While I agree with the sentiments of the author, he is heavy on rhetoric and short on facts, at least within the confines of the article. Merely mentioning a report is not good enough.

On another note, some posters have commented on the environmental impacts of 7 billion people attempting to live the American Consumer nightmare. IMHO there is a huge disconnect between most in the progressive movement, and the simple fact that raising 7 billion people to our level of financial prosperity would have extremely negative effects on the environment.

Financial Prosperity seldom brings social responsibility, or for that matter common sense. I live in a community with lots of what we refer to as white trash, or valley trash (for the Matsu Valley in Alaska). When they get jobs on the North Slope, they buy big trucks, guns, and snowmobiles. When I worked in Colorado driving bus, every latino except one owned a huge 4 wheel drive truck, and had 4 or more kids. Essentially the same sort of behavior I see from my mostly white neighbors...living the American Dream, usually get overweight and diabetic on the way. Every country I visited in Latin America had the same issues. I was shocked at the amount of plastic trash on the streets and beaches of central America, shocked by the sight of every passenger on the bus cavalierly throwing their plastic bottles, or bags out the windows of the bus. If you think American's habits are bad you need to take a trip to Guatemala.

I also hear this sort of rhetoric from Alaska Native Corporations like Doyon, who are currently drilling for oil on Alaska's Northslope, where they (Athabascans), never even lived. Inupiat's lived on the North Slope, not Athabascans, but go to Doyon's website and they'll tell you what good stewards of the Earth the Athabascans are.

The Earth Mother does not recognize the color of someones skin, nor their aboriginal heritage. I know very few Alaskan Natives who show genuine respect for their mother the Earth. They still know how to hunt, with a high power rifle, and snowmobile that is, Some still give thanks to the animal they kill, before loading it up on their four wheeler and gouging up the tundra on their way back home to their wood house heated with diesel.

The Earth Mother will survive and thrive, but will we? If she needs too the Earth will shrug us off like she has shrugged off other species that have exceeded the capacity for her to sustain them. I hear cries for justice for the people, but none for the earth.

HISTORY WILL JUDGE OBAMA
Despite, the irrational and vicious resistance to vital environmental reforms waged by special interests, we all expected more from Obama-- especially after 8 years of he disastrous Bush policies. By seizing the unique opportunities to forge these reforms, he could have been remembered as a great president-- even if it cost him a second term. By sidestepping this mission, history will treat him harshly for missing his unique opportunity to shift the patterns of destruction to our planet before reaching the tipping point.

"At Copenhagen, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was reported to have treated leaders of small island states as "naughty school children".

Hillary, U R A BITCH

As the nation most responsible for global warimng, the Durban Conference may be our last opportunity to curtail our scandalous non-compliance toward its mitigation measures, which have previously been blocked by special interests through extensive lobbying and fabricated science.

The recent e-mail thefts, which were timed to impede progress in this conference, as had been the earlier ones for the Calcun confwerence--and misrepresent the conclusions of the international scientific community, are only some examples.

If President Obama can detooth these environmental outlaws and redirect our priorities toward these vital reforms, before the climatic tipping point, he will be remembered as a great president, even if it costs him a second term.

If he sidesteps this mission, history will treat him as a failed president who missed the last opportunity to mobilize efforts toward mitigating this dangerous climatic trend--which can only add to world wide suffering, and increase the rift between those nations most responsible for warming and those who suffer most from it.

The actual report may be downloaded from the World Development Movement website here:

Climate Debt: The end game in Durban? How developed countries bullied and bribed to try to kill Kyoto

Many accounts from negotiators for developing countries in this report implicate the United States in cynically gaming climate summits since Copenhagen. The conclusion of the report's executive summary follows:

If this back room manipulation and intimidation continues unchallenged, the stage looks set for industrialised ‘Annex I’ countries to wriggle out of their existing legally binding emissions reductions commitments and their historical responsibility for climate change.
As we approach another crunch negotiating summit at the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP17) in Durban, South Africa, industrialised country governments need to give serious consideration to the real world implications of their current lack of ambition. They may view Durban as the ‘end game’ in their efforts to force the Copenhagen Accord on the rest of the world. But if they continue along these lines it may be the ‘end game’ for all of us, allowing climate change to continue unabated.
The Copenhagen Accord was and remains an illegitimate document. It was not negotiated by the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties and it is not supported by all of them. It is also important to note that the Cancún Agreements, which incorporate elements of the Accord, do not enjoy consensus support either; and that many of the countries that have supported one or both of these agreements may have done so grudgingly, feeling that they are unable to speak out because flows of development aid and climate finance may be cut if they do.
Yet speak out countries must. The Copenhagen Accord conflicts with both the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. It is unfair and unacceptable that a deal that is so bad for both climate change and developing countries should have been allowed to emerge from Copenhagen and Cancún by virtue of bullying, bribery and blackmail.
The best outcome from Durban would be one based on climate justice. It is time to stand up to the climate change bullies, and reject the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancún Agreements that implement it. The need for scaled up climate finances based on public funding should be addressed fairly and squarely, and developed countries must face up to the fact that legally binding emissions commitments will provide the spur needed for a rapid reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The South African government must also ensure that COP17 in Durban is played by the rules, and that every country gets a real say in the negotiations.

