Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mr Obama, Here's Your Copenhagen Speech
Only one person can now rescue these climate talks. This is the speech to turn shambles to triumph
"Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone in this room is confronted by voices urging us not to act. There are those whose immediate interests would be damaged by the action we need to take. There are those who do not wish to confront the uncomfortable truths we must discuss. But the threat of climate breakdown transcends the usual political demands.
"All those of us who are elected to high office dream of a time when we might do what is right, rather than what is expedient. All of us dream of being statesmen rather than mere politicians. But when those opportunities arrive, all too often we duck them. There are too many political favours to return, too many powerful interests to appease. We cannot allow this to be one of those occasions.
"Most of us have agreed on the ultimate goal: to prevent more than two degrees centigrade of global warming. But it should not be left to the poorer nations to remind the rich world of what its own scientists say. Even the most ambitious cuts the wealthy nations have proposed cannot meet our goal. They are likely instead to deliver three or four degrees of warming, threatening many of the world's people.
"So I have come here to propose two policies which could meet the challenge our scientists have identified. This is the first. I hereby commit the United States to cutting greenhouse gases by 50% against our 1990 levels by 2020. I commit to this cut regardless of what other nations might do, but I urge you to compete with me to exceed it. We should be striving to outbid each other, not to undercut each other.
"I recognise, however, that even this measure cannot guarantee that we stay within the two-degree limit. Eventual global temperatures will be set by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The best scientific estimate is that we can afford to burn a maximum of 60% of the carbon stored in the world's current reserves of fossil fuels. A safer proportion would be 40%.
"When I arrive home I will commission a taskforce to identify which of the fossil fuel reserves of the United States will be left in the ground. I will commission a second taskforce to identify the conservation and renewable energy projects needed to cover the gap.
"These policies will present the United States with a formidable challenge. But my country, with its great wealth and deep reserves of ingenuity and enterprise, is better placed to respond than any other. When the United States entered the second world war, it was unprepared for the challenge presented by its enemies. But within six months we turned the economy around to meet it. By the middle of 1942, more than 1,000 automobile plants in the United States had been converted to manufacture weapons. Ford was soon turning out a B24 bomber every 63 minutes, GM took just 90 days from a standing start to begin the mass production of amphibious vehicles.
"Today a similar technological revolution is required. Just as in 1941, we can rise to it, but, with the benefit of modern methods and materials, even more quickly. No longer will the United States, which has long been in the forefront of every one of the world's technological revolutions, be left behind in the most important race of all.
"The transformation I have announced today will not be painless. Some people will lose their jobs, some companies will lose the value of investments they have made. But, as with all such revolutions, this is likely to create more jobs than it destroys.
"I have no illusions about the resistance these proposals will encounter. This will be the political battle of my life. But I know it is a battle worth fighting. If I duck it, future generations will never forgive me, just as they will not forgive anyone in this room for failing to rise to our greatest challenge. This is the battle we owe to our children and to their children. This is the time to do not what is expedient, but what is right."
Can he do it? We should hope so. There won't be another chance like this one.
- Posted in
43 Comments so far
Show AllCluck his Fopenhagen speech! He wouldn't mean a word of it In ANY EVENT!
"Can he do it? We SHOULD HOPE so."
This article is stupid.
Does the author also believe in fairies and unicorns?
If Mr. Monbiot will start writing some new speeches for Adolf Hitler, maybe we will be able to stop World War II.
This is a David and Goliath moment and when we need to feed David, Mr. Monbiot is writing a speech for Goliath.
The whole Demok establishment has chartered itself to the feeding of Goliath.
"There are too many political favours to return, too many powerful interests to appease." George Monbiot
George answers his own question "can he do it?"
Is our demand and overconsumption responsible for climate change: polluted water, air and land?
"In terms of immediacy of action...reducing meat consumption clearly is the most attractive opportunity."
Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, UN Chair on Climate Change
Defensiveness and clinging to old, bad habits is not going to help our environment.
Farmed livestock contributes 40% more to climate change than entire transport (cars, trains, ships, planes, trucks) according to a recent UN study.
Are we really doing everything we can or are we just content to complain and wait for others to rescue us?
98% of soy crops and 756 million tons of grain and corn per year are fed to farmed animals.
