Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Barack Obama's Speech Disappoints and Fuels Frustration at Copenhagen
US president offers no further commitment on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries
COPENHAGEN - Barack Obama stepped into the chaotic final hours of the Copenhagen summit today saying he was convinced the world could act "boldly and decisively" on climate change.
U.S. President Barack Obama attends the morning plenery session of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, December 18, 2009. (REUTERS/Larry Downing) But his speech offered no indication America was ready to embrace bold measures, after world leaders had been working desperately against the clock to try to paper over an agreement to prevent two years of wasted effort - and a 10-day meeting - from ending in total collapse.
Obama, who had been skittish about coming to Copenhagen at all unless it could be cast as a foreign policy success, looked visibly frustrated as he appeared before world leaders.
He offered no further commitments on reducing emissions or on finance to poor countries beyond Hillary Clinton's announcement yesterday that America would support a $100bn global fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change.
He did not even press the Senate to move ahead on climate change legislation, which environmental organisations have been urging for months.
The president's speech followed the publication of draft text, obtained by the Guardian this morning, that reveals the enormous progress needed from world leaders in the final hours of the Copenhagen climate change summit to achieve a strong deal. The draft says countries "ought" to limit global warming to 2C, but crucially does not bind them to do so. The text, drafted by a select group of 28 leaders - including UK prime minister, Gordon Brown - in the early hours of this morning, also proposes extending negotiations for another year until the next scheduled UN meeting on climate change in Mexico City in December 2010.
In his address, Obama did say America would follow through on his administration's clean energy agenda, and that it would live up to its pledges to the international community.
"We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say," Obama said.
But in the absence of any evidence of that commitment the words rang hollow and there was a palpable sense of disappointment in the audience.
Instead, he warned African states and low island nations who have been resisting what they see as a weak agreement that the later alternative - no agreement - was far worse.
"We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation," he said.
"Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year - all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible."
He also took a dig at China, drawing attention to its status as the world's biggest emitter and reinforcing America's hardline on the issue of accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.
The lacklustre speech proved a huge frustration to a summit that had been looking to Obama to use his stature on the world stage - and his special following among African leaders - to try to come to an ambitious deal.
The president was drawn into the chaos within minutes of his arrival at Copenhagen, ditching his schedule to take part in a meeting of major industrialised and rapidly emerging economies.
Responding to Obama's speech, a British official said: "Gordon Brown is committed to doing all he can and will stay until the very last minute to secure a deal... but others also need to show the same level of commitment. The prospects of a deal are not great."
Many reactions were strongly critical of Obama. Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama's speech as "ridiculous" and the US's initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as "a joke".
Tim Jones, a spokesman for the World Development Movement, said: "The president said he came to act, but showed little evidence of doing so. He showed no awareness of the inequality and injustice of climate change. If America has really made its choice, it is a choice that condemns hundreds of millions of people to climate change disaster."
Friends of the Earth said in a statement, "Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world."
The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: "The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority."
The extent of crisis in the talks has taken leaders by surprise. The Brazilian leader, Lula da Silva, told the conference that the all-night negotiating sessions took him back to his days as a trade union leader negotiating with his bosses.
The full text of President Obama's prepared remarks are below:
Good morning. It's an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you - like me - were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge - the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
As the world's largest economy and the world's second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home - by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future - that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America's national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so, and I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if - and only if - it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula - one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord - one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor - one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year - all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.
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. Now, I believe that it's time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past - with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
- Posted in

109 Comments so far
Show AllPeople need to realize there is no connection between Obama's words and his actions.
2012: Obama out--Kucinich in. Let's work hard to get him recognition in 2010-2011 and get "OUR INSIDER" elected. No more "best of the two evils" mentality. It is no one's fault the liar got elected than a sleeping, fear-based electorate that put Bush III in office.
"That's why I come here today - not to talk, but to act," he said to applause."
Hahahahahahaha!! So says the Great Bloviator himself.
I'd like to offer comments based not on any facts, only on perception. Obama used to have a confident stately look about him. Jon Stewart commented that "he is shooting for coin." Now, after one short year, he looks as though he is internally troubled, suffering from conflict and turmoil.
Possible reasons;
Ego; After the great high of political success, he realizes his reputation is in tatters, his image in shambles.
Guilt; maybe it is sinking in that he is responsible for untold pain, suffering and death at home and abroad.
