I’m talking about the first ever bona fide tar sands extraction project in the United States of America–right here, in my own backyard!

You might have heard about the tar sands extraction happening in Canada. This nightmarish debacle has transformed countless acres of priceless Canadian biodiversity into a sticky black cesspool, for primarily America consumption. Don’t take my word for it; do a simple Google image search for “Canadian Tar Sands.” After you’ve done that, imagine the effect these proposed tar pits would have on the land immediately adjacent to the sites. Now picture that land as Canyonlands National Park. I’m not making this up.

The citizens of the areas where the proposed pits would be created have had absolutely no say in the permit acquisition and decision-making surrounding this project—and the pits might potentially break ground this year. Did I mention the entire operation would be run by Canada-based Earth Energy Resources? The company made their excited announcement in November of 2009, although Grand County citizens weren’t made aware of the impending project until this month.

Utah Clean Energy, an independent organization devoted to exploring Utah’s potential for alternative and renewable energy resources, recently released a study that explains, in detail, how exactly Utah could create hundreds of new jobs and bring in millions of dollars in new GDP by exploring alternative energy and beefing up our energy efficiency standards. And yet, here in Utah, while 95% of our electricity depends on coal-fired power, our geographical uniqueness is fundamental to our state pride and one main source of tourism revenue, and water scarcity is fast becoming a frightening illustration of some of the foreseeable impacts of climate change, we (and by “we”" I mean a wealthy-but-desperate handful of powerful and shady Utah businesses) want to welcome an industry that would use between twice and five times as much water per barrel to produce oil–oil that wouldn’t even be ready for use before undergoing  an expensive and emissions-rich cultivation process.

Using tar sands, also known as oil sands, as a “cheap” source of fuel is a joke. According to the Pembina Institute, mining tar sands requires between 750 and 1500 cubic feet of natural gas for each barrel of oil. I’m not great at math, but that doesn’t seem terribly economical to my mind. The tar sands mining and extraction process produces three times as many CO2 emissions as regular oil production; the Alberta tar sands project is Canada’s number one source for CO2 emissions. As far as I can see, the only positive thing about introducing tar sands mining into the United States it that it might (and this is a BIG might) reduce our dependence on, and merciless exploitation of, Canada’s tar sands resources, which we are currently reaping without remorse to fuel our morning commute. Why import Canadian tar sands fuel, and the technology to destroy our own land and water for American tar sands?

When you assess the fact that it takes five liters of water to produce one of usable petrol via tar sands extraction, this starts to seem blatantly criminal in a desert state. The privatization of water is a scary dream that is slowly folding itself into our reality, and when you realize that water is required every step of the way with tar sands extraction—to move gas, to build new tar pits, and to provide a waste receptacle for the filthy pits once they are up and running—you start to wonder where all this water will come from, in Utah. Colorado and Nevada are not too excited about sharing their drinkable water with us, of late.

So, what will it be, America? Should we urge Utah to become a leader on the alternative energy frontier, securing our economic and environmental future for our children—or shall we allow her to regress a decade or three, and become the nation’s very first home to tar sands extraction—and its subsequent leader in toxic emissions and contributions to global climate change? My decision is made. We are exploring every avenue for ways to stop this project, and we will update you on how you can take action to help. The tar sands nightmare will not be allowed into my beloved home state and our fine nation, if I have anything at all to do with it.

[Note: We are still trying to figure out the best ways to take action, so as soon as we have a good outlet, we will let you know.]

Other resources:
www.nodirtyenergy.org/
http://oilsandstruth.org/
http://www.tarsandswatch.org/

Naturally, one of the hot topics of conversation was Senator Murkowski’s bill to block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a criteria air pollutant.  Senator Murkowski has drawn fire for these views, since this is seen to be the last hope for achieving meaningful GHG reductions if no bill passes this year.  The chances of a bill passing this year are looking smaller and smaller – the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill has failed to materialize, despite their op-ed pledging a bipartisan bill.  According to Campbell, while Kerry this morning seemed optimistic about the state of the legislation, Senate Majority Leader Reid today stated that if a climate bill is not brought before the Senate within the two weeks, climate change is not going to be addressed this year.  This puts huge pressure on Kerry – it is increasingly clear that another year without action will have huge economic and environmental consequences.

