One of the big debates I’ve had with myself for a long time (especially while I was in Copenhagen) was about how to take a stance on political issues. Do I opt to support policies that move an inch in light of what is “politically realistic?” Or do I call for exactly what science demands and denounce anything less than that?

While I still can’t totally agree with the “System Change, Not Climate Change” argument that the author puts forth, he does bring up some good points that make me feel like I should never support anything less than what science demands: The conservatives take a position so far to the right, that they force the middle to move their way. If the left takes a centrist position in favor of some movement, that position continues to move to the right by definition.

From the article:

By pretending the broken system can work–and will work, in just a moment, after just one more Democratic win, or another, or another–the big green groups are preventing the appropriate response from concerned citizens, which is fury at the system itself. They are offering placebos to calm us down when they should be conducting and amplifying our anger at this betrayal of our safety by our politicians. The US climate bills are long-term plans: they lock us into a woefully inadequate schedule of carbon cuts all the way to 2050. So when green groups cheer them on, they are giving their approval to a path to destruction–and calling it progress.

Even within the constraints of the existing system, their approach makes for poor political tactics. As Suckling puts it, “They have an incredibly naïve political posture. Every time the Dems come out with a bill, no matter how appallingly short of the scientific requirements it is, they cheer it and say it’s great. So the politicians have zero reason to strengthen that bill. If you’ve already announced that you’ve been captured, then they don’t need to give you anything. Compare that to how the Chamber of Commerce or the fossil fuel corporations behave. They stake out a position on the far right, and they demand the center move their way. It works for them. They act like real activists, while the supposed activists stand at the back of the room and cheer at whatever bone is thrown their way.”

The one point that I slightly disagree with is whether passing some bill is better than passing none. Even if I do decide that I wouldn’t support it because it isn’t in line with science, I think there is still an argument to be made that passing the bill is the hardest part and it is easier to amend it later.

I’m sure my opinion will fluctuate on this issue for some time. For now, I’m really feeling the need to be the “left flank” and move the center more in my direction.

Update: The Nation also posted the responses from all of the “Big Greens” mentioned in the article.

Click below to watch the video.

Watch the video

Here is the full article by Anna Helland:

Last month, while stockings were being hung by the chimney with care, those in Copenhagen had hopes that a climate change agreement would soon appear.
From Dec. 7-18, during the two-week United Nations-led summit in the Danish capital, more than 100 world leaders met to discuss and take action on global climate change.

The conference aimed at creating outlines for a new treaty that would succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change, which includes a set of binding emissions targets for developed nations that the U.S. never signed.

Numerous University students and faculty also attended the conference in Copenhagen, either to witness international negotiating or to observe the conference on a more
educational level.

University environmental studies student Jeremy Blanchard and political science student Charles Denson attended the convention through their work with the Cascade Climate Network, a network of students at Oregon and Washington universities dedicated to addressing climate change.

Before negotiations began, Blanchard and Denson were hesitant to invest too much hope in the results of the of conference.

“We expected this to be the next commitment period for the Kyoto protocol, and a lot of us had high expectations for this convention,” Blanchard said, so it was “sad to see global leaders setting those expectations even lower and throwing in the towel before negotiations began.”

Denson agreed.

“I hoped the U.S. would step up and meet more significant stands on climate control,”
he said.

During the conference, Blanchard and Denson communicated with youth all over the country to relay information and developments to the U.S. from their base at the conference. Blanchard took part in the rapid response team, encouraging stateside youth to call their representatives to action and to help shape public opinion. Denson worked with U.S. policy at the conference, asking questions to negotiators and department heads and organizing the youth to attend events.

The two listened to presenters such as U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, absorbing and learning everything they saw and heard.

“I had never experienced anything at this level,” Blanchard said. “I took away a great appreciation for the international negotiation process.”

University international studies student Katherine Philipson also attended the conference through the Cascade Climate Network, working closely with the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, a coalition of African organizations that promote and advocate for
climate-related development.