Fear; it could be he has no power or control over the nation and is at the mercy of others.
Most presidents show accelerated age by the end of their term from the extreme pressure of holding the office. Bush II didn't, he was an exception as he never cared anyway. Obama is showing it already.
Good observations. The fear comes from realizing that his lies are not working anymore. And I would switch 'guilt' to 'shame'.
I turn him off today the same way I did Bush during 8 years, I can't stand Obama's voice or image on TV anymore. I either change the channel or turn it off completely.
You have a lot of company.
uncle-charlie,
glad you added it to the list
Buck
Paid actor politicians are hired for their ability to pretend,
to change their facial expressions a will and communicate
body language appropriate for the smoke screen they are
paid to create.
Pure darkness is it for a moment focus on internal emotions
what are for the most part illusion. Walk in the light, think
facts, cold logic and reason to always walk right.
Hi John,
I couldn't agree more about the phony politicians.
I try to walk right, use logic and reason,
but must confess I'm not always successful.
Buck
Obama the plagiarist. I'll say it again, global warming will only stop when the US collapses. Obama (or Gore) have absolutely no intention of changing the American way of life if it means threatening the profits of the energy and auto industries.
But don't be too tough on Obama (or Bush before him) they're only products of Americans. Corrupt with greed, driven only by profit, Americans only care about their own comfort and well being, screw the rest of the planet. Such bacterial environment is perfect breeding ground for super bugs like Obama and Bush.
I get your drift, uncle_charlie, however, I have to wonder just how Obama or Gore were supposed to change the American way of life without the use of force, which would be fascism. Isn't the changing of our way of life equally up to American citizens? After all, we're the ones living this way of life. Not to say that enlightened policies can't be put in place, just that it is highly unlikely and may not work, and even then the people may not want to go there. After all, we are a nation of "rugged" individualists (we're not really that rugged).
As far as global warming stopping when the US collapses... I think that's backwards. Global warming is happening now and even if we stop chugging out CO2, it will continue to happen. More likely the US will collapse when global warming forces us to.
The world will not stop manufacturing junk and producing CO2. There is too much "demand" and money to be made. Too much greed and self-interest. Maybe when the world - the whole world - is hit hard upside the head with calamity, we will change our ways. Maybe.
Anyway, we can wait for others to act, or we can act ourselves despite what others do. That's always been the case. It's a very simple thing. Not easy, but simple.
"There is too much "demand" and money to be made. Too much greed and self-interest."
This is a product of capitalism. If people are to return to a simpler lifestyle, then capitalism must go and land must be available. Jefferson envisioned an agrarian society full of small farmsteads and that is exactly what it will take to break this carbon intensive system.
Most people with small "farmsteads" I know of have huge carbon footprints - they live in larger houses and drive cars or big pickup trucks extensively. Then there is the tractor or other farm machinery. They have far bigger carbon footprints than a city dweller living in a apartment or attached townhouse and walks or used public transit for his chores.
And, if you mean everyone returning to an Amish-stile existence, that is obviously unrealistic.
Something that many back-to-nature bioregionalists forget is this thing called efficiencies of scale. A single large farm using a few pieces of large equipment is much less carbon emitting per bushel of production than a a bunch of smaller farmers. And possible future electrified fossil-fuel free farming schemes will be necessity have to be large operations.
I am talking Amish style and definitely not long row monoculture. The large farms are the problem not the solution. Variety of crops is key. The cars, trucks and large houses are those people's choice, not a prerequisite. I used to work a garden 30x50ish and could produce enough to feed four or five families through the summer and fall. I used rototillers starting out, but found I preferred shovels, rakes and hoes.
I've also lived off the grid. It's not as hard as you think.
"Something that many back-to-nature bioregionalists forget is this thing called efficiencies of scale. A single large farm using a few pieces of large equipment is much less carbon emitting per bushel of production than a a bunch of smaller farmers."
Take the damage done by monoculture and the fact that these large farms have to truck their produce great distances, and that blows your theory to hell in a handbasket.
Well, I guess capitalism is a large part of it, but I think there are other factors at work, too many for me know even know.
I agree that the Amish have the key to a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle. I also agree that it will be very hard, if not close to impossible for the rest of us to switch to that...unless we have to. Hence my statement that global warming may force us to.
