links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic

Follow us on Twitter


Posted on on December 30th, 2009
by Pincas Jawetz (

We find the following a good summary of movements by people and of the description of the locale which we did not get to see ourselves from the inside, but which we know well from gleaning information from were we could. But having said that, we must add immediately that we have strong disagreements with the assumption that the UN was, and is, the right place to deal with a problem that needs an immediate solution. If one is ready to remove his blinders when analyzing the UN as a problem solver, rather then the nest of intrigue it really is, then one could also figure out when and how to use the UN’s services. One could also be free to initiate the needed process to change this institution from the club of victors of WWII into a potential super-government structure as needed in a world that has become so inter-dependent – that whatever afflicts a remote corner of the world becomes very soon a menace to everyone were we live right here.

Ban Ki-moon and Yvo de Boer are civil servants within the UN system, they are no gods, and now we can say also, they proved that they are no leaders. Flying around the world declaiming with a smiling face SEAL THE DEAL did not create a deal that one can seal.
Yvo de Boer got of the mantra in October, but Ban Ki-moon just declared today at the UN that he sealed a deal in Copenhagen. Does this negate in any way the lamentations we hear from our friend Bates, or it simply turns the UNSG into plain laughing stock?

When it became quite clear that going to Poznan in December 2008, without active US participation, and thus no way to have also China, India, Brazil etc. at the table was counterproductive. Why the Europeans did not speak up is beyond me – and I can say at least that I personally raised that question with Denmark Prime Minister Rasmussen in September 2008, and can say that I did not walk away with the feeling that success was the goal of organizers of the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting.

The bottom lines of these comments are that the fact that we would have wanted to see a much better outcome does not give us the right to blame President Obama for the lack of agreement to what was nothing more then a bundle of wishes.

Whatever the critics may think, Obama took a dead issue with lots of quasi-leaders running around and spreading accusations, but not ready to negotiate a deal, and for the first time managed to move the issue quite a few squares ahead. Yes – he did get China, India and South Africa to say for the first time ever that they also have responsibility to think of limits to the human mischief committed against the planetary environment. This is clearly not something they will easily wiggle away from.

Further, the Europeans are already starting to review their own positions and look for internal change having found out that the world of the 21st century may look very different with China, India and Brazil commanding much more power then any one European State if not aggregated in a real EU. Having three out of five seats at the UN Security Council in 2010 means absolutely nothing while the new comers are not part of the game.

Now about Mexico City, please remember that there is on the way another stop in Bonn, and there is not even a Conference Building ready for a May 2010 meeting in Bonn. I would suggest that NGOs and the Press get used to the idea that the difficulties in Copenhagen will turn out nothing to what expects them in Bonn.

But again, this is not yet our evaluation of the Copenhagen meeting – this posting is intended only as a further elaboration to the fact that we think Obama achieved much more then could have been expected from him. His further moves will involve cooperation with those countries that in his mind count indeed when it comes to make efforts to curb the GHG effects.

Also, I believe in the people – and Copenhagen was a clear success story when one realizes that it publicized the issues. The people will take on the ball that is thrown at them by the Islamists and combine in their thoughts their needs with what they heard about Copenhagen. I assume for instance that the people will create the demand for rails in order to avoid flying short distances. With the Unions coming on board it might even allow for some new tax on fuels – this will be perhaps have also social aspects and a reaction against oil imports. Could there be a positive change in US attitude towards Latin America? After all not everyone is a friend of the US, but some relationships can be improved easier then others.

The outcomes from Copenhagen are varied and complicated – the only thing that is sure is that tomorrow is different from yesterday.



30 December 2009

Copenhagen’s Fateful Friday and Obama’s Real Role.

by Albert Bates
27 December 2009, published December 30, 2009.
“Cokenhagen” blog’s last day
Leaving Copenhagen before sunrise, we passed into the airport terminal revolving doors, each panel emblazoned with the “Hopenhagen” logo, but beneath it was revealed Hopenhagen’s corporate sponsor, Coca Cola, taking credit for the advertising campaign. Hope has died but Coke survived.

snowpenhagen2THUMB.jpgUpstairs from the revolving doors was a TckTckTck/Greenpeace billboard with Nicolas Sakozy, Premier of France, reading, “I’m Sorry. We could have stopped catastrophic climate change… We didn’t.”