Mr. Campbell defended Senator Murkowski’s anti-regulatory actions.  Her action against EPA regulation of carbon dioxide is not because she feels it is not contributing to global warming–rather, that the language of the Clean Air Act is not sufficient to regulate GHGs as it is now written.  However, Mr. Campbell revealed, Senator Murkowski is not sitting pretty with no opposing solution.  Her office, together with about 25 other Republicans and 25 Democrats, as well as industry and environmental groups, is working to draft a bill that would impose a net zero carbon tax.  GHGs would be taxed at the narrowest possible source (perhaps entry into the system, perhaps somewhere else) – and one hundred percent of the revenue would be redistributed to the American citizen through a refund of their FICA tax or a direct credit for those who do not pay a FICA tax.  It seems that this bill is still pretty far off though.

The conversation then turned to more Alaska-specific issues – ones that I, as a non-Alaskan, had no idea were even on the agenda or of concern.  What an eye-opening moment for me! I’m in the midst of studying environmental policy at the Bard Center for Environmental Policy, and these were issues that had never come up in classes.

Alaska’s dependence on oil is one source of concern – those famous dividend checks are a powerful incentive to want to keep the oil industry booming in Alaska, but Mr. Campbell pointed out that Alaska’s legislature is looking actively at ways to diversify the energy portfolio in Alaska, with lots of debate happening in Juneau.  Possible options include geothermal, wind, and tidal – depending on the region and the resources.

The next issue – the opening of the Northwest Passage.  One student asked, “What are the cultural and environmental challenges as the Northwest Passage becomes navigable? Are we prepared and is the federal government prepared to defend against environmental destruction?”  Mr. Campbell’s answer was heated – this is one of Senator Murkowski’s biggest complaints about the federal government at the moment.  She thinks that the Arctic is not being talked about enough and it’s something we have to consider.  As a representative of the Arctic Parliamentarians Group, she is fighting for the government to consider everything from how we handle vessel response to emergenices to how to secure funding for defense and climate change adaptation.  Currently, said Mr Campbell, the nearest Coast Guard station is located in Kodiak.  That’s like dealing with problems in Florida with Coast Guard vessels sent from New Jersey – hardly an effective defense strategy.

What are the defense and foreign policy implications of an ice-free Arctic?  Fisheries, mining, and passage fees are some of those mentioned by Mr. Campbell.  Fisheries along the Western United States are already endangered – how should we treat these newly opening fisheries?  The prudent thing to do is to restrict expansion of fishery rights into these areas until more information is known about the fish populations in the areas – but will we do the prudent thing?

The natural resources possibilities in the Arctic Circle are unknown – but the USGS has reported the possible existence of large amounts of oil and natural gas.  Russia has been assertive about planting the flag and claiming rights – the United States less so.  Overall, said Mr. Campbell, the US needs to be far more aggressive and active in this area than it is being.  All the countries surrounding the Arctic Circle bump into each other up there – and therefore we need to assert ourselves as well.

This telephone conversation with McKie Campbell was the second in a series of conference calls being arranged by the Bard Center for Environmental Policy between Senators and their constituents about climate change policy.  For more information, contact the Bard Center for Environmental Policy at climate@bard.edu, or visit our website.  Calls are scheduled for New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida.

Post-Copenhagen, much of what I wrote then still applies.

“The Language of Certainty”

The choice on whether or not to speak with certainty and faith about ‘winning’ and ’success’ on climate change is similar to our choices of language around the effects of climate change. Consider, for example, the difference between the two sentences:

‘As a result of climate change, the Great Barrier Reef will be irreversibly destroyed.’
or,
‘If we fail to solve climate change, the Great Barrier Reef would be irreversibly destroyed.’

The first sentence implies that climate change, and the Reef’s loss, is a certainty, whereas the second still holds within it the power of human choice, bringing human agency into the equation. Most climate communicators over the last two years have learnt to be very careful to use the language of agency, rather than the language of imminent destruction beyond our control. This subtle change results in empowering and motivating language, and encourages the audience to make a choice between alternative futures, rather than accepting fate.

Science without movement theory embedded in its communication is depressing and disempowering. When communication resigns someone to accept inevitability, we lose the opportunity to engage them with the movement, and so the movement is weaker than it could otherwise have been, and becomes more likely to fail. Choosing such ‘inevitability’ in communication thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Knowing that language holds the power to bring different futures into being, our choices about communicating whether we will win or not are similarly crucial.  On solutions to climate change, it is rare to see language couched in certain terms, but this is a conscious choice that we can make.  Should we choose to say:

‘Over the coming decades, we need to move to a low-carbon society, transforming our energy systems, our production systems, and our consumption habits,’
or,
‘Over the coming decades, as we move towards a low-carbon society, we will transform our energy systems, our production systems, and our consumption habits.’

