Skip to main content

I wasn't going to write another diary before Christmas, however for once I will write one that directly supports President Obama.

You want to know who really derailed the talks in Copenhagen?

Now China has money to spare and has created its own global power base, for example it has paid Sudan billions over the year [yes that wonderful genocidal government in Africa] and Sudan was one of many of their puppets to scream in Copenhagen.

China played the game better than we did and moved its pieces around the board with more skill and taking a leaf out of other authoritarians play-book loudly cried its rallying cry:

NO!!!

Blaming this debacle on President Obama as so many have is grossly unfair, we have no leverage over China.

Expect more mess in Mexico.

Don't believe me?

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations.

Hop over the break.

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

Please read the whole article.

All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?"

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority,

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with decades of awful fiscal policy; and you can thank St Ronnie and Bush for outsourcing and impoverishing the US; have all severely weakened our hand.

President Obama cannot get the blame for this as China held all the cards and played them to everyone's detriment.

India also should not get out of this with a free ride even though they have serious domestic poverty issues.

Climate Change will impoverish us all, and nobody will be spared.

cartoon me

Originally posted to LaFeminista on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM PST.

Poll

Based on reality who is to blame for this debacle

15%10 votes
63%41 votes
21%14 votes

| 65 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  It doesn't matter what Obama or China says.... (4+ / 0-)

    It will ultimately be the fault of congress with regards to climate change legislation. Unfortunately it will impact  all of mankind!

  •  Thanks (5+ / 0-)
    How so true! We need to get the truth out amid all the spin..
    If the healthcare debate taught us anything , it's that! After death panels, town hall screamers, GOP lies, no wonder everyone's so confused!
    Here's to hoping we'll be prepared next year for the next progressive legislative fight!
    Is that too much to ask Santa?
  •  great diary (9+ / 0-)

    and it only confirms some of my earlier suspicions.

    The Chinese tend to be long-term thinkers (when asked about the 1789 French Revolution, Zhou Enlai famously said, "It is too early to say.") And their position on emissions makes sense, to a certain degree.

    I would imagine that they realize that humanity is in an "overshoot" phase; that humanity will soon outstrip its resources on the Earth, and that conflict and chaos will result from this phenomenon. But climate change is only one symptom of a much larger problem: overpopulation and resource depletion.

    The Chinese want to grow their industrial base, and limiting emissions is seen as a threat to that growth. At the same time, the Chinese are poised to be leaders in the development of alternative energy sources and technologies.

    But you might say, "but millions of people will die!" To which I would respond, "they don't care, and have in fact taken extraordinary measures already to limit population growth in their own country (see China's one-child policy.)"  

    They are positioning themselves as the next superpower, and it's all very rational, and well thought out, and I doubt we can stop it. They want to survive this overshoot in the strongest of all positions, and are taking steps to make this happen.

    •  It will be a short reign as a superpower (9+ / 0-)

      China itself has severe problems with expanding deserts and the amount of toxic waste they have in the water table.

      Whole nations will implode.

      A new world order might be established where China has no role whatsoever.

      They may well talk long term as we do in Europe, but a global dark age will throw up the mahjong tiles and nobody knows how it will pan out.

      Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican. - Lisa Simpson

      by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:07:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Insightful (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      northsylvania, humphrey, LaFeminista

      If we could get over our horror that "the Chinese" are not "us", we might notice that much of what China does is fairly rational from their perspective.

      It's too late, and I'm too tired, for me to go into detail here. But let me say, I appreciate your comment.

    •  Great long term thinking, but counterbalanced (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      northsylvania

      by a casino/lottery economic subsystem.  

      I saw a graph of the China "boom & bust cycle, the decades of WWII and Mao were just one negative red line.

      In the last 20 years, they've been gambling in the real estate game, Florida Swamps, Brooklyn Bridges in some cases.

      They didn't learn from the Japan realty markdown.

      An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:14:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can understand the Chinese position. The (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      humphrey, LtMarechal

      West has created this problem especially the United States and now we want to slow Chinese growth to make up for our sins.  China has in fact sacrificed to be in it's current position, the one child policy, they save at an incredible rate...they have reach a balance which completely depends on their continued growth.  The are taking aggressive steps to green their economy....can we say the same.  Not really...so before asking for China's commitment..we need to show we are serious about climate change by making aggressive structural changes to our economy.

      As the old saying goes...be the change that you want to see.