“It was just incredible seeing how so many countries from around the world came together for this movement,” Philipson said.

In the second week of the conference, civil society groups began receiving only limited entry into the Bella Center — the main location for the conference — because of security concerns, and throughout the next week, Danish police arrested many activists they called “protestors.”

Shangrila Joshi Wynn, a University doctoral candidate in environmental studies and geography and a Wayne Morse Center Dissertation Fellow, went to Copenhagen to conduct field work for her doctoral dissertation. Joshi Wynn said that unlike the majority of participants at the conference, her reason for attending was to observe a specific aspect of the conference.

As a representative of the Association of American Geographers and an official observer to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Joshi Wynn conducted research that examined India’s participation in international climate policy negotiations and the debates that will happen in the coming months.

Because she had limited access into the Bella Center in the second half of the conference, Joshi Wynn had to learn about conference outcomes through the media and the UN’s Web site “just like anybody else who had not ventured all the way out there to be present as an
official observer,” she said.

After the two-week conference, negotiators presented the Copenhagen Accord — a 12-paragraph interim treaty — which was met with mixed reviews. Some U.S. legislators praised the accord for its projected future help in assisting the current climate bill pass through the Senate, but for others like Blanchard, Denson and Philipson, it was simply
a disappointment.

“It was far less than what most people would have liked,” Blanchard said.

“The United States didn’t step up,” Denson said. “We needed to be a leader and not wait for China to take action.”

Philipson said the results also disappointed her, but that she would look to future leadership to shape the outcome for climate change.

“I think we need to come home and change domestic politics to create better legs for our country to stand on in the international area,” Philipson said.

Joshi Wynn agreed the accord was an example of the lack of progress the conference achieved.

“The pact … is a sign that although there had been some potential for the climate negotiations to seriously confront the power imbalances between the global North and South, this was thwarted by the co-optation of some of the countries or interest groups of the global South,” Joshi Wynn said.

The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific case for keeping global temperature rise to no more than two degrees Celsius, but it does not contain commitments to reduce emissions and only pledges that countries big and small must limit their emissions to
certain numbers.

Blanchard hoped the U.S. would have signed the second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, setting stronger targets for developing nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Denson had similar hopes for the U.S. to sign a legally-binding treaty with ambitious targets.

Denson said he would come back to promote climate change for the upcoming Senate vote on the climate bill and that although “some people have said that (the Copenhagen Accord) is a stepping stone in securing climate control, the problem with global warming is we won’t have time. We need to take big steps instead of baby steps.”

ahelland@dailyemerald.com

General

A Message to World Leaders from Global Youth

Conference of Youth

Youth at cop 15 slideshow

CCN at COP15 slideshow

CCN Update – COP15 – Day 5

Final Hours

Juan Carlos Speaks for the International Youth Climate Movement

<a href=”http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-climate-change-deal”>Copenhagen: climate of denied opportunity</a>

International Youth Protest Outside Bella Center

Actions

Flash Dance – It’s Getting Hot in Here 1

Flash Dance – It’s Getting Hot in Here 2

US Youth at COP 15 Take Off Clothes to Demand Action

Out in the Cold

Youth Sit-In 1

Youth Sit-In 2

Youth Sit-In 3

Head Shaving

Reclaim Power

Reclaim Power

From the inside the Bella Center

People’s Assembly on the Inside

Reclaim Power
(my host can be seen at 3:30 in – he’s on top of the police van)

Random Clips

Resisting the Police

Undercover cops

Random Clips

Climate Justice Recap

CCN – Protesters on Bridge

Random Clips

Police Beatings

Last Sweep

Americans for Prosperity & Lord Monkton

US Youth Crash Climate Denier Live Webcast in Copenhagen

Original Americans for Prosperity Webcast

Lord Monckton Invades SustainUS Booth – Calls U.S. students “Hitler Youth”

Climate denier Lord Monckton gets pwned!