If you really want to do your part and not just complain, put down the cheeseburger.
Sue, you said it! I've been reading this month's "Notebook" in Harpers, which talks about how to get manufacturing back in the U.S. Same issue. It's people mindlessly stuffing their houses with the cheapest junk they can find and their faces with the easiest food. There could be a revolution of non-consumption and mindful eating. It has to be socially contagious. It won't begin with a speech from a Wall Street supported politician. Westerners could begin by seeing Christmas shopping as obscene. I'm making noise with my site about scaling back one's diet.
"Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options" is a report by the UN FAO, that came out in 2006 - a full 3 years ago. It mentioned that 18% of GHG can be attributed to livestock raising, and there were other major environmental and social impacts too. It's strange that this report did not get the kind of spotlight it deserves - because it puts great power directly at the hands of the individual and families to reduce GHG emissions, even as we cut down the emissions in other sectors - for which collective action and policy changes are needed. The amount of resources (land, water, foodgrains) used in the production of livestock has been mentioned by other more popular books ("Diet for a New America" by John Robbis - 1987 and "Beyond Beef" by Jeremy Rifkin - 1993) but this report was an official UN report and it clearly mentions the implications for climate change. The report itself - either in full or in parts are available for download:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
riiiight.
some good Obama speechifying will save the day!
Just like his jaw waging already single handedly ended racism in the world, and provided universal health care to the USA.
not
If Obama intended on making that kind of speech, he wouldn't have been selected to run for president.
So what Mr. Monbiot has actually written is the type of speech that leads to triage - vetting.
"You say this, you're back to scrubbing pans in community kitchens."
Dream on.
He ain't going anyway.
The same folks always willing to give Obama a pass--after they make a case against him, are always lecturing the Left about how they should get their act together and do what, I don't know.
But before anything can happen, there can not be these MIXED MESSAGES, clinging to hope against hope and pleading and begging, projecting fantasies ( portraying Obama as someone he has proven himself not to be)- despite the long and growing list of evidence to the contrary. How much more will it take---because it is you sabotaging the goal by coddling, apologizing for, excusing and projecting some fantasy of who you wish Obama would be--and not facing the reality of who he is and what he is ramming through while you wander in a fog, pleading for time.
Now it may be unpopular here, but credit due for credit earned by Howard Dean who called the tune--and credit due to Keith Olbermann, who, in his special comment last night, concluded that he would NOT pay the reguired mandate to the Insurance cartels.
Obama's speech going to be more like this:
"I wasn't elected president to upset any apple carts. I'm sure everybody everywhere can get what they want. There's plenty of room for us all at the table, and nobody should have to do without. Especially those of us with armies to support our economic desires."
It will be another shining moment for the US.
Meanwhile, the murder of the planet goes on unchecked.
Great article. It seems a faint hope, given Mr. Obama's performance on economic reform, but still, a great article. This is one of the levers that can move the world--the biggest, richest, most polluting country changing direction. Here's hopin'...
Damn, my alarm clock just went off!
Hit the snooze button. Enjoy it for a few more moments.
Why would anyone trust any treaty the U.S. signs?
In the past ten years alone we've trashed the Geneva Conventions, the Conventions against Torture, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights etc. etc.
It's better that Obama doesn't sign any treaty as he'd only take it home and burn it for fuel.
Well why not?
The Constitution has already been reduced to ash.
Monbiot isn't a fool expecting a speech like this to be given.
He is attempting to say what we all feel needs to be said.
Geeze, why do so many insist on throwing darts?
"Monbiot isn't a fool ...
He is attempting to say what we all feel needs to be said."
It's more like dark heavy political humor. Let's face it, if BO actually gave the speeches that should be given, we'd have our hopes raised, then dashed again because he wouldn't mean it and he wouldn't do it. I guess we should be grateful that BO is constrained from saying progressive humane things because he would then displease the PTB. He's thus prevented from lying more openly and fooling us more completely than he already is. There's a weird honesty at work here; BO cannot say the things he should say - things he doesn't believe in and doesn't want to do anyway. Better that he appear more as he really is which is the situation we have now.
He creates an impossible scenario by projecting it on Obama.