The first, in the language of need, implies a daunting, formidable task. The second, however, is an invitation to be involved, to learn more, and to prepare for the transition. Hope and a vision for the future is embedded and the (r)evolution becomes inevitable, an irresistible, political, force.

Whether we choose the language of need or the language of certainty has the power to bring about transformation. But if we don’t personally have certainty and belief in change, we cannot use such language with integrity and honesty.  I feel ready to use the language of certainty, and I encourage everyone to explore these beliefs for themselves.

===

I also wanted to add an ‘afterword’ on this extract, and support the sentiment of the recent post by Juliana Williams. She wrote:

Hope is passive.  Hope is what you have when you have exhausted all other options.  As Derreck Jensen writes, “To hope for some result means you have given up any agency concerning it.” By placing our Hope in Obama, in Congress, in the UN, we tacitly resign ourselves to the idea that the outcomes are out of our hands.

I agree – but only if you define ‘Hope’ as a ‘passive’ thing.

If you instead define hope in ‘active’ terms, as does David Orr in this wonderful interview, you can reclaim the word ‘hope’ from its superficial campaign branding, and then discover a much truer definition of ‘hope’ – hope through action, and hope in the movement. It is when you understand deeply this definition of hope – as distinct from naive, passive optimism and faith – that you can truthfully use the ‘language of certainty’.

I suggest that deep in his heart, even Derrick Jensen shares this ‘hope’ in the movement:

“And when you quit relying on hope, and instead begin to protect the people, things, and places you love, you become very dangerous indeed to those in power.”

Dear Friends,

The epic fight to ward off global warming and transform the energy system that is at the core of our planet’s economy takes many forms: huge global days of action, giant international conferences like the one that just failed in Copenhagen, small gestures in the homes of countless people.

But there are a few signal moments, and one comes next month, when the federal government puts Tim DeChristopher on trial in Salt Lake City. Tim—“Bidder 70”– pulled off one of the most creative protests against our runaway energy policy in years: he bid for the oil and gas leases on several parcels of federal land even though he had no money to pay for them, thus upending the auction. The government calls that “violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act” and thinks he should spend ten years in jail for the crime; we call it a noble act, a profound gesture made on behalf of all of us and of the future.

Tim’s action drew national attention to the fact that the Bush Administration spent its dying days in office handing out a last round of favors to the oil and gas industry. After investigating irregularities in the auction, the Obama Administration took many of the leases off the table, with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar criticizing the process as “a headlong rush.” And yet that same Administration is choosing to prosecute the young man who blew the whistle on this corrupt process.

We cannot let this stand. When Tim disrupted the auction, he did so in the fine tradition of non-violent civil disobedience that changed so many unjust laws in this country’s past. Tim’s upcoming trial is an occasion to raise the alarm once more about the peril our planet faces. The situation is still fluid—the trial date has just been set, and local supporters are making plans for how to mark the three-day proceedings. But they are asking people around the country to flood into Salt Lake City in mid-March. If you come, there will be ample opportunity for both legal protest and civil disobedience. For example:

#Outside the courthouse, there will be a mock trial, with experts like NASA’s Jim Hansen providing the facts that should be heard inside the chambers. We don’t want Tim on trial—we want global warming on the stand.

#Demonstrators will be using the time-honored tactics of civil disobedience to make their voices heard outside the courthouse in an effort to prevent “business as usual”—it’s business as usual that’s wrecking the earth.

#There will be evening concerts and gatherings, including a “mini-summit” to share ideas on how the climate movement should proceed in the years ahead. This is a people’s movement that draws power from around the globe; for a few days its headquarters will be Salt Lake City.

You can get the most up-to-date news at climatetrial.com, including schedules for non-violence training, and information about legal representation. If you’re coming, bring not only your passion but also your creativity—we need lots of art and music to help make the point that we won’t sit idly by while the government tries to scare the environmental movement into meek cooperation. This kind of trial is nothing but intimidation—and the best answers to intimidation are joy and resolve. That’s what we’ll need in Utah.