Is Obama, as Hugo Chavez intimated, a captive? He's very intelligent, has a very intelligent, assertive wife, and he has 2 children he obviously adores. He was also credited in the 2008 campaign with knowing the environmental score. But his policy looks just like Dubya's.

Copenhagen had a large corporate presence with lots of money to pass around, and I think that's what brought about the fraudulent agreement - for which consensus was never legitimately sought in public process. It was clearly just another back-room deal.

Hillary Clinton is the ultimate corporatist, owned by Monsanto before she even ran for any office. Monsanto/Rose Law Firm relations are public record. She, apparently, is Obama's proxy at Durban, and that really says all that needs to be said. Obama punted, again, on 1st down.

So, it seems to me, the question becomes this: how do we, the people who are "the market" for corporate products, withdraw from participation in that market so that corporations are stripped of the money (the spending of which they call "speech" and claim the legal right to do) with which they determine policy?

How do we leave the industrial paradigm that gravitates around the exercise of this legal right, and create carbon neutral or even carbon negative lifestyles that feed life rather than death?

Some say that stripping corporations of the rights of persons under the law is the solution, but if we can't even pass an agreement that life shall continue on this planet, how are we going to deprive corporations of legal rights?

What do we have control over?

How do we excercise that control so that we clean up the mess that industrial culture made of the planet and make our peace with nature?

Perhaps we make peace with nature first, and base subsequent actions upon having chosen life?

There is, I think, a sizable element of the US population (perhaps even western culture) that can be said to be represented by corporate interests.

That's the market that corporations are, through Secretary Clinton, protecting in Durban, isn't it?

How do we de-populate that market?

How do we do it before COP 18?

Nations with smaller "developing" economies should cut out rich nations and multi-nationals from doing beusiness in their countries.

This reminds me exactly of the way UN delegates were bullied, threatened, and bribed to vote for various resolutions against Iraq in the preparation for US led war.

Siouxrose I like it [original post]

Maybe by 2020 Karma will see the USA and Brits begging China and India to cut their emissions; as climate change and severe weather eats the wealth of the developed world.

The photo with this article comes from the Philippines, where I'm from. In 2009, the capital city of Manila was flooded like we've never seen before. Because of climate change, maybe? The CO2 footprint of the Philippines is rather low, maybe equivalent to one of the major cities in the U.S. Yet, the heavy rains brought floods that killed around 800 people. In 2011, more floods and landslides and more people died.

Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Cilnton visited. Her motorcade was pelted with paintbombs by militant youth. It's was all about U.S. imperialism. This week is Climate Change Consiousness Week, and the picture here is the "participation" of Philippine activists who decry the role of the U.S. in ran-away climate change, much to the chagrin of "official" government spinmeisters. In my opinion, my country is indeed subject to the money dangled by developed countries. Money that would get the vote, acquiescence of "poor" countries to what advanced countries would prefer so that their economies could go on, business as usual. Oh yes, even "progressive" countries, such as Norway, would fund projects in third world countries, such as the Philippines, for infrastructures that would offset their carbon emissions. Looks real good, on paper really getting the bang for the buck! And "our" corrupt politicians love these "offset funding."

Here's my personal story. My family lives in a village where electricity is available for 12 hours a day, from 5 PM to 5 AM. We are doing just fine, compared to many families in the U.S. We are probably better off than many other people in the world. Screw all that growth in the capitalist world, all that hype. My kids are doing just fine with low carbon footprint and all.

Reply to WayneWR - Nov 28 2011 - 10:54am:

>>WayneWR: "We lost several years to act on the most serious issue humanity will ever face because the Kyoto Conference was a load of political do nothing."<<

So, blame it all on the Kyoto treaty, eh?
Forget "Kyoto" for a moment. Have you got anything better? By "anything", I mean "a mechanism" or "an arrangement" or "SOMETHING" that would require or mandate or force countries to choose a low-carbon economy over the current, destructive one?