      "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

      by lakehillsliberal on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:15:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually China blocked us from (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivote2004, Dauphin, bamabikeguy

        fixing our own limits in a treaty.

        Nevermind theirs.

        Re: The article.

        Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican. - Lisa Simpson

        by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:30:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do we think gov't imposed cutbacks targets (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northsylvania, C Barr, LaFeminista

          are the best and only solution??

          They pluck these 10 year/20 year numbers out of the air.

          If they predict they can get a 20% reduction by regulation and penalties, I'd expect voluntary activism to be able to duplicate those goals, regardless of what D.C. says.

          The first thing to do is make Howard Zinn required reading in the 8th grade, try and unbrainwash the kids

          Click: http://www.whnt.com/ to vote on Ch.19 "Parker Griffith poll."

          by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:48:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The government can make green behavior more (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ivote2004

            economical.  Heavily subsidizing residential and commercial solar panels in states where they make sense.  An expanded cash for clunkers program for cars that meet the 35 mpg threshold.  Heavily subsidizing bullet train development in key urban areas.  No more subsidies for coal or oil production...only for wind and solar development.  All major federal highways must have a mass transit option. Updates of our electric grid to handle electricity generated from solar and wind power.

            I think if we could show that our money is being spent for carbon elimination programs then other countries would believe us and be willing to cooperate with us. As it is often said...show me what someone spends their money on and I will show you what they believe in.  

            How do we pay for it....we raise the federal tax on gasoline every year until we reduce gas consumption by at least 50%.

            "When fascism comes to America, it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

            by lakehillsliberal on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 07:46:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  annapaxis - you are right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivote2004

      China only does what is in its self interest. They do not view themselves as world citizens. The leadership is focused on economic growth, growing the middle class, and raising the overall standard of living. All of those goals require more energy and they will produce it using coal, nuclear, wind and solar. They want to open one new coal-fired power plant a week, and one new nuclear plant a month until all the Chinese have power 24/7/365. They DO NOT CARE if island nations are washed away by rising sea levels.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:52:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I seriously thing China has big problems (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Gatordiet

    That Olympic birdnest thing is sits vacant, so does their "biggest mall on the planet."

    They are quick to layoff, (and usually ripoff the last mo. of payroll), and the Chinese peasantry know the oral history, unlike our youth.  Unanchored peasantry has been a threat to Asian stability.

    The bank most vulnerable to the Dubai debacle is in Hong Kong.  I'd guess China is the 2nd biggest Persian Gulf resort speculator, petro being the collateral.

    And all of Asia is agriculturally sensitive, even water based rice paddies can get too much of a good thing, monsooon wise.

    An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought. Simon Cameron

    by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:05:09 AM PST

  •  No leverage over China? (4+ / 0-)

    China´s wealth, such as there is, is built on international trade. In some while it may be different, but that´s as it is now. We cannot make them adopt CO2 reduction policies that they do not want. But we have the option, by levying carbon taxes on trade, to make them appear economically to us as if they were. This would of course require that we ourselves are willing to accept the loss of mutual wealth that such a trade impediment would bring. I know the refractory industry a bit and they have near-monopolised the actual production in certain areas of China by now. It doesn´t need to be that way, if we were willing to sustain a bit of sacrifice. I´d say, yes we do have leverage over China, a lot really, if we are serious about the issue ourselves. The same holds with respect to the US. In the end, China could probably still gut the worlds climate purely by internal economic development but we could make them pay a much large price and if they are as rational as stereotypes make them out to be, they´ll recognize self-ruination early enough. But unti we are there, it is only up to us to really put some substance behind our wish for climate protection policy. We won´t do it (I expect, as a EU citizen) because we´re in fact just too mercantile, but that makes us just as culpable as the chinese.

    Ici s´arrète la loi.

    by marsanges on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:10:25 AM PST

  •  India too ... their environment minister (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivote2004, Pandoras Box, LaFeminista

    boasted to parliment that he had helped put off any binding agreement and that India had come out quite well at Copenhagen and noted the ...

    success of developing countries in getting developed nations to agree to a longer timeframe for the peak emissions year.

    With this kind of leadership Bangladesh should be drowning by 2050 and the Brahmaputra should be down to a trickle by 2150.

    Sheeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!!!!