Misc

350.org rap

David Letterman Asks Why Youth Aren’t in the Streets

Cascade Climate Network (CCN)

CCN Update – In the Snow!

Jesse Boudart’s Speech to the CCN

100,000-Person March to the Bella Center

The March

RUSH!

Bouncing

Katherine Doing a Silly Dance

Dance Party

Drumming

Random

Pay the Climate Debt – Avaaz

Street Performers – Under the Sea

Street Performers – Walking on Sunshine

Snowball Fight in the Streets of Copenhagen

Running Backwards Down an Escalator

Flight Landing in Amsterdam

I wanted to document the various articles that I’ve been reading to get a better understanding of the results from COP15.

IGHIH: Understanding Copenhagen – Succinct, simple, comprehensive description of what happened.

5 Fallacies in the Coverage of the Copenhagen Accord – One of the more important articles you can read to clarify what it all means. By clarifying some misconceptions, this article gives an honest assessment of what happened without parroting the rhetoric found in most other articles.

1. The “Copenhagen Accord” text preempted a better agreement from being adopted at COP15.
2. The poor countries of the world rejected the Accord.
3. The Accord came out of an undemocratic backroom deal that minimized the voice of developing nations.
4. The Accord is a worthless “sham” and failure.
5. Obama is to blame!

AP: Obama raced clock, chaos, comedy for climate deal – Details the final hours of the talks and the interaction between the US and China.

Read on for the full list.

Shower with no barrier The shower at my host’s place is just a shower head attached to the wall in what is otherwise a normal (showerless) bathroom. There is no barrier between the shower and the floor of the bathroom (and really no particular space to stand. To turn on the shower, you get the water running in the sink then pull up on the knob. When you’re done with the shower, you have to use a squeegee to get all the water into the drain.

Chalky water The water is really chalky. Using shampoo doesn’t really result in any lather. And your skin usually feels pretty dry.

Half-flush Almost all of the toilets have full flush and half flush options. It’s one of the many extremely easy ways to conserve resources.

Bicycles They take cycling really seriously here. Between the high gas tax ad the great public transportation system, there is a strong incentive to ride a bike. There are bike lanes on almost every road (including side roads). They are always double-wide so they can pass slower people, which makes the whole concept much more feasible. They are quite aggressive on their bikes and don’t regard pedestrians very often. I always love seeing them bunch up at stop lights and then move out as a pack.

Cross walks The Danes really don’t like it when you jay walk or cross against the signal. They really respect the rights of cars and cyclists. If you do cross when the signal is red, they will honk or yell at you. One person even yelled “AMERICANO!” at one of my friends when she was crossing even though there was no traffic around.

Public Drinking There are no laws against drinking in public here. I must say, it’s pretty cool.

Night Life They just don’t ever sleep here! The clubs and bars are open until 3 or 4 am, and some open at 3 or 4 so you can just go all night. I stayed at a club until 7am one day. The streets are just as busy at 9pm as they are at 4am.

Scandalous Advertisements There seem to be almost no restrictions on how sexual you can make public advertisements. There was a perfume ad that we saw EVERYWHERE which had six fit, models with their arms and legs strategically keeping the ad from being totally over the top.

Small businesses There are very few large stores and not that many chain stores at all.

Re-using beer and soda bottles All of the beer and soda bottles in the town were collected, cleaned and re-used. On a lot of the bottles, you can see where the old label used to be. It’s pretty cool that they take this approach because it’s a lot less energy intensive than recycling the bottles.

Mixed-use buildings Everywhere you go in the downtown area, the bottom floor is for a shop, store, restaurant or cafe. The next 2-5 floors are for apartments. This is honestly the best way to organize a city because you’re always within walking distance of something that you need to buy. Also, they count the ground floor as 0 and the next floor up as 1.