My thoughts are that there is quite a bit more that most of us can do to become more sustainable, right where we are. Examples abound, and I have written about some of them. Most here are not interested. Stick around a while and you'll see. The values espoused here on CD are very mainstream, though most here like to think themselves above the mainstream. Very mainstream indeed.
Ted,
I have noticed the "mainstream" herd mentality here
and the ignorance fed by arrogance,
fog blocking the light.
I've also noticed that some who cast the most light
get chastised, pelted with darts, dismissed offhand.
I understand that not everyone wants to work the dirt.
Doctors need clean hands.
Capitalism makes all people competitors.
One person wins at monopoly,
everyone else goes broke.
I desire mutual co-operation,
everyone deserves a place on the board.
Buck
Your post is confusing and with contradictions, most notably,
“global warming stopping when the US collapses, I think that's
backwards... More likely the US will collapse when global
warming forces us to.”
According to you all is hopeless, just sit back we must and watch
the world go by.
"According to you all is hopeless, just sit back we must and watch
the world go by."
Yeah, that's right. That's what I've been saying for over a year now. Sit back and don't do anything. Just get pissed off at the politicians and sit back.
Christ on a pony.
"I have to wonder just how Obama or Gore were supposed to change the American way of life without the use of force, which would be fascism."
A true leader doesn't make excuses for being lazy. A leader is supposed to lead. Democracy may involve people's participation but democracy does not relieve the leader of its special responsibilities that come with being elected to leadership.
"Anyway, we can wait for others to act, or we can act ourselves despite what others do. That's always been the case. It's a very simple thing. Not easy, but simple."
You remind me of that conversation I ran into between you and JenniferB. Here's to simplify. Stop confusing personal responsibility with leadership responsibility. I am sure that we all can agree that the consequences of bad leadership responsibility are just as serious as are the consequences of lack of one's own personal responsibility. However, we are talking two different things. There are millions of people like you and me that each have the same power to change things but each of us has limited powers and depending upon our education, profession, and other things. Let us say that you are running a business and a corporate rival wants to run you out of business and wipe out the competition. With good leadership, you can be calm, peaceful, and not as stressed out because your chances of winning against the corporation are better thanks to lawyers who aren't as greedy and that the consequences against that corporation are serious. With bad leadership such as what we have been stuck with for years, you are unable to afford a lawyer because they charge too much and that most trial lawyers are driven by profit and not justice all because our leadership went to bed with profit not principle. Even if you could afford a lawyer, your leadership has seen to it that not only are those bad boy corporations protected but that you must lose more if you lose your case. To sum it up, bad leadership has seen to it that you and I are in lose-lose situations.
"As far as global warming stopping when the US collapses... I think that's backwards. Global warming is happening now and even if we stop chugging out CO2, it will continue to happen. More likely the US will collapse when global warming forces us to.
The world will not stop manufacturing junk and producing CO2. There is too much "demand" and money to be made. Too much greed and self-interest. Maybe when the world - the whole world - is hit hard upside the head with calamity, we will change our ways. Maybe."
That I can agree with but with one exception. Change fossil fuel usage with industrial hemp usage and see the difference. I suppose we could find ways to improve efforts to reach out. The next time you engage in climate change talks, be sure to bring up hemp and its significant environmental benefits. Ralph Nader first talked about this in 2000 and I used to think he was crazy but I later had to confess that he was right. I wished we had listened to him these last 9 years.
Well, if I were to say that Obama is not leading and all we need do is elect a leader who will lead, would that satisfy you?
That won't happen, but at least you could rest easy.
I keep harping on the personal responsibility issue not because I believe that leadership is fine in the country and all that is missing is us, but because both are lacking and the place I believe will get us the most leverage is if we act in ways that will get us closer to our ideals, then electe leaders who mirror us.
I know it seems backwards to a people who are used to wanting things done for them.
Oh, btw, I vote too and have worked on several campaigns. I've been on both sides and this is where I come down.
I would say that Obama is misleading than not leading.
It is not that any of us here are just asking for a handout from him. He has a leadership and special responsibilities to follow with it. It is one thing for Obama not to give anything and perhaps we can understand but to rob from us and make excuses for it shows utter dishonesty. That is why most people here are outraged.
Lack of leadership and personal responsibility can be damaging but lack of leadership responsibility does the most damage to everyone. I won't deny that there are plenty of things where politicians cannot help one do them but nothing can fill the void when they stray off of their own responsibilities.