Have you got "SOMETHING" that would force China to, firstly, not build any more coal power plants, and, secondly, to close down the existing ones?

Have you got "SOMETHING" that would have forced India to expand their railway network instead of investing so much on highways and domestic aviation, infrastructure that would "lock-in" a high-carbon pathway?

Have you got "SOMETHING" that would force Canada to, firstly, not expand tar sands oil production, and, secondly, to start closing down the whole operation, while at the same time finding alternative means of livelihood for the people in the province of Alberta (and others who are itching to do the same)?

Have you got "SOMETHING" that would have completely eliminated even the "need" for a so-called review of the Keystone pipeline by the Obama administration?

That "SOMETHING" is an international treaty that goes beyond what the Kyoto Protocol required. At least that's the best that my little brain could think of, and so many other mortals have been demanding.

The Kyoto treaty is what it is because THAT WAS THE BEST DEAL that negotiators could agree on in 1997. And there has NOT been anything even remotely comparable since, whereas the situation calls for something much more aggressive and comprehensive than "Kyoto".

You seem to have great difficulty in facing this FACT: when a few countries cannot even agree to cut their emissions by just a little bit over a decade, you now say most countries should cut much more, in a much shorter time (which I completely agree with, and demand!). But you have a problem with an international treaty that would force countries to do precisely that!

So, let me ask you one last time: have you got anything better?

Are you saying ALL the activists from the world over, who demanded a strong treaty at Copenhagen, and then at Cancun, and now at Durban, ALL of them are idiotic morons? I would like to know from your exalted Highness if you have a better mechanism or arrangement.

You keep saying I won't address the facts. I tried to, but you have no intention of looking at them. Why? Because the "facts" point to the "reality" on the ground, and you DON'T want to face the reality on the ground - which involves people, governments and corporations AND their various motives that guide their choices and decisions which may have NOTHING to do with fairness or environmental sustainability or even plain old sanity!

The "facts" point to genuine attempts in the first half of the last decade to reduce GHG emissions in the EU countries as a whole as required by the Kyoto treaty.

The "facts" point to Germany cutting down its emissions by 23% below 1990 levels a few years ahead of the 2012 deadline. And no, all of these reductions were NOT a result of carbon emission offsetting. There were (and still are) real policies put in place that specifically provide an incentive for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The "facts" also point to Germany and other countries backtracking on their earlier demand for a more ambitious, aggressive and comprehensive treaty to replace "Kyoto" BECAUSE they have seen what the USA has NOT done and is refusing to do, going forward.

The facts point to countries like China seeing the writing on the wall and deciding to focus on their own development first before cleaning up the rich man's mess, even though it is not such a wise policy. What is China's alternative? Clean up the rich man's mess even while the rich man has NOT stopped endangering life on the planet?

You have difficulty to even look at the simple analogy with universal nuclear disarmament. I suppose if **you** were calling for nuclear disarmament, your entire "strategy" would be on shouting how dangerous the nuclear weapons are, how previous treaties have failed, and then... And then what?

As in the nuclear disarmament challenge, the alternative to universal, verifiable disarmament enforced by a treaty, is an uneasy balance of terror, and the slight chance of Mutually Assured Destruction.

You would rather pontificate from your scientific perch, as if shouting about the Arctic methane alone is going to magically make all these countries do what's necessary to avoid disaster. In your refusal to face reality, you even forget that the people who post here, such as myself, NEVER once disagreed on the potential for disaster ahead. We are only calling for something that would force BIG change in a SHORT time. And yet you have the audacity to chide us about our "silly words"?!!

I didn't blame it ALL on the Kyoto treaty ~Alycon~... You are ASSUMING and putting words into my face I never wrote.

What I originally stated and still do is, the Kyoto agreements were worthless politial bulshit and did not help the very dangerous GW issue at all... Nothing was agreed upon to reduce Co2 emmissions to any reasonabl, itelligent level then.

And we did lose several years because our world leaers didn't take strong, quick action to prevent what is soon going to happen.

They didn't need any conferences to understand what top scientists had reported and warned all of us about if we didn't stop doing what we are doing..

.
All they had to do was exchange e-mails, work with each other's foreign embassies and say that they were going to stop burning coal and replace that filfthy, deadly form of prroducing electrical power with clean energy and immediately start dont just that. They should have started as soon as Al Gore's film was released... You have any problem with that Ally? Or would you rather wait awhile,, like Aeph Null?