    No quarter. No surrender.

    by hegemony57 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:30:26 AM PST

  •  Producer based carbon accounting is wrong (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivote2004, humphrey, LtMarechal

    Of course China will not and cannot comply with the fixed commitments. China is the world's manufacturing factory. Of course US and Denmark can commit to aggressive targets. They are post-industrial societies. They don't produce a goddamn thing. The typical american/european worker goes to work and checks a few emails and clicks on Powerpoint and Excel. Of course we don't emit much carbon. China is doing our dirty work for us.
    Let's take that keyboard in front of you. Turn it over. I can gurantee you it's made in China. Now who should be responsible for the carbon emissions that came from the manufacture of this keyboard? You the consumer who bought the keyboard? or the factory in China that made it for you? Of course you the consumer should be responsible for the carbon emitted in its manufacture, emitted during the transportation and packaging, etc. After all you are the reason why that keyboard was manufactured to begin with. But unfortunately in the current negotiation regime- the consumer is completely freed of that responsibility. All the carbon emissions is put on the chinese producer's tab. The american/european consumer gets to buy and consume all kinds of gadgets and luxury goods- and they don't have to feel the least bit guilty. Why should they? it's the evil chinese who are emitting carbon.

  •  China's growing strenght and influence is (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    C Barr, Jack the R

    A creation of the West, and we will eventually regret it.  By "we" I mean the regular working people.  Multinationals will not regret it one bit.  To the contrary.

    Multinational corporations' greed pushed Western nations to do business with totalitarian and oppressive regimes (like China).  Those regimes are strengthen considerably, while continuing to keep corrupt and totalitarian systems of government.  As this happens, then the Multinationals turn to the West, and say "hey, we can't compete with these developing countries if we have to deal with all these workers' protection laws."

    Then there is a push to chip away at the social and economic infrastructure that has enable a middle class to grow in the West.  The result is a rapid race to the bottom when it comes to worker's rights and benefits.

    China will continue to be in the ascendancy, at the expense of the West.

    If there is no struggle there is no progress - Frederick Douglass

    by Luis Mendoza on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:40:43 AM PST

    •  Nah. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bamabikeguy

      This ignores a perversity of the system: The Chinese model means producing goods that your people can't afford and selling them to people who, for the moment, can. When westerners see that they can't afford those cheap goods anymore, they'll scream protectionism. And who will China sell to then?

      Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

      by Dauphin on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:44:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  China is rapidly acquiring rights for (7+ / 0-)

        Raw materials and resources in many countries (using the money they are getting from the West).  They are also snatching up an increasing number of construction and engineering projects around the world, and using their people to man those projects (there was an article int he NYT about this yesterday).

        As the economic stability of the middle class in the West goes down, China's will continue to increase, but their economic growth will be built on a totalitarian and repressive system of government (which will become even stronger).

        In such system, the capitalists can extract much more profit from the working class (as they are subjugated, abused and exploited).

        This is turn will create a downward pressure on the West (pushed by the Multinationals) so "we can compete."

        The end result is the spread of totalitarians and oppressive control over the population, both in China, and many countries in the West (starting with the U.S.), for the ultimate benefit of the Multinationals.  Pretty good gig for them.

        If there is no struggle there is no progress - Frederick Douglass

        by Luis Mendoza on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:54:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  And you think that people in (0+ / 0-)

          developing countries who've hawked away their resource rights to China for a pittance won't be slightly miffed when they see they've been had? Nationalisation is easy to pull off.

          Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

          by Dauphin on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:00:01 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Simple question...Why isn't it happening here? NT (0+ / 0-)
            •  Several reasons. (0+ / 0-)

              One is democracy, the other is that pain hasn't (and I hope won't) spread far enough and deeply enough yet. And there is still democracy; granted, both parties are bad (with one less so), but at least there is some choice and a sense of participating in public affairs.

              On the other hand, many developing countries aren't politically stable. They are poorer as it is, and for many resources are the main exports. You don't think that's cause for a popular uprising when/if China shows the temerity not to even employ locals?

              Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

              by Dauphin on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:05:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  "Why isn't it happening here?" (0+ / 0-)

              Why do people vote against their best interests?  The right wing noise machine does a pretty good job of convincing people that their economic problems aren't a result of stagnant wages and job exports.  The reason you're out of work is those damned illegals and the spotted owl.  If we didn't have the librals making socialist environmental and workplace regulations then we'd all have plenty of money.