How? By being LEADERS. Obama and Bush are not leaders of course, they're corporate criminals using their power to squander the treasury and humiliate the working class.
Super bugs, indeed, resistant to all public needs and concerns.
Very true, as the only words I have ever listened to from Obama were
in his acceptance speech last year, and it made me nauseous.
Sometimes I wonder it the only ones not self-absorbed and brainwashed
are those of us who were born and raised in the slums.
His speeches sound more and more hollow, in fact I have stopped listening to Obama. Big words, big substance and behind it very little to no real change.
Another great moment: Mayor Bloomberg of NYC went to Copenhagen to bloviate about how environmentalism must begin in cities, while on the same day the Metropolitan Transportation Authority eliminated fare decreases for students and the disabled, eliminated 2 subway lines, and numerous bus lines. That's after recently raising subway and bus fare to a whopping $2.25 (while refusing to add tolls to bridges between Manhattan and Brooklyn so that precious cars do not have to pay). Great way to encourage people to use mass transit.
Don't you know mass transit is for the little people? Bloomberg was so close to being defeated -- really squeaked by. Had Obama, even with his falling numbers, had paid more than lip service to support Thompson, HRH Bloomberg would have suffered a nice humiliation. But shortly after he gave lip-service endorsement to Thompson our Bloviator-in-Chief gave Bloomberg high praise on many things, most especially Obamacare, which by that point had a "sliver" of a PO in it.
For many years I transcribed the State Assembly hearings, which was great to introduce me to politics, since I'm not a transcriber who just types things up -- I pretty much "live" it all, which can be painful at times. Anyway, the the Transportation Committee meetings were a heartbreaker. At all of these hearings the VIPs, or dignitaries -- as they like to call themselves -- would speak first. The important testimony -- the testimony by really intelligent people with excellent solutions to our mass transit problems -- were relegated to the end, by which time the auditorium was usually empty, as my boss at the time relayed to me (he was there stenotyping and recording the hearings). They were talking about light rails, re-opening freight lines -- really, really good stuff. Well, it's been about 15 or more years since I've touched these hearings, as I now do work from the courts in Jersey, and look where we are? In the 70s the subways were in dire straits and it looks like we're revisiting history there, too.
Michael Moore spoke about outfitting GM in Detroit for mass transit -- these same types of projects. Well, you can see where that's heading too. I read an article yesterday that Detroit has a 50% unemployment rate now.
Bloomberg! This contemptible horse's ass is a poster child for the über-rich politician who rushes around the globe to be "on the scene" for the purpose of reinforcing their fatuous self-importance.
An avowed Zionist, he even rushed to Israel during Operation Cast Lead to "stand with Israel"-- univited, as far as I know.
I used to work at a state agency regional office that hosted manager's meetings for managers of about fifteen field offices.
One manager in particular was notorious for showing up hours early, and lingering afterwards "chatting" with the Regional Director or other administrative personnel. He cheerfully advertised himself as a habitual "early bird", but he was more of an early nuisance.
Eventually, after coming to know this manager better, and with the benefit of insights from co-workers, I realized that he was insecure to the point of paranoia, and overstayed his visits because he was terrified of not being "in the know", or otherwise missing some crumb of information that might pertain to him.
Once that insight "clicked", his behavior became perfectly straightforward. Bloomberg is the same type!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Is today the most important day since man walked upright and developed self-awareness?
Perhaps.
With 24 hrs. to go in Copenhagen the parties are still at least 1 degree C (4.2 gigatonnes of carbon emissions) apart.
Tick tock tick tock.
Unless that gap is closed in an agreed upon fashion in the next 24 hours hundreds of millions could be consigned to unbearable suffering and death, the Amazon and Coral Reefs could be lost and up to 50% of species could perish.
24 hrs.
Tick tock tick tock.
Will ANY of our corporate media report the awesome significance of today's events?
Will there be more reporting of Tiger Woods than there is of man's decision to be the cause of his own demise?
24 hrs. left.
