with clean energy.

What they got was business as usual. Earlier this year the House passed a deeply flawed climate bill that falls short of what the science says is needed to roll back climate change. The bill's contents were what the president promised in Copenhagen, and his words were met with disappointment the world over.

There is spin from all sides about just what happened in Denmark. Let me share my observations from someone with a global, not just U.S., perspective. The European Union, already actively engaged in the Kyoto Protocol, offered to cut its pollution by 20% and said they would go up to 30% if the U.S. put more ambitious goals on the table. The EU also pledged 30 billion euro per year for financing clean technology and other initiatives in the developing world. China, already outpacing the U.S. in the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies, offered to decrease the energy intensity of its emerging economy. India pledged the same.

The U.S. pressed China to allow its efforts to cut global warming pollution to be independently measured. China resisted the U.S. proposal to allow the U.S. to come in and inspect its industry, but felt that the negotiations with the U.S. were making progress on this point when it accepted an EU proposal on reporting and occasional checks. Meanwhile, the U.S. was punching loopholes into the pact.

The deal could possibly be sealed if the U.S. offered financing for developing countries and resolved the issue of transparency with China.

Enter Hillary Clinton, offering to somehow figure out how to give an unstated contribution of money from an unknown source to a $100 billion fund. In the process, she offended the Chinese premier, who was in such a fury that his negotiating staff was in a panic.

Enter President Obama. His speech, clearly written for one audience - the U.S. Senate - said three things to the heads of state in the room: hey foreign leaders, we don't want foreign oil; hey China, even though we've been building trust and negotiating all year well, I'm going to scold you for the benefit of domestic politics; and hey world: even though these are negotiations, I have nothing to offer. It's my way or the highway.

The President laid out what the U.S. had offered the world for the last eight months, budging on nearly nothing. He put forward a goal of cutting pollution by 4% below 1990 levels - about one tenth of what the EU offered. In fairness, he had little to offer. The combination of the President's hesitance to lead to overcome special interests to achieve his own stated objectives - whether on a public option in health care or pollution reductions of any respectable size - and the power of the coal and oil lobbies put the his negotiators in the awkward positoin of negotiating without very much to give.

The Chinese premier stormed out of the room and refused to meet with the President. Finally, the President secured a meeting and hammered out a deal that has the value of the carbon markets today: very little.

So few people had a clue about the "deal" that when President Obama later announced it the EU negotiators were still forging a deal and G77 delegates were talking in the halls about the perilous state of the Summit. Ultimately, most signed on, because if they did not, then their countries would not get a cut of a $30 billion package for clean energy and adapting to current global warming. A few brave countries, not wanting to be bought, said "no" to the deal. The historic accord was "noted" by the process, a nod to its existence.

The world still expects great things of President Obama and the US, but we cannot expect him to save the world on his own. We can expect - and must demand - that the president leads in recommitting the U.S. to the democratic UN process, doubles his efforts through the EPA and other methods to cut global warming pollution without the loopholes, clean air act rollbacks, impending nuclear disasters, and green light for coal that we see in current legislation, and approaches the negotiations as what they are - negotiations to save millions of lives, dozens of countries, 70% of the world's species, and a future that is worth passing on to our children.

Sam Black: Copenhagen: A Theater of the Absurd

2009-12-22T15:41:15Z

Now that the Copenhagen climate change conference is over, the post-mortems are flooding print and online media outlets. The consensus among those who didn't participate in the conference seems to be that it was a failure. Failure is being blamed on President Obama, Congress, China, developing nations in general, and any number of other scapegoats.

But what surprised me the most wasn't that nothing of consequence was agreed to -- I fully expected that. I was surprised by the incredible volume of hypocritical, ludicrous, overstated, and simply bizarre statements that were released over the course of the conference. It was incredible! I think we owe it to the Copenhagen participants to recognize that, for these two weeks, they made the debate over health care seem reasonable by comparison. Here are some of my highlights:

African environmental and antipoverty campaigners and some delegates marched through the halls pressing for rich countries to pledge to limit warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, ratcheting down from the 2.0-degree threshold that was set as a no-go zone by the world's dominant nations in recent agreements.
"Two degrees, suicide!" the protesters chanted.

