Author: Grist – the Latest from Grist

by Agence France-Presse

Delegation from Earth about to be evicted from Danish Queen’s dinner party with 100 heads of state at Copenhagen climate summit.Photo and caption: Greenpeace InternationalMADRID—Greenpeace Spain Tuesday delivered a petition backed by 50,000 people to the Danish embassy in Madrid demanding the release of its director and three others who were arrested at the U.N. climate summit.

“Politicians who let slip the opportunity to save the climate in Copenhagen are in their homes while environmentalists who denounced the lack of summit commitments … remain in jail without even seeing their families,” the coordinator of Greenpeace Spain campaigns, Maria Jose Caballero, said in a statement.

The director of Greenpeace Spain, Juan Lopez de Uralde, and Norwegian Nora Christiasen fooled security staff at the Danish parliament in Copenhagen by drawing up to a Dec. 17 gala dinner of the U.N. climate conference in a limousine and wearing evening attire.

There, they unfurled banners reading “Politicians Talk, Leaders Act” at the entrance.

Another Greenpeace protester, 37-year-old Swiss national Christian Schmutz Leinhart, who posed as their bodyguard, was also arrested. The fourth suspect, a Dutch Greenpeace activist, Joris Thijssen, was arrested the next day.

Police charged them with illegally entering state property and using false police number plates, and a court ordered them to remain in custody until Jan. 7.

“Greenpeace is waiting to know what will happen after that date,” the organisation said in a statement.

It said the four are being held “without trial” with “visits and letters restricted.”

Caballero and Uralde’s wife, Koro Castellanos, delivered a petition to the Danish embassy in Madrid calling for their release.

Greenpeace said the appeal was backed 50,000 people—around 30,000 on its website and 20,000 more through social networking sites.

“Denmark is a country where the right to bail until the conclusion of trial is guaranteed, specifically if the act has not posed any threat and has been peaceful,” the petition said.

Greenpeace Spain last week condemned the “extreme, unfair and disproportionate” treatment of the four by Danish authorities.

Spread the news on what the føck is going on in Copenhagen with friends via email, Facebook, Twitter, or smoke signals.

Related Links:

A conversation with Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain

Sarkozy scrambles to salvage carbon tax

Brazil’s Lula signs law cutting CO2 emissions

by Ben Holland

When Tesla Motors opened its new showroom in Boulder, it did so in style. Hosting an invitation-only party, the automaker brought out a lively group of local politicians, environmentalists and entrepreneurs for a night of martinis, music and test-drives of the Tesla Roadster.

A Tesla Roadster on display at the electric vehicle maker’s new store in Boulder, Colorado.Eric Magnuson via FlickrThe much talked about, all-electric, luxury sports car has received as much attention for its price tag as anything else. At more than $100,000, few people are likely to buy a Roadster. But with a temporary Colorado tax-break reducing the price to $67,800, surely someone in affluent Boulder will snag one. So why not throw a blowout party, invite a bunch of friends, and put the car on display for all to see?

But the Roadster is more than just an expensive car. Its sleek contours and luxury styling are enough to turn anyone into a car fanatic. Well before the party started, invited guests and curious onlookers had gathered outside the building, taking photos with their cell phones as traffic slowed along the west end of Pearl Street. It is a beautiful car, yes, but its performance—demonstrated in an all too brief test-drive up Boulder Canyon—is even more impressive. (Check out a video from Grist’s own Tesla ride.)

Inside the showroom, there was a certain zeal running through the conversations of the crowd. Like family members around a newborn’s crib, guests hovered over this car, taking photos and clinking cocktail glasses. To be sure, this was a party. But it was also something else. It was a night for the optimist, an opportunity to be there at the beginning of something new and exciting-something world-changing.

Born to be wired

Still in its infancy, the electric car has a future that is both promising and uncertain. It is often cited as an antidote to U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and for good reason—a Pacific Northwest National Laboratory study claims that if 73 percent of the country’s light-duty vehicle fleet were electrified, oil consumption would fall by 6.2 million barrels a day. That would eliminate nearly 53 percent of our current oil imports.

It’s an alluring goal, but 73 percent is a big, distant number. President Obama has called for 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015, and that’s only 0.5 percent of the entire U.S. fleet. The electric car has a ways to go.

But with consumer demand uncertain, automakers are treading lightly. Though most major companies plan to manufacture plug-ins during the next few years, with list prices substantially lower than the Tesla’s, initial production rates will be meager. Chevrolet, for instance, has revised plans to release 60,000 units of the highly anticipated Volt, cutting back to a conservative 10,000 units.

Demand is nearly impossible to predict. A product or technology can stagnate for months-years even-and then take off, spreading out into the marketplace. With electric vehicles, there’s legitimate concern over the likely demand. But, in the meantime, we can work on dismantling the obstacles most likely to plague this technology. Much of that work can be done on the ground, at the city level.

Home is where the start is

Electric vehicles aren’t likely to pour into car lots next year. Our current economy will make sure of that. Nevertheless, many cities can position themselves to benefit from the technology. In doing so, they very well may play the most vital role in the success of these cars.

One such city, Denver, has already begun this work.

As one of several partner cities on Project Get Ready—a Rocky Mountain Institute initiative that convenes city leaders and plug-in champions nationwide—Denver has assembled working groups to facilitate the move to electrified cars. By targeting concerns and perceived inconveniences related to the electric vehicle, these groups may achieve more than any car commercial, marketing campaign, or glitzy cocktail party could ever hope for.

The City and
County of Denver has selected nearly 100 sites around the city at which
public charging units could be installed. This will offer the public the first tangible look at how electric cars will operate in the city while assuaging fears over their driving ranges.

There’s a strong argument for this approach. Although electric vehicles have garnered considerable attention over the years, many people still lack an understanding of how the technology will work in the cities and on the highways. Charging units, placed in key locations, will serve as a visual reminder that the technology is real and the infrastructure is in place.

Smart Grid City

In nearby Boulder, one of the nation’s largest electrical utilities, Xcel Energy, is busy installing new smart meters in selected homes and businesses throughout the city. The first project of its size, Smart Grid City will demonstrate the benefits of advanced energy software and real-time information.

If Xcel’s recent request to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission for a peak-pricing program is approved, the company will offer consumers a financial incentive to draw energy at off-peak hours. An electric vehicle, for instance, could be plugged in at 9:00 pm, when peak power usage has leveled off, therefore promoting the use of night-time wind energy. The smart meters used in Xcel’s program may end up playing an important enabling role in the use of electric cars since utility rates will play an intrinsic role in what time people decide to charge their vehicles.

A Bright Future

Boulder and Denver’s civic and government leaders, research institutions, and entrepreneurs are building a home for the electric car. Rather than waiting for the car to arrive, these entities are plug-in-proofing their cities and demonstrating a belief in the potential for vehicle electrification.

With all the money and time going into this effort, the electric car will have a better chance of widespread adoption and we’ll be one step closer to energy independence. If it takes a party to sell some cars and get the word out, so be it. That’s a future that calls for celebration.

Related Links:

Could AlertMe be the Apple of energy efficiency?

The North Face, Aspen, and climate policy

Do we need nuclear and coal plants for baseload power?

by Auden Schendler

Most of us should be giving away more money. (Yes, you should be. If you have any doubt, please stop reading this blog and pick up Peter Singer’s book The Life You Can Save.) And many of us WANT to give but can’t pull the trigger for a host of reasons: basic cheapness (guilty!), a feeling that you don’t know where to give, a sense that most charities waste your money.

So I’m going to make it simple by telling you where you should give your money away. Or, more generously, I’m going to offer some good suggestions based on my own extensive vetting. Here goes:

Poverty

I work on climate change, but my wife and I give most of our philanthropic contributions to health and poverty causes because we feel obliged to keep people from dying and to make basic health care widely available. The two causes I give to are Partners in Health, a brilliant NGO whose philosophy is that allegedly “untreatable” health problems can be addressed effectively, even in poor settings. PIH works globally and rates at the top of the scale on all charity rating systems, including the extremely rigorous www.givewell.net. This group is so remarkable and deep in its thinking about poverty that it’s worth reading Tracy Kidder’s book Mountains Beyond Mountains, about the founder, Paul Farmer. (The book is worth getting even if you just want a good read, and don’t care about philanthropy at all.)  

My wife and I also give to a lesser known group at the University of San Francisco called FACES. The cool thing about FACES is that they aren’t just providing help on AIDS in Kenya, they are working with government agencies to make sure the services reach as many people as possible and are durable. This is a key element sometimes missing from anti-poverty groups.

Climate

I’ve worked closely on the ground with two groups that are rocking it on climate action. They are the CERES BICEP group (Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy) that is effectively bringing business leaders in to lobby for aggressive climate action. I also like and work with the folks at the NRDC climate program, who often help businesses leverage big opportunities on short notice. (We filed an Amicus Brief on Mass. V. EPA thanks to NRDC’s tip.)

Colorado and the West

If you live in or care about Colorado, and also care about environmental issues, you know that the state has recently gone from red to purple to blue. But that status is tenuous, and if Gov. Bill Ritter loses to the reactionary Scott McInnis in the gubernatorial election, we’ll see major reforms (like controls on natural gas drilling) wiped clean and key positions (like the Dept. of Health and Division of Natural Resources) filled by vastly less progressive individuals. We’ll also see an end to Colorado’s leadership on the clean energy economy. We can’t let that happen, and the best way to stop that is to support Colorado Conservation Voters. I recently joined the board of this group because I believe that most environmental causes in CO are toast without the right governance. And CCV is the group to ensure good government. They are small, smartly run, incredibly efficient with your dollars, and do a shocking amount of work on a surprisingly small budget.

I also give to High Country News which is the standard bearer for smart, independent journalism in the West. This is also a small group that uses money efficiently and is a vital cog in protecting the West’s environment. Full disclosure: I interned there 20 years ago and the experience has been paying dividends ever since.

Last note: One of the coolest new vetting tools for some NGOs is www.givewell.net, which uses the rigorous approach of hedge fund analysis to vet nonprofits. They only do a few groups, but it’s worth checking out their site. Happy giving!

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on judging greenness

Which green groups should get your last $100?

Top green stories of the ‘00s

by Jon Isham

If you’re like me, your inbox has recently been inundated with cheery, post-Copenhagen greetings from green groups of all kinds.  Bless their hearts, they’ve all suddenly developed an interest in wishing me well.

And let me confess: I love ‘em all.  Classics like NRDC and WRI, innovators like Clean Air-Cool Planet and 1Sky, hybrids like the Alliance for Climate Protection.  With all sincerity, I can’t say enough about the hard work and vision that most green groups have brought to our fight against global warming during the last few years.  With the most well-funded oppenents in lobbying history (in case you need convincing, check out the Climate Cover Up), green groups and their allies have more than held their own this year: a climate bill has passed the house, and two bipartisan bills (Kerry-Graham-Lieberman and Cantwell-Collins) are now in play in the Senate.  And that’s not all: in state after state, coal is on the ropes, in large part thanks to the legal brilliance of the Sierra Club and the hustling determination of I Love Mountains.  Grim as we all may feel about the recent roller coaster ride that took us from Hopenhagen to Nopenhagen, the emails that we’ve all just received tell an accurate tale: there’s lots to celebrate as we reflect on 2009.

But that was then; 2010 is now.  As I recently wrote, all of us need to gear up and build a plan for a grand four-month fight, a big push to get to an Earth Day 2010 signing ceremony in the White House.  Here’s the Rose Garden tableau that will be caught by the mainstream media if we get this right: Cherry Blossoms, Democratic and Republican leaders, and 350 kids from all all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories, all smiling as a reinvigorated Obama signs, let’s say, a bipartisan ‘Kids-vs-Global Warming’ bill. 

We will need all hands on deck to get there, in all corners of the USA (and among supporters around the world.)  In addition to offering our time and ideas (memo to self: gather friends in coffee shop next week; make plans to call our senators and representatives every day for next 116 days), I propose that each of us offer $100 to one green group.  That’s the least we can do to make sure that allies who get the whole inside-the-Beltway-thing can pave the way for Plan 10x.

Here’s the fun part: which one? 

Related Links:

How environmentally friendly is Washington’s congressional delegation?

Breathtaking last minute philanthropy ideas

Top green stories of the ‘00s

by Anna Fahey

Editor’s Note: Anna finished this post (and a few
more) before she went on maternity leave. She gave birth to a healthy
girl, Audrey, on December 13.

One year ago, just before Christmas, it snowed in Seattle. Not our usual short-lived dusting, but a real dump that lasted a few solid days and, because we’re not prepared for such events, veritably shut down the city (at least for cars).

For Seattle, it was real snow. Some say it was enough snow to shift the outcome of the mayoral race in 2009. And as former Sightliner Elisa Murray noted, it was enough snow to blanket the city in good-heartedness, in a renewed sense of community and sharing. In short, the snow boosted Seattle’s social capital: people were out and about in their neighborhoods, talking to one another and not isolated in their cars; holiday shoppers frequented local retailers rather than anonymous malls; neighbors gave neighbors a helping hand; folks helped each other get to work; great conversations with strangers were struck up as never before. In short, people slowed down, rediscovered their legs and their neighborhoods, and focused on the ultra-local.

I bring this up not only because snow season is upon us once again, but also because another event in my life has practically bowled me over with social capital—the strength of ties to friends, family, and community. Being pregnant and having babies, it turns out, brings out a spirit of community that rivals, or even surpasses, the snow-day phenomenon.

It occurs to me (and I’m not just speaking from a misty-eyed,
pregnancy-induced, idealized day dream magnified by the holiday
spirit), that this is the kind of social capital that we could learn
from even when no one around is pregnant and the streets are bare. It’s
the kind of sharing, swapping, and community exchange that’s
sustainable, cost-saving—and fulfilling to boot.

I’ve never been showered with so much useful,
practical hand-me-down stuff. I’ve never before been offered home
cooked meals during a busy or trying time. I’ve never been asked by so
many what help or assistance I need, from doing my laundry to cleaning
my house to baby-sitting to dog-sitting, to rides around town. I’ve
been offered all kinds of quality cast-off stuff from the obvious (baby
strollers) to the less obvious (a microwave oven). That’s the big
stuff. There’s little stuff from strangers that’s just as touching: the
genuine conversations at the bus stop about parenting and the joys of
raising children; the way people offer up their seat or go out of their
way to hold open doors or reach for the high shelf at the grocery
store; neighbors I never talked to before checking in on us. Even just
smiles and knowing looks as I walk down the street.

I won’t miss being pregnant, but I will miss this often unspoken
sense of community and fellowship that comes with an absurdly inflated
belly. 

Suddenly, we find ourselves in a new world of sharing and networking. We’re now eligible for
previously unknown mechanisms for redistribution of used consumer
goods and shared services. There are neighborhood parenting groups for us to join,
listserves for sharing information about events, items for sale, free
stuff, community politics, nanny share opportunities, neighborhood
co-op day cares, private high-chair and stroller swaps… Who knew?

It all makes me wonder why we don’t share things—clothes, food, errands,
household items, ideas, advice, and our time—with our friends and
neighbors more often, or even to a fraction of the degree that people
are sharing those things with me and my husband now that we’re
expecting.

Maybe I just wasn’t trying hard enough to seek out this kind of community and now it’s easier to find.

There are people out there doing this stuff who aren’t connected just
because they’re parents. Three cheers to the clothing swap party hosts
and to anybody who mows their elderly neighbor’s lawn (my husband Gus)
or organizes carpools. Even garage sales and Craig’s list trading are ways to recycle stuff back into the community instead of
tossing it away, but there’s not always a strong personal connection
that goes with these activities. 

What will get us out of our houses, out of our cars, and into each
other’s lives in the way that snow days and babies seem to magically do?

Image courtesy: Slightlynorth, Flickr.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/slightlynorth/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

This post originally appeared at Sightline’s Daily Score blog.

Related Links:

Sugar and Spice and…Lead and Mercury

A womb of one’s own

Growing up green: Breathing for two

by Margaret Swink

So Copenhagen is over, with forests mentioned in one paragraph of a politically ambiguous “Copenhagen Accord” and an incomplete REDD agreement stapled on the back with major safeguard and finance issues still unresolved. Clearly, high hopes of a deal that might save the world’s forests and reduce the 15-20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation will have to wait, at least till next year’s December meeting of the UNFCCC in Mexico City, if not beyond.

So along with many other people, you might be wondering, what happens now for REDD and for the world’s tropical forests?

Not much it seems. Forests remain under threat for all the same reasons that we’ve historically cut them down—illegal logging, industrial agriculture expansion, and destructive “development” projects. At least for one more year, business as usual is certainly going to continue and tropical forests will probably continue to be lost at the shocking rate of one acre per second.

Things are going to keep moving, however.

The UNFCCC process will continue as the REDD working group meets again in Bonn in June to work out technical issues, hopefully starting where they’ve left off in Copenhagen and further strengthening key provisions rather than going back to square one. Political negotiations will continue at least through Mexico City—a continuation of the process that started in Bali.

As Kevin Conrad, executive director of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, aptly put it to the AP:

“It’s depressing,” he said. “It means I’ve got to spend another year … coming to meetings and talking about the same things.”

Various other processes intended to address the rapid destruction of the world’s tropical forests will also continue, but without resolution of critical environmental and social safeguards (notably including recognition and respect for indigenous people’s rights) that a Copenhagen forest agreement might have provided. The most notable of these include the U.N.-REDD initiative, the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and new initiatives started to help countries with “REDD readiness” planning.

This proliferation of initiatives, plus the consideration of a U.S. Senate climate bill with its large REDD provisions linked to dodgy offset approaches, results in a divide and conquer approach for forest protection—keeping advocates of a more rights-centric and environmentally friendly approach sorely stretched.

But the most depressing fail for the forests out of Copenhagen is the lack of binding targets to reduce fossil fuel emissions and start to halt climate change. If global temperatures rise above 2 degrees C, most scientists predict that tropical forests will be profoundly affected, experiencing extreme droughts, increased forest fires and other catastrophic weather events. Even if a separate deal to reduce deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries had been agreed upon, the lack of commitment to deep fossil fuel emissions in a legally binding climate change agreement would continue to threaten the world’s forests.

We can’t save the forests if we don’t save the climate. And that means that REDD without a larger climate deal is no deal at all.

Related Links:

Copenhagen coal in the stocking?

What you need to know following the Copenhagen climate summit

The Copenhagen Accord: A Big Step Forward

by Lou Bendrick

Can eco-cocoas melt away holiday stress?Photo: Jason HoustonLet’s just say for the sake of argument, that you’re a little busy this time of year. (This is the part where you snort, as if to say, “You have no idea, sister.”) Also, let’s say that it’s cold outside where you live. (Is the pope an old German guy?) Lastly, let’s assume that, because you’re reading this on an environmental news site, you have green inclinations.

This all leads me to conclude that what you need at this very moment is a steaming cup of hot cocoa that is not only quick but also environmentally principled.  (I.E., not made by the handful of corporations known as “Big Chocolate” that buy cacao from heavily sprayed plantations and pay farmers poverty wages or, worse yet, use child labor. )

For you, my frozen, frantic reader, I bullied my friends assembled a panel of tasters, one of whom brought a light-up holiday animal that resembled an electrified Westie (see photo).  I supplied the organic cocoa mixes, a can of whipped cream for the kids, and an array of kitschy mugs.  (Note: The kids, much to their disappointment, were left out of this tasting. I thought it best to avoid full-blown pancreatic shut-down during the holidays.)

Please note: Most of these products were powdered mixes (just add water, milk or your “favorite non-dairy alternative”), but in one case we tried a quickie beverage made from chocolate “discs.” The mixes were largely certified organic as well. They were also, comparatively speaking, pricey. You can get a honkin’ 50-pack box (50 ounces) of Swiss Miss hot coca mix for $12.49 at Staples. (Of course, why the hell you’d want to buy any “food” at Staples is beyond me.)  I paid substantially more in general for the eco hot chocolate drinks—in one case I ponied up $13.95 for 3.5 ounces (go ahead, exhale that breath you just sucked in) for the discs.

How did they taste? Read on.
Our results:
 
Green & Black’s organic hot chocolate drink
Ingredients: Organic raw cane sugar, organic fat-reduced cocoa powder, organic dark chocolate powder (organic chocolate liquor, organic raw cane sugar, organic cocoa butter, soy lecithin, (emulsifier), organic vanilla extract).
Price: $4.29 (on sale), for 5.3 ounces
Special notes: Sports the USDA organic seal. Directions call for hot milk rather than hot water, which you’d think would make your beverage somehow better.
 
Who knew hot cocoa mix could taste tannic? This mix made our tasters pucker.  “That’s not right,” quipped one taster who sported a festive holiday sweater. She then reached for the whipped cream. Strangest comment: “Kind of vegetal.” Most passionate comment:  “What the hell are people thinking?” Kindest comment: “It’s not that bad,” said one taster, who, it should be disclosed, was jet-lagged to the point of stupor because he had just returned from an international trip wherein he ate cicada thoraxes and chicken feet, and whose opinion no one trusted.
 
Dagoba organic drinking chocolate
Ingredients: Organic cane sugar, organic coca, organic  chocolate, organic milk (less than 0.1%)
Price: $6.99 for 12 ounces
Special notes: Certified organic and fair trade certified. The directions for this mix included this line: “When the vapors of the milk rise the milk will be at its most receptive to accept the chocolate into its embrace.” Sorta sexy, in this way! This, um, sexyness, might be due to the fact that Dagoba’s eccentric founder, Frederick Schilling,  according to an inside source is “way hot.” Then again, Dagoba was bought by Hershey’s (see Big Chocolate, above.)
 
Again, tasters were freaked out by the smell: In this case, “like the inside of a tire.” Though the panel thought this drink was creamier than the others, some found it to have a bitter aftertaste.  The bug-eater thought it had a “more of a darker chocolate flavor.” To be fair though, this mix may have been more chocolatey because the directions called for four tablespoons of the stuff per your “favorite mug.”  (As opposed to the more common two-tablespoon-per-favorite-mug directive.)
 
Full Circle Organic Milk Chocolate Flavor Hot Cocoa Mix
Ingredients: Organic dehydrated can juice solids, organic whey, organic non-fat dry milk, organic cocoa (processed with alkalai), sea salt, calcium carbonate, natural vanilla flavor, xanthan gum (a natural vegetable product).
Price: $3.49 for 10 1-ounce packets
Special notes: Certified organic. This is my conventional grocery store’s bargain brand of organic products. Slogan: “Return to a natural way of living.”
 
For those prone of nostalgia, this is the most Swiss-Missy of the cocoa mixes—or, as one taster put it, it’s “the cocoa of my youth.” Like all of the add-water mixes, its texture is depressingly thin. Overall, tasters found it to be “synthetic” and “overly sweet.” Strangest comment: “It tastes like Playdoh!” Most damning: “You can get way better stuff at the ski lodge.” Ouch.
 
Equal Exchange Organic and Fairly Traded Hot Cocoa
Ingredients: Fair trade certified organic evaporated sugar cane juice, organic nonfat dry milk powder, fair trade certified organic cocoa-processed with alkali, organic guar gum, sea salt, organic carob bean gum, organic vanilla powder (organic vanilla extract, organic maltodextrin, organic gum Arabic).
Price: $9.29 for 12 ounces
Special notes: Equal Exchange is a worker-owned Fair Trade organization; this mix is certified organic and fair-trade certified. Container is made from recycled cardboard.
 
Q: “What’s that terrible smell?”
A: “I dunno, something weird.”
 
All in all, this product was slightly more chocolatey than the others, but also “cardboardy.” Most disaffected comment. “It has an underlying whatever.”
                           
Pierce Brothers Hot Cocoa
Price: $7.99 for 8 ounces
Ingredients: Organic evaporated cane juice, organic nonfat dry milk, fair trade certified organic cocoa, salt, natural flavor, guar gum.
Special notes: Fair trade and certified organic. Directions warn that “due to all natural organic ingredients, some setting (sic) may occur.”
 
The entire panel winced at the smell of this cocoa, which one taster said was “like ammonia.” The adjective “burned” was used most often to describe its flavor, as in “burned milk” and “burned rubber.” This un-chocolately mix actually made the tasters angry. “Who decided that this was okay?” demanded festive holiday sweater lady.  “I can’t understand how anyone would bring this to market,” scowled another taster. (Hey you kids, get off of my lawn!)
 
Ah!Laska Certified Organic Cocoa Chocolatey Chocolate Mix
Ingredients: Organic cane sugar, organic non-fat milk, organic cocoa powder (non-alkaline), organic rice syrup solids, xanthan gum (a natural thickener), carrageenan (a natural seaweed extract emulsifier), maltodextrin, organic vanilla powder.
Price: $7.99 for 12 ounces
Special notes: Certified organic. Cartoon mascot: AH! Bear.
 
Tasting results. “It’s got that smell again,” someone wailed.  Overall, the panel thought this mix was watery and without chocolate flavor.  One found it “vaguely soap-like.” The grub-eater, who evidently was taking a hatecation,  said it was “not offensive.”
 
Patric Fine Hot Chocolate Disks
Ingredients: cocoa beans, cocoa powder
Price: $13.95, for 3. 5 ounces (!)
Special notes: This product is hot chocolate, not hot cocoa. We’re talking solid form here, not powder. As you might have guessed from the price, this is super-duper premium micro-batch, bean-to-bar artisinal stuff. And although it doesn’t tout its organic ingredients, its cacao from Madagascar is certified organic. (Even though organic chocolate is no tastier than conventional, according to Patric’s founder). Note also that there is no sugar in this stuff—you are trusted to add your own “to taste.” Further, the directions call for you to use an actual whisk and to serve this beverage in “small tea cups.” I’m not sure what happens if you add mini marshmallows—I think someone rings your doorbell and slaps your face with leather gloves. In other words, this is not a hot beverage for the kiddies to swill.
 
“No comparison!” hooted one taster. Another said, “This is the only one I’d drink regularly.” In general this non-mix, which was added to milk, yielded very rich, very creamy results. Once the giddy gratitude died down a bit, the descriptions started to sound like wine-speak: “It’s got legs!” and “lots of complexity.” Then someone mentioned the price tag. The group got quiet and a glum as we collectively realized that we had just fallen in love above our social rank. Not even the Christmas Westie could cheer us.
 
Photo: Jason HoustonThe bottom line: I know it’s blustery out there and you’re busy (okay, really freakin’ busy), but if you buy hot chocolate from a mix, we can’t be friends. It’s that simple. Can you get something quick and delicious and principled? You can. It’s the Patric chocolate discs, but they’re priced like contraband and you’ll have  to have sell plasma to support your habit. Therefore, I’m going to give you an option to avoid other mixes that have that smell:  Get some cocoa powder (fair trade and organic if you’re flush) and sugar from the pantry and mix them in equal parts (say, one heaper of each per mug) in a glass measuring cup. Add a dash of vanilla. Next, add a little water and whisk it all into a syrupy liquid. Then whisk this into a pan of simmering whole milk. (For love of any god you choose, don’t use skim. Please. It’s the holidays.) Pour the result into your favorite mug (yes, it must be your favorite mug—anything less will screw this up royally). Next, bring on the whipped cream. Then, once you’re infused with warm-fellow feeling, and if you have two cents leftover, send a donation to the world-saving organization of your choice.

Related Links:

PETA on one side, FOX on the other … now that’s a conundrum

Umbra on chocolate

by Terry Tamminen

As a kid in Milwaukee, my parents told me that Santa would leave coal in my stocking if I was naughty. As the post mortem of Copenhagen is written, was it a lump of coal in our 2009 holiday stocking—or could this global chunk of carbon actually be a diamond in the rough?

For the past three years, over half the states in the U.S., along with states/provinces in Canada, China, Mexico, Brazil, and Indonesia, have been acting like nations under the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol for climate change policy. States like California have adopted laws and action plans, including the creation of a massive cap-and-trade carbon market (launching in 2012), that will cut carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 percent below that by 2050—in line with U.N. goals. These “sub-nationals” didn’t wait for their national governments to act.

President Obama has now taken a page from that playbook by recruiting China, India, Brazil, and South Africa to take carbon-cutting action without waiting for the U.N. and the other 187 countries. This Gang of Five has effectively broken the “you go first” stalemate, because they have committed to figure out domestically what can be done—based on what a majority of their states/provinces are doing already—and put those pledges on the table next year. If those commitments, plus the work that Europe and others are already doing, adds up the goal of preventing a rise in average global temperature of 2 degrees centigrade, that’s the defacto new global climate agreement. If the individual pledges come up short when taken together, the world will know how much more needs to be done and can look at strategies to fill that gap. Either way, the first fundamental steps will have been taken—thanks to the commitments of states and provinces.

The Gang of Five may also have done the world a favor by blowing up the U.N. process in Copenhagen, because it cleared the way for parallel international alliances to blossom. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the creation of the R20, a new “sub-national U.N.” (starting with 20 regions of states/provinces/cities) that will coordinate the work of these climate leadership governors and mayors, but with a major difference from the old U.N. The R20 will set high standards for cutting carbon and creating green economies, then invite others to join—if they can meet the same goals. By contrast, the U.N. has struggled because it needs every nation in the tent and can only get things done when all 192 agree—something that rarely happens unless goals are watered down to the lowest common denominator.

So what does this mean to businesses, investors, and consumers? Carbon will have a price globally by 2012. Period. Much of that cost will be offset by reductions in energy bills, because of efficiency improvements and deployment of renewables (after you pay back the cost of a solar panel, for example, electricity is free), but the price of everything will change—some going up and others going dramatically down. Copenhagen may have failed on some levels, but it succeeded in sparking the moves by the sub-nationals and the Gang of Five to ensure at least that fundamental result.

Although I was a pesky little kid, I never actually found coal in my stocking. Given the results in Denmark this month, the future uses for coal may well be limited to this kind of holiday humor—and our environment and economies will be the better for it.

Related Links:

New Year’s resolution: Mountaintop removal ends in 2010

The Earth’s Decade

A conversation with Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain

by David Roberts

I have been one among many in the progressive world trying to draw more attention to the dysfunctions of the U.S. Senate, in particular the now-routine use of the filibuster, which has put a default 60-vote requirement on legislation that amounts to a fundamental change in U.S. governance—and not a positive change.

It seems the subject is finally catching on. The Atlantic’s James Fallows and the NYT’s Paul Krugman have both written excellent columns on the subject recently, and now liberal heroine Rachel Maddow has taken up the banner. Here’s a fantastic clip from her show a couple nights ago, which addresses the filibuster head-on, in her typically erudite and entertaining way:

And here’s the clip that immediately followed—if you watch to the end, you see that NYT columnist Tom Friedman applies the filibuster critique to the climate/energy bill:

We need more people talking about this. Please, green activists, let go of your obsession with Obama’s alleged character flaws and think more about the structural and institutional barriers to action! Especially the filibuster: It’s blocking U.S. action, which is blocking international action. The world’s fate rests in the myopic, sociopathically indifferent hands of Ben Nelson, who represents one-half of one percent of U.S. citizens. Do you want it that way?

UPDATE: Lo and behold! As I speak, People for the American Way has put out a new report: “The Numbers Don’t Lie—GOP Obstruction Efforts Unprecedented in Senate.” A must-read, as they say.

Related Links:

Climate science is older and better established than you think [VIDEO]

How environmentally friendly is Washington’s congressional delegation?

What you need to know following the Copenhagen climate summit

by Andrew Light

Co-authored by Rebecca Lefton.

The international negotiations on climate change wrapped up Dec. 19 in Copenhagen. The conference achieved an interim agreement, known as the Copenhagen Accord, which could put the major polluting nations on a pathway to reducing global warming pollution, and it continues to set the expectation for U.S. domestic action on climate change.

Much work remains, but there were also numerous notable achievements and meaningful insights into how the United States can gain from leading the world toward a new international clean-energy agreement.

A “meaningful” deal on climate mitigation

President Barack Obama left Copenhagen Friday night after personally working to secure agreement from China, South Africa, Brazil, and India on a “meaningful and unprecedented” climate change agreement. The president played a major role in crafting the Copenhagen Accord that was hammered out by 28 countries and accepted by 188 by the end of the meeting. Only five countries—Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Sudan—refused the accord.

The Accord will go forward with committed parties now required to submit national action plans for emission reductions by the end of January 2010 that are consistent with the agreement’s stated goal of limiting global temperature increases from carbon pollution from rising to more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Farenheit) over pre-industrial levels.

The Accord stipulates that countries should consider further strengthening this goal by limiting temperature increases to 1.5 degrees C. Further, specific targets are not iterated in the accord and need to be added as soon as possible, but most parties are committed to strengthening it and taking the next step to turn it into a binding agreement by the 2010 U.N. climate summit in Mexico City.

The existing and proposed policies by the nations that produce large amounts of greenhouse gas pollution provide a good start toward the pollution cuts that we need. The Accord allows nations to undertake a full range of policies that reduce pollution, rather than limiting qualifying policies to economy-wide pollution caps. Preliminary results from a Center for American Progress report on carbon cap equivalents using recent data from Project Catalyst finds that current and pending policies among the world’s 17 major carbon polluters will yield 65 percent of reductions needed by 2020 if all parties succeed in doing what they have promised to do as of today.

Responsibility from developing countries

The Kyoto Protocol called on developed countries to reduce emissions but did not demand reductions from developing countries. Major polluting developing countries, including China, India, South Africa, and Brazil, are now poised to make transparent emissions reductions or reductions in pollution rates. This is the first time that developing countries have agreed to binding emission reductions in an international agreement. This represents a major shift from the schism between developed and developing countries that blocked progress in the past.

First-ever compromise to measure, report, and verify pollution reductions

The Accord includes a compromise between the United States and China to verify pollution reductions according to rigorous and transparent guidelines depending on the source of financing for the reductions. All reductions are subject to “international consultation and analysis.” As a New York Times editorial observed, “China is now a player in the effort to combat climate change in a way it has never been, putting measurable emissions reductions targets on the table and accepting verification.”

Serious emissions reductions targets for developing countries

The ramp up to Copenhagen and the United States’ decision to put midterm emission reductions targets and immediate financing numbers on the table prior to the start of the summit stimulated unprecedented national commitments from key countries. China announced on Nov. 26 a target of reducing carbon pollution per unit of gross domestic product by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Soon after the U.S.-India summit in Washington, India announced on Dec. 2 that it intends to decrease its carbon intensity 24 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. More importantly, other clean-energy and climate policies in both countries will result in reductions in China of 13 percent below business-as-usual emissions by 2020 and 19 percent below business-as-usual emissions in India by 2020.

Major financial commitments

Developed countries committed significantly more financial resources than ever before to developing countries for mitigation, adaptation, and forest conservation. This was despite disappointments in negotiations over an international forestry deal and an international technology transfer regime. Developments include:

The Accord establishes a “fast start” fund to provide $30 billion from 2010-2012 for assistance to developing countries, including funds for forestry and a commitment to mobilizing $100 billion a year to address the needs of developing countries by 2020. Japan said that it will provide $15 billion through 2012 toward the fast start fund, contingent on achieving an international agreement. And E.U. leaders will provide $10.5 billion over the next three years as part of the fund.  The United States promised a fair share of meeting this goal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States’ funding is contingent on a commitment by developing nations to make emission reductions transparent.
The United States will finance $1 billion for avoided deforestation that will be matched by other countries for a total of $3.5 billion to prevent the destruction of tropical forests. The global goal is to cut deforestation by half by 2020, which would be equal to eliminating emissions from the entire global transportation sector.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the launch of the Renewables and Efficiency Deployment Initiative, or Climate REDI, which will contribute $85 million to a global fund of $350 million over five years to assist developing nations with adoption of clean-energy technology. Secretary Chu also announced 10 new clean-energy technology road maps under the Global Partnership, which was launched during the Major Economies Forum in July in L’Aquila, Italy.

A boost to passage of U.S. climate change legislation

As the Washington Post editorial board observed, the Copenhagen Accord “should prod the U.S. Senate to take up climate-change legislation.” President Obama said that we should meet our commitment to reduce pollution, not only because the science demands it, but because it offers enormous economic opportunity to build new clean-energy companies. This first step in Copenhagen commits the United States to passing legislation to make way for an international binding agreement. It is time for the U.S. Senate to continue its international leadership role by acting in 2010, which would create millions of jobs, secure energy independence, and boost the economy.

The primary international opponents of the Copenhagen Accord are oil states

The leading voices of opposition to the Accord came from Venezuela, Sudan, Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Cuba. The first three nations are oil-producing states that would lose major revenue if countries reduce their global warming pollution by using less oil. The latter two nations are clients of Venezuela that must curry favor with their patron. The ability of a handful of petro-states to block the Accord from being endorsed by the entire U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change at Copenhagen suggests the flawed nature of the United Nations process that requires unanimity among 193 nations. Their opposition will not stop those signing onto the Accord from moving forward and carrying out its mandate, but many observers believe that the outcome of this meeting suggests that alternative venues, such as the Major Economies Forum, which includes the world’s largest developed and developing nations polluters, can and should play a larger role in the design and implementation of future agreements.

Rebecca Lefton is a Researcher for Progressive Media, Andrew Light is a Senior Fellow, and Daniel J. Weiss is a Senior Fellow and Director Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress.

Related Links:

A conversation with Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain

Sarkozy scrambles to salvage carbon tax

Brazil’s Lula signs law cutting CO2 emissions

by Agence France-Presse

PARIS—Land ecosystems will have to move hundreds of meters each year in order to cope with global warming, according to a letter published on Thursday in Nature, the British-based science journal.

On average, ecosystems will need to shift 420 meters (about a quarter of a mile) per year to cooler areas this century if the species that inhabit them are to keep within their comfort zones, scientists in the U.S. believe.

Flat ecosystems such as mangroves, wetlands and, deserts face the biggest challenge, for they will have to move the farthest in order to survive.

Mountainous habitats are a bit luckier, as just a small shift in altitude provides some cooling.

The figures are based on the “A1B” scenario for likely carbon emissions this century, as forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is considered an intermediate level of warming.

Climate change would impact slowest in tropical and subtropical coniferous forests, temperate coniferous forests, so-called montane grasslands, and shrublands, say the scientists.

Deserts, mangroves, grasslands and savannas would be hit fastest.

The paper suggests a ruthless Darwinian struggle will be unleashed.

Some rugged species may be able to adapt to warmer temperatures and modification of their home. Others that can migrate elsewhere in time will also survive.

But those species that cannot adapt—or which move only slowly, such as plants—will have nowhere to go and could face extinction.

“Expressed as velocities, climate-change projections connect directly to survival prospects for plants and animals. These are the conditions that will set the stage, whether species move or cope in place,” said co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology.

The study says that protected areas such as nature reserves are generally too small to cope with the expected habitat shifts.

Less than 10 percent of protected areas globally will maintain current climate conditions within their boundaries a century from now, it warns.

Under the A1B scenario, the best estimate of the U.N.‘s Nobel-winning panel of climate scientists foresees a temperature rise this century of 2.8 degrees Celsius (5.04 degrees Fahrenheit), in a range of 1.7-4.4 C (3.06-7.2 F).

A group of world leaders, at the Copenhagen climate summit last Friday, set the goal of limiting warming to 2 C (3.6 F), but did not explicitly say whether the benchmark was since industrial times or over the course of this century.

There has already been around 0.7 C (1.26 F) of warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution of the mid-18th century, when the burning of coal, oil, and gas began the greenhouse-gas phenomenon.

Related Links:

The Earth’s Decade

Britain embraces the new faux gras

Sarkozy scrambles to salvage carbon tax

by Auden Schendler

One morning in the not too distant future, you might wake up and walk to your mailbox. The newspaper is in there and it’s covered with shocking headlines: Coal Plants Shut Down! Airline Travel Down 50 Percent! New Federal Carbon Restrictions in Place! Governor Kicked Out of Office for Climate Indolence!

Sometimes change is abrupt and unsettling. History shows that societies in crisis too often leap from calm reaction to outright panic.The only thing your bath-robed, flip-flopped, weed-eating neighbor wants to talk about over the fence isn’t the Yankees, but, of all things … climate change.

Shaking your head, you think: What just happened?

With a non-binding agreement coming out of Copenhagen at the same time that atmospheric CO2 creeps above 390 parts per million, it’s possible that a new feeling might soon gain prevalence in the hearts of people who understand climate science. That feeling is panic. Specifically, climate panic.

In the same way that paleoclimate records show evidence of abrupt climate changes, we think it’s increasingly possible that policy responses to climate change will themselves be abrupt. After years of policy inaction, a public climate backlash is already smoldering. When it blows, it could force radical policy in a short timeframe. It’s the same kind of cultural tipping point, often triggered by dramatic events, that has led to revolutions or wars in the past.

The backlash is brewing in the form of increasingly strident comments from respected and influential people. Economist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has called government indolence on the issue “treason.” NRDC attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has called it “a crime against nature.” Environmental journalist and author Elizabeth Kolbert has described “a technologically advanced society choosing to destroy itself,” while James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri, perhaps the world’s leading climate scientists, have said inaction in the next several years will doom the planet.

Meanwhile, that very planet is visibly changing—epic droughts, fires and dust storms in Australia; floods in Asia, alarmingly fast melting of land ice in Greenland and Antarctica; the prospect of an ice-free summer on the Arctic Sea; raging, unprecedented fires throughout the world; and mosquito-borne illnesses like Dengue spreading to regions previously untouched. Measurements show that the oceans are rising and becoming more acidic, while the Earth’s average temperature was higher in the past decade than at any time in the past century.

At some point, even climate change becomes teenager obvious: “Well, Duh, Dad! Look around you!”

When the psychology of in-your-face warming gets combined with a shocking climate event—something like Hurricane Katrina on steroids—you end up with a witches brew that can result in what political scientist Aristide Zolberg has referred to as “moments of madness”—unique historical moments when society challenges conventional wisdom and new norms are forcibly—oftentimes disruptively—created.

There are many historical precedents: the economic and political chaos in Weimar Germany that ultimately led to the rise of Hitler, the violence of the French Revolution, the sudden, peaceful collapse of the Soviet empire.

Stock market panics are another example: a rapid change in mindset that illustrates the dangerous unpredictability of human systems. On climate, such a response could mean sudden and painfully costly dislocations in the energy markets—and therefore the global economy—that wind up becoming the “worst case” scenario that few people had considered possible.

It is exactly these economic impacts that the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs fear we’ll impose on ourselves through restrictive government regulation of energy and carbon emissions. Ironically, a “no action” approach today actually makes a climate panic much more likely over time. What we’re describing would be popularly driven, not fueled by governments or policy wonks. It would be the direct result of free will, democracy, autonomy and the information superhighway. All these forces would accelerate, not mitigate, the greatest “Aha!” moment in the history of the human species. Imagine the sub-prime mortgage bubble pop multiplied a hundred fold.

Yet business and government planners continue to anticipate much less abrupt transitions to a carbon-constrained future. Even renewable energy policy and emissions reduction scenarios dismissed as crazily aggressive are based on relatively incremental change.

That’s a big problem. We believe that business leaders and politicians need to add a more radical scenario to their risk assessment: a climate panic that turns us from agents into victims, ushering in chaos. The only way to avoid this catastrophic scenario is a kind of backfire panic of our own: radical, rapid, and aggressive implementation of climate policy in the United States as a message to the world. In the end, as venture capitalist Eugene Kleiner has pointed out, “sometimes panic is an appropriate response.”

Related Links:

Copenhagen coal in the stocking?

What you need to know following the Copenhagen climate summit

The Copenhagen Accord: A Big Step Forward

by Bryan Farrell

Geoengineering had its coming out party earlier this year when White House science adviser John Holdren told reporters that he had mentioned it to President Obama as a possible, admittedly desperate, option to combat climate change. Before then, the idea of hacking the planet was largely outside the realm of public discussion, which is why few people know that when Lyndon Johnson became the first president to be warned about global warming, his science advisers offered up geoengineering as the only possible solution.