Tick tock tick tock.
and one of those species could be us. yea said the cockroach! yea said the rat!
soon all the rest chimed in. those pain in the ass humans are finally gone
said the alligator! now we can finally have some peace in our lives and do
what we do without them poking and prodding us anymore. we are free again hurray!
agreed, uncle charlie.
each time he opens his mouth, nothing of substance comes forth.
his 60 minute fluff interview was another example. the man is angry, realizing he's been outed as the con that he truly is.
ted,
he could have helped change the american way through leadership skills, which many of us thought he had. we were blinded, yet one more mark against the bush administration.
No question that Obama is not who he sold himself as. I'm as disappointed as most here. I know that comes as a surprise to some.
Still, still, still...we have a choice: To sit and shit, or walk our talk. Not that the people can directly change policy, but we can change our politicians, either through pressure or through voting them out of office.
I have no qualms about voting Obama out of office. I do have big qualms about just bitching up a storm and pointing my finger at him. Not only is it completely impotent, it's just plain stupid.
What's your decision, lino?
"That's why I come here today - not to talk, but to act,"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sure sounded like a lot of talk, talk, talk.
I applaud the president's efforts to bond world leaders to finding a solution. However, I do not believe that anything he said will make a difference. As a matter of fact, I don't know if there's anything that the world leaders can do to alleviate this situation...it's going to fall on the citizens of the world to take and make a stand.
"it sure sounded like a lot of talk, talk, talk."
and it sure has been a lot of act,act,act.
he deserves an Oscar.
The Scorpion and the Frog
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the
scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The
frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?” The scorpion
says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream,
the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of
paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown,
but has just enough time to gasp “Why?”
Replies the scorpion: “Its my nature…”
The globalizers had to squeeze the last dollar of profit out of the planet and its people. It’s the nature of capitalism. So they have stung all of humanity half way across the river and the paralysis is setting in. The pillars of the economy are crumbling—banking, finance, manufacture, housing, the whole enchillada.
Arable land is dwindling under the strain of historic draught and biblical flooding. Then our daily bread now must be transported over huge distances if we are to eat at all. The same goes for all of life’s other necessities.
If the supply of oil has not begun to run out, it will soon enough. For the sake of a couple extra pennies of gain for Wal-Mart we are to live or die on the availability of cheap and plentiful energy supplies. Dying is becoming the better bet by the day.
Under these developments, the people of the world are struggling with a marked escalation of the class war. Maybe no one has a firm grip on “what is to be done?”, to borrow Lenin’s phraseology. But it is for sure a time to reject fatalism, defeatism, nihilism and any other current which involves the people in rolling over to die quietly.
If Karl Marx was right, we have reached the end times not of humanity but of the capitalist economic system. It is a time when the working class was, through its collective discipline and might, supposed to conduct and win a war with the bourgeoisie and establish its rule. Then the building of socialism was to commence. War, racism and poverty would be banished in the ensuing years along with all of capitalism’s pathological influences on man.
What are the prospects for this scenario? However likely or remote, the idea should not be given up on because the other choices are too horrific to passively accept—the Orwellian state, bands of survivalists roaming a scorched landscape, the extinction of the human being.
As Rosa Luxemburg said, it's either socialism or barbarism. This was during the First World War, perhaps the beginning of the barbarisms of the 20th and 21st century. As you mentioned, the rise of the working class, the proles to assume their rightful place, is not guaranteed. Indeed, the powers that be promise a boot stamping on a human face — forever. In fact, this is what this climate deal is going to be, a form of eco-fascism, where the wealthy lock the doors, letting the poor drown.
OBAMA SPEECH TODAY ---- PURE HYPOCRACY ALL THE WAY
After he refuses to offer a penny of the $600 billion needed for the
poor nations to climate up-grade, after refusing to use the new power
just given him to reduce emissions more then 4%, Obama the hypocrite
in his first speech in Copenhagen “We are ready to get this done... all nation
need to reach agreement [with us]... China needs to have transparency
[like us]...”
And like always, brainwash PRI worshipped their god government by
claiming the Copenhagen fiasco on other nations, especially China.
And while all the world fully knows that all Obama is pledging be a
4% reduction in emissions, still the same pretense of a 17% reduction
based on a standard no other nation will except.
First Ma Baker Clinton and now her shape shifter boss the O’Bomber, applying American foreign policy to something that cannot be resolved by military force. Simply hopeless!