Every international conference has its own version of bizarre protesters, and it usually doesn't take long to find them.

Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the group of 132 developing countries known as G77 plus China, spelt out exactly why the poor countries he represents were so incensed. "The text robs developing countries of their just and equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It tries to treat rich and poor countries as equal,"

The text is bad because it treats us equally! And this is unjust! How dare you treat us equally! Where's my medication? What does blue taste like? Why am I surrounded by purple rabbits?

A spokesman for Cafod, a development charity with close links to some of the poorest countries in the world, said: "This draft document reveals the backstage machinations of a biased host who, instead of acting as nonpartisan broker, is taking sides with the developed countries.

"The document should not even exist. There is a UN legal process which is the official negotiating text. The Danish text disrespects the solid, steady approach of the UN process."

Yes. How disrespectful of a draft paper. Also, the "solid, steady approach"? Really? I'd go with bizarre and ineffective, but OK.

"We have to ask him, when he provided trillions of dollars to save Wall Street, are the children of the world not deserving help to save their lives?" said Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, a diplomat from Sudan.

If the Sudanese really want to save the children of the world, I'd recommend they start in Darfur.

[U.S. negotiator Todd Stern] also insisted that the US would pay money into an international fund to aid climate adaptation and the rollout of clean technologies, but would not be guilt tripped into paying "reparations".

"We absolutely recognise our historic role in putting emissions in the atmosphere, up there, but the sense of guilt or culpability or reparations, I just categorically reject that," he said."

A bold move by the US: moving from the "nothing's happening" aka "double middle finger" approach to the "we helped caused it but we're not guilty" aka "single middle finger" approach. At this pace, by next year we'll still be giving Tuvalu the finger, but while smiling.

But senior Indian negotiator Chandrashekar Dasgupta told Indian news agency PTI that India would not sign a deal that imposes binding targets.

"We are quite prepared through our national communications to report what we are doing, but that is for the purpose of information only," he said. "It is not subject to review, to verification, to re-negotiation, to dialogue or any such thing. It is a nationally determined voluntary target ... Nothing less, nothing more."

India, meanwhile, is sticking with the double middle finger approach.

EU leaders have agreed to pay 7.2bn euros (£6.5bn; $10.6bn) over the next three years to help developing nations adapt to climate change.

Particularly among some of the poorer African countries, there are demands for a lot more money considerably sooner, our correspondent says, and whether they accept these figures will depend on what else is on the table in Copenhagen.

You know an issue has crossed into a whole new level of crazy when countries are considering rejecting more than $10 billion in free money. In exchange for literally doing nothing.

"I think there's no doubt that China, when it says 40 to 45 percent reduction in energy intensity, is serious about that," said Ed Miliband, the British secretary of state for energy and climate change. The more challenging hurdle, he said, is finding a way that China can prove to the outside world that it is reducing its emissions by the amount it claims.

Um...what? If we really thought China was serious about reducing emissions, wouldn't we not care so much about verification? Common sense fail.

"They're going to wait until the last hour of the last day and just as the other side is walking out they'll say, 'Hey, come back.' Just as they do every day in every market in China," Ms. Finamore said. "That's why they're the best negotiators in the world."

Yes. I'm sure President Obama's pre-summit prep sessions often involve trying to draw analogies to buying fruit.

Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe was among the first heads of state to touch down in the Danish capital, avoiding a travel ban imposed by Western nations because he was attending to a U.N. conference. Mugabe was to address the conference Wednesday.

What, was Kim Jong Il not available?

"A hundred billion is never enough," [Indian environment minister Jairam] Ramesh said, "but it's a small step."

Actually, where I'm from, a hundred billion dollars is pretty much always enough.

Obama returned to the White House and said "extremely difficult and complex negotiations" had been needed in Copenhagen.

"This breakthrough lays the foundation for international action in the years to come."

Yes, it lays the foundation for years of international action. Specifically, the lack of any.