Weather. AKA: Freaking Cold I almost forgot to mention this because it was such a part of my daily routine. The temperature fluctuated around freezing the whole time I was there. I wore long underwear, gloves and hat every day. I usually had 4-5 layers of shirts/jackets on. The wind always makes everything feel quite a bit colder than it actually is.

Daylight/Sunset This was a big one that set the tone of the city. Denmark is so far north that during the winter, there are only like 8 hours of daylight. The sun has set by 4:30pm every day. The Danes have something called hygg for when they days get like this. It roughly translates to “cozy” and it is when they invite friends over for the evening, cuddle up with candles and blankets and spend a lot of time inside. I didn’t get to experience it directly because of everything going on with the conference, but it sounds amazing.

Candles There are candles EVERYWHERE. It makes the city feel really romantic. There are countless small restaurants and they always have a ton of candles everywhere (one per table and a bunch just sitting around). Every house or apartment that I visited had a few candles burning any time there was someone in the living room and especially when there were guests over.

Indoor plants These were as common as the candles. I think I’ve heard that keeping a few plants indoors makes you happier and healthier. It’s honestly nice to see something living and green around you on a regular basis.

Santa Hats They really like Christmas here. There are a lot of holiday markets. Most notably, quite a few people wear santa hats around all day. As far as I can tell, they wear them to celebrate the holiday and not just to be silly or over the top.

Muted colors My first thought when I got off the plane was that the whole city was grey. All of the buildings are brick and most of the roads are at least partially cobblestone. I realized that I’m used to every building being painted it’s own bright color/pattern. I definitely grew to appreciate the subtlety of the place.

Wearing black Every single person here wears black all the time. They all seem to own black/grey pea coats or trench coats. And their daily outfits are nicer than what I wear on special occasions. I felt really under-dressed everywhere I went.

Shawarma They have shawarma everywhere. It’s a staple food here. If you’re not familiar, it’s a pita/tortilla with meat (lamb or beef) that is roasted on a thing that rotates. Stuffed with lettuce, tomatoe, onions and some kind of white sauce. Thankfully for me (as a vegetarian), all of the shawarma places also had falafels.

Expensive! Everything in Copenhagen costs 2-3 times what it would cost in the US. A bag of trail mix costs 6 bucks. A beer at a bar was 8-10. A cheap lunch was 10. A slightly fancy dinner was 40. It definitely took some getting used to. Eventually, I just had to come to terms with it and fork it up. Their minimum wage is about $20/hr so the higher costs don’t actually seem that high to them. They have 45% income taxes, but they don’t pay for health care or education.

Annoyances

Here are a few things that weren’t specific to the city but that were constant stressors for me based on where I was staying.

Spilling Body Wash Despite sealing my body wash in a zip lock back, I discovered that it had leaked everywhere when I landed in Copenhagen. This lead to a lot of my clothes smelling way too soapy the whole trip. I

Smoky Bars Halfway through the trip, I spent a couple nights in a row at different bars. They smoke a lot in bars and when I woke up the next morning, I realized that all my clothes (including my warm jacket) smelled very pungently of smoke. Mixing this with the smell of soap made for a pretty gross combo.

Not Being Able to Unpack Since I was staying in the living room of my hosts place and I was sharing it with another guest (Michael), I wasn’t able to unpack my stuff. So I had to dig through my suitcase every time I wanted something and I had to pile all my dirty (smoky/soapy smelling) clothes back in with all the clean ones.

Not Being Able to Do Laundry My hosts didn’t have a laundry machine and I didn’t have time to sit at a laundry mat and clean everything. This just made the smelly-clothes situation worse.

Michael snoring The other guest I was with was a friendly 50-something-year-old from London. He snored so loud that he woke him self up every few minutes. Thankfully I had brought some earplugs.

Unfortunately, very little progress was made relative to how high the expectations were for this conference. It was supposed to be the end of 12 years of negotiations since we signed the last major global agreement on climate change in 1997 (the Kyoto Protocol).