        •  I gained a little insight when the boat people of (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          northsylvania

          Vietnam arrived,  we had 4 working in our storm window plant, 3 Vietnamese and 1 Chinese.  Only "Han" stayed with us for 2.5 years, saving enough money to move with family to Philly.

          But the stories he told, about anti-Chinese prejudice, in Vietnam and the camps specifically.  I always note, as in the Indonesian or Malaysian unrests, Chinese shopowners are usually the first target of rioters.

          It may be the equal of anti-Semitism in the middle east.

          Click: http://www.whnt.com/ to vote on Ch.19 "Parker Griffith poll."

          by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:11:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Second that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            bamabikeguy

            My dad worked in a shop with quite a few Vietnamese, most of which stayed for long enough to become friends. They talked a lot about anti-Chinese prejudice. As an aside, a person is considered Chinese even if their family has lived in Vietnam for many generations; very similar to anti-semitism in Europe.

            If nothing is very different from you, what is a little different from you is very different from you. Ursula K. Le Guin

            by northsylvania on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:28:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They are building a power plant in Vietnam right (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              northsylvania, ivote2004

              now, but the labor is not Vietnamese, mostly Chinese peasants, and there are reports of unrest.

              The backlash is more flashpoint, the farther you get from China. North African projects have come under local fire, which is expanding the prejudices and resentments.

              Parker Griffith went to LSU & Texas ! Google it, he's a frickin' Longhorn fan !!! That'll be hard to explain.

              by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:50:12 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Unless they come up to scratch (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dauphin, C Barr, bamabikeguy

          on the craftsmanship on their more expensive goods, the Europeans will always exceed their standards, at least in the countries like Germany and France that don't follow the Anglo Saxon economic model.
          My fear is that enough American (and English) craftsmen are being lost to lowest common denominator wages. Even with an NC milling machine, precision milling is a skilled trade, as is welding, especially with exotic metals. Someone replied to a comment I had made about welders by saying that they were making barely above minimum wage in their state. The learning curve is too long, the process too dangerous, and the work too hard to justify dirt wages.

          If nothing is very different from you, what is a little different from you is very different from you. Ursula K. Le Guin

          by northsylvania on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:19:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just like US asbestos policy, knowing the dangers (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            northsylvania, ivote2004, Jack the R

            before the brownlungs disappeared, air pollution in the big Chinese cities is going to be the Achilles heel.  Lung infection (from SARS to TB) are not that vaccine-able, and they will realize it when the "one child" becomes sick much too often.

            Chinese welders probably don't know the hazard to the eyeballs, and fabric dust gets folks coughing after 10-15 years continuous expose.

            Air and water issues are universal.

            Click: http://www.whnt.com/ to vote on Ch.19 "Parker Griffith poll."

            by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 01:24:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Plants burn, machinery falls to the hatchet (0+ / 0-)

      When I see the news, about shut down Chinese plants, I note the only thing left is long formica assembly tables.

      They must have the machines packed in crates, the conveyer systems on wheels, for quick tear down and transport.

      Click: http://www.whnt.com/ to vote on Ch.19 "Parker Griffith poll."

      by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:56:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  China is to blame? Really? (0+ / 0-)

    The US releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than any other major country on earth.

    The US (together with Europe) is responsible for the vast majority of the excessive carbon in the atmosphere today.

    The US releases at least 4 times more GHG per capita than China (and that doesn't even account for that a significant percentage of the GHG emissions derives from manufacturing of goods exported to the US).

    Let me quote Michael Jackson:

    I'm Starting With The Man In The Mirror
    I'm Asking Him To Change His Ways
    And No Message Could Have Been Any Clearer
    If You Wanna Make The World A Better Place
    Take A Look At Yourself, And Then Make A Change

    •  Please read the articles the diary is about. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaFeminista, bamabikeguy

      "Eyewitness: How China sabotaged climate talks"

      http://www.abc.net.au/...

      "How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
      As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed"

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/...

      #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

      by ivote2004 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:22:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Spread the meme, China is isolatable on this: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ivote2004

        Bush made us the 8 year pariah, now, China has taken the mantle.

        "'Why can't we even mention our own targets?' demanded a furious [German Premier] Angela Merkel.

        "Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut?

        "The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why - because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.

        "But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again."

        Lynas says the 2020 peaking year was then "replaced by woolly language" and the global 50 per cent cuts by 2050 were also removed.