What a conference...

What Happened In Copenhagen: Dr. Seuss-Style (VIDEO)

2009-12-22T15:19:07Z

There's lots of angst, disappointment and rehashing about what happened in Copenhagen, but here at HuffPost Green, we got a kick out of this Dr. Seuss-style rhyme that summarizes what happened in Denmark. This podcast from the BBC's The Now Show will give you Copenhagen nerds out there a little laugh.

Highlights include lyrics such as:

Ban Ki-moon put his head in another man's lap/ And was last heard muttering something like "crap"/ But the chap next to him said "It's more like it's poo"/ So the great hall debated not what they should do / But how to decide between crap cack and poo/ "It is poo" "It is cack" "It is crap"/ "We agree"/ Which was written and labelled as document three

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

James Boyce: Businesses Urge Congress to Act after Copenhagen

2009-12-22T13:59:52Z

The lead up to the recently-concluded talks in Copenhagen started literally years ago, with pre-meetings and conferences and those that are for addressing the issue of climate change and those who are intent on muddying the waters with the intent of increasing their profits at the expense of the planet fighting an increasingly public fight.

After two weeks of speeches, protests, and stumping, significant progress has been made. We have seen the five biggest players (US, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa) come to a consensus about cutting carbon pollution. They have also agreed to a transparent framework for evaluating carbon-cutting benchmarks. Last week, I wrote about the need for developing countries to have a voice in these talks. Without a voice, the most vulnerable countries to climate change will be set up for disaster. Thankfully, their voices were heard. The talks concluded with a pledge of resources to help the poor and vulnerable countries deal with the oncoming effects of climate change.

In sports, when progress is made and goals become within reach, it's called "The Big Mo." Momentum is swinging behind a UN binding resolution and achieving this means putting pressure on national governments to take action.

Ironically to some perhaps, it is businesses that are standing up and putting the pressure on Congress to make clean energy and climate legislation a reality. A group of 750 (and counting) businesses have come together under the umbrella group American Business for Clean Energy (ABCE). Their purpose is simple and direct - to demand comprehensive action be taken by Congress to enact a Clean Energy Act. The group is advocating strongly that a seismic shift in our energy policy from carbon to clean will create jobs and increase profitability.

"We are one of the many hundreds of mainstream companies actively sending a message to Congress that American businesses are eager for strong federal climate policy that will create good jobs and strengthen our economy," said Tedd Saunders, chief sustainability officer at the Boston-based Saunders Hotel Group.

It shouldn't be overlooked that for a clean energy bill ever to make it out of Congress with enough teeth to make a difference it will need the backing of big business. This is why ABCE is an important step in the systemic change that is needed to get us off of our current carbon energy policy. Business has to make the innovations. Business has to create the jobs. Business has to show that it can be profitable by using clean energy practices. Business has to lead.

ABCE membership is not hodgepodge of green startups looking to garner some attention from all the Copenhagen buzz. The energy company powering my computer right now is a member - National Grid. So it GAP, Winslow Management, and ROL Transport. Companies from every sector (large, small, and everywhere in between) are getting on board and leading. Who exactly are these companies leading is the next relevant question. Their consumers of course. If systemic change is going to happen it needs to be top down. While me bringing my own mug to Starbucks and using reusable shopping bags reduces consumption and eventually waste, the big difference is going to come when businesses apply the same logic of "reduce, reuse, recycle" into their processes.

As more businesses join the ranks of ABCE the pressure will mount on Congress to take the momentum from Copenhagen and translate it into something binding. Listen to them, Congress. Pass a clean energy bill that forces those business who are not serious about reducing their carbon footprint to change. Pass a clean energy bill, because Americans need jobs. Pass a clean energy bill, because Americans know that climate change exists and want to do something about it. Pass a clean energy bill for energy security. Pass a clean energy bill as the foundation for a new, stable economy. All reason enough. Pass a Clean Energy Act.

To follow the progress of ABCE on Facebook, please become a fan.