We are still mulling the meaning of humanity’s giant step away from survival. No targets, no timetables, no firm commitments, a crash of the carbon market, massive disinvestment in renewables and a switch back to coal and gas – all of these are the “Copenhagen Outcome.”

Perhaps the strangest and most serious outcome was the damage wrought to the UN negotiation process itself. One needs to go back and re-read the 1972 Stockholm principles, the document that emerged from the 21st plenary session of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. From the preamble, authored by Maurice Strong:

snowpenhagen4twoInches.jpg“Man is both creature and moulder of his environment, which gives him physical sustenance and affords him the opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual growth. In the long and tortuous evolution of the human race on this planet a stage has been reached when, through the rapid acceleration of science and technology, man has acquired the power to transform his environment in countless ways and on an unprecedented scale.
“The natural growth of population continuously presents problems for the preservation of the environment, and adequate policies and measures should be adopted, as appropriate, to face these problems.

“A point has been reached in history when we must shape our actions throughout the world with a more prudent care for their environmental consequences. Through ignorance or indifference we can do massive and irreversible harm to the earthly environment on which our life and well being depend. Conversely, through fuller knowledge and wiser action, we can achieve for ourselves and our posterity a better life in an environment more in keeping with human needs and hopes. There are broad vistas for the enhancement of environmental quality and the creation of a good life. What is needed is an enthusiastic but calm state of mind and intense but orderly work.”

With our laptop and a wall socket at JFK, we were able to watch Rachel Maddow’s interview with Andrea Mitchell and learn how freakish and noir the COP-15 talks really were. Looking for Premier Wen Jiabao of China, President Obama followed a lead to a back room at the Bella Center, his press pool in tow.

snowpenhagenBELDS.jpgBefore the COP, the United States and China had been sniping at each other over demands that Beijing agree to international monitoring, ostensibly to verify its pledge to reduce by 40% the carbon intensity of its economy (the rate of emissions per unit of economic activity, something that is easy to do if you are growing your GDP by 10% annually).

After the President and Hillary Clinton made some snarky remarks about China’s transparency, Premier Wen used diplomatic finesse to express his official displeasure. Twice on Friday, Mr. Wen sent an underling to represent him at meetings with Mr. Obama. Each time it was a lower-level official.

The White House made a point of noting the snub in a statement to reporters. According to an aide who passed it to the New York Times, Mr. Obama confided to his staff: “I don’t want to mess around with this anymore. I want to talk to Wen.” The story the Times then began spinning has formed the official frame of the talks — China was the bad actor, the US President stood tall and went dragon hunting, he slew the beast in its lair, and emerged with a new Accord, which was not the best, but the best that could be salvaged. “This progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough,” he said. “We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.” The carpenters then moved in to break the site down and make way for a trade show of home furnishings.

snowpenhagenarticleLarge.jpgWhat actually appears to have happened is that the US came into the UN meeting with all the style and substance of John Bolton, Dubya’s UN ambassador. Arriving on the final day with a lame, lowball proposal, Obama tried to ram a strictly voluntary, symbolic pledge system down the throats of the delegates, who despite the media clouding, were actually close to several important agreements.

China backed Africa. Africa did not want voluntary, symbolic pledges. So the White House tried to set up a third meeting between Obama and Wen. It also set up a separate meeting with Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, and Manmohan Singh of India. China apparently got wind of this sequence of meetings and called those players together on its own, before the Obama meeting.

When Denis McDonough, the national security council chief of staff, and Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, learned of the Chinese pre-meeting, they passed the word to the President and he rushed to China’s room.