        "No-one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen," Lynas said.

        Parker Griffith went to LSU & Texas ! Google it, he's a frickin' Longhorn fan !!! That'll be hard to explain.

        by bamabikeguy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:43:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  dKos attention needs to shift.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          hegemony57

          ...to what is really important: without a healthy climate and healthy ecosystem.... health care / health insurance / reform for US individuals and families will be futile and irrelevant.

          There are way too many HCR diaries on the rec list.

          This diary has a chance to break thru... and has a very strong political story behind it... please rec and add more comments.

          #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

          by ivote2004 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:55:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I have read the article (0+ / 0-)

        It is a red herring, which sole purpose is to shift blame away from the industrialized world.

        Hillary Clinton clearly stated in Copenhagen that US is not willing to commit to any hard caps on emissions unless China does the same. Now China and India refuses to accept a permanent third world status, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

        The US position that the average American has a God-given right to pollute many times more than the average Chinese is borderline racist, isn't it?

        And what stops Europe and the US to commit to unilateral GHG limits? The article's storyline is downright silly.

        •  Copenhagen behavior *does* matter; here's why: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LtMarechal

          Please read the actual 3 pages of the actual document that was the final result:

          COPENHAGEN ACCORD

          Then, in that context, please reread those 2 articles again.

          Look, let's be clear what we're discussing in this diary. We all know that the US has been an eco-villain for years, culminating in Bush II; that's a given. But in less than 1 year and with very difficult Senate constraints (yielding the 17% number), Obama has made huge strides quickly, starting immediately with the unprecedented $80B in the stimulus for renewables/smartgrid/efficiency.

          And no US president has ever before had the guts to commit to rounding up $100B per year to go to third world countries to finance ecologically-beneficial activities.

          Now, Copenhagen marks a key turning point from a global "is this for real, and should we be doing something about it?" debate, to a "are we doing enough?" debate.

          The Europeans, most LDCs and all the island countries are already on board for what needs to be done; many already signed up for Kyoto; but unfortunately, the biggest current and emerging polluters were not at all on board prior to Copenhagen. The 2 hugest chunks of emissions are not covered by pre-Copenhagen thinking: the US chunk, and the China-India chunk.

          The main remaining negotiating leverage that the world has to prevent exploding emissions from China-India is that US buy-in can only be sealed via China-India buy-in... and vice-versa.

          Bottom line: without climate-protection buy-in (and verifiable followthru) by both US (((and))) China, the human species has no viable future on planet earth.

          The simple reality of Copenhagen is that the US was pushing to do more than what ended up in the final document, and China was pushing to do less. In particular, as the articles detail, China's negotiators caused the deletion of the key 80% and 50% by 2050 numbers; whereas Obama's intervention got China to agree to more than it otherwise would have, especially in the area of verification.

          Now China and India refuses to accept a permanent third world status, which strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

          Destroying the habitability of the planet is the furthest it gets from "reasonable".

          (Not to mention that proactive carbon-reduction will lead a country to be ahead of the game on the CleanTech learning curve, and thus to huge relative economic success as the century unfolds.)

          #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

          by ivote2004 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:28:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you... (0+ / 0-)

            ...for your extensive reply despite the thread falling into oblivion. I truly appreciate it.

            We are obviously on the same side in this battle, but I fear your posts and actions are counterproductive. By squarely putting the blame on China you may actually restrain people from taking necessary actions.

            You know US politics and talk about "senate constraints", but somehow I doubt you know Chinese domestic politics. Why on earth would they put an absolute cap on emissions at a much lower per capita level than Western countries? Please try to see how unfair that is, and how completely unsellable that position is to the Chinese. In fact, it is downright insulting.

            Please try to look at this from China's perspective. China is a much, much poorer country. Chinese politicians realize climate change is a threat to long-term stability and they thus promise to reduce carbon emissions relative to economic output.

            The US is the by far largest culprit (possibly together with Australia) in this story. USA has historically spewn out magnitudes more GHG than China and the per capita GHG emissions are at least four times higher even today.

            Hence, we need to call for Americans to take action. Don't encourage people sit back in there sofas with the excuse that "China isn't doing their part".

            Destroying the habitability of the planet is the furthest it gets from "reasonable".

            I couldn't agree more. But who is being unreasonable here? Isn't it the developed country with the by far largest per capita emissions who refuses to act unless developing countries with but a fraction of GHG emissions per capita don't act in a similar manner. Now, where should you direct your rage?

