To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
So that's it. The world's worst polluters - the people who are drastically
altering the climate - gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were
going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings.
They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying
islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives.
So that's it. The world's worst polluters - the people who are drastically
altering the climate - gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were
going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings.
They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying
islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives.
Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't surprised. Every
day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of
warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and
protesters - and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of
North America and Europe.
It's worth recounting a few of the ideas that were summarily dismissed -
because when the world finally resolves to find a real solution, we will
have to revive them.
Discarded Idea One: The International Environmental Court. Any cuts that
leaders claim they would like as a result of Copenhagen will be purely
voluntary. If a government decides not to follow them, nothing will happen,
except a mild blush, and disastrous warming. Canada signed up to cut its
emissions at Kyoto, and then increased them by 26 per cent - and there were
no consequences. Copenhagen could unleash a hundred Canadas.
The brave, articulate Bolivian delegates - who have seen their glaciers melt
at a terrifying pace - objected. They said if countries are serious about
reducing emissions, their cuts need to be policed by an International
Environmental Court that has the power to punish people. This is hardly
impractical. When our leaders and their corporate lobbies really care about
an issue - say, on trade - they pool their sovereignty this way in a second.
The World Trade Organisation fines and sanctions nations severely if (say)
they don't follow strict copyright laws. Is a safe climate less important
than a trademark?
Discarded Idea Two: Leave the fossil fuels in the ground. At meetings here, an
extraordinary piece of hypocrisy has been pointed out by the new
international chair of Friends of the Earth, Nnimmo Bassey, and the
environmental writer George Monbiot. The governments of the world say they
want drastically to cut their use of fossil fuels, yet at the same time they
are enthusiastically digging up any fossil fuels they can find, and hunting
for more. They are holding a fire extinguisher in one hand and a
flame-thrower in the other.
Only one of these instincts can prevail. A study published earlier this year
in the journal Nature showed that we can use only - at an absolute maximum -
60 per cent of all the oil, coal and gas we have already discovered if we
are going to stay the right side of catastrophic runaway warming. So the
first step in any rational climate deal would be an immediate moratorium on
searching for more fossil fuels, and fair plans for how to decide which of
the existing stock we will leave unused. As Bassey put it: "Keep the
coal in the hole. Keep the oil in the soil. Keep the tar sand in the land."
This option wasn't even discussed by our leaders.
Discarded Idea Three: Climate debt. The rich world has been responsible for 70
per cent of the warming gases in the atmosphere - yet 70 per cent of the
effects are being felt in the developing world. Holland can build vast dykes
to prevent its land flooding; Bangladesh can only drown. There is a cruel
inverse relationship between cause and effect: the polluter doesn't pay.
So we have racked up a climate debt. We broke it; they paid. At this summit,
for the first time, the poor countries rose in disgust. Their chief
negotiator pointed out that the compensation offered "won't even pay
for the coffins". The cliche that environmentalism is a rich person's
ideology just gasped its final CO2-rich breath. As Naomi Klein put it: "At
this summit, the pole of environmentalism has moved south."
When we are dividing up who has the right to emit the few remaining warming
gases that the atmosphere can absorb, we need to realise that we are badly
overdrawn. We have used up our share of warming gases, and then some. Yet
the US and EU have dismissed the idea of climate debt out of hand. How can
we get a lasting deal that every country agrees to if we ignore this basic
principle of justice? Why should the poorest restrain themselves when the
rich refuse to?
A deal based on these real ideas would actually cool the atmosphere. The
alternatives championed at Copenhagen by the rich world - carbon offsetting,
carbon trading, carbon capture - won't. They are a global placebo. The
critics who say the real solutions are "unrealistic" don't seem to
realise that their alternative is more implausible still: civilisation
continuing merrily on a planet whose natural processes are rapidly breaking
down.
Throughout the negotiations here, the world's low-lying island states have
clung to the real ideas as a life raft, because they are the only way to
save their countries from a swelling sea. It has been extraordinary to watch
their representatives - quiet, sombre people with sad eyes - as they were
forced to plead for their own existence. They tried persuasion and hard
science and lyrical hymns of love for their lands, and all were ignored.
These discarded ideas - and dozens more like them - show once again that
man-made global warming can be stopped. The intellectual blueprints exist
just as surely as the technological blueprints. There would be sacrifices,
yes - but they are considerably less than the sacrifices made by our
grandparents in their greatest fight.
We will have to pay higher taxes and fly less to make the leap to a renewably
powered world - but we will still be able to live an abundant life where we
are warm and free and well fed. The only real losers will be the fossil fuel
corporations and the petro-dictatorships.
But our politicians have not chosen this sane path. No: they have chosen
inertia and low taxes and oil money today over survival tomorrow. The true
face of our current system - and of Copenhagen - can be seen in the
life-saving ideas it has so casually tossed into the bin.
'You can watch Johann explaining some of the appalling loopholes being
smuggled into the Copenhagen treaty here
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
So that's it. The world's worst polluters - the people who are drastically
altering the climate - gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were
going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings.
They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying
islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives.
Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't surprised. Every
day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of
warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and
protesters - and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of
North America and Europe.
It's worth recounting a few of the ideas that were summarily dismissed -
because when the world finally resolves to find a real solution, we will
have to revive them.
Discarded Idea One: The International Environmental Court. Any cuts that
leaders claim they would like as a result of Copenhagen will be purely
voluntary. If a government decides not to follow them, nothing will happen,
except a mild blush, and disastrous warming. Canada signed up to cut its
emissions at Kyoto, and then increased them by 26 per cent - and there were
no consequences. Copenhagen could unleash a hundred Canadas.
The brave, articulate Bolivian delegates - who have seen their glaciers melt
at a terrifying pace - objected. They said if countries are serious about
reducing emissions, their cuts need to be policed by an International
Environmental Court that has the power to punish people. This is hardly
impractical. When our leaders and their corporate lobbies really care about
an issue - say, on trade - they pool their sovereignty this way in a second.
The World Trade Organisation fines and sanctions nations severely if (say)
they don't follow strict copyright laws. Is a safe climate less important
than a trademark?
Discarded Idea Two: Leave the fossil fuels in the ground. At meetings here, an
extraordinary piece of hypocrisy has been pointed out by the new
international chair of Friends of the Earth, Nnimmo Bassey, and the
environmental writer George Monbiot. The governments of the world say they
want drastically to cut their use of fossil fuels, yet at the same time they
are enthusiastically digging up any fossil fuels they can find, and hunting
for more. They are holding a fire extinguisher in one hand and a
flame-thrower in the other.
Only one of these instincts can prevail. A study published earlier this year
in the journal Nature showed that we can use only - at an absolute maximum -
60 per cent of all the oil, coal and gas we have already discovered if we
are going to stay the right side of catastrophic runaway warming. So the
first step in any rational climate deal would be an immediate moratorium on
searching for more fossil fuels, and fair plans for how to decide which of
the existing stock we will leave unused. As Bassey put it: "Keep the
coal in the hole. Keep the oil in the soil. Keep the tar sand in the land."
This option wasn't even discussed by our leaders.
Discarded Idea Three: Climate debt. The rich world has been responsible for 70
per cent of the warming gases in the atmosphere - yet 70 per cent of the
effects are being felt in the developing world. Holland can build vast dykes
to prevent its land flooding; Bangladesh can only drown. There is a cruel
inverse relationship between cause and effect: the polluter doesn't pay.
So we have racked up a climate debt. We broke it; they paid. At this summit,
for the first time, the poor countries rose in disgust. Their chief
negotiator pointed out that the compensation offered "won't even pay
for the coffins". The cliche that environmentalism is a rich person's
ideology just gasped its final CO2-rich breath. As Naomi Klein put it: "At
this summit, the pole of environmentalism has moved south."
When we are dividing up who has the right to emit the few remaining warming
gases that the atmosphere can absorb, we need to realise that we are badly
overdrawn. We have used up our share of warming gases, and then some. Yet
the US and EU have dismissed the idea of climate debt out of hand. How can
we get a lasting deal that every country agrees to if we ignore this basic
principle of justice? Why should the poorest restrain themselves when the
rich refuse to?
A deal based on these real ideas would actually cool the atmosphere. The
alternatives championed at Copenhagen by the rich world - carbon offsetting,
carbon trading, carbon capture - won't. They are a global placebo. The
critics who say the real solutions are "unrealistic" don't seem to
realise that their alternative is more implausible still: civilisation
continuing merrily on a planet whose natural processes are rapidly breaking
down.
Throughout the negotiations here, the world's low-lying island states have
clung to the real ideas as a life raft, because they are the only way to
save their countries from a swelling sea. It has been extraordinary to watch
their representatives - quiet, sombre people with sad eyes - as they were
forced to plead for their own existence. They tried persuasion and hard
science and lyrical hymns of love for their lands, and all were ignored.
These discarded ideas - and dozens more like them - show once again that
man-made global warming can be stopped. The intellectual blueprints exist
just as surely as the technological blueprints. There would be sacrifices,
yes - but they are considerably less than the sacrifices made by our
grandparents in their greatest fight.
We will have to pay higher taxes and fly less to make the leap to a renewably
powered world - but we will still be able to live an abundant life where we
are warm and free and well fed. The only real losers will be the fossil fuel
corporations and the petro-dictatorships.
But our politicians have not chosen this sane path. No: they have chosen
inertia and low taxes and oil money today over survival tomorrow. The true
face of our current system - and of Copenhagen - can be seen in the
life-saving ideas it has so casually tossed into the bin.
'You can watch Johann explaining some of the appalling loopholes being
smuggled into the Copenhagen treaty here
So that's it. The world's worst polluters - the people who are drastically
altering the climate - gathered here in Copenhagen to announce they were
going to carry on cooking, in defiance of all the scientific warnings.