Watch the movie trailer at the bottom of this article.4th Row FilmsThis insistence upon the manipulation of nature as the answer to the climate problem is the subject of a new documentary called Owning the Weather, which chronicles attempts over the last century to unlock the planet’s most mysterious and intricate of systems for both personal and societal gain. Director Robert Greene makes the case that the large-scale, biosphere-altering effects of geoengineering can’t be understood without examining smaller scale weather modification, such as cloud seeding to produce rain.

The film begins its focus on this particular practice with the largely forgotten story of Charles Hatfield, who was hired by San Diego County in 1915 to end a four year drought. Within a month of Hatfield burning proprietary chemicals that he claimed would attract moisture, it had rained 35 inches, with 14 deaths tied to the inundation. Hatfield quickly left town and was never paid; the county decided the rain was an act of God, not Hatfield’s doing. He ended up spending the rest of his life selling sewing machines. Oddly, the film says, to this day the reservoir where Hatfield conducted his “work” still experiences rains during what should be the dry season.

A sense of mystery continues to pervade the different methods of weather modification. Not only is the practice completely baffling—the film shows farmers igniting what looks like a small gas flame that in turn burns purported cloud seeding agents—but the results are unpredictable at best. The film depicts several die-hard proponents of cloud seeding caught in a catch-22, where they are perceived as charlatans by almost everyone in the realm of science, but can’t seem to get the government funding to conduct research that could show that seeding works.

In a further ironic twist, scientists seeking funding for geoengineering research are being forced to lobby with the cloud seeders. These two disparate groups of people—one hailing from the farm belt and the other from universities and research institutions—both want the same bill passed to establish a national weather modification policy and extend funding for experiments. But the United States has so far been reluctant to test international laws governing weather modification, which were enacted shortly after it was revealed in 1971 that the U.S. military attempted cloud seeding to extend the monsoon season in Vietnam to flood the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Owning the Weather wrestles with this sketchy past, as well as the legitimate potential that exists with geoengineering—a concept with far more science behind it than cloud seeding, but wrought with far worse possible consequences. Unlike the cloud seeders, geoengineers seem to be more aware of the drawbacks. Stanford University climate scientist and leading geoengineering proponent Ken Caldeira speaks with such self-doubt in the film that he might as well be Woody Allen in a lab coat.

Meanwhile, Bill McKibben, whom I desperately hoped would condemn the insanity of geoengineering schemes, exhibited a similarly wavering tone in the film, saying “one of the great sadnesses and proofs that we’ve let global warming get completely out of control is they don’t sound quite as crazy anymore.” Such cautious reasoning left me feeling far more mixed about the idea of planet hacking than I like to admit. But that’s the point. We simply don’t know enough yet to make any kind of sound decision, as our previous attempts to control the weather exhibit.

Although Owning the Weather can be too interview-heavy at times, with one talking head bouncing to the next, the film is at its best when it goes beyond the physical consequences of human-made weather and ponders how society and our own consciousness might change as well. The subtle irony beneath this question, however, is that mankind has already geoengineered the weather, thanks to 150 plus years of industrial pollution.

The purity of a wholly natural climate may be lost, but Mother Nature is still in full control—a fact those of us living in wealthy countries can’t seem to accept. We’re so used to controlling our home environment with the flick of the thermostat that controlling the weather seems entirely possible. And so it’s this sense of hubris that might be the scariest thing of all.

Watch It: Owning the Weather (4th Row Films) will be shown at the 92Y in Tribeca on Jan. 7. The film is also currently available via Amazon and cable video on demand. For more information, visit owningtheweather.com.

The Trailer:

Related Links:

Michael Mann updates the world on the latest climate science

Evolution of Evolution

Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson

by Ken Ward

“So where do we go from here?” asks Geoffrey Lean. “How do we get from the … debacle of Copenhagen to a new and worthwhile climate treaty?”

The question reminds me of the old Bert & I tale about the Maine farmer who, when asked by a motorist for directions to Millinocket, answers, “You cahn’t get theyah from heea.”

Lean observes that “Rarely have such high hopes [for Copenhagen] been dashed so swiftly,” and says “the summit was only saved from total disaster by unprecedented negotiations between the leaders themselves.”

I’m more inclined to see the unprecedented, last-minute, let’s-save-ourselves-from-complete-embarrassment negotiations as adding final insult to grievous injury, but be that as it may, what’s most interesting in Lean’s analysis are the “7 Steps” he outlines to get from debacle to a worthwhile treaty, which may be summed up:

    1. Smooth ruffled feathers in the 187 nations cut out of the last-minute, 5 nation deal cutting.
    2. Persuade countries to pledge significant greenhouse emissions reductions, particularly the Europeans.
    3. Pass U.S. cap & trade bill.
    4. Revamp UN treaty negotiations process.
    5. Ensure that monies pledged in Copenhagen become monies spent.
    6. Figure out what we’re trying to do (extend Kyoto?, do something else?, extend Kyoto without the US?).
    7. Convince China of what we know, but they apparently don’t know, which is that signing a climate treaty is in their best interest.
 
Come now.

This is a list of things we’ve been trying for at least a decade (2, 3, 6 & 7), plus some stuff we apparently need to do now because what we’ve been trying to do for the last decade didn’t work (1, 4), and one thing to follow up on (5). Nowhere does Lean give even a flicker of an idea of how these things might be approached differently and nowhere does Lean consider the possibility that the debacle in Copenhagen might be the direct result of pursuing the wrong climate strategy.

I think we tried an extraordinary, radical approach to political change—in essence, to sneak something into place, bypassing the tough business of challenging how things are—which has inarguablly failed and it’s past time we return to more traditional means of winning tough stuff. In that spirit, here are 7 Steps + 3 I think will be far more productive.

    1. Ramp up the conflict between those nations that have recognized climate realities and are willing to take on the US, China, India, etc. (along with nations that think they can make a buck, and most likely deserve to).
    2. Drop the misplaced attention to emissions and focus on shutting down extractions. There are only a handful of oil, coal, and gas fields in the world, controlled by a few countries—like, whaddya know? the 5 that cut the deal in Copenhagen. Shutting down mines and wells is the only practical, last-minute measure humanity can take, so we’d best start a drumbeat for it now.
    3. Defeat any half-measure, in the US or elsewhere, intended to protect fossil fuel burning, particularly coal, and/or that tries to put off what must be decided immediately to some hypothetical future where political conditions are better, or someone else is responsible.
    4. Use the UN to focus pressure on the top 5-10 nations, but aim for a desperate, multi-lateral agreement between the US, China, Australia, and maybe India to phase out coal extractions (covering over 80% of supply), coupled with the massive ramp-up in efficiency and renewables to replace it; the lion’s share paid for by the US.
    5. Denounce the Copenhagen pledges as the pittance they are (though they should still be paid), and demand spending on a scale concomitant with saving our collective bacon.
    6. Figure out what we’re trying to do (see 4).
    7. Convince China that it is in their interest to sign a climate deal by making it in their interest (see 4). and,

    8. Focus on multi-nationals as well as nations. In all the swirl of action between and about nations, we seem to have forgotten that it’s Exxon-Mobil, BP, Peabody Coal, Gazprom, Shell, and the like that are making more money than the world has ever seen by selling out our future.
    9. Stop dissembling about how bad it is and stop pretending to ourselves that we’re not being disingenuous. Whenever we put this civilization-busting threat in terms of an opportunity (for energy independence, green jobs, or whatever), rather than what it is (a last bid to save our asses), we completely undercut the only point that matters.
    10. Increase—and dramatically increase—turmoil, dissent, civil disobedience, and conflict. We are never, and were never going to quietly negotiate an orderly transfer away from oil, gas, and coal. It will take an immense, global upheaval, which we must both foment and ensure remains non-violent.

Related Links:

With new year comes second chance to save the world

A conversation with Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain

Sarkozy scrambles to salvage carbon tax

by KC Golden

“There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say.”—President Obama, speaking to world leaders in Copenhagen December 18

“Kan Han?” (Can He?) So implored the headline and full-page picture of President Obama on the front of the Copenhagen MetroXpress on December 18, the day the President flew in to rescue the climate summit.

With negotiations on the verge of collapse, Obama narrowly averted a total disaster with a strong show of determination and some deft eleventh-hour negotiating.  The talks failed to produce a formal and comprehensive commitment to climate solutions, but they did deliver some important pieces of the puzzle. Top-level engagement from the world’s two largest emitters, the U.S. and China, is new and essential. And negotiators took a real step forward on financing adaptation and clean development in the global South, the moral and practical imperative at the heart of any fair global deal.

President Obama was dealt a weak hand by the Senate’s failure to adopt comprehensive climate and energy legislation before the negotiations. Other factors contributed, but the Senate’s punt set the stage for the tepid result in Copenhagen. The world will not move forward decisively until the U.S. is in with both feet – and both houses of Congress.

Understanding the U.S.‘s pivotal role, Obama leaned forward and made a definitive-sounding pledge: “We have made our commitments, and we will do what we say.” But he can’t make it stick until Congress finishes its work. The window is short: scientific, diplomatic, and political imperatives demand immediate action.

The President is clearly engaged—a huge step one on America’s road to recovering its credibility in the international process, after having walked away from Kyoto. Six of his cabinet Secretaries came to the summit and impressed the world with their focus and administrative actions to date. But the inconvenient truth about our weak standing in the negotiations remains naked: The nation that has contributed the most to global warming still has no national climate policy.

I went to Copenhagen in part to demonstrate the breadth of action and commitment to climate solutions in the U.S., especially at the state and local level. But international colleagues and delegates cross-examined me about our broken legislative process, and why it has been so slow to deliver. I have a lot of theories, but no remotely adequate excuse. The U.S. must step up—and in a stark, defiant, powerful sentence, the President promised we would: “We will do what we say.”

To be clear, “what we say”—the emission reduction target the President put on the table—is not nearly enough to do our part in staving off catastrophic climate disruption. It’s far less than other developed nations have pledged. We will need to do much more. But it was the effective constraint that Congress imposed and the President accepted on the U.S.‘s ambition in Copenhagen.

So the immediate question is, “How?” How will the President make good on his commitment? Will he rely on existing executive authority? Partly. EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson was in Copenhagen a day after the agency’s landmark “Endangerment finding” to affirm that the Administration will use the Clean Air Act to reduce climate pollution. But Jackson and the President have also made it clear they don’t think current executive authority is enough. And they’re right.

We know what the problem is: the Senate’s paralysis—a symptom of the polarized, dysfunctional politics that has turned this urgent global imperative into a political football in Washington. The only really meaningful test of whether “we will do what we say” is whether the Senate gets cracking on it immediately after health care. But they won’t do it unless the President leads the charge with a lot more gusto.

Senate leadership is afraid of this issue. They’re afraid of losing seats in the midterms. They’re afraid that opponents will successfully frame the climate and energy policy as a job killer. They’re afraid of another bruising political battle after health care.

This is where FDR (and some WWII-like urgency) would come in handy: fear itself is what’s killing them. While they cower, they are squandering the opportunity to frame this as what it really is: the most effective, politically galvanizing strategy for job creation and economic renewal available to them. Opponents of climate policy are rushing to fill the void with all manner of lies about climate science and energy economics. The nay-sayers’ arguments are weak, but their resolve is firm. The opposite is true of the proponents (if we can even really call them that yet).

A short term jobs package won’t deliver a fraction of the economic punch that a real climate and energy policy packs. A cap on carbon emissions will yield a lot more “cash for caulkers” than a one-time, near-term public outlay. Instead of pushing a jobs bill out ahead of the climate and energy bill, Congress should do them together. The climate and energy package – with short-term job stimulators and long-term job drivers – can be the main engine of economic and political recovery. The President has argued for a systematic transition to a clean energy economy repeatedly and eloquently, but he hasn’t broken through yet. Pushing jobs, energy, and climate together instead of sequentially would make his case much more persuasive.

Americans know that fossil fuel dependence is a dead end street, and they’re ready for leaders to get real about what it takes to turn onto a clean energy path. The President has demonstrated the winning politics of this: Democratic and Republican rivals offered campaign lollipops last summer—gas tax holidays and drilling binges – while candidate Obama called for a bold energy transformation. He won.

It is certainly possible to lose this fight. The best way to lose it is to recoil from having it—the strategy Senate leaders and Democratic political operatives seem to be pursuing now. This only emboldens opponents and demoralizes supporters.

The President ran on this issue. He believes in it. He understands its transformative economic power and the moral imperative to tackle it. He mined the rich political ore of our frustration with Washington’s chronic failure to address our fossil fuel addiction. The question now is whether he will forge that raw material into the steely resolve he’ll need to get an effective climate and energy bill done.

Losing this fight because he won’t have it would undermine the President. He was elected in part because he picked it. Now he needs to have it and win.

Related Links:

A conversation with Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain

Sarkozy scrambles to salvage carbon tax

Brazil’s Lula signs law cutting CO2 emissions

by Brad Johnson

First published at Wonk Room.

Now that President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have returned from Copenhagen with a draft accord committing China, India, and the United States to a new era of climate action, the onus lies on the U.S. Senate to pass ambitious clean energy legislation. “Not a chance in hell that after the president put American prestige on the line in Copenhagen that the Senate is going to give this issue anything less than a major push,” Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) told reporters. “This is big—big—bigger than any individual agenda.” Unfortunately, many members continue to treat the dire need to reduce emissions and rebuild our economy as a political football. In particular, members who previously used China and India’s lack of commitment to emissions reductions as an excuse for inaction are now trying to redefine the Copenhagen Accord as meaningless. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) led the pack, calling the accord a “nothing-burger”:

It’s a nothing-burger.

McCain then admitted he hadn’t actually read the agreement. But he is joined by fellow members on the right and left of the aisle who are continuing to argue that energy reform is too difficult to attempt. They are attempting to move the goalposts, as well. Even though China has now committed to transparent emissions reductions, senators are arguing that because China can’t really be trusted, we still shouldn’t act:

Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio): “If we don’t do this right, a company in Lima, Ohio, shuts down and moves to Wuhan, and we lose jobs.”

Bob Casey (D-Pa.): “The reality for states like Pennsylvania is, even as we move forward with any kind of climate change legislation, there are going to be cost impacts. We want to make sure we’re not adding yet another cost impact that other countries don’t have to shoulder.”

Susan Collins (R-Maine): “Right now, I would say that cap-and-trade is stalled.”

Chris Dodd (D-Conn.): “It will take a lot of work. We need to take a break around here and step back before we try anything of any controversy.”

Ted Kaufman (D-Del.): “If China will not let us verify, we’re going to have a heck of a time here. An agreement’s no good if you can’t verify.”

Carl Levin (D-Mich.): “Unless India and China are bound and we know what the details are—I don’t think necessarily that their agreeing to goals or whatever it was they agreed to will have an effect on cap-and-trade. If there was a binding agreement that tied them into limits that were meaningful, then I think that would have advanced the legislation. From what I understand of this, it’s more of agreeing to goals.”

Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.): “I think that the Chinese are perfectly capable of being on board for something and then not doing it.”

George Voinovich (R-Ohio): “I know for a fact that even though the government of China says they are committed to X and Y, the economy in China is run by the governors of the state.”

However, as Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) explained, the do-nothings in the Senate are dangerously misreading China’s role. The real concern should be that China and other nations are already taking the “green leap forward” and are far ahead in the climate race. The inability of the U.S. Congress to set a price on carbon and direct investment into a clean-energy economy is dooming American competitiveness and American jobs now, as well as the fate of future generations:

We have a responsibility to deal with this issue. We have to acknowledge the obvious. China, one of our great competitors in the world, is taking the green leap forward, as they say. They are committing themselves to this new energy-efficient economy, and they are building companies even in the United States that will make those products. Will the United States stand by the sidelines or will we be part of this leap forward? I don’t want to lose those jobs.

Related Links:

Copenhagen coal in the stocking?

Time to bust the filibuster

What you need to know following the Copenhagen climate summit

by Michael A. Livermore

On December 22nd, 2008, a quiet evening in the town of Harriman, Tennessee was interrupted when 1.2 billion gallons of toxic coal ash sludge burst out of a nearby landfill, poisoning the land and water in its path and causing untold hardship for families whose lives were turned upside down. A year later, the underlying cause of this massive environmental disaster is still unregulated.

Despite some rumblings and tentative first steps, the EPA has a long way to go before adopting rules that require safer storage of this dangerous muck. At the very least, the agency should move quickly to ban the slurry from being kept in unlined ponds where, even without a spill, it threatens public health by seeping carcinogens into the water supply.

Clean up of the spill is still ongoing—the Tennessee Valley Authority, the entity responsible for the plant in Kingston, says it’s likely to take another two or three years and at least $933 million total to finish the job. Add that to the health costs of contaminated water and respiratory issues of having this stuff around, and the benefits of regulations far outweigh the price electricity companies would pay to comply.

Last year’s spill was a consequence of TVA’s underinvestment in adequate protection.  What began as a dike designed to keep about 5 feet of coal ash from flowing into the nearby creek eventually had to contain a mountain of gelatinous waste that was a notable feature of the area’s landscape. With no regulation requiring it, only nominal improvements were made to keep the slurry in place and nothing was done to keep the toxins out of the drinking water.

This kind of behavior is just another way society hides the expensive consequences of burning dirty fuel. “Cheap” energy prices too often comes at the expense of hazards foisted onto unsuspecting neighbors. The families of Harriman experienced the true cost of cheap coal the hard way.

There is much more work to be done to uncover all the health risks associated with unlined coal ash ponds and to conduct a complete cost-benefit analysis of regulating these sites. But most of the missing information is on the benefit side of the equation, so further research is likely to strengthen the economic case for EPA to step in.

Hopefully many years will pass without another spill, but as the head of TVA has recently acknowledged, plants will need to change their storage practices to truly prevent another disaster like Kingston. It’s unclear that we can rely on these facilities to learn from TVA’s mistakes and protect their neighbors from harm without strong rules requiring adequate protection. The EPA should regulate quickly knowing that doing so will yield far more benefits than costs.

Related Links:

Copenhagen coal in the stocking?

The top green stories of the ‘00s

Top 10 worst Christmas gifts

by Sam Hummel

With the exception of a few hours of shut-eye, I stayed up all Friday night to watch the last hours of the COP15 negotiations. It was absolutely gripping, shocking, heart-wrenching, inspiring and in the end came with some measure of relief. (BTW—for anyone that would like to watch any part of Friday night’s negotiations it is all online here. I have found this partial transcript useful for skipping around in the many hours of footage.)

I have not seen a single news article that has done justice to what happened overnight. In fact, I’ve seen many that I feel misunderstand or mischaracterize what happened. Watching the questions journalists asked during the final press conferences, I kept saying to my computer screen “Were you not watching!?” so I suppose it should come as little surprise that I, as someone who watched the entire thing, feel a number of the articles written thus far leave readers with misimpressions.

In particular, I would like to address five things that I’ve seen reported or opined in various media (primarily on the left) over the last two days that I believe are fallacies, based on what I witnessed.

Fallacy #1—The “Copenhagen Accord” text preempted a better agreement from being adopted at COP15.

For Venezuela or Cuba or Nicaragua or Sudan or Tuvalu to suggest that continuation of the deadlocked plenary with the negotiators of the 193 countries could have produced an adoptable document contradicts the evidence of the last two years and two weeks of negotiations.  According to what I heard negotiators saying, many proposed texts had been floated but nothing had achieved the kind of support that would make it signable. This was pointed out in very diplomatic terms by the negotiators from Grenada (AOSIS representative), Ethiopia (AU representative), the LDC representative, the Maldives, Norway, UK and many more. As the COP15 began its last day, there was *no deal* of any kind ready for the many world leaders present that day to sign. Why any reporters or commentators would give air-time to the suggestion that the UNFCCC negotiation process had produced something better, I’m having a hard time understanding. If that something better wasn’t going to get signed, it wasn’t better.

I think the Norwegian diplomat said it best when speaking to the full plenary of negotiators saying (I paraphrase) that the negotiators as a group needed to be able to be self-critical and recognize that after two years and 2 weeks of negotiating *they* had failed their heads of state and the world by failing to have something ready for their leaders to sign when they came to Copenhagen. Given that reality, he said, the heads of state made an “unprecedented effort” talking directly to each other and brokered a deal where there had been *none.* (You can find his excellent comments at 1:26 into the plenary video linked above.)

Fallacy #2—The poor countries of the world rejected the Accord.

The claim I’ve seen in some early articles that “the poor countries of the world rejected” the deal is totally inaccurate. It is deeply unfair to throw all the developing nations in an undifferentiated block like this. Sudan, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Cuba and Tuvalu quite vociferously opposed the Accord on both procedural and content grounds. But among the dozens of developing nation representatives that took the floor Friday night, they were in a clear minority.

While recognizing the many short-comings of the Accord, one developing nation after another pleaded with the countries mentioned above to drop their opposition so that the Accord could be adopted.  This pleading was truly heart-wrenching. I will never forget the desperate words of the President of Maldives literally begging these nations to drop their opposition to the Accord. (2:52 into the overnight plenary video)  His pleading was followed by a long applause and similar appeals by negotiators from dozens of other countries and the representatives of nearly every major UN coordinating group, each stating that the parties in their group, through them, wished to express their support for the passage of the Accord. Those bodies include the Alliance Of Small Island States (AOSIS), the Least Developed Countries (LDC), the Africa Group, and the African Union (AU).

Notably, the G77 (a caucus which represents 130 developing nations) did not make a statement in support of the Accord. However, that may have been more of a result of who was representing them than a sign of their collective will. The official G77 representative was from Sudan. After prefacing his remarks by saying he was speaking only on behalf of Sudan, he rejected the Accord with a hyperbole-filled, cynical statement that included a claim that the Accord had the “same values” that created the Holocaust. (You can find his remarks 32 minutes into the recording linked above.) His Holocaust comparison was roundly condemned by nearly every nation that spoke afterward, and several other aspects of his remarks were objected to as well. After that, many G77 countries took the floor to independently endorse the Accord.