"There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, we will do what we say," he said. "I believe it's the time for the nations and the people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
"America is going to continue on this course of action… The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. ”
The U.S. has failed… Absolutely! They are telling the world, it’s my way or the high way. Follow me to hell because I’m the leader even if I haven’t got a clue where I’m going and how to get there…… As I wrote before in another comment on an article by John Feffer “Exceptional or Exceptionalism?” here on CD, America is finished; “The game is up and the “king is in his all-together” and there is no where to go from here for that ethically, morally, economically and financially bankrupt state but down. Perhaps after all we, in the rest of the world need not worry about America’s contribution to CO2 as it reverts to a barren waste land populated by marauding savages, as in the film Mad Max, a fit home only for mass graves of the people that died fighting over the American pie that never was.”
The “capitalist system” is the cause of the problem, through its necessity for growth, use of fiat money in a system of usury to steal resources, impose debtor slavery, and pollute the atmosphere, all to enrich a very few at the cost of all the rest of the world.
So why should the G77 plus China and Japan not establish another fiat currency to turn this on its head. Establish an international ecological meritocracy that issues “People’s Green-bucks” a new global currency that can be freely traded for resources, goods and services. The allocation annually will depend on the fulfilment of ecological goals and accomplishment of counter measures, all to be measured by the UN, independently and transparently. Trade will favour countries that fulfil their obligations and penalize the polluter.
The “green-buck” is secured by resources in the ground, as long as they remain, “in the ground”.
It does not take too much common sense to realize that the present system is just supporting the status quo, a bunch of banksters, mobsters and their cronies that put O’Bomber and Ma Baker Clinton into their jobs to keep themselves in the filthy lucre in the short term, but soon it’s not golden parachutes these guys will need but golden arks. Screw them.
Few times have I felt my sentiments so well articulated by someone else. Kudos.
I just this spring had a project for an environmental studies program where I proposed a currency based on the status of sustainable natural resources. Why back with gold or corrupt fiat? It would be a dream to realize it, and start valuing the earth for being all we have to stay alive on.
Obummer seems to get worse every time he opens his mouth...lies..blah, blah...tho at this point people world wide are seeing thru the lies. Despite the fascism shown by Denmark police, massive global protests must happen ! But when will fat amerikans get off their sorry butts ?
tioche, Mexico
Now if I had excessive wealth and wanted an illusion,
to generate hostility and division, among my paid actors
you would be the chieftain.
You don't really like people conversing with you unless they sing the same song. Good discussion technique there. Reminds me of Cheney...
staying on point is crucial
the stakes so high
“The capitalist system... its necessity for growth.”
But capitalism is nothing more then those most intelligent
competing for excessive wealth.
So what if there never was capitalism, never the slightest growth?
What if instead of gigantic ship lines with tankers holding a
million barrows of oil, instead we had millions of ships each
holding a thousand barrows, just enough income to
support a small crew and their families?
What if instead of giant shipyards building ships, we had
thousands of small business shipyards building small ships
just perfect for individuality, the ultimate in autonomy?
What are you talking about? It has nothing to do with "intelegent" it has to do only with creation of fiat money as capital and usury.
I haven't heard of a VLCC built in a US yard, ever. The only thing built in America's big yards have been built for war. And although bigger ships with better engins and possibly with alternative power sources may be better for the environment in the future, they can still be built by COOPERATIVE yards, as big as needs be.
All your posts are junky confusion,
surely your not fooling anyone.
Alabama John,
You might not have noticed, but based on the way you communicate, lots of people here think you are nuts.
You can lash out at me, like you do to so many, or you can stop and think about that for a while.
webwalk
They're barrels not barrows.
Anyway there is almost no difference in crew size for a small merchant ship or a super tanker. Not significant anyway. Also your proposal would create many many more inefficiencies than there are as the overhead for each ship's propulsion, living quarters, fuel usage and so on are not that much smaller on a small ship than they are on a large or super large ship. That is to say if you spend $1 on a supertanker, you don't spend 10x $.10 for ten smaller ships.
Shipping is already about the most efficient and greenest way to send anything there is now anyway especially oil.
"barrels not barrows"
But surely you of the stuck-up intelligent middleclass
are fully aware that we laboring men cannot tell the
difference.
Surely your logic is intentional confusion,
surely your not fooling anyone.
For if a man lived on his ship, a wind driven
saling ship and his family with him, no home
or piece of land needed to sustain them, than
one of an unlimited number of other solutions
to our global warming would it be.