It creates the sinking realization of a lost cause.
Is that what you want?
While I may agree with the factual basis for most of the negative comments here, there is no harm in wishing. Maybe one of his speechwriters reads it and picks up something. Maybe President Obama realizes that he has small children of his own and that they are more important than his political career. Ease up. Mr. Monbiot is doing his best to help, and for a rich guy that is - sadly - unique.
Yes, there is harm in wishing because it is a form of denial.
Would you give Bush the cover of wishing for a better outcome despite the evidence?
What.will.it.take?
and while some are...dithering, hoping, dreaming, pleading, praying, avoiding--that is when they ram through the worsed of it---becausesome just can't face up to the ugly truth.
Obama makes that speech the moment after he arrives on a flying pig.
In the last campaign he would tell whoppers like that, but now he sticks to more conventional presidential deceptions and obfuscations that are usually prepared in a cooperative effort with the corporate oligarchs he serves (e.g., his climate speeches probably get some input from, and require the approval of, Exxon-Mobil). I do not expect any more such whoppers until the next presidential campaign.
actually the only way Obama will ever take a stand like this is because the Yes Men claimed to be speaking for him.
Do yourself a favor. Organize against Obama in 2012, and any Obama-friendly Dems in 2010. Ally yourself with a third party or establishment outsiders like Mike Gravel. Writing letters like this is waste of time, a waste of effort, and only fuels the fairy tale that the corporate establishment responds to open letters and fanciful speeches.
As long as you lesser-of-two evils Obama apologists continue to propagate the fairy tale that "holding his feet to the fire" is the only choice we have, you will continue to enable the destruction of America. Obama isn't listening to you. And he never was.
Next time, support a candidate with integrity so you don't have to write make believe speeches to come to terms with your own moral dilemma for having supported somebody who doesn't share the same values as you.
Um, Senator Gravel is a Democrat. One of the best. As such he must realize that a vote for a third party is a vote for Repug troglodytes to take over again.
Instead of turning the country over to Repugs, we could be pushing to get money out of politics, public financing of campaigns, IRV, proportional representation, Mike Gravel's initiative and referendum proposals and other democratic electoral reforms. Then we would be free to vote for whatever third party we want without letting the devils in through the back door.
Um, in case you missed it, Mike Gravel got fed up with the Democrats and switched to the Libertarian Party.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/303696
"I'm joining the Libertarian Party because it is a party that combines a commitment to freedom and peace that can't be found in the two major parties that control the government and politics of America," declared Gravel, who was elected to the Senate in 1968 and served two terms before his defeat in a 1980 Democratic primary. "My libertarian views, as well as my strong stance against war, the military industrial complex and American imperialism, seem not to be tolerated by Democratic Party elites who are out of touch with the average American; elites that reject the empowerment of American citizens I offered to the Democratic Party at the beginning of this presidential campaign with the National Initiative for Democracy."
He was an establishment outsider, which is why the Democratic Party establishment marginalized him. Anybody who watches this happen over and over, be it with Mike Gravel by the Dems or Ron Paul by the Republicans needs to understand that it's not left vs. right, it's the people vs. the establishment.
Whatever Monbiot is smoking..I want some!
Obama can save himself the inconvenience of going to Copenhagen. Clinton said it all today. I'm paraphrasing: go f**k yourselves everybody, but here is some money we could promise to give poor countries (which of course doesn't mean they will get it). Having a habitable planet is not a vital interest of the United States. So there.
My jaw dropped when I heard that. What it amounts to is:
"We're not going to do shit about our emissions. What we will do is pay the elites of third world countries to shut up about it. Everybody will continue as usual for a while longer. When the shit hits the fan those of us with money will try to shelter ourselves from the consequences."
Mind-boggling cynicism.
I dimly remember a speech in which President Ronald Ray-Gun asked his audience to imagine how quickly the U.S. and Soviet Union would put their differences behind them and train their sights on an extra-planetary existential threat, should one present itself. (I'm afraid I don't remember his point, nor can I conjure it up by inference.)
A little over two decades later, we're facing that kind of problem (only it's not extra-planetary), and we see the answer to Mr. Ray-Gun's hypothetical scenario.
If that scenario had actually occured, the USA would have made deals with both parties against each other, with the intention of using the alien spacships to obliterate the Solviets, and visa-versa
"I've felt a lot better since I gave up hope."
Woody Allen
Can dinosaurs hold a conference and reach the conclusion that they must transform themselves into birds in order to survive ...?
Will the T-Rex, who arrives at the last day, set a good example?
scribe,
Their eyes will continue to glaze over unless and until you can offer them a hopeful and realistic alternative. Try referring them to:
http://vortexengine.ca/Publications/India_Article.pdf
vortex engine is a good idea. And there are plenty more out there (yes, I support nuclear too). But Hansens point is well taken. Raise warming above a certain, unknown degree, and natural chemical positive feedbacks (notably methane) will take the planet to a place no human would ever knowingly want to go. As uncertain as GW is, methane feedbacks are even MORE uncertain. We'll just have to wait and see. And keep telling our loved ones, what we know, in the hopes that they might see, what we see.
Understanding "climate science"? You mean that cobbled mess done with computer programs to churn out the graphs that sell your agenda? James Hansen got caught using the data of a previous month that created the critical analysis that he needed to sell the anthropogenic global warming hoax.
Still pushing the global warming propaganda after the expose' of the data manipulation revealed in the code for the famous "hockey stick" graph brandished by the warmist alarmists?!!
Still waving oil company association to broad brush the global warming skeptics as "deniers" after the Hadley Climate Research Unit emails have exposed the funding of the warmist religion by big oil? The global warming alarmists had been claiming that scientists skeptical of their work must of necessity be in the pay of Big Oil and Big Coal…their own emails have exposed the support the global warming “consensus” was receiving from the Big Energy corporations.
Still making Scientific claims that derived from a very unscientific arm twisting and politicking by the warmists at University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit and their refusal to release their computer code to their peers wishing to check their work?!!! Now we can understand why they stonewalled, refusing to allow other scientists examine their data and their computer model. Buried in the source code are the programmer’s notes that reveal the bias that was inserted into the code to yield the politically correct result. That bias forecloses any further talk of scientific computer modeling by these climate “scientists.”
Segalstad thoroughly exposed the dogma that many people call “climate science” in Carbon cycle modelling and CO2. Inserting personal bias into data interpretation by selecting data sets that fit a political agenda is NOT science. Yet, this has occurred repeatedly in the assembly of the current Global Warming dogma:
“Callendar (1938) revived the hypothesis of "Greenhouse Warming" due to Man's activity, proposed by Arrhenius (1896). Callendar may truly be regarded as the father of the current dogma on man-induced global warming (Jaworowski et al., 1992 b). In order to support his hypothesis, Callendar (1940, 1958) selected atmospheric CO2 data from the 19th and 20th centuries. Fonselius et al. (1956) showed that the raw data ranged randomly between about 250 and 550 ppmv (parts per million by volume) during this time period, but by selecting the data carefully Callendar was able to present a steadily rising trend from about 290 ppmv for the period 1866 - 1900, to 325 ppmv in 1956.” http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/Global_Warming_Myth/carbon_cycle_modeling_and_CO2.htm
We’ve seen the coverup of the historical Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age by the UN’s IPCC ( IPCC Hockey Stick A New Low in Climate Science ) after it was shown by a high-resolution examination of the ice cores that the temperature rises preceded CO2 increases by several hundred years. Rather than CO2 increases leading to temperature increases, the facts showed the opposite relationship. http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/Global_Warming_Myth/hockey_stick.htm
We've finally seen the proof of duplicity and dishonesty by the so-called scientists who promote Anthropogenic Global Warming through the UN's environmental propaganda arm, the IPCC, set up not to discover scientific truth but to gather information to support a political strategy. Someone has blown the whistle on this nefarious affair to massage science to create a bludgeon to push a globalist agenda. Now we can watch to see who are the players in this game and whether they have been HAD by the HADley Climate Research Unit and its partners in crime such as Michael Mann and Kenneth Trenberth.
Now we can see the true face of media as we watch a massive coverup and mangling of the facts for the benefit of globalism and its shadowy power elite.