It bears mentioning here that the Bella Center has a very curious layout, thanks to the Danish hosts. All of the national delegations were assigned a Bella Center office and display space for administration, conferencing and receptions, which was typically a plastic-walled Star Wars battlecruiser cubicle between 24 and 48 square meters in size. There were no distinctions based on population size, GDP, or emissions, but there were some differences in both placement (near or far) and size between G-77 (130 poor countries, green in the image), G-30 (the industrial economies headed by Merrill Lynch’s William McDonough, no relation), and a few VIP countries who rated special treatment.

China, with a quarter of the world population and emitting 20% of GHG emissions, was given a 2-room box in the back row of offices. The US, with 5% of the population and also about 20% of the emissions, got a glass skybox suite with conference rooms, communications center and a mini-Oval Office. This was the safe home for climate deniers James (Torture-9) Inhofe and Marsha (No Czars, No Death Panels, Demand Obama’s Birth Certificate) Blackburn, as well as the travel office for high-level junketeers Nancy Pelosi, Bart Gordon, Henry Waxman, John Kerry, Ed Markey, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Doyle and many, many other USAnians needing photo ops in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Locating China’s tiny room at the downstairs back, just behind the boiler room, under the steam vents, where the greenish neon lights flash intermittently through a high window and there is a faint odor of solvents, Mr. Obama called from the doorway. “Mr. Premier, are you ready to see me? Are you ready?” From inside a room that was already stuffed with Presidents Zuma, Lula, Singh and their top aides and translators, Wen, surprised, beckoned Obama to enter.

The Chinese, who had to send their people out to make room for Obama and his aides, balked at admitting the White House press pool to the fluorescent-lit craps game. Gibbs pressed forward with the pool’s photographer. “My guys get in or we’re leaving the meeting.” They squeezed Gibbs in, which yielded this (hands over head) photo from Doug Mills at the NY Times:

Despite whatever had been discussed by Zuma, Lula, Singh and Wen before Obama arrived, the US got its wish for a barebones “accord.” Danish hosts Rassmussen and Hedegaard, and UN leaders Ban Ki Moon and Yvo de Boer, none of whom had slept more than 2 hours in the previous 48 trying to broker a highest denominator deal, were not invited.

Obama, seated, started by asking what they could agree on. That settled a number of issues, including changing the wording on monitoring and verification to satisfy Mr. Wen. The other 188 countries were not asked for an opinion, although Mr. Obama then shopped his “Copenhagen Accord” around to a few European leaders, who each declined to join such an outrageous outlaw process. Ban Ki Moon and Yvo de Boer tried to put a nice face on it, but had to be steaming inside. They said the next COP in Mexico would resume the process, but as George Monbiot opined, Mexico is where negotiations go to die.

Having destroyed the whole notion of consensus negotiations carefully crafted over the 37 years since Stockholm, Mr. Obama joined his waiting motorcade and exited. In 8 hours, he had done more to destroy the fabric of the United Nations than his predecessor had accomplished in 8 years.

As for the $10 billion dollar per year pledge Hillary Clinton offered to support clean green economies in the 2/3 world, beginning in 2012, the US knows it will simply borrow that money from China and the loan will vanish in the slippage of the dollar against the huan.

Hugo Chavez told Amy Goodman, “We have to transition ourselves to a post-petroleum era, and that is what we must discuss.”

Goodman asked him about reducing Venezuela’s emissions. Chavez replied, “We must reduce emissions 100 percent… We are in agreement — we must reduce all the emissions that are destroying the planet. However that requires a change in lifestyle, a change in the economic model. We must go from capitalism to socialism, that’s the real solution.”

“How do you throw away capitalism?” Goodman asked. Chavez replied, “They way they did it in Cuba. The way we are doing it in Venezuela. Give the power to the people and take it away from the elites. You can only do that through revolution.”

Being more evolutionary than revolutionary, we are still betting on the dolphins. They can survive even without T-mobile and a laptop.

* * * * *

Read all about Albert’s observations and adventures in Copenhagen and Hopenhagen on his blog. For more on his peak oil work, see the Culture Change article Albert Bates, guide for our post-petroleum, globally warmed future. For more articles on or by Albert on this website, visit this listing


Cokenhagen propaganda

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a comment for this article