What we could have had

Here is a quick review of the possible outcomes from these past two weeks of negotiations:

1) A new commitment phase for Kyoto + a new deal that included language from Kyoto AND had the US signed on and it all went into effect immediately.

2) Throwing out Kyoto (which would remove the punishments that developed countries would have for not reducing their emissions during the first commitment period) and only signing a new commitment.

3) Realizing that they aren’t ready to sign anything. Then they could figure out which parts they can agree on and that will be an outline for the year moving forward. Then they will set a timeline and a process for how to complete the treaty within the next year. By that time, a senate bill will have been passed and they can make a LEGALLY binding deal.

4) Signing a greenwashed accord that doesn’t really have any impact and is only politically binding, but it makes it look like they did something meaningful.

5) Everything falls apart and nothing is signed at all.

No one really expected #1. We thought #2 had a slim chance. What we were really pushing for was #3 because it would eventually result in something meaningful. What we got was something between #4 & #5 because not even all of the countries could sign on to the greenwashing because they knew it was meaningless.

There’s still a chance we can get something like #3 (a plan for a legally binding deal next year) but it’s unclear at the moment where we stand because things were so crazy. No one here can even fully analyze what just happened or where it leaves us. This was certainly supposed to be the climax, but we’ll see if they can keep the momentum going until next year.

Where we are at now

The result from the negotiations (as I understand it) was a document created by the developed countries that lists the efforts to reduce carbon pollution that they would have done even if there were no negotiations. Many countries entirely rejected it since it was produced outside of the normal UN negotiating process and it didn’t really have anything meaningful in it. Since not all of the countries could agree to the document, it didn’t become part of the official agreement at the end of the negotiations. The chair of the talks said that the most they could do was “take note of it”. As far as I know, no other meaningful document came out of the talks.

The mood here in Copenhagen is a mix of disappointment, confusion and hope for the future. All of the people I talk to are torn between feeling absolutely furious that no leadership was present at COP15 and feeling like we must focus on what we can do to improve the situation as we move forward.

Moving Forward

There was a great debrief with all the US youth yesterday where we formed a plan for the next 12 months on how we can get the US senate to pass a climate bill so the US has a better bargaining chip on the table next year at COP16. We made plans about how to be a more cohesive group with a strong strategy instead of being very reactionary to what happened on a particular day. We broke into working groups and discussed what the next steps necessary to make this all happen.

Copenhagen was supposed to be the climax of years of negotiating and it turned out to be mostly a flop. Personally, I think it will be hard to keep that momentum going into COP16 in Mexico which didn’t have high expectations like COP15.

In the weeks to come everyone will have a chance to digest what happened (and didn’t happen) here in Copenhagen. This is where the expectations for COP16 will be set. The least that our leaders can do is build pressure for COP16 so that it has high expectations and has a chance of producing a legally binding deal.

President Obama also needs to hold a lot of bilateral meetings with some of the power players (like China and India) so that everyone is on the same page and ready to produce an agreement before we get to Mexico City (for COP16) next year.

2050

It is our job to make to sure that all of these necessary elements are ready in time. Time is certainly our biggest threat right now. Scientists say that we must start drastically reducing our emissions within the next five years and we must reduce them by 80-90% by the year 2050 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Nature doesn’t negotiate, so we have to make sure our elected officials find the political will to start taking serious action within that time frame. If they choose not to act, they are bargaining away our futures, not their own. How old will our negotiators and politicians be in 2050?

The purpose of the international climate talks are to produce a global deal to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that cause global climate change.

Essentially, the negotiations are in a deadlock because the developing countries are demanding strong commitments from developed countries. Developed countries continue to block progress, insert loopholes, and put forward weak emissions reductions targets.

The small island nations, which will be underwater in the near future due to sea level rise have proposed the most ambitious treaties, but they have little to offer politically because their economies are so small and they did nothing to contribute to the problem..