Philip Jones was very worried about that Medieval Warming Period because it is so hard to change an established historical event. Any reminder that the warming in the Middle Ages permitted surplus food production, civilization began to flourish, and the sea and ocean levels did not wipe out the bustling metropolises along the coasts. It was warmer than in this past century and the people of the world thrived. And there weren't internal combustion engines burning "fossil" fuels to boost the CO2 levels. The programmers at the Hadley Climate Research Unit were very conscious of manipulating the data so that it would present the proper message. Such are the "scientists who all agree" and represent the “consensus” claimed by the globalists who have changed environmentalism into another religion that they can wield as an "authority" in their propaganda machine.
http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda/New_World_Order/9-11_and_global_warming%20_hoax_expose_propaganda.htm
Mother Jones comments 12/16/09 to Revolving Door: Climate Change
Come on Obama. Your fridge is full. Your family's gorgeous. All you got left is posterity. Will you be a hero or just the guano encrusted head of a statue finny future children tie their boats to?
Just as it's clear that Obama can "do it", it's equally clear that he has no reason to seriously address global warming - anymore than he has a reason to impliment universal health care, financial reform and economic stimulus or card check. He's clearly open to pressure, but no one is applying it except the class with all the money and property, and all they want him to do is stall for time while the cash register keeps ringing. No one can give him a reason except us, and we can't do that until we organize independently of the Democratic and Republican parties and build a social movement for fundamental change - the kind we can believe in. The kind of leadership we need can only emerge from the social movment we organize, and once the movement has created a public forum for its demands our own leadership will read all the great speeches they can produce, but more importantly we'll be in a position to actually split the elite and their political representatives and force consessions that are now "off the table".
No one is going to build this movment for us, so maybe we should spend a little less time bitching on blogs and a little more time learning how to organize.
All the saviors of the world are gathering up, eh, proclaiming salvation is at hand, just believe, and the great savior will make a great speech and all will be well! What a bunch of freaking children!
It isn't going to happen--and it shouldn't happen. We aren't going to have a brand-new makeover of the world. Whatever happens is going to happen little by little, piecemeal, with many trials and errors.
The poorer countries already know that they're on their own, that as soon as it suits the convenience of the great satan it will forget about any help it may have promised.
We don't need any deal. If the US wants to save humanity, then do it by itself. Show us the way. Heal thyself, physician! (But we all know that nothing will be done unless it entails lots of dinero in the pockets of the banksters and goresters and warmsters, so calm down and take your prozac.)
Agreed. Speeches by our "saviors" or world leaders are typically filled with empty rhetoric.
We do need to heal ourselves. Patient, heal thyself.
So let's get started. The US is made up of people, not politicians.
We need to drive the change and reduce our consumption that feeds the supply we demand.
"In terms of immediacy of action..reducing meat consumption clearly is the most attractive opportunity". Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, UN Chair on Climate Change
Are we letting go of our defensiveness and old, bad habits and putting down the cheeseburger?
Or is it easier for us to just complain and wait for our "leaders" to save us?
If we are progressives, we are fluid and critical thinkers and when we need to change, we change.
Or do we?
"Yes We Can!" (Get a black man elected president)
All Obama is is an empty suit. He makes speeches.
He doesn't care a hoot about the environment. He is a corporatist and stands on their interests alone. We elected him on the "change" platform hoping that somehow he would change anything from the dismal bush era. He did. He changed from wasting our money in Iraq to wasting our money in Afghanistan.
During bush's 8 years he said the word "Iraq" 12x more than "America".
In Obama's single year, he's said the word "Afghanistan" 8x more than "America".
Obama is not the one. It's a waste of time to try to talk sense into him, same as bush.
No, President Obama didn't say anything like this. Of course.
Because most Americans would love this speech, George's article begs the electoral and constitutional question of our time:
How can we change our US political system so legislators, our President, and our judges are mirrors of and microcosms of The People, making public policy reflect and emerge from public opinion?
Many nations have achieved this: Sweden, Germany, New Zealand, and more, with modern constitutions and modern electoral systems. It is up to American progressives to answer this question and to propose a clear path for how to achieve a more modern democracy.
The problem is not with Obama per se, he is the result of the electoral system. The problem is the system. The solution is the answer to the above question.
Who has a plan? Anyone?