We know it’s short notice. Some of us won’t be able to make it to Utah because we have other commitments or are limiting travel, and if you’re in the same situation, climatetrial.com will also have details of solidarity actions in other parts of the country. If you can contribute money to help make the week’s events possible, click here. But more than your money we need your body, your brains, and your heart. In a landscape of little water, where redrock canyons rise upward like praying hands, we can offer our solidarity to the wild:  wild lands and wild hearts.  Tim DeChristopher deserves and needs our physical and spiritual support in the name of a just and vibrant community.

Thank you for standing with us,

Naomi Klein,

Bill McKibben,

Terry Tempest Williams,

Dr. James Hansen

• Funding more research on renewable energy, such as solar and wind power (85 percent)
• Tax rebates for people buying fuel-efficient vehicles or solar panels (82 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans how to save energy (72 percent)
• Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (71 percent)
• School curricula to teach children about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming (70 percent)
• Signing an international treaty that requires the U.S. to cut emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050 (61 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans about global warming (60 percent).

Surprisingly, majorities of Republicans and Democrats support many of these policies, including renewable energy research, tax rebates, regulating carbon dioxide, and expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Further, majorities in both parties support returning revenues from a cap-and-trade system to American households to offset higher energy costs, perhaps opening a pathway for Congressional action.

Sixty percent of Americans, however, said that they have heard “nothing at all” about the cap and trade legislation currently being considered by Congress. Only twelve percent had heard “a lot.”

When cap and trade is explained, 58 percent support the policy, but this support drops to approximately 40 percent if household energy costs increase by $15 a month, or 50 cents a day. Sixty-six percent support cap and trade, however, if every household were to receive a yearly bonus of $180 to offset higher energy costs. In addition, 59 percent of Americans said they would likely spend the bonus on home energy efficiency improvements. Support increases to 71 percent if the bonus is doubled and spent entirely on energy efficiency improvements.

It may at first glance seem strange that public support for many of these policies remains high, despite the drops in public belief and concern about global warming reported last week. These results are from the same survey respondents, however, and it is important to remember that different people support these policies for different reasons. For example, some do so because they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, others because they want to strengthen national security, or make the US less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Some of these policies have had solid majority support for years (e.g., renewable energy research), while for others (e.g., cap and trade) public opinion is still fluid and could go either way depending on how well advocates and opponents make their arguments.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from: http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/PolicySupportJan2010.pdf

Have you ever heard that the best way to reach someone is through their personal network? This is the principle behind sharing blog posts and videos via email, Facebook, and other social networks. Clicking a button is an easy way to share with your friends, but a more effective way is directly face-to-face; of course, face-to-face doesn’t have to mean “in their face.”

On Tuesday night, I joined much of America in watching the final season premiere of Lost. Thankfully I chose my roommates well last year, as evidenced by them wanting to watch with me. As we sat together in the living room, we were distracted during each commercial break by the steady snowfall outside our window.

A discussion began about how Washington, D.C. has been getting an unusual amount of snow this winter. Without really thinking, I uttered emphatically, “global warming.”

“How does the Earth warming have to do with getting lots of snow?” my roommate responded, understandably. I immediately thought back to an article and video that I recently used in 1Sky weekly blog round-ups. I jumped at the chance to explain to someone who doesn’t read about this stuff every day what is going on.

Basically, while it is extra cold here, much of the world is having record warm temperatures. The Arctic is actually warmer than usual, causing what’s known as Arctic Oscillation; this is sending cold air down into North America that we don’t normally see (for a better explanation, go here).

Additionally, 2009 overall was the second warmest year on record, with the 2000s the warmest decade. This shows the important difference between weather and climate, with one being short-term and the other measured over many decades.

It also shows how chances to talk to your friends and family about climate change probably won’t be in a formal presentation. Every once in a while you’ll be handed a chance to share what you know and how you feel about changing the way we treat our world and what it’s doing to people far away from us. Keep an eye out, because the next climate advocate you meet might be you.

These mountains in the depths of district of Chamba in the state of Himachal Pradesh (India) used to have a lot more snow.

In recent times I’ve been reading a lot about climate change not being real. First the climate gate scandal followed by the many articles attacking the IPCC for incorrectly publishing information on the glaciers melting in the Himalayas by 2035. Climate scientists, economics, politicians and business persons are being interviewed left, right and centre.

The question on the lips of the public is – what is the truth? The truth is such an interesting thing – where more often than not, it is a human tendency for a person to believe what they want to hear.