Today the president of this years negotiations resigned, which was supposedly a matter of procedure so the Prime Minister of Denmark could take over while over 100 heads of state are here during the last days of the negotiations. But it is her job to facilitate this process and help in a treaty that all countries can agree on. Without her involvement, it’s hard to see how any substantial agreement could come out of the conference.

But with that mean heads of state coming, it’s impossible for them to leave the negotiations without doing SOMETHING. I am worried that they will want to show the world that they had a success, even though it is an empty agreement. Here are the three scenarios:

1) They could produce absolutely nothing that they were able to sign. This would be a colapse and failure of the negotiations.

2) The leaders sign a greenwashed deal with no actual binding emissions and no ambitious emissions reductions numbers. They go back to their countries and tell their citizens that we agreed to something real.

3) Best option: They could produce a framework of things that they ARE able to agree about and a plan for how they will move forward and produce a complete deal one year form now during the negotiations in Mexico City. Although they’ve had years to prepare for a complete deal this year, the United States is still the key player and since President Obama just came into office, there hasn’t been enough time to prepare a deal that would be meaningful.

It’s hard to see how we’ll get the third option, but there might still be hope for that. Obama has the power to make that happen more than any other individual.

Let me give a more complete update by borrowing an update from another UO student who put things much more eloquently than I can.

All,

As I write this, we are down to three days here at the Copenhagen climate talks. And I am afraid to say that there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Everybody has card to put on the table but no one is playing.

Actually, not everybody has cards. The Least Developed Countries, the poorest of the poor, and the Association of Small Island States, also mostly poor, have little to offer beyond their presence. Their emissions are so small they can offer little in the way of mitigation. They come asking for help to adapt as weather patterns change, storms grow and seas rise. They are being offered a tiny fraction of what economists say they will need. The only card they have to play is to pack up and leave, refusing to sign on to a national suicide pact. Their presence here is now on a hair trigger.

To gain some influence in the talks, they are aligned with a large group of developing countries that goes by the name of the G77. Other than the poorest countries, this group includes what have become known as the BASIC countries. Those letters (kind of) stand for the names of the biggest of the emerging economies: Brazil, South Africa, India and China. These countries have emissions profiles that are distinctive for a combination of four factors. They represent a significant portion of current global emissions and a large portion of future emissions growth, but they do not represent a significant proportion of historic emissions and their per capita emissions levels are far below the developed world. Each of these countries has made significant pledges to slow the growth of their emissions, but refuse to set absolute limits on growth for economies that includes hundreds of millions of people that still live below income levels of two dollars per day.

Distinctive among this group is China, now the world’s largest emitter, right behind the U.S. China is the largest emitter and greatest source of emissions growth, but relatively small in terms of historic emissions and per capita emissions. Chinese emissions are still one-quarter of the U.S per person. The U.S. has made China the prime target of these talks. China has proposed to reduce its emissions intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic activity — by 40-45% by 2020. That is a significant contribution. If implemented and assuming the U.S. gets one of the bills now before Congress passed and implemented, China will still have emissions less than half per U.S. person in 2020. But the U.S. is pushing measurement, reporting and verification of that promise. China is resisting throwing its economy open to outside review. I hope China will move on this issue, but it is certain they will not move before others, especially the U.S. puts more on the table.

There is one last group of G77 countries. They are largely oil producers led by Saudi Arabia. For the most part they are here to stop anything from happening to the oil industry. They are not afraid to take undisguised action to slow or stop the process. In the end though, they don’t have enough power alone to sink these talks.

First among developed countries is the European Union. The EU is perhaps the most transparent group here. But their pledge of 20% reduction from 1990 levels is not what it seems. The EU moves as a bloc of countries and includes Eastern European countries that had high post-Soviet emissions in 1990. Many of those countries are significantly below those levels now, allowing other EU countries higher emissions while still claiming overall reductions. But the EU is likely to move to a 30% reduction if other developing countries move further.