Unfortunately, because the handful of opposing nations could not be convinced to support the adoption of the Accord as a decision of the COP15, instead a decision was unanimously passed for the COP15 to “take note” of the Accord.  The COP also agreed that individual countries should have the opportunity to associate themselves as parties agreeing to the Copenhagen Accord, listing their names in an addendum to accompany the Accord. Until that addendum is prepared, we won’t know the exact tally of who was for and against the Accord’s adoption. But judging by the statements made on the plenary floor, I think the final tally will show that many more developing nations supported it than opposed it.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the more accurate record of what happened is that while many developing (and developed) countries were disappointed by the COP15’s inability to produce a signable text better than the Accord, the overwhelming majority of them were in support of adopting the Accord as a decision of the COP.

Fallacy #3—The Accord came out of an undemocratic backroom deal that minimized the voice of developing nations.

Initially, the strongest and most compelling argument raised by the handful of nations actively opposing the adoption of the Accord was that the Accord had come out of an undemocratic, non-representative backroom deal that had circumvented the UNFCCC process. They are without-question correct on one of those points: it is true that the Accord was brokered outside of the UNFCCC negotiating process by a body made up of less than the 193 countries assembled. With the COP15 in total deadlock (according to many of the negotiators who spoke last night) and with many heads of state on the scene, the President of the COP, Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, invited 28 heads of state and their lead negotiators to a series of “Friends of the Chair” meetings to try to break the impasse. Obama was a participant in some of these meetings.

According to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who also participated in many of those meetings, the 28 nations selected were intentionally representative of all the major UN negotiating groups, the major carbon emitters, the major economies, diverse regions and the majority of the world’s population. I can’t find a complete list of the participating nations online anywhere but the representative of Grenada listed 23 in her remarks:

Sweden (outgoing President of the EU)
Spain (incoming President of the EU)
Saudi Arabia (head rep for OPEC)
Russian Federation
Norway (leader in climate funding)
Maldives
Lesotho (head rep for LDCs)
South Africa
Bangladesh
Algeria (head rep of the Africa Group)
Denmark (COP15 President)
Mexico (COP16 President)
Germany
France
UK
Ethiopia (head rep for the African Union)
Colombia
Korea
China (largest national population)
India (2nd largest national population)
US (3rd largest national population)
Brazil
Grenada (head rep for AOSIS)

The representative nature of the group was defended and presented in persuasive fashion by a number of negotiators, particularly the lead negotiator of Grenada.  As the official representative of the Alliance of Small Island States, the Grenada negotiator said about the Friends of the Chair meeting (paraphrasing) “We were there; we saw the process as legitimate,” “Everyone was negotiating in good faith,” “It was a difficult session, in which AOSIS fought for every single thing, but as you can see we did not get much,” “we regret that this meeting is dividing us… but we stand by the document and we stand by the process.” (Her full remarks can be heard 1:11 into the overnight plenary video.) In his post COP press conference, the UN Secretary General also stood by the process.

The convening of the Friends of the Chair meeting does not represent an undemocratic process. The role of the nation convening an international conference is to do everything possible to make the conference a success. With the conference on the verge of total failure, it was entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister of Denmark to convene these heads of state and try a new strategy for producing a document that could be adopted. (The characterization of this move as somehow throwing out all the groundwork laid over the last two years is specious. The Accord, while sadly lacking the details found in other draft texts, clearly builds on issues and texts that have been deeply explored in the international climate policy negotiations these last two years.) The Friends of the Chair process would have been undemocratic if the resulting document had been adopted as a COP decision without its being proposed to all countries for consideration and consensus.  That was not the case.

While I think the Danish Prime Minister’s attempt to present the Accord to the general body and call for a vote 1 hour later (with regional caucusing to take place during the intervening hour) was ambitious, naive, misguided or manipulative, depending on your perspective—plenty of complaints were aired in the press about the Danes’ facilitation of the negotiations throughout the COP—I think it is worth noting that while the Prime Minister came in for hot criticism by the dissenting countries, he was commended generously for his good faith efforts by many more.

Fallacy #4—The Accord is a worthless “sham” and failure.

Consider this for a moment: Would the President of the Maldives and representatives of so many other nations have spent hours begging the dissenting nations (listed above in Fallacy #2) to unblock the passage of the Accord if it were truly worthless? True, it is not nearly the agreement we need. Everyone, from the COP President himself to Ban Ki-Moon to Obama to every single negotiator on the floor last night acknowledged as much. Critically important things did not make it into the text, such as legally-binding reduction targets and a commitment to reduce emissions quickly enough to possibly achieve a less than 1.5 degrees Celsius warming. And the funding that is pledged in the Accord is paltry when compared to the recent bank bailouts (a common refrain heard in the debates over funding). But when the conference was about to end with absolutely nothing, it’s foolish to say it would have been better to adopt nothing. That would have been truly worthless.

I’m tempted to elaborate here the numerous merits of the Accord that I heard delegates reference in the overnight session and that I understand from what I read in it, but there are certainly many people more qualified to do that. The best enumeration of the Accord’s accomplishments that I’ve found thus far is on Politico.com’s COP 15 “Arena.”

But there is just one thing I have to exclaim: the importance of getting an agreement under which the major developing nation emitters recognize they have a responsibility to act cannot be overstated! This undermines a major rallying cry of US political opponents of climate legislation who rile the American public up by denouncing the fact that (up to now) the UNFCCC negotiated texts would require the US to act while China, Brazil, India and other big [current] emitters aren’t.  Recall that this “disparity” is *the* grounds on which the Kyoto Protocol was rejected outright by a 95-0 vote in the US Senate in 1997. It has taken 12 years and an unprecedented level of negotiations to get that disparity rectified through the Copenhagen Accord. Nothing to sneeze at.

Fallacy #5—Obama is to blame!

I have hardly read a positive word about Obama in regards to the Accord. On the right, Obama is being trashed for having agreed to spend billions of dollars, going along with the “global climate hoax” and taking his eye off the economy for 10 seconds. On the left, activists are calling Obama a sell-out and an underminer of the UN. In the case of progressive activists, I think the critique shows a sincere misunderstanding of where the hold-up is when it comes to getting the US to act on climate issues. The hold-up is and has been in the US Senate for nearly two decades. I’ve often wondered why Obama doesn’t just come to the podium and point that out: “Hey everybody, I’d just like to say that the Executive Branch and the House of Representatives are ready to act but we can’t do anything as long as you let your Senators filibuster and block every meaningful climate bill proposed.”  I understand he probably doesn’t do that because it would make working with the Senate testy, but I don’t understand why the activists that are currently trashing Obama can’t make the Senate their rallying cry and point of emphasis. It’s clear to me from the way Obama has directed stimulus money that he wants to act on climate issues (not just talk, as some have accused), but that he knows he can’t without the US Senate’s cooperation.

There’s something else, though, that I didn’t understand until this week: Only the Executive Branch has the authority to represent the US Government in international affairs—not any member of Congress or the Supreme Court. So, Obama can’t say at the negotiations “go talk to the Senators about why they won’t agree to a carbon cap.” Instead, he has to represent why they won’t agree to a carbon cap and try to get those obstacles addressed in some way. (As I mentioned in Fallacy #4, the Accord removes a stumbling block that has been the grounds for inaction by the US Senate for the last 12 years!)

The other thing the Executive Branch’s authority in foreign affairs means is that it would be incredibly unwise for Obama to agree to anything that would be rejected outright by the US Senate. Besides being fruitless (recall: Senate rejection of the Gore-endorsed Kyoto Protocol), it would undermine confidence and trust in his ability to faithfully represent the US Government in international affairs.

Finally, why should Obama get so much blame given that he did not broker the Accord by himself (as he himself acknowledged)?  Clearly, his role in the Friends of the Chair meetings was significant. I wasn’t there, of course, but by most accounts (Ban Ki-moon, Rasmussen, Obama, the Grenada negotiator, and others) the meetings were a collective, good faith effort in which different leaders stepped forward at different times to make the Accord possible. Robert Orr, UN Assistant Secretary for General Policy and Planning, gave a fascinating description of those meetings when asked by Andrew Revkin of the NY Times about Obama’s role. Here are some excerpts: “Certainly at key times President Obama played a key role, meeting with leaders from large developing countries. It is equally safe to say that at other parts of the negotiations other leaders were central. There were key moments where African leaders, small island developing state leaders took the lead… It was not driven by one leader, or two leaders, or three leaders. I would [use] two hands to count the number of leaders that played key roles.” (you can watch his full description beginning 35 minutes into this press conference)

Cause for Hope

The things I saw, in every segment of the COP15 negotiations that I had the opportunity to watch, gave me hope. Clearly, the Accord is not the climate deal we need to avert increasing climate-related crises and catastrophes. Everyone I heard negotiating was in agreement on that.  However, there were several things I witnessed that that may not have been codified in a deal, but which gave me much hope:

Many countries in their delegation press conferences or in the speeches by their heads of state enumerated steps that they are already taking, even without a legally-binding, global agreement with caps and targets.
Representatives from developing nations described how they are more than ready to go low-carbon, but their main limitation is access to technology—both funding and know-how. (Under the Accord $23 billion of short-term funding has already been pledged over the next 3 years.)
Observers noted that the gap between scientists and politicians has closed significantly over the last two years—to the point where heads of state were debating 1.5 vs 2 degrees Celsius with high levels of scientific acumen. (also 35 minute mark in Robert Orr press conference)
The fact that 133 heads of state came to COP15 signals a huge commitment of global political emphasis and attention.
Yver de Boer reported that 50% global emissions reductions by 2050 and 80% by 2050 from industrialized countries was very much on the table with plenty of willingness from the heads of state to make it happen, but that there simply wasn’t enough time to get it into the Accord in a politically “responsible way.”
The last-minute, hands-on negotiations of heads of state was an unexpected development that produced significant confusion but also delivered an incredible breakthrough that has opened a new way forward for climate negotiations.

Related Links:

Brazil’s Lula signs law cutting CO2 emissions

Copenhagen blame game is obstacle to 2010 climate deal

Greenpeace Spain demands Denmark release its director

by Tom Athanasiou

Copenhagen was
obviously a failure—at least if you judge it by “the numbers,” the formal
emission targets and financial commitments that are needed to support a fair
and effective emergency global climate mobilization. If you judge it, that is, by what is necessary.

The more pressing
question, though, is whether Copenhagen was a failure when judged against, not
what is necessary, but rather what was possible. This is a much more difficult question, and it
has far more to do with judgment than with calculation. And, here, very little is obvious.

At the moment,
I’m willing only to risk a few initial thoughts. The
first is that Copenhagen is a great deal more than the Copenhagen Accord. And that from the point of view of public
education and movement building, it was an obvious success. Everyone, from Barack Obama on the one hand,
to Lumumba Di-Aping, the Sudanese chair of the South’s “G77 plus China”
negotiating bloc on the other, from me to, I’m willing to bet, you as well,
dear reader, knows one hell of a lot more about the climate crisis, and its
politics, than we did a year ago.

Not that we
didn’t already know that climatic destabilization is triggering a planetary
emergency. This has been obvious for
years. The difference now is rather that—thanks to the 350 movement—and here I mean not only the folks at 350.org but also Mohamed Nasheed, the
President of the Maldives and a whole lot of terrified scientists, we know we know it. And that we know it with appalling, quantitative
confidence.  

