I think the administration may be winning, based on some press lately, with their goal to: lower popular expectations significantly and make Copenhagen appear a success even if it violates what the international community agreed to accomplish by Copenhagen.

Recently, President Obama and President Hu of China jointly declared that they "agree on the importance" of carrying through on the Bali Action Plan (BAP). The BAP set all parties on 2-year path to a real agreement with real numbers. Those two years are up in Copenhagen. However, Obama has recently stated his support for delaying an agreement in Copenhagen.

Now we hear from Capitol Hill not just that ‘US Congress may not finish by Copenhagen,’ but that the 'Senate will punt until the Spring' and 'Kerry says climate comes after [not just] health care, [but now] financial reform.' For many reasons, such as that 2010 is going to be a tough election year, this translates to... the US Congress very likely will not pass a climate bill before 2011, by the next scheduled climate meeting in Mexico.

If Obama is waiting for Congress, will his international climate strategy be the same next year? Will he try to lower expectations for Mexico, so it doesn't seem like the US contributed to its failure? Answers to these questions, of course, rely on the president's willingness to invest his time and energy in achieving effective climate policy. But not knowing if that will happen, the question for Copenhagen is how to get a result that prevents a repeat of this US procrastination strategy.

I am starting to wonder if Obama will engage in a serious public campaign on climate before 2011, if even then. We should have seen some hint of this by now. His stated goal for US emissions reductions was actually worse than what the Congress is considering. He has supported a 2020 deadline of getting the US back to 1990 levels of emissions, when the world started to seriously discuss climate change. From the perspective of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this goal by Obama is to do nothing. We should be reducing about 40% from 1990, not 0%.

In the joint declaration by Obama and Hu, it was sadly apparent which delegation drafted which sentences on carbon sequestration and on nuclear energy. The few public comments from Obama have included endorsement of both of these non-solutions.  We hope President Obama will listen to President Hu and abandon efforts that benefit industry instead of renewable energy solutions that harmonize with goals for a healthy economy and environment.

If we cannot get the BAP fulfilled with any poignance, maybe we can get a pre-launch type of agreement that counts down to a lift-off no later than Mexico. And somehow the US should be given a spanking for not doing its chores (corporal punishment is still normal in many parts of the US). Perhaps that involves a second commitment period for Kyoto, in other words the rest of the world moves forward while the US is an outsider. But the spanking must include thwarting any notion that the US has been a wise and moral leader on climate policy.

Click on some relevant articles below from the last week:

Obama calls for climate pact with 'immediate' effect

Obama must be more engaged on climate change: Greenpeace

U.S. weighs backing interim international climate agreement

 

On November 16th, two Greenpeace activists from Germany and Italy and two members of the press from India and Italy, all of whom were traveling on valid business and journalist visas, were picked up and detained by Indonesian police. They were on their way to meet the villagers of Teluk Meranti, who have been supporting Greenpeace in its efforts to highlight rainforest and peatland destruction in the Kampar Peninsula--ground zero for climate change. The police also took into custody an activist from Belgium who had been working at our Climate Defenders Camp there.

Despite the validity of their travel documents and the absence of any wrongdoing, two of the activists and both journalists are now being deported by immigration authorities on questionable and seemingly contrived grounds, even though no formal deportation permits have been issued. Just a few days before, immigration authorities deported eleven other international Greenpeace activists who participated in a non-violent direct action on November 12th, in a concession where APRIL, one of Indonesia's largest pulp and paper companies, is clearing rainforest and draining peatland on the Peninsula.

We set up the Climate Defenders Camp to bring attention to role of deforestation as a major driver of greenhouse gas emissions in advance of December's Copenhagen climate negotiations. If we are stop climate change, we must end global deforestation by 2020 and bring it to zero in priority areas like Indonesia by 2015. A drive through the Kampar Peninsula reveals acre after acre of forest conversion from healthy rainforest to palm oil plantations. There is no sign of animal life or biodiversity -- just row after row of palm. The destruction of the peatlands helps to make Indonesia the world's 3rd largest emitter go greenhouse gases, just after the US and China.

In the interest of the environment and human rights, Greenpeace is calling upon world leaders and concerned citizens to contact Indonesia's President Yudhoyono to ask him to stop these repressive actions by the Indonesian Police and Immigration authorities. The tactics currently being used by the authorities are likely to adversely impact upon the Indonesian government's international reputation as well as the country's reputation as a vibrant democracy.

It is not Greenpeace activists or journalists who should be the focus of the authorities, but the companies who are responsible for this forest destruction. We are working to make President Yudhoyono's recent commitment to reduce Indonesia's greenhouse gas emissions a reality and the journalists are telling that story.

You can take action at www.greenpeace.org.

The new "deal" to delay signing a climate agreeement until next year, which was announced at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting this past weekend, is nothing more than an attempt to lower expectations for the climate talks taking place in Copenhagen this December. It’s especially disappointing given President Obama’s key role in the announcement. What we really need is for Obama to step up and lead the world as a bold advocate of an ambitious and binding treaty.

What’s even more disturbing is that this is part of a larger trend in Obama’s handling of the climate crisis since taking office. In his inaugural address he promised to “restore science to its rightful place,” yet he has not followed through on that promise. Instead, he sat back and watched as the coal industry essentially rewrote climate legislation as it moved through the House. And now that the Senate is in no rush to pass a similar bill, Obama is letting that dictate his foreign policy and stalling an international climate agreement.

Fed up with the stalling and lowering of expectations? I know I am. Tell Obama that December is the time to sign an ambitious climate treaty, not some unspecified future date.

This brazen stall tactic is all the more unconscionable when you consider the fact that it ignores the plight of the developing world, which will be hit hardest by global warming even though they did not have nearly as large a hand in creating the problem as developed countries like the US had. There’s more on this topic and the “deal” to not make a deal in Copenhagen in this statement from Greenpeace International:

“ Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen has become complicit in a so-called ‘deal’ which would put Obama’s political difficulties ahead of the survival of the world’s most vulnerable countries,” said Kaisa Kosonen, Climate Policy Advisor for Greenpeace International, in Copenhagen ahead of tomorrow’s “Pre-COP” gathering of key environment ministers in preparation for December’s climate summit.

“I don’t think a majority of countries will buy this face-saving plan. When Obama started downplaying the Copenhagen outcomes, did he check with the world’s most vulnerable countries as to whether their survival was now negotiable? That’s certainly not the message we have heard – climate change impacts are already affecting millions across the developing world and they need action now. There is no real excuse to postpone decisions on legally binding, ambitious action,” said Kosonen.

She questioned whether any EU leaders knew about Rasmussen’s cop-out deal. They were not at APEC, which only includes some of the world’s industrialized countries – the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan.

“ EU leaders, including Merkel, Sarkozy and Brown, must immediately step in and publicly oppose this back down from a legally binding climate agreement in Copenhagen,” she said.

Just two weeks ago in Barcelona the 43-member Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) expressed outrage at attempts to steamroll the world’s most vulnerable countries into accepting a watered down political agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Their calls are supported by the African Group, which said it would accept only legally binding commitments on deep emission cuts and adequate funding from the industrialized world for climate adaptation and mitigation, including tackling deforestation.

“This is not about time but rather the absence of political will from industrialized countries, which are refusing to take their fair share of the global efforts and instead continue to postpone important decisions into eternity. Denmark should be ashamed of itself for caving in to Obama in this so-called deal,” said Kosonen.

Industrialized countries recognized two years ago that they would need to cut their emissions in the range of at least 25-40%. But right now their aggregate emissions stand at a mere 10-17%, not enough to stop climate change. The industrialized countries at the APEC meeting are largely those at the lower end of this range.

The bill passed by the House is certainly at the lower end of emissions reductions targets, aiming for a mere 4% reduction relative to 1990 levels by 2020. Half-measures like this will doom us all to runaway climate change we can believe in – because we’ll be increasingly witnessing its effects with our own eyes.

There was enough bad news last week to make me want to crawl under my desk and never come back out. But as the saying goes, sometimes the darkest hour is just before the dawn. First came news that President Obama, along with other leaders of Asian Pacific countries, would announce that they will not pursue a binding treaty in Copenhagen next month. Millions of climate activists have been working for years to make the Copenhagen negotiations the time when the world would come together to make the necessary agreements that will halt catastrophic climate change. Now that chance is in serious danger of being lost.  

 

 

 

On the heels of this dereliction came word that police were descending on Greenpeace’s Climate Defenders Camp, our outpost in the threatened Kampar Peninsula in Indonesia, designed to show Obama and other leaders the face of deforestation, a primary driver of climate change.

 

But in an amazing turn of events, the chief of police of the Pelalawan district revoked an earlier order of the Governor of Riau to evict Greenpeace activists and permitted them to stay following massive support from local communities. Over 300 community members of Teluk Meranti village, across the river from the camp, came in the morning to prevent Greenpeace activists from leaving the camp under police escort as per the orders of Riau police.

 

The activists in the camp were overwhelmed and humbled by this extraordinary support from the people of Riau, and it confirms our belief that the people of Indonesia wish their forests to be protected. The community support should be a signal to President Yudhoyono that his people are willing to help him honor his ambition to reduce emissions from deforestation.

 

Greenpeace opened the camp three weeks ago to bring urgent attention to the role that rainforest and peatland destruction play in driving dangerous climate change. Almost a fifth of global warming causing emissions come from deforestation, making Riau ground zero for climate change.

 

The camp will continue to serve as a beacon of hope for all of us waiting until our leaders wake up to reality. These leaders will not act until massive public outrage forces them to.The time for action is now, not next year or the year after. We can't kick this can down the road for the next generation to deal with. President Obama, show leadership and galvanize support for a binding treaty now.

Here's a great video from the Greenpeace banner hang at Barcelona's Sagrada Família last week:

As the last day of climate talks before the Copenhagen summit drew to a close, Greenpeace activists attached a banner reading "Climate chaos: Who is to blame?" to Barcelona’s Columbus Monument, which points to America. The US delegation has emerged as one of the chief obstructions to progress at the talks that took place in Barcelona this week.




Images © Greenpeace/Pedro Armestre

Today's action was the final one of a series of actions Greenpeace did this week in Barcelona. Check out pics from our banner hang at Sagrada Família and the "extreme weather event" we created to show delegates what lies in store for the planet if global warming goes unchecked.

If the political courage of the developed world’s leaders remains missing in action, then we won’t have a deal in Copenhagen. And despite their best efforts to continue floating half-measures and make them stick, consensus is not forming around a deal with weak emissions targets. Developing countries are pushing back and fighting for their survival.
 
We singled out President Obama, however, because his actions fall so far short of his promises to “restore science to its proper place” and lead the world’s response to global warming. He has stood aside while Congress let the fossil fuel industry hijack its climate legislation. And on the international scene, he has been silent while his negotiators obstruct the progress on a treaty intended to deal with the most pressing environmental crisis of our time.

Write to President Obama now and tell him that it’s time to sign a fair, ambitious, and binding climate treaty.

Greenpeace activists staged an extreme weather event today for delegates at the UN climate talks in Barcelona, Spain to give them a taste of what the future will look like if they don’t create the right conditions for a fair, ambitious and binding climate deal in Copenhagen next month.

Amidst a mock storm of thunder, lightning, rain and wind outside the Barcelona conference center, the Greenpeace activists deployed a banner that read “Our climate, your decision”.



© Pedro Armestre/Greenpeace


© Pedro Armestre/Greenpeace


© Pedro Armestre/Greenpeace

The really bad news is that, according to reports coming out of Barcelona, it is the US that is the biggest threat to the deal the world needs in Copenhagen. Rolf has all the dirt on the excuses the US delegation is making in his post, "Call to Action: US obstructing Barcelona talks." There's also a sample script and numbers you can use to call Secretary of State Hilary Clinton or US climate envoy Todd Stern to let them know that you expect the US to lead the world's response to climate change, not obstruct those efforts.

If you haven't made a call, please make one now. If you have made a call, consider calling again. The Obama Adminstration needs to hear from us that we expect the leadership that then-candidate Obama promised on global warming.

Most people here in Barcelona I think would say 'slow progress' is an exaggerated description of the state of climate negotations. For a recent issue of Eco, the daily newsletter of Climate Action Network-International, I wrote this article which goes over a couple elements that may be mucking up negotations as well as confusing domestic discussion of climate legislation.

Many voices are complaining that the US delegation has put no numbers on the table, but there is one number that just keeps popping up. That number is 2005, the base year for the Kerry-Boxer climate legislation.

Even though it was four years ago, 2005 just happens to be the year of the highest US emissions in history. Obviously, reducing 20% of emissions from a higher pool means less reductions. Kerry-Boxer aims to reduce 7% below 1990. Using 2005 base year allows for a more ambitious sounding target.

In Barcelona this proposed base year of 2005 distorts an important discussion on 'comparability' and has become a red herring in assessment of the adequacy of the scale of mitigation targets.

The US delegation often seems to insinuate that 1990 was just an arbitrary base year. Of course, 1990 was not selected at random: it was the year of the IPCC’s First Assessment Report; the year when the world began negotiating what became the Convention.  

But arbitrary or not, shifting to a different base year like 2005 allows the US to imply that the EU proposed mitigation target of 20% by 2020 relative to 1990 is about as ambitious as that in the US legislation. In effect, this amounts to suggesting that emissions reductions elsewhere between 1990 and 2005 are irrelevant to negotiations today.  The comparison we really should be making is the distance between the proposals on the table and what the science is saying we have to do.   

Countries may find it domestically convenient to use a different baseline year, but this presents several problems. Converting reporting data from one country to another appears to be simple enough in theory. But in practice, measurement, reporting and verification requires comparing apples to apples. Converting multiple data points across multiple countries using a variety of different baselines is a convenient recipe for confusion and avoiding the big picture (remember? 'compare the targets to what the science demands').  So even if the experts can provide conversion formulas for differing baselines, there is still a question of public transparency and accountability.

And finally, if the baseline changes, so must the targets. Were we to use a 2005 baseline, the IPCC says global emissions should come down 35-50% by 2020 (as opposed to 25-40% with a 1990 baseline). In the context of history and science, using 1990 is not at all arbitrary. 

Yesterday I reported on a Greenpeace banner hang at the UN climate talks in Barcelona, as well as the fact that several African nations had walked out of the negotiations in protest of the weak emissions reductions targets commitments made by developed nations.

I mentioned in that post that the talks were to resume today, but also noted that I didn't know what resolution had been reached to allow talks to resume. Today, via The Associated Press, we have our answer:

BARCELONA, Spain — African countries ended a boycott of meetings at U.N. climate negotiations on Tuesday, after winning promises for more in-depth talks on how much rich nations need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Due to the Africans' demands, most of the rest of this week's talks in Barcelona will be devoted to discussing carbon-cutting pledges rather than other issues including carbon offsets and action by developing countries, said John Ash, chairman of the negotiations on emissions.

The Africans, supported by about 70 other developing countries, said industrial nations were making weak commitments to stave off dramatic temperature rises while Africa was being devastated by droughts and floods blamed on global warming.

Scientists say industrial countries should reduce emissions by 25 to 40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020, but targets announced so far amount to far less.

...

"It's really good that the Africans have finally been able to stand up together," said Fiona Musana of Johannesburg-based Greenpeace Africa. "That sends a strong signal."

Of course, low emissions targets aren't the only ways the leaders of the developed world are attempting to shirk their responsibility to solve the climate crisis. Jess, blogging on Greenpeace International's Climate Rescue Weblog, reports that negotiators for developed countries are now arguing for a "politically binding" agreement as opposed to a "legally binding" agreement:

The climate negotiations have arrived at yet another war over words that might prove detrimental to a deal in Copenhagen this December. Check this one out - developing countries are demanding that negotiators stick to the commitment of a legally binding treaty while developed countries seem to be pleased with showboating their new idea of a politically binding agreement. Sound like just semantics to you? May sound like it but consider this: When was the last time you trusted a promise that a politician made to you before they took steps to make good on it?

...

“I do not know anything called a politically binding agreement. They are worth very little. Tell me of any politician that delivered on their (election) manifesto,” Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, a delegate with Sudan.

OK, so maybe it sounds like a whole lot of unwarranted distrust to you, so let’s use President Obama as an example. I campaigned and voted for President Obama based on the promises he made. As someone that cares about the environment, I was inspired by his statements about leading the world in the fight against climate change. After he was elected, he talked about returning science to its rightful place and leading the world in a solution to the climate crisis. But just 32 days out, where is the leadership and return to science that my President Obama promised? How much longer do I trust in promises without any accountability?

Where is the accountability, indeed. We now learn that, far from providing the leadership that was promised by Obama, the US is actually doing its best to undermine negotiations in Barcelona. If you're as fed up with this lack of leadership as I am, you can call Obama's Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, right now — click here for the number and a suggested script.

This week in Barcelona, Spain, the United Nations climate change negotiations are tasked with setting the table for the long-awaited talks in Copenhagen. A lot of preparation needs to happen to create a fair, ambitious, and legally binding international treaty in December.

However, halfway through the week-long talks, that important work is not getting done. And the biggest impediment to progress in Barcelona is the United States. There are three main things the U.S. needs to do to move things forward:

1. Make ambitious science-based commitments to reduce its climate pollution (between 25-40% below 1990 levels by the year 2020).
2. Commit to deliver its share of funding to developing countries so they can slash climate pollution and deal with the effects of global warming.
3. Agree to an international treaty that will be legally-binding and enforceable.

But the U.S. delegation is claiming it cannot negotiate important issues without climate change legislation first being passed by Congress. There are three big problems with that excuse:

First, the bills have been corrupted by big polluters. They simply do not deliver anything close to what scientists say is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. Low emissions cuts targets and loopholes in the bills allow for dirty business as usual.

Second, even if the legislation was science-based and effective, Congress does not time before December to pass the bills. 

Third, the President is charged with leading U.S. foreign policy and negotiating treaties, not Congress. President Obama should not take the back seat as a slow-moving Congress drives U.S. climate policy towards failure.

The clock is ticking towards Copenhagen. We have about thirty days before those talks begin. Our climate and our future are too important to let political excuses get in the way of real action. 

Please call the person in charge of the U.S. delegation in Barcelona — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — at 202-647-5291 and tell her the U.S. needs to lead climate talks, not drag them down.

If you cannot get through on the number above call the lead U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern: 202-647-9884.

Use your own words, but here is a sample call script you can work from:

My name is _______, calling from ________. I'm calling because I think climate change is the single most important issue facing the world, and I understand that the US is continuing to obstruct real progress at the U.N. talks in Barcelona. This is outrageous, and it's not what the American people voted for when they elected President Obama a year ago.

It's time for U.S. leadership to stop listening to industry and start listening to science. We need a fair, legally enforceable treaty at Copenhagen, not more foot-dragging in Barcelona.

Spread the word — tell your friends and family to make a call today. You can use that retweet button on the top right of this post, or use those little icons up under the title of this blog to post a link to your Facebook, send an email, or post to most any other social network.

For the climate,

-Rolf