They didn't seal the deal; they sealed the coffin for the world's low-lying
islands, its glaciers, its North Pole, and millions of lives.
Those of us who watched this conference with open eyes aren't surprised. Every
day, practical, intelligent solutions that would cut our emissions of
warming gases have been offered by scientists, developing countries and
protesters - and they have been systematically vetoed by the governments of
North America and Europe.
It's worth recounting a few of the ideas that were summarily dismissed -
because when the world finally resolves to find a real solution, we will
have to revive them.
Discarded Idea One: The International Environmental Court. Any cuts that
leaders claim they would like as a result of Copenhagen will be purely
voluntary. If a government decides not to follow them, nothing will happen,
except a mild blush, and disastrous warming. Canada signed up to cut its
emissions at Kyoto, and then increased them by 26 per cent - and there were
no consequences. Copenhagen could unleash a hundred Canadas.
The brave, articulate Bolivian delegates - who have seen their glaciers melt
at a terrifying pace - objected. They said if countries are serious about
reducing emissions, their cuts need to be policed by an International
Environmental Court that has the power to punish people. This is hardly
impractical. When our leaders and their corporate lobbies really care about
an issue - say, on trade - they pool their sovereignty this way in a second.
The World Trade Organisation fines and sanctions nations severely if (say)
they don't follow strict copyright laws. Is a safe climate less important
than a trademark?
Discarded Idea Two: Leave the fossil fuels in the ground. At meetings here, an
extraordinary piece of hypocrisy has been pointed out by the new
international chair of Friends of the Earth, Nnimmo Bassey, and the
environmental writer George Monbiot. The governments of the world say they
want drastically to cut their use of fossil fuels, yet at the same time they
are enthusiastically digging up any fossil fuels they can find, and hunting
for more. They are holding a fire extinguisher in one hand and a
flame-thrower in the other.
Only one of these instincts can prevail. A study published earlier this year
in the journal Nature showed that we can use only - at an absolute maximum -
60 per cent of all the oil, coal and gas we have already discovered if we
are going to stay the right side of catastrophic runaway warming. So the
first step in any rational climate deal would be an immediate moratorium on
searching for more fossil fuels, and fair plans for how to decide which of
the existing stock we will leave unused. As Bassey put it: "Keep the
coal in the hole. Keep the oil in the soil. Keep the tar sand in the land."
This option wasn't even discussed by our leaders.
Discarded Idea Three: Climate debt. The rich world has been responsible for 70
per cent of the warming gases in the atmosphere - yet 70 per cent of the
effects are being felt in the developing world. Holland can build vast dykes
to prevent its land flooding; Bangladesh can only drown. There is a cruel
inverse relationship between cause and effect: the polluter doesn't pay.
So we have racked up a climate debt. We broke it; they paid. At this summit,
for the first time, the poor countries rose in disgust. Their chief
negotiator pointed out that the compensation offered "won't even pay
for the coffins". The cliche that environmentalism is a rich person's
ideology just gasped its final CO2-rich breath. As Naomi Klein put it: "At
this summit, the pole of environmentalism has moved south."
When we are dividing up who has the right to emit the few remaining warming
gases that the atmosphere can absorb, we need to realise that we are badly
overdrawn. We have used up our share of warming gases, and then some. Yet
the US and EU have dismissed the idea of climate debt out of hand. How can
we get a lasting deal that every country agrees to if we ignore this basic
principle of justice? Why should the poorest restrain themselves when the
rich refuse to?
A deal based on these real ideas would actually cool the atmosphere. The
alternatives championed at Copenhagen by the rich world - carbon offsetting,
carbon trading, carbon capture - won't. They are a global placebo. The
critics who say the real solutions are "unrealistic" don't seem to
realise that their alternative is more implausible still: civilisation
continuing merrily on a planet whose natural processes are rapidly breaking
down.
Throughout the negotiations here, the world's low-lying island states have
clung to the real ideas as a life raft, because they are the only way to
save their countries from a swelling sea. It has been extraordinary to watch
their representatives - quiet, sombre people with sad eyes - as they were
forced to plead for their own existence. They tried persuasion and hard
science and lyrical hymns of love for their lands, and all were ignored.
These discarded ideas - and dozens more like them - show once again that
man-made global warming can be stopped. The intellectual blueprints exist
just as surely as the technological blueprints. There would be sacrifices,
yes - but they are considerably less than the sacrifices made by our
grandparents in their greatest fight.
We will have to pay higher taxes and fly less to make the leap to a renewably
powered world - but we will still be able to live an abundant life where we
are warm and free and well fed. The only real losers will be the fossil fuel
corporations and the petro-dictatorships.
But our politicians have not chosen this sane path. No: they have chosen
inertia and low taxes and oil money today over survival tomorrow. The true
face of our current system - and of Copenhagen - can be seen in the
life-saving ideas it has so casually tossed into the bin.
'You can watch Johann explaining some of the appalling loopholes being
smuggled into the Copenhagen treaty here