The bad news
is that, after Copenhagen, we also know that the elites are manifestly not up
to the task of saving the world. That what
is needed, as the Copenhagen street had it, is “system change not climate
change,” and that lacking system change, our governments are quite incapable of
organizing a decisive response to the climate crisis. The bad news, more particularly, is that if
we in “civil society” are to do better than our putative leaders, if indeed we
are to successfully force them to break their own chains of powerlessness,
we’re going to have to break out of the “dysfunctional system” frame, which
blames everyone and no one, and actually dare to assign a bit of responsibility
for the Copenhagen fiasco. The bulk of
which, alas, will have to go to the wealthy world.

We know, most
of us, more about the demonstrations than we do of the negotiations, so let’s
attend to the latter. Consider that the hundreds
of inside-game NGOs grouped under the banner of CAN, the Climate Action Network International,
who came to Copenhagen having prepared, as best they could, to play all the way
through the endgame. They even had a
scenario analysis close at hand, one that grouped  the possible outcomes into categories like Breakthrough,
Foundation, Greenwash, and Collapse.  It
was a useful exercise—scenario analysis often is—but the power of the Copenhagen
drama, as it finally came down, defeated all attempt at easy
characterization. I supposed that, if
you had to pin it down, the outcome came down somewhere between Greenwash and Collapse. 

The semi-official
movement frame is “not done yet,” and all told, looking at the Copenhagen
Accord and the 2010 negotiating schedule, it seems fair enough. Obama himself took the same line, in a
late-night press
conference that was actually pretty badly received, calling the Accord a
“meaningful agreement”, but adding that “this progress is not
enough,” and “we have come a long way, but we have much further to go.”  Which is a fairly obvious point, given that the
Accord, such as it is, seems (see for example the Climate Scorecard) to
condemn us to about 3.9 degrees C of warming. This is the “Four Degree World” scenario, and
it’s an fairly magnificent understatement to say that we want to avoid it at
almost all costs. 

But of course Copenhagen
was not the end of the game. The
negotiations will continue, as will the organizing, and with the next major
conference scheduled for Mexico City in November of 2010, they are quite
certain to have a major impact on the United States. And if, in the meanwhile, we in America can
manage to pass halfway decent climate/energy legislation, we may yet discover
that the Obama strategy—which John Holdren, his chief science advisor,
characterized during Copenhagen as, simply, “getting started”—offers a
plausible way forward, one that can make progress even in a nation ridden by
insane right-wing ideologues.

Or maybe
not.  The difficulty here is that understanding
can too easily degenerate into accommodation. Yes, we are paralyzed by Republican
oppositionism, and yes this
constrains our choices, but the fact remains that, by refusing to accept
anything like our proper share of the responsibility for the global crisis now
threatening to overcome us, we make the
dithering and dysfunction inevitable. Which of course brings us to the equity side of the story, and here there
are several key points to report.  

One is that, in
a signal development, several self-defined vulnerable country blocs emerged in
Copenhagen to play extremely significant roles, and managed to do so while
protecting not only their local interests, but also the interests of the
developing countries as a whole. The
first of these blocs, of course, was AOSIS, the Association of Small Island
States, which face rising seas and, in extreme cases like Tuvalu, actual
short-term inundation. But Africa, which
has discovered the extent of its own vulnerability, also played a critical role,
and by so doing helped to protect the South as a whole from being blamed for
Copenhagen’s failure to deliver. 

Not that the
right-wing press won’t blame it anyway, but at the risk of appearing
ridiculous, I’ll add that it’s getting hard for even the most jaded of our
pundits to overlook the injustices and tragedies that the people of Africa now
face.  For while the African people are
among the world’s most innocent, in terms of their historical contributions to
the climate crisis, they will also be among the most brutally impacted, and
this is an injustice too obvious to be easily set aside. Witness the open
letter that Desmond Tutu sent to all heads of state during Copenhagen, a
letter that noted that:

If
temperatures are not kept down then Africa faces a range of devastating threats
such as crop yield reductions in places of as much 50 percent in some countries by
2020; Increased pressure on water supplies for 70 – 250 million people by 2020
and 350 – 600 million by 2050; The cost of adaptation to sea level rises of at
least 5 – 10 percent of gross domestic product.

With these sorts of prospects at hand, it’s difficult
to be too sympathetic to the North’s domestic political problems. Which is why I believe—and this might perhaps
just be wishful thinking—that the rich world will fail to effectively evade
responsibility for Copenhagen. There are
counter-arguments, of course, and gross media distortions by the score, but so
far the failure to reach a better deal is not being blamed wholly on the South.
And given that the large “emerging
economies” signed onto the Accord, it’s unlikely that it will be. 

Indeed, given the wealthy world’s failure to adopt
strong domestic emission reduction targets, and its equally egregious failure
to put a decent mitigation/adaptation support package onto the table, the
Copenhagen endgame—in which the emerging economies agreed to the Accord while
the weaker and more vulnerable states balked—may well have been the best
possible outcome.  (Watch the final, 3:10 a.m. plenary here;
you won’t regret it!)

In this
regard, it may not be absurd to hope that, as Copenhagen passes into history,
the overall framework by which we understand rich-world commitments will shift
in significant ways. For one thing, and
despite a clear desire to do so (it inconveniently requires them to “act first”
to significantly reduce their emissions) the rich countries did not quite
succeed in sidelining the Kyoto Protocol. 
Copenhagen, to be sure, laid out a two-track negotiating process,
including a “Convention track” in which both the U.S. and China can, perhaps,
both be eventually coaxed into accepting their fair shares of the global
effort,  but the “Kyoto track” has also
been extended. This gives us a clear
mandate—to continue the battle to force the wealthy countries to make
commitments on the scale demanded by the science, and by their own historical
responsibility and capacity to pay—and just as importantly it gives us a
context within which to do so.

The road ahead
is clear enough. The next big date is
Feb. 1, 2010, by which time countries of all kinds are expected to pledge
their emissions reductions. When they
do, the battles will predictably, and quite properly, flare up all over again.

For the
moment, let me add only that Copenhagen, for all its disappointments, marked a
turning point. The need for a global
emergency mobilization is obvious, and with it, a set of social and political
challenges that can no longer be denied.
These challenges will get clearer in the days and years ahead, but the
essential situation is already before us, ready to be discovered—with the
atmosphere’s ability to absorb carbon now critically limited, we face the
greatest resource-sharing problem of all time. 

The climate
problem, in other words, is and remains an international justice problem. It’s more than this, of course, but justice is nonetheless the key. If we fail to solve it, it will be in large part because we refused to see it as such.

Related Links:

Profile: Indian youth activist Ruchi Jain

Sarkozy scrambles to salvage carbon tax

Brazil’s Lula signs law cutting CO2 emissions

by Ken Ward

The Jamaica Plain Green House today released its second annual list of “Top 10 Worst Christmas Gifts.”  The list ranges from $2 stocking stuffers to baubles of the super-rich.  JP Green House co-founder Ken Ward said, “These ten items achieved high scores on each of three criteria—profligate, unnecessary, and tasteless energy use—in our rigorous testing protocol.” Ward described the gift ranking methodology as “half an hour of random Googling around.”

1. Greenland Glacier Cruise, $5,247 for ocean view cabin
“Greenland’s west coast has dozens of long, deep fjords, many with glaciers fed by the ice cap that covers most of the country … we meander through the ice packed waters heading towards the bulk of the magnificent Eqip Sermia Glacier. Whilst here, we may have the distinctive opportunity to experience the raw power of nature’s phenomena known as calving.”
Comment: Last year’s booming market in climate change impact tourism has withered, but enterprising cruise lines have lost no time in repackaging Greenland glacier collapse.

2. Plastic Bag of Coal, $1.99
“Embroidered draw strip pouch and 3 lumps of realistic coal! The Perfect Gift for that Naughty Someone! For Ages 7 and up. This is a decoration, not a toy.”
Comment: The most inexpensive gift on the list, which we found for a discounted $1.99 at our local CVS, the plastic bag of coal might well have the worst life-cycle energy cost/retail price ratio on the list.

3. Automatic Twirling Spaghetti Fork, $17.95
“Enjoy your spaghetti in style with this automatically rotating spaghetti fork. Press down to automatically wind up the pasta onto the end of your fork. Less mess and more fun!”
Comment: Cost is $2 more than last year’s winner, Spinmallow, the automatic marshmallow turner.

4. Barbie Jammin’ Jeep, $268
“Music-filled
fun and real driving adventure for girls on the go! Realistic details
inside and out like a real-working FM radio, doors that really open and
close and a rear storage area to carry all her gear. Drives two speeds
forward (2.5 & 5 mph max.) and one speed reverse, on hard surfaces
and grass.”
Comment: What can we say about a toy designed to
spare three- to seven-year-olds the bother of pedaling? Plus, we’ve
just had it up to here with purple and pink.

5. Monaco Grand Prix with Supercar, $1.5 million
Comment: Choosing the worst automobile gift suggestion was a tough choice, and we were sorely tempted by both the Mercedes Maybach, a $350,000 (base price) luxury sedan getting 10 city/17 highway mph, and the Bentley Continental GTC, also at 10/17, but classified as a “sub-compact.” But in the end, we had to go with the hand built Dutch Spyker C8, with a modestly bad 13 city/18 highway, because it is offered as a stocking stuffer in the Monaco gift package.

6. The Most Expensive Blackberry Case, $20,000
“The forty-two diamonds that went into the creation of this case weigh in at 3.5 carats and are set in 18-karat gold … Even the carbon fiber leather, specially developed for the case, is gold. Of course, the case is as protective as it is luxurious—the plastic is impact resistant and the screen is entirely protected.”
Comment: We’d sure like to see the steer from which the gold carbon fiber leather comes.

7. Personalized Propane Steak Branding Iron, $32.20
“Safe,
reliable and easy to use, the personalized steak branding iron is also
practical. Chicken, vegetables and even bread can be branded as well.”
Comment: No comment.

8. Just-cut, Pre-lit Douglas Fir Christmas Tree, $199
“Everyone has his own idea of how to best decorate a Christmas tree. Some people just want a tree that is simple, others something Martha Stewart might make. Then there [are] the folks who might be curious about getting a prelit Christmas tree. This is a great time saver and less hassle too.”
Comment: Every year, Andrée and I complain about how much time we waste decorating the Christmas tree, and what a hassle too.

9. Diamond G-String, $134,000 (may no longer be available)
“The Triumph Luxurious Diamond Thong has 518 brilliant-cut diamonds studded into the front of a black lace thong in a floral pattern. Danielle Luminita, a model from Romania, was carried down the runway on the shoulders of two male models, wearing only the diamond thong.  A spokeswoman for Triumph International, the lingerie company that commissioned the thong, said that the thong would be dry cleaned before going on display.”
Comment: OK, this one is from 2008, but we couldn’t resist. If it looks this good on a model, just imagine how it’ll look on your loved one!

10. Cupcake Car, $25,000
“Dallas-based Neiman Marcus said it made a conscious effort to offer more affordable options while not disappointing loyal luxury shoppers…”
Comment: And, indeed, we are not disappointed.

Related Links:

Copenhagen coal in the stocking?

The top green stories of the ‘00s

On first anniversary of massive spill, coal ash remains unregulated