Reply to Ragavacharyar - Nov 28 2011 - 7:53pm:

Nicely stated, Ragavacharyar. I wish the whole argument were around the lessons from the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, including its shortcomings, and how to expand it into a more aggressive and more comprehensive treaty that would get the job done in a short enough time, instead of whether the treaty achieved anything at all - which is a totally pointless argument.

But this would require people to first of all understand and appreciate the rationale behind the treaty and the rationale behind the framework that produced this treaty: the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What I sense in these forums is a distinct unwillingness to learn about the painstaking work that goes into producing such things, even though they are NOT perfect by any means. Nor has been the CDM under the Kyoto Protocol. But what good is it to glibly throw it all out as no good without offering anything better, and without recognizing the bigger factors at play that actively seek to weaken and dismantle whatever little that was achieved in the 1990s?

I ended up arguing primarily because of the crying need for a global mechanism and because there hasn't been anything better. Not only there hasn't been anything better, but there has been an organized and orchestrated attempt to make sure there wouldn't be one either. The psychology behind such an attempt is beginning to look scary, as it clearly looks like it has to be something more than just greed.

Speaking of the psychology, I think overall, despite the escalation of the warnings from the scientists, the atmosphere around international negotiations has become so toxic, with increasing despair among some countries and utter intransigence on the part of another group of countries, with activists and NGOs watching it all helplessly, powerless to do anything. "Rio" in 1992 and "Kyoto" in 1997 seem all the more valuable, and rare, considering what followed in subsequent years. I think the activists and the NGOs played a large part in these two gatherings and in the period leading up to these meetings. It was NOT just the government negotiators that produced the outcome in these meetings. If anything, it was the governments of the rich nations that had to be dragged into these meetings and ended up diluting the outcome.

But the fact is, there was something that was achieved in the 1990s - the kind of agreements that has become almost impossible in this century so far. I suspect that these agreements were produced at a time when the denial industry of the organized crime syndicate was not fully aware of what was going on and was not fully prepared to sabotage these attempts. But they "made up" for it all in the 2000's. And made sure nothing like a "Rio" or a "Kyoto" would emerge subsequently, even though it has become clear that the world community as a whole needs to do much, much more now.

Your post gave me another chance to reflect on why I have been arguing on this matter, as it is pointless in some way. I realize that it's a kind of lament and a distress to see the little momentum that the activists had built up in the 1990s being slowed and sought to be blocked altogether. It's like a completely different set of masters in charge, although it's more likely the same masters who have decided "enough with the environmental BS!" And possibly something more sinister, too, as I am not able to explain how the warnings from the scientists can be so blatantly ignored otherwise.

The reason I asked the question in the first place,,, ("Could someone please explain to me what good the Kyoto Conference has accomplished"),,, was because I could see no good from it... I wasn't trying to start a riot or a crap fight here and never expected to be hit with a bunch of insults for asking the fair question.

The reason I could see no good from it, was becasue the United States dropped out of it and the smaller poorer nations were left holding the bag and really no significant reductions of Co2 emmmissions were determined.

It is honestly like a farmer who's barn's roof is sagging in the middle and he and his wife talk about what to do to fix it before it fall down.. They determine what will be needed and how much it will cost to save the barn..... Every year they have a long talk about it and seven years go by and one day the barn falls down.. Now they have to fix it right away and it is going to really cost them. Besides it killed all of their cows. a prize bull and four calfs.

The initial (*purpose*) of the Kyoto Conference,, was to take steps to solve the global warming problem,, by reducing carbon output world wide... It failed to do that.

Then we had the next two climate conferences,, which were both a disasterous joke and now the current one,, which apparently will be joke number three.

Meanwhile; we have not reduced our carbon output (at all),,, world wide... In fact we have incerased carbon output by 18%, just in the United States since the Kyoto agreement and so what good has it really done in respect to it's original (*purpose*)?

None... How could any intelligent person, say it has been any success?__ Because people are talking about it, it was a first step.. A first step to what exact end?

In 2007 the United States alone burned (1.1 trillion tons) of coal...That is one point one TRILLION TONS... That amount has increased by 3 % every year since 2007 and still not one single agreement to reduce that incredible amount of coal burning by 1,230+ electrical power plants.

Burning coal world wide like that is going to kill us ,, literally,, due to how it is effecting global warming and the very near to come feedback loop to
GW for the Arctic methane releases. That will do it.

So no climate conferences have accomplished anything at all to solve any climate problem... I'm done,,, on this thread, forever.. So talk on, and on, because you know how it is working and I do not understand your reasoning,,, I'm stupid., argumenative and not a nice guy, a raving boor who doesn't know shit from shinola,, or so I have been told here by a "nice" guy... Gal? ... Nite Alycon,, Take Care. .