I pose a question to all people who are jumping on the bandwagon of denying the Himalayan glacier melt due to an error made by the IPCC, and denying the existence of climate change. How many of you have been to the Himalayas? How many of you have spoken to the citizens in the mountains of India and Nepal who have spent their whole lives there?

Very few of you – if any.

I do not say this to accuse anyone of being a immoral or irresponsible, however before we make accusatory remarks and write articles of great consequence, we must get our facts straight. I am not a climate scientist, economist, business person or a politician. However I have been to the Himalayas and met some of its people.

I was up near Haridwar, at the foot of the Himalaya’s in northern India only weeks ago, speaking to friends and colleagues who have grown up in the mountains their entire lives. Every single person spoke with sadness at how quickly the glaciers have receded in their lifetime. Some mentioned to me how many of them have had to move homes in search of better soil, because the melting glaciers have meant changes in water access and there for loss of agricultural productivity. For those of you who are farmers, I’m sure you can understand how painful that process can be.

Furthermore, in a recent interview, the Prime Minister of Nepal, Madhav Kumar, spoke about the Himalaya’s melting around Nepal: “The snows are melting. Glaciers, many of the glaciers, Himalaya glaciers, has evaporated, has disappeared. Many glacial lakes are emerging… We have seen many landslides there and no regular land or rainfall there. Droughts and all these problems relating to the health of the people has been seen… And the impact on the mountainous region is much more in the downstream, where 1.3 billion of the population live in India, in Bangladesh. So the problem of Nepal is not only the problem of Nepal’s people, rather the problem of at least 1.3 billion of population.”

And he is right. It’s not only a problem of ice disappearing in the mountains, and sea levels rising. For us in India our major rivers are dependent on the Himalayas, our monsoons are dependent on the Himalayas. Although it is great they won’t disappear by 2035, even the current rate of change is going to be problematic due to the imbalances it creates.

We all make mistakes – we are humans. And if we’re going to focus on the IPCC’s mistake of over estimating the speed of the glacier melt, then we should also focus on the major understimations made by the IPCC on the melting rate of Greenland and the Western Antartic ice shelfs.

It’s easy to ignore reality, and choose which truth we want to believe. Especially when we’re sitting in in the comfort of our homes in front of our television or computer, thousands of miles away from the people that suffer. I understand that the idea of a world without coal and oil is scary to many people, because that is the world we’ve grown up with. However before you write an article or propagate that climate change isn’t real – please come to the Himalayas first. Look at what is happening, and look the Himalayan people in the eyes and tell them that climate change isn’t real. See, we can’t negotiate with mother earth. The people who live with the land and in the mountains know this best. So please don’t negotiate their future.

I’m glad that the Himalayan Glaciers won’t melt by 2035, because now hundreds of millions of people in South Asia have a chance at survival. However we can’t go back to questioning the existence of climate change when so many have already died and suffered. Humans are the same everywhere, they all have families, they all have hearts, and they all grieve when they lose their homes, their livelihood and their loved ones. And that is what climate change is doing. It is destroying families.

Have compassion for these families who have already suffered from glacier melt, and those who face the such threats. The time is to stay strong, think big, and cooperate.

I have faith that humanity will pull through, not only this bout of scepticism, but will also pull through in protecting our planet from irreversible, dangerous climate change.

In light of insufficient progress on national climate and energy policy, and a disappointing outcome in Copenhagen, it’s clear as a movement that we need to stop and reflect on our path forward.  It’s been great to see this discussion on IGHIH with a number of really thoughtful posts.  We got an idea of where we came from, learned about the importance of ambition and going big, and reflected on what we can learn from Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement. I’d like to continue the conversation, and have us reflect on what it means to be entering a new decade.

In this decade, the Millennial generation will come to power, becoming the largest voting constituency and entering the workforce.  How do we want to define our decade?

We need a movement wide discussion, and a movement wide vision. A vision built from the ground-up with the numbers to stand behind it to make it powerful.

How do we want this decade to be defined? What should our political objectives be to achieve this, and perhaps more importantly what are WE, collectively ready to work towards and achieve in the next ten years.

From the beginning we’ve believed that we could be the power shift that we wanted to see, that power shift wasn’t just a name of a campaign, it was a representation of who we are and what we stand for; that by simultaneously working on community empowerment and clean energy development we could bring about a power shift both literally and figuratively.