Katherine Goldstein: Standing On The Edge Of The Future: The New Media In Copenhagen

2009-12-22T09:32:00Z

For all of us in the media who were on the ground in Copenhagen, we're beginning to recover from the whirlwind we just experienced. As reactions and postmortems pour in from journalists and environmentalists from around the world, I want to focus on story behind the story: how new media, grassroots activists, ordinary people and citizen journalists worked together in inspired ways to get the Copenhagen story out.

When I think of what it means to be a new media journalist today, I think about the Fresh Air Center in downtown Copenhagen. It was set up during the UN climate summit by TckTckTck, a non-profit umbrella group committed bringing people together from all backgrounds around the climate talks. The actual conference was held in a huge conference center, which eventually kicked out many NGOs and had lines up to eight hours long for people to get in even with accreditation. The Bella Center was the monolithic representation of The Old Way -- slow, unresponsive and bureaucratic. TckTckTck made space available to bloggers, journalists and NGOs and provided high speed Internet access, live streaming briefings, video editing set-up, drop-in talks by people like Kumi Naidoo, the head of Greenpeace, panels with Naomi Klein, Andrew Revkin and George Monbiot, Happy Hour sponsored by the UN Foundation, and patient, tirelessly helpful support team. It was where the cool Internet kids were working, I joked. Movers and shakers wanted to stop by and reach that audience.

What was most amazing about the experience was not just the fantastic journalists and activists I met, but also the spirit of cooperation and camaraderie that was fostered in this environment. Unequivocally, it's the backbone to where new media is going. Working with limited resources, everyone knows that it's not realistic for every writer or even a whole website to have a support team of editors, photographers and videographers. Success in the Internet age undoubtedly means being a jack-of-all-trades, and while working out of Fresh Air, I was able to crowdsource some of the most interesting coverage I did in Copenhagen by using the people I met there as resources -- personally, via email lists and through Twitter. I got YouTube videos of police beating protesters sent to me by student activists, I got immediate access to photos of sit-ins that I could include in my updates which were fed by Twitter, and I had access to live streaming embeddable video of events shot by independent media outlets like The Uptake Everything was free and instant and immeasurably bolstered by the personal connections I made at the Fresh Air Center.

I'm certainly not someone that shies away from competition. But what I thought was so interesting about the spirit of new media cooperation that was fostered in Copenhagen was the urgency that all of us felt, whether we consider ourselves activists or not, to get the stories out. Despite the incredible importance of what was being discussed -- the fate of humanity, for godsakes! -- UN climate conferences are not an easy sell to American readers by any stretch. Everyone I met who worked in media shared the goal of engaging readers as much as possible, creating as much interesting, exciting content as possible and get as many eyeballs on it as we could muster. The attitude I encountered again and again wasn't, "This is mine, I own it." Rather, it was, "This is too important, everyone should see/hear/read this." I struck content deals with Grist, Mother Jones and The Nation, among others, and got countless tips from smaller blogs and independent bloggers.

Green journalism stands at a particularly interesting nexus. Broadly, its very existence takes a position on moving the conversation towards one about sustainability, which can be perceived in this country as political. (It's in fact probably closer to being post-political, but not everyone sees it that way.) And when what we were covering was of such global significance, traditional media business models were trumped by the historic nature of the events. The reality of how instant everything has become shows how technology allows people to collaborate in amazing spirits of cooperation.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), we'll all get a chance to do it again next year in Mexico.

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Thomas Friedman On Copenhagen: Columnist Weighs In On Climate Change Conference (VIDEO)

2009-12-22T03:35:14Z

According to Thomas Friedman, last week's climate change conference in Copenhagen was an "unprecedented breakdown," not an "unprecedented breakthrough," as described by President Obama.

The New York Times columnist weighed in on Copenhagen during an appearance Monday night on The Rachel Maddow Show.

Friedman was critical of the atmosphere at the conference and said that countries ("particularly... the U.S. and China"), were wary of making concessions that would give competitors an economic advantage. He argued that a good energy bill from the U.S. could be inspire more change than a treaty.

WATCH:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy