U.S. to World: Bush Doesn’t Represent us – How the U.S. Caved on Bali Climate Change Consensus

[Time for change]

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change, held in Bali, Indonesia, ended in success on Saturday, December 15, when the last remaining holdout, the United States, decided to join the consensus. The conference had been slowly proceeding towards consensus for several days, but with a few days left, three countries – The U.S., Canada and Japan – were still holding out, thus posing the danger of a deadlocked conference.


Last minute petition drive

With time about to run out, a global citizen activist organization, Avaaz.org, organized a last minute petition drive. The mission of Avaaz.org is:

to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people – and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations – shape global decisions. Avaaz.org members are taking action for a more just and peaceful world and a vision of globalization with a human face.

The petition that Avaaz used contained the following simple message from the American people to conference delegates:

Please ignore President Bush's team – they do not represent the American people.

With only 24 to 48 hours notice, the petition was signed by tens of thousands of American citizens.

Avaaz describes that their activities included:

signing and spreading petitions to each of the governments, supporting ad campaigns in Bali and Canada, marches around the world, and phoning and lobbying elected officials. At the summit, Avaaz members brought the storm of public criticism inside the conference walls with the only march allowed inside the venue, the largest climate petition delivery in history, daily press conferences and "fossil awards" for the worst countries in the negotiations, and constant lobbying of officials.

The United States joins the consensus

In an article titled “Bali: People Power Confronts Climate Change – Over 300,000 Avaaz Members Mobilize in 72 Hours”, Aavez describes what happened next:

The US – now completely isolated – still held out. In the final general session, a compromise proposal was suggested that was accepted by every delegation. The United States took the floor – and rejected it.

The world is used to letting the US have its way, but not this time. The assembled delegations let loose a chorus of boos. Nation after nation took the floor and sounded the chords of outrage. Just like hundreds of thousands of Avaaz members told them to do, our leaders stood firm.

Faced with this united front, the American representative asked to take the floor once more, and said simply, "The United States will join the consensus."

Peter Spotts, in the Christian Science Monitor, describes the process in some more detail:

When the head of the US negotiating team, Paula Dobriansky, took the floor, she said the US couldn't support the change. Since decisions here must be made by consensus, it looked as if the US would derail the process.

Dr. Dobriansky's "no" met with a chorus of boos. Other developing countries took the floor to support the change and roundly criticize the US.

Confronted with the prospect of overwhelming isolation, Dobriansky relented, saying, "We will join the consensus."

Many longtime observers say it was the most stunning reversal they had ever seen at one of these meetings.

"They caved!" said an astonished Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group, based in Washington.

What the consensus means

Avaaz explains what the concluded agreement means:

This is just the beginning. Every nation of the world has now agreed that they will enter into accelerated negotiations and, by 2009, sign a new treaty to confront global warming. We need this treaty to set binding global targets for carbon emissions, and a mechanism for meeting them, that keep the earth's temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius – the amount that scientists say would be 'catastrophic'. Such a treaty will change the world's economy forever, weaning us off oil and fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy. Some leaders, in the pocket of the oil industry, will fight it tooth and nail all the way. And we will too. A great struggle to save our environment has begun, and this weekend, we showed together that the people of the world aren't intending to sit this one out…

It was not at all a complete victory – we are still far from the treaty with binding global targets that will stop catastrophic climate change. But the massive grass roots response to save the Bali Summit shows that a great people-powered movement to save our environment is stirring – and this is just the beginning.

Tom Athanasiou, writing for Truthout, voiced similar opinions:

To be sure, this is not a concrete success. Bali did not lay out national obligations, or even a global target, and its outcome is easy to criticize. I could do it myself, no problem. But the truth is that Bali was never going to lay out the details, or even a comprehensive framework. And it did manage to lay down the challenges, to be faced again in the real battle, the one that will be fought in two years time. Bali is all that was possible, and it's enough.

And adding to the concern that “this is only the beginning”, within hours of agreeing to the U.N. consensus the Bush administration started in with its usual flip flopping. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told the press:

The United States does have serious concerns because the U.N.-sponsored talks have not yet fully given effect to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

Specifically, commitments for emissions cuts cannot be required from developed countries alone, as that would be insufficient to reduce global warming and would be unfair. Major developing economies must likewise act…

How the 2008 elections are likely to influence U.S. participation in reducing global warming

As noted above, the United Nations hopes to come to concrete international agreements by 2009 on plans for halting global warming. U.S. participation in that effort will be essential to its success. Clearly, the 2008 elections will be crucial in determining the direction of our country on this issue for the next several years.

The Council of Foreign Relations recently put out an article titled “The Candidates on Climate Change”, in which they detailed the positions of all declared presidential candidates on this issue. They note with respect to a May 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) which said “The rise in global carbon emissions would need to cease by 2015 to stabilize global temperatures”, that there was a world of difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates’ response to that report:

Democratic candidates seized on the reports as evidence of a need for federal action on carbon emissions. Most Republican candidates, excepting Sen. John McCain, have been wary of embracing federally mandated controls on emissions.

They especially singled out for praise three of the Democratic candidates’ positions (though they were positive towards all of the Democratic candidates - plus McCain):

John Edwards:

The League of Conservation Voters has called Edwards’ plan to combat climate change, which would impose a cap that would reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050, “the most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date.”

Dennis Kucinich:

Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) has been one of the leading voices for legislation to stop climate change for the past several years. In this interview with the BBC, Kucinich says the United States has a “moral responsibility to lead on the issue of climate change, since we create so many greenhouse gases here, and have a very large carbon footprint."

Joe Biden:

Sen. Biden (D-DE) has been a prominent voice calling for legislation to stop climate change. In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC report, Biden urged fellow lawmakers and President Bush to take action, saying, “We have wasted the past six years on the sidelines of international negotiations and our leadership is needed to produce a global solution.”

This is one more reason why we can’t afford to sit out the 2008 election even if there are a lot of things that we don’t like about the eventual Democratic nominee.

[Time for change]

1. League of Conservation Voters applauds Edwards' plan to reduce global warming & dvp. new energy econ

The League of Conservation Voters applauds Sen. John Edwards for taking the lead in announcing aggressive plans to combat global warming. Senator Edwards' key policy is to enact a cap that will achieve 80 percent reductions in emissions by mid-century, mirroring the Sanders-Boxer (S.309) bill in Congress.

Senator Edwards also calls for an aggressive energy efficiency plan that will meet all of America's growing energy needs, while requiring that a quarter of our nation's electricity is produced from renewables by 2025.

Senator Edwards' plan demonstrates that he understands the magnitude of the challenge before us and the need for bold leadership to meet it.

America can lead the world in developing the technologies and jobs of the new energy economy instead of outsourcing those opportunities to other countries. Forward-looking approaches will restore America's credibility abroad and make us leaders in the fight to combat global warming.

Senator Edwards has outlined the most comprehensive global warming plan of any presidential candidate to date. We look forward to other 2008 presidential candidates outlining their plans to address this pressing issue.

http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/page.jsp?itemID=32451178

[EOTE]

2. K&R...

If only it were that easy for the rest of the world to ignore Bush. It's kind of like being asked to ignore satan as he's pissing in your back yard. No doubt even HRC would do far more with regards to climate change than shrub has. I shudder to think of how damaging the past 7 years have been to the world at large.

[Time for change]

6. It may not be easy, but they damn well did it this time

I'm sure that tens out thousands of petitions from American citizens telling the world that Bush doesn't represent us helped a great deal. Even the Bush administration can stand only so much international isolation. To be booed by representatives from so many other nations at a U.N. conference is quite a humiliation.

Damn right HRC would be a lot better than Bush. Here's what the Council on Foreign Relations had to say about her:

Sen. Clinton (D-NY), who sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has generally advocated for legislation to stop climate change. In a statement upon the release of the IPCC report in February, Clinton said, “I believe that action is both an environmental necessity and an economic opportunity.” She cosponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which would cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2000 to 2050 with a system of “tradable allowances.” In this video, Clinton says she wants to create a program modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to deal with the threat of climate change.

Clinton recently signed on to the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, which, if passed, will create a “market-based framework” to reduce carbon emissions. That act was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works in early 2007 and has not yet been passed.

That's a hell of a lot better than what they said about any of the Repuke candidates, with the possible exception of McCain. Except for McCain, all of the leading Republican contenders have records which would suggest that they will be environmental disasters if elected president. None (McCain included) have responded to the League of Conservation Voters’ questionnaire regarding their views on the environment, so as to make their specific views available to the American people. They had mixed things to say about McCain:

Among the Republicans running for president, Sen. McCain holds the distinction of being the only candidate to make global warming a part of his campaign agenda and to regularly address it on the campaign trail. Sen. McCain has been a leader in the U.S. Senate on climate issues for several years. In 2003, he introduced the first Senate bill attempting to curb global warming pollution with Senator Joe Lieberman, and reintroduced similar legislation in 2005 and 2007.2…

Yet Sen. McCain’s climate bill would reduce carbon emissions only 65 percent by 2050,5 whereas science tell us we must meet or exceed 80 percent reductions by 2050 to avoid major environmental catastrophes. While Sen. McCain supports developing clean energy sources, including wind, solar and biofuels, he also is a fervent advocate of nuclear power,6 which is already heavily subsidized and continues to pose serious problems related to storage waste and security.

In 2005, he voted against a Renewable Electricity Standard that would have required electric utilities to produce 10 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources by 2020.9 On other environmental issues, Sen. McCain says that he supports efforts to protect our natural heritage by protecting our national parks,10 but he has not consistently voted to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.11

In addition, something that LCV hasn’t mentioned, McCain is a virulent war hawk. I wonder how much energy is used in pursuing our worthless and disastrous wars?

The League of Conservation Voters give Clinton a 90% lifetime environmental rating, compared to 26% for McCain, who is the best of the Republican candidates. And certainly none of them is worse than Bush.

[Larry Ogg]

3. Its an amazing thing to watch,

I will attempt to show the relationship ware the "influence" of psychopath is a major contributor to climate change, but first I would like to offer up a few words from one of our founding fathers. Hopefully it will all make sense…

I think John Hancock very much understood part of the equation that has always confronted Humanity, as he wrote…

accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The cycle of good and evil repeats through out history, and a clear point of the OP is that the world can no longer tolerate the arrogance of the U.S. in its self proclaimed role as the global moral authority on the environment, no mater how rich and powerful we are, there comes a time when enough is enough because this sufferable evil is creating global warming, a problem of witch, will only be solved by the brightest scientist and politicians capable of understanding the gravity of the situation along with the foresight to develop a plan in conjunction with the experts.

Remember in your last OP, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2488549"> “ Differences in Liberal Versus Conservative Morality” and the Politics of Morality “ http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2488549&mesg_id=2493637">ware I replied,

When trying to define what constitutes “morals” one must look at a combination of several influencing factors which include, evolution and genetics, the external influence of environment, family, cultural and religion passed on from generation to generation, and then of course you need some sort of language to interpret it all. <snip>

I should have said, “Some sort of language to interpret it all or screw it all up.” And screwed up it is…

The OP today is addressing the ‘environment’, and I can see the moral connection to the problem and the role that psychopath has played in it.

How did we get to this point of environmental global crises, and what role has the psychopath (seed of evil) played in it? Andrew M. Lobachevski, author of “ http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/political_ponerology_lobaczewski.htm">Political Ponerology: A Science on The Nature of Evil adjusted for Political Purposes” says, evil is a psycho-pathological disease that spreads throughout civilization like a pathological plague, except this plague is against the human psyche. The following describes a little bit of how psychopath is able to spread the disease of evil. Lobachevski says, “History shows no examples of a highly intelligent psychopath, at best they are only of average intelligence”, and they avoid work in the trades, because (I don’t have the exact quote, so in my words) their incompetence would be self evident. He goes on to Say that, “They seek work in positions of authority such as Doctors, lawyers, CEO’s, politics, and even psychology.” He also describes them as having no conscience, foresight or ability in the positions they most covet, but they are very good at learning the language (lingo) of these critical position, witch enables them to fool their way too the top. And when things go wrong they are masters at putting the blame on someone else. In addition, anyone smarter than them, (such as a real expert) is an immediate threat because of their intelligence, (this is ware the dummying down process begins), and experts are replaced with incompetent fools and yes men. Could there be a more perfect example of this than the Bush administration?

Its also important to Keep in mind, we might be witnessing the terminal stages within the process of evil witch has not yet reached its climax, the arrival of the Bush administration has been long in the making for decades and even centuries. Its just like John Hancock said, “mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Would we care to reflect on the time frame ware scientist and environmentalist began jumping up and down over the destruction of the planet, and for how long have we seen quote unquote “opposing expert naysayers“ . Now I can ask, what conscience thought went into selecting such experts that set aside and opposed sensible moral standards that would have protected the environment.

Global warming is not the effect of human conscience, it’s the effect of giving authoritative power to those who have no conscience and are of average intelligence at best. So it is, to the degree we can effect change on Global warming will be tied to our eliminating psychopaths from the positions of authority along with their influence in government policy that should be based on high moral standards, only then will the real experts be able to do their jobs, uninhibited by the opinions of the psychopaths foolish yes men. So it really doesn’t matter who becomes the next President, as long as psychopath has influence in the decision making process of who the experts are and what should be done, humanity is in grave danger.

I honestly believe that out of all the candidates Dennis Kucinich is our only best hope, but the psychopaths that control the media are doing everything they can do to keep ‘people of conscience’ out of the White House, and if they can’t do that, they at least need someone in there they can control, another yes man, another puppet.


Oh and by the way, K&R Dr.Dale

[Time for change]

8. "it’s the effect of giving authoritative power to those who have no conscience...

and are of average intelligence at best."

I think you hit the nail on the head there Larry.

And that can be said, during the past 7 years, not only of global warming, but of the Iraq War, the multiple violations of the Constitution, and so many other disasters created by this administration.

One thing that you said that I was had never heard before (or maybe I did and I forgot) is that evil people are never highly intelligent. I have kind of suspected that, but I don't believe I've ever heard it before. I'll have to see what Lobachevski has to say about that.

[Larry Ogg]

4. Wish I could hang around and see ware this thread goes but

I have business to take care of in the Valley of the Sun Smog, aka Phoenix…

At least I can give the OP another kick…

[spanone]

5. bu$h* shames all americans....he speaks not one word for me

[truedelphi]

7. What some other nations are doing about the cars and emissions - they are winning!

Our local paper "The Record Bee' had an editorial in which our editor ranted about the fact that the countries producing the "Compressed Air" car, The E-volution, are foreign countries.

The car runs on, GET THIS! compressed air.



It is amazing that we are not doing this here.

They are being made in France and in So Africa.

France is planning to make sure that there are compressed air refuel stations across the nation, found at the gas stations.

Filling up your tanks of compressed air will get you a 120 miles worth or road travel. Though it sounds like they are planning on that number increasing dramatically soon.

mexico is about to build several compressed air car factories.

The car is named the E-volution (the hyphen is part of the name.)

Anyway the editor was ranting on how it is the other nations doing this and NOT US!

Here is the URL complete with snazzy photo (you'll have to cut and paste)

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/988265.stm

[Time for change]

9. I never heard that one

Sounds worth looking into.

[truedelphi]

10. That's the other thing - not only are the other countries doing it -

There seems to be a news blackout about it in the USA