If we do that, we can define this decade. In fact, perhaps we already have without knowing it. Will we continue to define our decade with action like Southwestern University did when under student urging, it committed to 100% clean energy. Will we continue to define the decade by kicking coal off our campuses, like Cornell University announced it would last week.

Coming off of MLK Day, and on the eve of President Obama’s inauguration, this an important time for this reflection and declaration of self (movement)-ambition. In progressive circles around the country, it’s becoming clear that we have to dig deeper into how change is actually made.  It doesn’t start with our political representatives, it starts with us, with the people who elect them. Developing a national vision and hosting a national youth vote (like the Aussies did) could be our first opportunity to go BIG, and put us on the road to going even bigger.

A number of us, members of the Energy Action Coalition, leaders of youth networks across the country, and grassroots activists across the country have been kicking around the discussion about how we would like to define this decade, and how we think we could go about doing it. The conversation has only only begun and we want to open it up to a broader group of people. This Wednesday, January 20th, at 9 ET we’ll be hosting a conference call for people to share their thoughts on how they think we should define our decade, and how we can engage the broader movement in this discussion. Join this Facebook event to RSVP and receive call-in info.

In the next couple of weeks, our elected representatives will be making their own efforts to define this decade. This week Senator Murkowski will push forward an initiative to rollback the Clean Air Act, which will threaten our ability to reign in global warming pollution and protect our communities. On the 27th, we’ll be listening for President Obama to speak to his commitment to addressing our economic and environmental woes with investment in a new green economy during his State of the Union Address. These are critical moments to have our voices heard, to leverage our power, so let’s definitely do that. And let’s do it defiantly and forcefully, so that we aren’t distracted from our important work: defining the decade on our own terms, based on our own generations and communities needs and aspirations. Let’s not get downtrodden when President Obama doesn’t offer us everything we need in his address – let’s move forward confidently understanding that change never comes from the top; understanding the political limitations he is under in a system that favors polluters and corporations; and understanding that as a generation we are setting out to do nothing short of re-defining that system to deliver us the change we need.

So hop on the call and become apart of defining our decade – the future needs your inspiration, your passion, and your commitment.

The story of Copenhagen began in Bali, Indonesia two years ago. After an intensive two weeks of negotiations, 192 countries, including the Bush Administration, signed on to the Bali Roadmap, a plan to complete a binding global climate treaty in Copenhagen. The Bali Roadmap was a political agreement acknowledging that the evidence for the planet warming is “unequivocal”, and that further delays in reducing emissions would further increase the risks of “severe climate change impacts.”

Deepa Gupta speaks to a crowd of onlookers during a global hunger strike for climate justice event in Copenhagen

Fast forward to 2009 – after two years of high level negotiations and new peer-reviewed scientific findings warning that climate change is accelerating faster than previously anticipated, the stakes had been raised for Copenhagen. In the first week and a half of the negotiations, leaders from small island states like the Maldives and Tuvalu and from African countries already being thrust into water-related conflicts from extreme drought resisted threats and bribes from developed countries as they insisted on an ambitious and fair legal treaty committed to containing warming below 1.5 degrees C. Tensions ran high and the talks were deadlocked as rich nations and emerging economies blamed each other and the most vulnerable.

After nine hours of direct negotiations from world leaders on the final day, a weak agreement was reached by a diverse group of interests. The three-page Copenhagen Accord is by all accounts far short of the ambitious and fair legal treaty promised in Bali. While it does finally tie emerging economies like China and India in with the United States under the same climate agreement, it also punts most of the hard decisions down the road another year.

At most the Copenhagen Accord can be called another baby step forward, when the world needed a bold leap. The reason for this colossal failure of leadership was a No Ambition Coalition of the United States and China. Held hostage by fossil fuel lobbyists and an addiction to a 20th century growth paradigm, China held out against a legally-binding outcome and international verification of emission targets while the United States refused to budge from their weak emission targets.

The most important measure to judge the outcome of Copenhagen is scientific. Early analysis shows that emission targets from countries within the Copenhagen Accord would put the world on track for 3.9 degrees C of warming by 2100. Scientists have warned that exceeding even 1.5C of warming would lead to the displacement of low-lying nations, extreme droughts throughout Africa, and risk reaching irreversible climate tipping points.

There is cause for hope coming out of Copenhagen. Firstly, 133 Heads of State, having traveled to Copenhagen to reach a deal, are now directly accountable for achieving significant action on climate change. Secondly, the international climate movement showed up like never before in Copenhagen and around the world.

