“This is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea,” Obama told his audience. “This is a common-sense approach that will help jump-start job creation while making our economy stronger.”

Here’s why I like this proposal: it gives everyday people the incentive they need to get to work tackling the climate crisis from the ground up. We’ve spent so long waiting for Congress or the United Nations to take action and repeatedly watched our leaders fail to deliver. It’s time to show them how it’s done.

That last piece is extra important. Incentive programs like “Cash-for-Caulkers” are no substitute for national legislation or international treaties. We need both. If we’re going to get back below 350 ppm, we need action on every level, not just the local.

So, as we get to work implementing projects on the local level, let’s tell our politicians that it’s time for them to get to work at the national. Like, how about passing some legislation now and then? They can come announce their support for a bold climate policy while they help weatherize my apartment!

And as for President Obama, I hope he continues to build up momentum for a bold clean energy policy in the United States. The rest of the world has waited far to long as the US Congress holds the international climate negotiations hostage. While Obama’s at it, how about weatherizing the White House and the US Capitol? Personally, I think President Obama would look good with a green hard hat and caulk gun.

Coal Finally Gets a Voice in Congress

By Kate Sheppard, Reposted from Mother Jones

The coal industry has never seemed to have much difficulty pushing its views on Capitol Hill. In 2008 alone, the industry spent more than $47 million on lobbying and ad campaigns aimed at winning lawmakers’ loyalty—and thanks to its efforts, received $60 billion in the House cap-and-trade bill to develop coal capture-and-storage technology. Nevertheless, some legislators apparently feel that the coal lobby has been unfairly marginalized, and so they’ve formed a bipartisan coal caucus to stand up for “America’s most abundant and affordable energy resource.”

The new grouping includes Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), Tim Holden (D-Pa.), Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), John Salazar (D-Col.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.). All  of them voted against the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Their opposition came even as Rick Boucher (D-Va.), another reliable coal booster, hailed it as a boon for the industry. The new coal caucus seems to be much more about saving face with the coal industry and than anything else.

“The Coal Caucus gives coal states like Pennsylvania a strong voice in Congress to encourage the use of coal as an affordable, reliable and increasingly clean source of energy,” said Holden in a statement, who also touted his support for government investment in carbon storage technology. But the views in the caucus on this aren’t necessarily shared. Shimkus, for example, believes that the planet is “carbon-starved” and worries that regulations on emissions means “taking away plant food from the atmosphere.” If that’s the case, why would one think that the industry needs massive funding to capture and store carbon dioxide?

The six are also seeking additional legislators for their caucus, and will likely manage to pick up a few extra members—perhaps Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) who jumped out of a plane to demonstrate his support for coal last year, or maybe one of the Republicans who let the industry write their talking points in the House.

Today, in an even more important development, the Supreme Court overturned two precedents and swept aside a “century-old understanding” to allow corporate spending in elections. In the words of Barack Obama,

“With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

That doesn’t sound good at all, does it? In a time when anti-corporate/anti-big bank fervor has never been higher, I think this decision is a watershed moment: not only a sign of how powerful our opposition is, but also an opportunity for the climate movement to think hard about how to tap into American’s mistrust of big-business and corporations to further a clean energy and climate agenda.

What do you think? Are we targeting big coal and big oil enough? Is an oppositional strategy the wrong way forward? How can we counter what will be a massive influx of special interest money in the 2010 elections? Or is this all a bunch of malarkey and we should really just go back to changing light bulbs?

Tom shares the sense of frustration and disappointment that many of us in Copenhagen and around the world shared. As he says, at the end of the meetings that there was a perception that the talks “hadn’t moved anything.” The perception of failure was all the more heartbreaking because of what we all know is at stake if climate change is left unchecked. Tom tells the story of Elisha, a 350.org organizer from the Maldives who came to Copenhagen to share her story with delegates and the media. As she told the media in an interview in Copenhagen, she may not have a home by the time she is 40, forcing her and any children she may have to live as environmental refugees (Elisha’s now back in the Maldives continuing to build a movement for climate justice in her own country and working with 350.org to keep that movement building around the world; you can see a picture of her and Jamal, another 350.org organizer from the Maldives, below).

Yet, despite the disappointments there is still much to give hope. Tom describes talking with a Bolivian delegate who came up to him at a protest outside the conference center and said that while Copenhagen had not been a success on the inside, the meetings had been a massive success on the outside. That is in large part thanks to all of you. You helped build the movement that sent all of us to Copenhagen with unprecedented momentum and solidarity. Over the weekend of December 12, you helped organize over 3,000 candlelight “vigils for survival” in over a hundred countries around the world. That day, in Copenhagen, 100,000 people marched in the streets for climate justice. And as I write this post, citizens in communities around the world are making plans to make 2010 even more powerful.

As Tom says, “I’m not a genius or scientist or politician, but I’m here.” He meant here in Copenhagen, but I think he could have also meant here on Earth. In the end, climate change affects us all, no matter where we stand. We may not all be geniuses, or seasoned activists or organizers, but we can be here to help. Copenhagen, as Tom points out, was never going to be the end. It was just the beginning.

It’s still early in 2010 and after 2 years of head-down, full out sprint campaigning, I’m still getting all my thoughts in order. But here’s one lesson I’ve pulled out of the last 5 years of organizing and activism that’s accompanied IGHIH in its growth as a blog and community: go big. In this post, I want to tell a bit of my own story of moving from student activist to national campaigning to international organizing and hopefully provide a bit of inspiration for all of us who are making plans for the year ahead.

I got my start in climate organizing as a student up at Middlebury College in Vermont. I’d done some organizing on campus (mostly around fair trade issues) but got pulled into the climate issue while taking a class with Prof. Jon Isham – a long time ally of student organizing. That class transformed into a full on campus movement: by week three of the class, we were having weekly student meetings with nearly 100 participants (the local beer we put in the center of the circle might have helped).

But it wasn’t until we went after a big goal that our campus group really took off. After doing some smaller organizing efforts, we decided that, what the heck, let’s push for Middlebury to go carbon neutral in 10 years. I remember the giddy feeling of setting that goal, the back and forth about whether we could really pull it off. Yet, by setting an ambitious target, all of a sudden our organizing took on new importance. Suddenly, students were interested in getting more involved, coming to us saying stuff like, “Wow, you all are really going for it, huh?” It turned out that ambition actually made things easier, not more difficult. By the time I graduated in 2007, Middlebury had committed to going carbon neutral in less than 10 years and currently is well on its way down that path (the fight for that success is another story!).

Yet by that point, some of my close friends and I had already set our sites on an even bigger goal. In the Summer of 2006, we had helped writer Bill McKibben organize a 5-day walk across Vermont that culminated in a few thousand people marching into Burlington, VT (remember, Vermont is a small place and a few thousand people gathering in the same place for anything feels a bit like the revolution). As Bill put it at the time, the march helped us realize that the only thing missing from the climate movement was “the movement.” We had plenty of research and scientists on our side, but we didn’t have people in the streets. So, in the winter of 2007 we launched a campaign called “Step It Up 2007” with the goal of sparking some more climate activism. Here’s a fun video that tells that story:

Again, the success of Step It Up was in large part thanks to its ridiculously ambitious vision. We didn’t want to just organize actions in Vermont, or just on the East and West coasts, we launched the campaign with the goal of organizing climate rallies in all 50 states of the US. There were lots of factors that made Step It Up take off, but I think it was that big vision that acted as a center of gravity. As one event organize told us later, “It was almost as if I took pity on you guys. The goal was clearly so big that I felt I had to help out or there was no way we could make it happen.” Students — many of them writers for this blog — flocked to the campaign and made it their own (thanks!).

And when the Step It Up day of action took place on April 14, there were over 1,400 events in all 50 states, from skiers descending the melting glaciers of Montana to divers holding banners at Florida’s coral reef. John Edwards, who was running for president at the time, turned out to an event in New Orleans and endorsed our call to action, the then radical demand of “Cutting Carbon 80% by 2050.” A few days later, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton also endorsed the target for the first time. Just 10 or 12 weeks before that moment, our core team was sitting in the college cafeteria in Middlebury thinking up names for the campaign and now the future president of the US had just endorsed our demand.

Step It Up was big, but as we quickly saw, it wasn’t big enough. Despite growing momentum in the climate movement — much if it thanks to all the youth organizers who also make this blog a success, I’m thinking in particular of incredible initiatives like Power Shift and the Power Vote campaign — despite all that, we were still far away from getting the kind of transformational change we need.

So, in 2008, we began to think even bigger. What if we could take the same Step It Up model of distributed actions united around a common message and make it global? About the time our core team was discussing this concept, Dr. James Hansen of NASA came out with a landmark paper (although largely unnoticed at the time) that said in straightforward scientific speech that 350 parts per million was the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. At the time, we were at 387 ppm, so the paper was putting forward a radical idea: we’ve gone too far, climate change is already happening, and we need immediate action. Problem was, at the time of Hansen’s paper, the entire debate centered around limiting warming to 450 ppm or 550 ppm. 350 wasn’t even on the table.

Our team seized on that 350 number as a key piece of data, a clear, three digit goal that, if popularized, could radically shift the climate debate. And again, we started to think really big. We decided to go global.

I clearly remember an early conference call where our core team of seven friends (the same from back in the Middlebury days) divided up the continents. It was like a game of Risk. I took “East Asia” which ran from Korea down to Indonesia with a small country called China in between. Phil decided to work on Africa. We realized the ridiculousness in all this from the start, the hubris, but when you’ve got seven people and a global day of action to plan, there aren’t too many other ways to go about it.

Again, by putting the idea of a global day of climate action out into the public, the campaign suddenly began to take off. That’s not to say there wasn’t a lot of grueling, grinding, and let’s face it, really boring, work to be done. For two-years, I spent almost my entire life behind a lap-top, emailing and skype calling anyone I could find that might work with us, become an ally, and take ownership of the campaign in their country or region. But, the vision paid off, the ambition caught on.

And on October 24, the 350 International Day of Climate Action turned out to be the most widespread day of political action in history with over 5,200 events taking place in over 180 countries. It still gives me goose bumps every time I look through our Flickr page or the slide show of action photos on our website. This wasn’t just the US, it wasn’t just Europe, it was everywhere. There are photos from Cambodia and Rwanda, countries that just years ago were devastated by genocide. Photos from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, places the US media consistently portray as merely hot beds for terrorists. There were hundreds — yes, 100s — of events in China and India, places that didn’t cause this problem but are showing real leadership in solving it.

Rounding the corner into Times Square on October 24, hearing Jay Z’s Empire State of Mind blasting, and seeing photos from around the world playing on the big screens is a moment I’ll never forget. Just a few years ago, I’d been getting together over some beers with friends in Vermont. Now, we were part of a global movement.

So, as 2010 gets off to a rocky start, as we ponder the failures of Copenhagen, the challenges before us in the Senate, the well-funded opposition that continues to spread misinformation and lies, let’s not forget that sometimes ambition makes things easier, sometimes it’s ok to dream, sometimes it’s good to think big.

Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s not just enough to set a goal and there’s a heck of a lot more to organizing then just dreaming about the revolution. But 2010 just got going and since many of us are still making resolutions and plans for the next year, I wanted to make the plug for going all out. Let’s effectively take over this year’s California governor’s race and make the state a champion of clean energy; let’s elect real climate champions into the Senate; let’s do sit-ins at every coal plant in the country; let’s get a real international climate deal; let’s build a movement that the world’s never seen — let’s really go for it.

Finally, my story here has been about trying to build a big movement, but don’t forget about going big in an individual sense too. Perhaps my favorite photos from October 24 is from one of our smallest events. It’s a picture of a young woman in Iraq, who wanted to take part in the international day of action. When she invited her friends to join her in a public event, they told her she was crazy, that it was too dangerous. Yet, she didn’t back down. And on the morning of October 24, she picked up a home made banner, went through the multiple American military check points that separated her from the historic gate of Babylon where she wanted to take a photo, got a brave friend to snap a picture, and emailed it in to our website.

That’s a big action that took big bravery, and for me, it’s a big inspiration for the year ahead.

It’s Getting Hot in Here: Climate Generation is a month-long series reflecting on the state of the youth climate movement. As we pivot into 2010, the series will provide a forum for discussion on the history of the youth climate movement, recent victories and setbacks, potential for growth in capacity and influence, and how to orient the movement in the post-Copenhagen landscape. Please join youth leaders for posts on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons and early evenings.

As last night went on, it was clear that the entire world wasn’t going to back down in the face of bullying from a few powerful countries — the picture in this post is from a protest that hundreds of us joined at 1:00 AM last night outside the Bella Center where the talks were taking place. At 3:00 AM, Prime Minister Rasumussen of Denmark, who under official UN rules acts as chair of the conference, tried to rush the accord through as a new political deal without gaining consensus from the assembled countries. Even as Rasmussen banged his gavel, Tuvalu buzzed in and demanded to speak. Looking exhausted, Tuvalu’s lead negotiator Ian Fry, spoke clearly and forcefully: this deal is a sham, our survival is not negotiable, we refuse to sign at this point.

Tuvalu’s remarks revitalized the process that the media was already proclaiming as dead and started what will now be a long fight over the fate of not just these negotiations but the entire UN process.

The Tuvalu speech unleashed another few hours of debate. With high emotions running on all sides, country after country expressed their frustration with attempts by the US and it’s coalition of polluters to subvert the UN process. Yet, in the end, it was clear that many small countries felt like they were backed into a corner and had no choice but to accept the agreement as it stood. As President Mohamed Nasheed of the Malvides said, “I will be the first to be unsatisfied with this document. But it is a starting point. This document allows us to continue talks and come to a legally binding treaty. I ask you all: please do not delete this document.”

That’s by no means the consensus position: many developing countries and activists feel the best strategy would be to call the entire process a sham and refuse to come to any agreement, at all. At this point, to be perfectly honest, I’m not sure where I stand. We’ve clearly called this process out as both a sham and shame (see the video of last night’s vigil below) but at the same time, we’re trying to talk with all of our allies to get their opinions as well.

What’s clear is this — the talks aren’t over yet. Exactly what the “Copenhagen Accord” means is important. Not because it will have a major effect on emissions — it’s clear now that no strong action will come out of these talks — but because the outcome of the final hours in Copenhagen will play a large role in shaping the structure and power of the UN in the future.

What we saw in here in Copenhagen was an effort on the part of a few rich countries, lead by the US, to undermine the United Nations process. To sideline not just civil society, but over 100 nations, and come up to an agreement on their own. The fact that they didn’t succeed — that they’re still debating at the UN, that poor countries are still standing strong and fighting hard — is an incredible testament to the movement you have helped build around the world. You helped show that this debate wasn’t just about the US and a few big polluters, it is about all of us — like these children in Ghana, for example:

The UN is by no means perfect. If anything, these two-weeks in Copenhagen have shown the fragility of the system and just how easy it is for a few obstructionist countries to undermine the talks. Is it corrupt beyond repair? Is it worth scrapping? I don’t think so. And I’d caution those who are tempted to trash the United Nations to think carefully about the implications that has for smaller countries who may have no other venue to make their voices heard and negotiate for their survival.

As Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said this morning, “Collective action is the only effective action.” He was talking about the UN, but he could just as well have been talking about us. As we figure out exactly what happened here in Copenhagen, we’ll surely hold on to the lesson that has served us along: when we take action together, when we don’t act individually as nations, but collectively as people, we can make real change.

You can find more analysis online with a little searching. Here’s our take from 350.org founder Bill McKibben:

“This is a declaration that small and poor countries don’t matter, that international civil society doesn’t matter, and that serious limits on carbon don’t matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he’s wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it’s at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight.”

Yes, it’s a strong reaction. No, the issue isn’t completely settled. But it’s clear that this isn’t the treaty we need, it’s not a real deal, and it sure as well won’t get us back to 350 ppm. We’re going out to demonstrate, because while the agreement is still up the air, one thing is crystal clear — we need to act.

In the last few days, 99% of civil society participants have been denied access to the talks over supposed security concerns, forcing groups like ourselves to improvise (lucky for 350.org, we’ve got an incredible team still on the inside: Subhashni Raj, one of our 350.org organizers, who is now officially on the Fijian delegation, and Mike Tidwell, who has a press badge from his excellent show at Earth Beat radio and is leading a small media team that’s still working the press room).

Yet, despite a lack of direct access and a pervailing sense that developing countries are failing to provide real leadership, many of the people that I have been talking to here in Copenhagen remain doggedly hopeful. Not because they expect a miracle speech from Obama or a breakthrough between the US and China. Not because they think the EU will come up with an innovative finance package or that Australia and others will stop bullying smaller countries. In fact, their hope has little to do with our supposed “leaders” at all. It has to do with all of you.

Last night, I took part in a candlelight vigil at the Osknehallen warehouse to solemnly mark a day of fasting around the world that thousands of you took part in. At the vigil, Gopal Dayeneni, an organizer with Movement Generation who’s been working for years with social movements around the world, told the crowd that in his eyes the movement for climate justice and global equity has never seemed more united. Over the past few weeks, said Gopal, we have seen unprecedented collaboration and solidarity not just between organizers here in Copenhagen, but between citizens all over the planet.

I know I feel that sense of unity here in Copenhagen and I hope you feel it wherever you are, as well.

In less than an hour, hundreds of us will gather in a snowy courtyard outside the Osknehallen to stand with candles and torches and form the words “Climate Sham” and then transform into the words “Climate Shame” for an aerial photograph. The image will express the frustration and anger that we want to convey to the world leaders who are blocking progress here at the talks yet still trying to spin Copenhagen as some sort of success. We know that’s just greenwash and we need to get the world media to tell that story as well — AP, Reuters, and many other media outlets have confirmed that they’ll show to take the photo and send it around the world.

Yet, we’ll also be forming another message: “Climate Hope.” It’s not a message for our leaders or for the media, it’s a message for our movement. It’s a reminder that this fight isn’t over and that despite the odds stacked against us, we’re still keeping hope alive. Martin Luther King, Jr., who faced a lot of dissapointments and setbacks in his life, once said, “We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope.”

Copenhagen will be a dissapointment, that’s for sure, but this movement has been a resounding success in so many ways. When I’m standing in the cold this evening, I’ll be thinking of all of the citizens around the world who braved cold, wind and rain, burning heat, and yes, numerous setbacks and dissapointments, to take part in the actions and events we’ve done together this year, especially on October 24 and just last weekend.

I’m infinitely grateful for all the work that so many people have contributed to this effort. I’ll end now with another King quote that comes to mind: “Keep moving.”

Don’t hold your breath. Obama’s speech this morning didn’t just lack substance, it even lacked good rhetoric: the address was met with only sporadic applause from the assembled delegates. Here are some reactions to the talk,

Bill McKibben, 350.org:  “In the face of leaked UN documents showing that this agreement is a sham, we were hoping for some movement from the President. Instead, his response was take it or leave it. 100 other nations are not making reasonable demands because they want to make the President’s life harder. It’s because they would like their countries to actually survive the century.”

Friends of the Earth U.S. President Erich Pica: “President Obama’s rhetoric is empty. The U.S. has failed to significantly improve upon the weak position it brought to these talks. This speech appears to be more of a face-saving exercise for President Obama than an attempt to unite countries around a truly planet-saving agreement. The United States came to these negotiations with a weak position, and now appears to be attempting to take the rest of the world down to our level. It simply must do better.”

Obama still has a chance to up his action, but it’s clear now that he’s not going to go the distance. What does it mean when the US President — someone many of us worked hard for — is selling out the survival of many nations?

This morning, Dessima Williams, the chairwoman of the Association of Small Island States, said: “The fact that more than 100 countries are calling for global warming to be limited to less than 1.5°C shatters the mythology that 2°C is an acceptable target, and instead highlights the broad consensus that climate mitigation goals should be based on up-to-date climate science.”

We’ve shattered a lot of mythologies at this climate conference. First, that rich countries are ever going to be willing to take on the necessary commitments without immense public pressure. And second — even more important — that we have an incredibly powerful movement building around the world that is ready to apply that pressure in powerful, effective, and yes, beautiful and creative ways.

Next time Obama gives a speech, he should have to face these women:

Or this lone girl in Iraq, who went through multiple US military check-points, to take this photo on October 24:

He should have to face a movement.