Happy Anniversary, Obama. Now Sign a Climate Deal
It's been a year since Barack Obama's historic election as our first African-American president. That night, many Americans shed tears of joy, exchanged congratulatory embraces, and voiced high expectations for real change.
As the Obama administration's first year draws to a close, we're approaching another historic moment. The world's nations are negotiating a deal to steer the planet away from catastrophic climate change. And by December, if an agreement is reached at a summit in Copenhagen, developed countries like the United States will have to step forward and put binding targets for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions on the table.
Yes, developing countries-with their increasing carbon footprints-should come to the table, too (and in fact, many are already making great strides at implementing renewable energy and energy efficiency programs). But the responsibility rests squarely on wealthy industrialized nations to own up to our historical role in causing the climate crisis and make the first move. And legally, developed countries have an obligation to direct financial and technical support to developing nations to enable them to shift to low-carbon growth pathways.
But our government says it can't get out ahead of Congress and commit to anything internationally until lawmakers pass a domestic climate bill. Meanwhile, Congress says it's waiting for the White House to send the right signals before pushing hard on targets and climate finance for poorer countries.
So instead of leading on climate, as he'd promised to do in campaign speeches, Obama's administration has called for each country-rich or poor-to simply pledge its individual domestic climate commitment. This "bottom-up" approach, as U.S. negotiators call it, sounds like a grassroots effort, but in reality it means that countries will offer up as little as they think is politically feasible, a global cap on greenhouse gases that keeps us safe be damned.
If Obama misses the mark on climate change this December it won't just hurt people in countries like the Maldives-an island nation that's likely to disappear under the Indian Ocean before the end of the century. It puts those of us who put Obama in power at risk, too. Without a strong global deal, low-income communities and communities of color, which are most vulnerable to climate impacts, will begin to feel the brunt of coastal flooding, more extreme weather events, water scarcity and costlier food. Our workers will be at a disadvantage as green energy sectors in other parts of the world are bolstered by their governments while the United States lags behind. And our children and their children will suffer, thanks to the short-term vision of business-as-usual in Washington.
What we need Obama to do now is direct his administration to negotiate a just, binding, and effective deal in Copenhagen, with emissions cuts from developed countries of at least 45% by 2020 from 1990 levels. And we need the United States to take the lead in creating a Global Climate Fund under the authority of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change that supports the just transition to low-carbon economies in developing countries.
I believe that Obama, like the country he leads, can still make a change for the better.
This article was distributed by Minuteman Media.

Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
16 Comments so far
Show AllObama channels Dana Carvey's George the First.
"Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture".
Joe
t_g
Not sure if signing those treaties means much. The newly elected Australian Labor government of "Fair Shake of the Sauce Bottle" Kevin Rudd signed the treaty in Bali last year, but they have expanded uranium mining up in the Northern Territory, almost in the world heritage listed Kakadu National Park, on sacred Aboriginal land, also in South Australia, then all the coal mining, all that bloody mining that yes, gives us relative prosperity, but at what cost for our future??
Also, there was a huge oil leak just off the Western Australian coast for about two months. You think they did something constructive? The media did report it, sorta buried on the sixth page in a small article in the middle of the page. The government kept telling us that it's no big deal. Then the whole damn rig caught fire and they admitted that the spill was like a couple of hundred Sydney harbours (if I remember correctly).
Also, read this and weep: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/05/2734579.htm?site=idx-wa
Don't really know if signing some treaty helps things along. Anyone remembers what treaties Hitler signed? Did he give a toss about them?
But I am no pessimist despite all the above. Go Obama and sign it! Do us all a favour and at least show some leadership!
cheers from Down Under
I highly recommend today's news article, "Thousands vote for community bill of rights"!
Now it's called "Spokane considers community bill of rights"
A. S. t_g,
Bien! Vous êtte ici maintenant. "My, people come and go so quickly around here!" (Dorothy, Wizard of Oz)
Regarding the climate treaty, here we go with another round of "Rhetoric versus Reality", otherwise known as Goliath versus David. Come on, Davey, you're supposed to win one of these! Okay, load up that stone one more time...
The basic problem is that we, as a species, are now facing global problems without any intrenational institutions that are empowered to analyze them adequately and deal with them effectively. Thus, we are forced to rely upon relatively impotent ad hoc agreements (international treaties) to try to foster cooperative solutions.
Don't get me wrong, I do LOVE treaties--it's just that in the vulnerable period of their development, they are too easily influenced by the most powerful political players on the international scene, the transnational corporations.
That's what is happening here. Too much organized economic interest is outweighing too little organized environmental interest. The corporations are still playing the same game (Grab the Loot) by the same rules--without realizing (and/or without caring) that both the game and the rules have changed.
Obama is, unfortunately, a corporate "yes man"--though many of us would prefer that he act more like the dissident "Yes Men" (Google, if unfamiliar) and really show some decent leadership on this urgent global issue.
Come on, Barack, pull out the corporate wire and plug in the common sense wire while we still have time to make a difference!
Thanks for the tip about this article, Aussie Sheila. Recommendations are welcome any time!
I would like to believe that President Obama will do the right thing but that is like still believing in the tooth fairy at age 51. I would like to believe that President Obama really cares and is serious about fighting the effects of Climate Change but that is like still believing in the Easter Bunny at age 51.
I just don't see him delivering on his promise for real change. I see more of the same ole same ole. I see promises made but not being kept.
Yes, we are playing Russian Roulette and someday we are going to loose as we finally get the bullet.
Except the UN just said there won't be a climate deal at Copenhagen.
How about, now make a climate deal, Obama?
Signing a deal and then following through with Nuclear and Coal is nothing more than a sell out. Sure, a deal needs to be advanced but with some bite for those who fail to enact it. That has been the problem from the start.
Here's a better idea. Bring back van Jones and get the GREEN JOBS project running at full throttle instead. The emissions cuts will be taken care of automatically. Otherwise, government must step aside !
Amen on Van Jones.
Glenn Beck didn't like Van Jones.
Obama makes sure he pleases Glenn Beck before he pleases you.
The best we can hope for is that Obama doesn't get rid of any of the other progressive minds like Liz Warren and Sheila Bair.
Ugh, don't remind me. It's my job to monitor Glenn Beck's radio show. You have no idea how pissed off I was when Beck edplaying Van Jones' keynote speech from Powershift '09, which I attended and listened to, on his show to "prove" he wanted to destroy America. Van Jones' dismissal was the final straw in my support for Obama. I plan to actively campaign for an opponent of his in 2012, if I do any campaigning.
Well put. Just cuz the provenly out-to-lunch rightwingers targetted Jones for his 'communism' was no reason for this administration to prove it didn't have a backbone. Jones was the VERY reason for the DNC's massive win a year ago: he is the very CHANGE they spoke about. Of course he's a leftist and wants things to tilt left, but he was hired for Green Jobs, which was his expertise, and ObamaCo showed they haven't got the backbone to maintain their focus on this issue. The only way they can correct this is to BRING HIM BACK. If they don't they will alienate the right (which were alienated anyway the moment Obama was elected) AND the left (which they DARE not alienate).
Unfortunately, I think they do dare alienate us. Paul Krugman has been noting this lately, and has referenced "Sarah Palin's second term" in some of his future economic predictions.
Can't we get an "or else" appended to these articles? With details?
More pretty words from Obama.
That's all he is good for.
The US will do nothing, and thereby prevent any real chance of emission control, because no one else will move until the US does, and the US is not going to give up any of it's (rapidly disappearing) economic clout.
It's like the entire world is playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded pistol.