Of course the meaning of 30% depends on how you count. The biggest factor on counting is international offsets. Those currently come in the form of financing projects in other countries for the benefit of emission reduction credits at home. A new deal could significantly expand these offsets while also including a bunch of new credits from forestry projects in developing countries. My biggest worry for the last month has been that some kind of weak forest deal will get done here and be sold to the public as saving the forest to save the climate. So far what is on the table on forests is largely a greenwash for covering up general inaction.

After the EU comes a group of developed countries called the Umbrella Group, including Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia. These countries are a mixed bag. Canada is horrible and claims it is horrible because the U.S. is horrible. Russia is sitting on a load of hot air. That is the term for the emissions credits based on those higher 1990 levels that I talked about earlier. Russia can claim to reduce emissions about 40% below 1990 levels while nonetheless actually increasing emissions and selling that hot air to polluting countries. Japan under its new government might have a reasonable plan on the table but has been obstructive in negotiations. Australia embraces the general lack of ambition.

So it is clear, given this lack of action on the part of the rich countries that caused the climate problem in the first place, why developing countries say they need to see the rich countries move before they do.

Which brings me to the U.S. We are now proposing to reduce emissions a miserable 3-4% below 1990 levels. We have put no solid financing numbers on the table to help developing countries mitigate their emissions or adapt to the climate problem we helped create. We generally advocate for the biggest loopholes in the rules. Sometimes we even block proposals that everyone except OPEC supports. And we seem to be saying that we won’t pledge anything more, especially without China doing more. It is embarrassing to be an American at talks like these. I am incapable of defending my country’s actions.

What is especially frustrating is that about half of the biggest, richest environmental groups from the U.S. continue to back the U.S. negotiating position. They are like a broken record that argues that we can’t take strong action in Copenhagen because then the Senate will be scared off from passing a climate bill in the U.S. Arrgh! People used to say we needed a strong bill in the Senate to get a strong deal in Copenhagen. Now we are hearing we need a weak agreement in Copenhagen to get any bill in the Senate at all.

So it is easy to see why I say there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Almost no reason. Let me point out the cracks of light. First, other than the elites that run the show here, the world largely supports strong action on an international climate deal. The hundred thousand or so in the streets here on Saturday were just one example. Next the people I work with everyday are tireless, fierce and refuse to take no for an answer. It is almost impossible of believe that this level of dedication can fail. And finally, a solution lies in the hands of one man who can change everything.

President Obama could come here and unlock a deal that is fair, ambitious and legally binding. He could instruct negotiators to stop creating loopholes and blocking honest progress. He could commit to go beyond the weak levels proposed in the current bills before Congress. He could pledge to raise funds to help the world’s most vulnerable adapt to a problem that was created by our American lifestyles of consumption. He could sign up to a deal that has real consequences for the failure to meet commitments.

The amount of goodwill that would be unlocked in the world from the result of such action would be like a flood. So many people are waiting for leadership. There is a vast ocean of positive action held back by a dam of fear and self-interest. The kind of deal the world needs is all on paper right now in brackets; it simply needs to be released from those brackets, to be agreed. The leaders of 110 countries are arriving already. Everybody necessary to tackle this greatest of all problems head on will be in the same city on the same day with the same purpose. This can still happen.

When so many people all want the same thing and their leaders fail to deliver, it rocks my faith in democracy to the core. But I am not a quitter. Let me try one more time. Let’s give this guy one more chance to really be different. We effectively have three more days there in the U.S. to ask for what we want. So I am going to ask you to help.

I know, it seems like such a weak response to such a big problem, but let’s at least try. Let’s try everything we can to get the message to Obama that we want real leadership on this issue. Many of you have been asking me if you can share my emails. I am not only giving you permission to share or publish this email anywhere you want, I am asking you to please do so. Please share this email with anyone you think might care.

Then I am asking you to make that one phone call a day until this deal is done – White House switchboard – 1-202-456-1111. “President Obama, please show real leadership on the climate issue, not just a greenwash deal. Deepen our cuts, put long-term funding on the table and stop waiting for other countries to go first. Prove that America is the world leader we always claim.”