The Climate Movement Has Arrived

We saw the world’s largest demonstrations on climate change – 100,000 in the streets of Copenhagen on December 12th, 90,000 across Australia on the same day, and 3000 events around the world. We saw one of the largest petitions in history – 15 million for a fair, ambitious, and binding global treaty. We saw a spirit of collaboration amongst NGOs unlike any seen before within the climate movement.

350.org, Avaaz.org, and TckTckTck pulled off three international days of climate action in the course of three months, with more than 10,000 total events in 181 different countries. Thursday December 17th marked a “Hunger for Survival” global fast for climate justice where over 10,000 people worldwide gave up food in solidarity with three people who had consumed nothing but water and salt for 43 days to call attention to the urgency of climate action. Despite all but 300 individuals getting kicked out of the Bella Center for the two day Heads of State Summit, the presence of civil society in the negotiations remained powerful.

How the U.S. and China Ruined Copenhagen

The coal and oil lobbies have a stranglehold on national politics in China and India. The U.S. is by far the largest historic emitter of CO2. The average U.S. citizen emits four times as much CO2 as the average Chinese person. However, a couple years ago China overtook the U.S. as the largest national emitter of CO2. China now builds two new power stations every week.

For months before Copenhagen, President Obama and his top negotiators warned that the U.S. wasn’t going to offer anything stronger than the emission targets being debated in the U.S. Senate of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (4% below 1990 levels). These targets pale in comparison to targets from other developed countries like Japan (25% below 1990 levels by 2020) and the EU (20%). However, they do represent the first time the U.S. has had real emission targets to offer at an international climate conference. U.S. negotiators also warned a month before Copenhagen that a legally binding outcome would not be possible in time for this conference and that long-term finance for developing countries was off the table.

A month ago China committed to voluntarily reduce its ‘carbon intensity’ 40-45% below 2005 levels by 2020. This figure is less than it sounds like. Carbon intensity means emissions relative to economic growth. China warned that they were not willing to give up national sovereignty to have their targets monitored by an international body unless the developed world (read: United States) did more to reduce their own emissions and finance technology transfer and climate adaptation in the developing world. China remained strongly opposed to the calls of the developing world for a legally binding treaty that would bind all nations to common but differentiated emission targets.

In Copenhagen, backed sometimes by India, China ultimately ended up opposing a global peak year for emission reductions and vetoing a goal of reducing emissions 50% by 2050 for all nations and 80% by 2050 for developed nations (even though this wouldn’t apply to China in today’s framework).

China, the U.S. and the rest of the world were playing a game of chicken for two years – one pointing the finger at the other, refusing to act first.

Hope on Climate Finance

After days of deadlock, a glimmer of new hope had been infused into the process on Thursday afternoon. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprise appearance, offering a proposal for $100 billion/year climate finance for adaptation and technology in developing countries by 2020, of which the U.S. would pay its “fair share”. This was half of what the Climate Action Network International and several experts argued was necessary to adequately avert climate catastrophe. But it was significant because it was the first time the U.S. had offered anything beyond a three-year ‘quick start’ finance package.

Clinton made it clear that the funds would only be made available if China would agree to “transparency” in reporting its emission reductions. At the end of the day the U.S. only put $3.6 billion over the next three years on the table, with a suggestion that more could come later if approved by Congress. Japan promised $11 billion and the EU $10.6 billion over three years. China ultimately agreed to some transparency and international “consultation” for its targets.

“Friends of the Chair” Process Produces a Document

With 132 other heads of state present in Copenhagen, President Obama arrived on Friday morning December 18th. For two weeks vulnerable nations had been insisting on emission targets and climate finance strong enough to ensure their survival and developed countries had continued to refuse to offer anything new, leaving the talks in deadlock. As a result, there was no text with any kind of consensus to base negotiations on by Friday morning.

In an attempt to materialize a deal, the Danish Prime Minister began holding a series of “Friends of the Chair” meetings with 28 different countries representing the Least Developed Countries, the emerging economies, and key developed nations. A few members of the G77 (a formal group of 130 developing nations) complained that the process was undemocratic and that the agreement was not strong enough.

In the early afternoon on Friday President Obama gave an underwhelming speech, saying that words were less valuable than action, but again failing to offer any new proposals. At that moment it became clear that Copenhagen would not produce anything close to a fair, ambitious, and binding outcome.