             

  •  This diary belongs on the rec list. (4+ / 0-)

    Thank you, LaFeminista!

    #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

    by ivote2004 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:17:39 AM PST

  •  Here's another, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ivote2004, Pandoras Box, bamabikeguy

    somewhat different take on the China/America interchange. I suspect that what went on publicly in Copenhagen was far different that what went on in private. Nonetheless, the linked article (from La Stampa via Asia Times) is so different in content as to raise questions about what went on out of sight in Copenhagen.

    If nothing is very different from you, what is a little different from you is very different from you. Ursula K. Le Guin

    by northsylvania on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:22:29 AM PST

  •  We created the new China. Our investments, (4+ / 0-)

    our debt that they bought.  Our imports of their stuff.  (take an inventory of your household stuff to see how much comes from China, ipods, shoes, TV's, stereos, clothing, that 'support our troops' banner on the car, etc.)

    A BBC radio documentary over a year ago was about the massive projects China was doing in Angola.  The project manager said that America was finding out that it no longer needed to be a democracy.  "Just look at China's economic miracle" he said---and went on to say that you don't need democracy to be an economic powerhouse, and that he expected the US to jettison democracy.  

    China with its new alliances in pre-Soviet Union states, in Africa, and in Cuba and Latin America will certainly be challenging the US for decades to come.  

  •  Tipped & recc'd (4+ / 0-)

    "Climate Change will impoverish us all, and nobody will be spared."

    Green with envy looking at Iran's response to electoral fraud.

    by catilinus on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 02:50:37 AM PST

    •  Thank you. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box

      So did I, and I rec'd many of the comments here -- because they are meaningful, intelligent, and forward the action.... and also because I'd like to see this conversation taken up by the larger dKos community.

      #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

      by ivote2004 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 03:06:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Don't blame China. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beijingbetty, LtMarechal

    China is a third world country with a few first world(ish) cities.  The Chinese are not responsible for this problem and asking a government still dealing with rural poverty that Americans cannot even begin to imagine is absolutely unreasonable.  The Chinese and the Indians are well within their rights to tell the US to FUCK OFF until we get our acts together.

    The American way of life is not sustainable and until we acknowlege that and take steps to change our way of life we can't expect others to do the same.

    I'm gay, I'm pissed, I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not shutting up, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

    by psychodrew on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 04:56:06 AM PST

    •  I'll blame their leaders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ivote2004

      authoritarian to say the least.

      Oh no, the dead have risen and they're voting Republican. - Lisa Simpson

      by LaFeminista on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 12:41:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Their leaders are doing their jobs. (0+ / 0-)

        Which is to serve the best interests of their people.  The Chinese people shouldn't be asked to reduce their carbon emissions until the US does.  In the LT, they need to be part of the solution.  But for now, a nation of SUVs and interstate highways shouldn't be telling a nation of buses and bicycles to cut back on carbon emissions.

        I'm gay, I'm pissed, I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not shutting up, and I'm not going away. Deal with it.

        by psychodrew on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 04:52:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, they're not even successfully self serving... (0+ / 0-)

          Their leaders are doing their jobs.
          Which is to serve the best interests of their people.

          No, they are not serving the best interests of their own people, and so no they are not doing their jobs.

          The best interests of the Chinese people are not served, and will never be served, by ecosystemic collapse.

          Selfishness that leads to the demise of all is not even in your own best interest.

          ------------------

          The genuine best interest of the Chinese people, and of the Chinese nation, goes beyond preventing their own destruction via ecoystemic collapse -- it really is their leaders' job to work cooperatively with other nations to prevent the demise of people and places outside of China.

          ------------------

          (Or, if you're still stuck down at the level of non-enlightened-self-interest: don't they need a world out there of consumptive suckers to keep buying the cheap plastic crap China produces by burning all that coal?)

          #3: ensure network neutrality; #2: ensure electoral integrity; #1: ensure ecosystemic sustainability.

          by ivote2004 on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 03:53:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  I blame all of us for not holding our government (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista

    anywhere near accountable enough. Plus, as LaFeminista pointed out, we had decades of terrible financial AND environmental policy simultaneously. This, likewise, will take years to reverse the damage.

    Hearts weren't made to be broken by promises so often not kept.

    by Liberalindependent28 on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 08:43:30 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site