Again, I know it is a small effort on such a big problem, a forwarded email and three one-minute phone calls. But don’t let its small nature stop you. The Earth needs people who care more than ever. Rare moments in history arise when the way forward appears as a fork in the road. We’ll never know what might have or failed to have tipped the balance.

Please give a little push with me.

Tim Ream
Copenhagen
15 December, 2009

There has been some frustration over the last couple days over the entire deadlock that the negotiations are in. The youth have been looking into how we can escalate our tactics to show our negotiators that it is unacceptable that they are condemning our futures by being unwilling to reach a compromise.

While some of the youth are planning civil disobedience, the Cascade Climate Network came together to plan an action inside the Bella Center. We decided to work closely with delegates and negotiators from countries that are most vulnerable.

The president of the Maldives, an country who will not have land if sea level rises due to climate change, agreed to bind himself to US youth (from the CCN) to symbolize the fact that survival of these countries is dependent on leadership from the United States. President Obama has the power to move these negotiations forward and we wanted to demonstrate that visually.

I spent the morning working with other members from the CCN delegation to write a press release, contact members of the press and get them to our event.

We’ve spent the last 3 days planning this action, contacting negotiators and working out the logistics.

The most frustrating aspect of planning this has been the fact that the conference center is closed to almost all NGOs (non-profits) because so many heads of state are arriving. It’s absurd that most of the public is being removed during the most important days of the negotiations, but we were able to get a few youth in there to help us run this action.

Here is the press release that we collaboratively wrote.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Kat Mceachern, kat.mceachern@gmail.com +45 52 67 85 59
Peter Roquemore, peter.roquemore@gmail.com
Moey Newbold, moeyoldbold@gmail.com, +45-52-6969-78

‘BOUND’ FOR SURVIVAL IN COPENHAGEN
US Youth and Developing Nations Recognize Mutual Vulnerability and Demand Action from Obama

COPENHAGEN — Young people from the United States joined with leaders from the most vulnerable nations including President Nasheed of the Maldives to demonstrate that leadership by the US government is necessary to ensure the survival of people across the world. On Wednesday, the youth and negotiators from 5 countries joined arms bound by orange cloth and walked in procession into the negotiating room for one of the final days of the United Nations climate negotiations.

The orange bands were tied around the arms of both a youth and a negotiator as they marched across the Bella Center, demonstrating the unity between the youth and the people of the most vulnerable nations. Amongst the bustle of the collapsing negotiations they raised their hands together in solidarity. Youth delegate Peter Roquemore made a statement and quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. : “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” They proceeded to untie themselves and the negotiators entered the Plenary while the youth stood directly outside and then departed.

“The survival of low-lying islands, young people and all future generations is threatened by climate change,” explains Rachel Young of the Cascade Climate Network, “and we can’t get a global deal until the United States takes a bold leadership stance in these international negotiations.”

The event highlighted that the United States is not taking necessary action in curbing the effects of global climate change, and in doing so is condemning millions to death. Both the young delegates and party members have spent the past 10 days inside the negotiations and have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of concern with human lives in the negotiating process. The youth are calling for a science-based treaty that will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350ppm or less, a temperature rise of no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, emissions reductions of CO2 by 45% by 2020 from 1990 levels without offsets, and a commitment of 5% – 7% of developed nations’ GDP to general finance (mitigation and adaptation). These numbers, if agreed to, will insure that the most catastrophic effects of climate change are avoided.

Those who participated in the action hope that this will be the beginning of a long standing relationship between the youth and negotiators from the small island states. They intend to continue to stand together until an ambitious international treaty has been agreed to, and hope that President Obama will take the bold leadership stance necessary to ensure survival and well being of the global community.

# # #

The Cascade Climate Network is a collection of students from 15 universities in the Northwest United States who engage in political activism to build a just, prosperous and sustainable future.