Leading up to Friday, the climate movement had tried every angle to get around the problem of low ambition from the US and China. Groups targeted Japan on finance and the EU on targets, hoping if they came out with something strong, it would budge the big players. Avaaz.org employed voices from the Global South to pressure China to support a legally binding outcome that was measurable, reportable, and verifiable. Nothing worked.

Following Obama’s speech, with a weak outcome certain, youth and NGOs began making banners that read “Climate Shame” and cutting out masks of more than 20 world leaders most responsible for a weak deal. We picked countries who had won the “Fossil of the Day” award throughout the two weeks for doing the most that day to block progress on a strong treaty.

World Leaders Begin to Negotiate

Inside the negotiations U.S. President Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Brazilian President Lula da Silva, South African President Jacob Zuma, and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh were leading bilateral and multilateral meetings to come up with an agreement. Afterwards a UN Assistant Secretary for General Policy Robert Orr described the process on Friday in a press conference (see minute 35):

“I’ve worked in the UN for a number of years and national government for a number of years. I’ve never seen leaders truly negotiate. It’s usually pre-arranged, pre-cooked. And the text goes to the leaders and they nod at each other and they agree. This was not the case. Leaders were drafting. Leaders were caucusing. Leaders were doing things that most of them probably hadn’t done for a few years. I think President Lula at one point said, ‘it makes me feel like a labor union leader again. I remember collective bargaining.’”

After President Obama’s afternoon speech China, apparently spurned, sent lower-level ministers to meetings with Obama and other heads of state as a show of power. Heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate made telephone calls to his “superiors”. Unlike other countries China didn’t need a deal out of Copenhagen to save face. I heard one account by a member of Climate Action Network China that the priority of 90% of Chinese people going into Copenhagen was for their government to not give in to U.S. pressure, even if it meant risking a global agreement. As a result, China was able to get other nations to strip the the final agreement of its emission targets.

Working frantically for hours, the “Friends of the Chair” process produced the Copenhagen Accord, which finally had the support of the major emitters, emerging economies, and most of the developing world. However with no firm targets, lack of detail on financing, and no deadline for completing a legally binding treaty, the Accord did not achieve the support of a handful of nations in the final hours. As a result, the Conference of the Parties “took note” of the agreement instead of making it a formal decision.

Life in the Final Hours

At one in the morning on the final night, 150 voices were fighting through the bitter cold, surrounded by police outside the Bella Center. President Obama had just delivered his closing speech announcing the Copenhagen Accord and delegates and media from all over the world were deciding how to swallow the bitter compromise that had been reached.

“1.5 to Stay Alive – Don’t Sign the Deal!” “Climate Shame! Climate Shame!” The chants bellowed through the night air as three of us blew on our hands, attempting to liveblog the events on our laptops. As the clock reached 2:00, word came from inside the conference that the EU had not yet decided whether to sign onto the political compromise that had been announced by the U.S., China, India, South Africa, and Brazil. Our chants continued – “EU Don’t Sign! EU Don’t Sign!”

All of us could see the writing on the wall that night. We knew the deal was all but finished, but we knew we had to fight. News outlets were already starting to spin the story as Obama coming in at the last second to rescue a deal. It was important to show that the world was not satisfied with a weak agreement and that leaders had failed in their duty to lead post-Bali. At 2:30 we got a text message with some words from UK Climate Minister Ed Milliband – “it’s youth and connected mobilization that put the pressure to get anything, especially 130 leaders here. Stay strong.”

Forty minutes later a Bolivian delegate came outside to greet us. Looking tired and worn, he said, “it looks like we have lost this battle, but we will win the war because of the strength of the youth.”

After hearing the result of the talks, one member from Africa wrote “It takes a lot to get an elephant moving, but when you do it is hard to stop…the elephant is moving…”

Not Done Yet

The Copenhagen Accord represents a stark failure of leadership resulting from low ambitions and hard lines taken by China and the United States. The price of carbon fell days after the end of negotiations as businesses warned that Copenhagen had failed to signal global limits on carbon emissions. Moving forward, the climate movement must bring the fight for strong carbon limits back to the United States, passing a strong climate law through the Senate, and find a way to convince China to support a legally-binding treaty with strong emission targets in 2010.

In short, the task ahead is to make the elephant move in the right direction, and fast. Our future depends on it.