Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
It was the pivotal international conference of the new century. Tens of thousands showed up, including heads of state, officials at all levels of government, representatives of environmental organizations, and ordinary citizens from nearly 200 countries. Scientists had warned that, without a strong agreement to reduce carbon emissions, the consequences for civilization and the world’s ecosystems would be cataclysmic.
The failure of the Copenhagen climate talks has been blamed on everything from Chinese intransigence to Barack Obama’s failure to live up to the messianic fantasies projected onto him. Behind the rhetoric, though, lies the uncomfortable reality: the political systems of America and most other industrial nations are pinned in political cul-de-sacs that make them incapable of constructive change.
NASA climate scientist James Hansen never expected the U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen to amount to much. He told the British Guardian newspaper that it would be better if Copenhagen failed. That’s because Hansen is a vocal critic of the economic policies discussed there, and he hopes Copenhagen’s failure gives the public a chance to talk about new options.
-Ed Miliband: China tried to hijack Copenhagen climate deal
-Carbon Supplicants on the Copenhagen Pilgrimage
-Review of the Year 2009: Climate change
-How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
-There’s No Negotiating With Nature
-BC Fossil of the Decade Awards
-Copenhagen’s failure belongs to Obama
-Clear-Cutting the Truth About Trees
-Doom and Gloom
-Mammals May Be Nearly Half Way Toward Mass Extinction
By now, you’ve likely heard conflicting reports on what was or was not accomplished in Copenhagen these past two weeks. Whatever you’ve been told, I can tell you with conviction you need only know this: The U.N. convention on climate change in Copenhagen resulted in zero meaningful progress on global emissions reductions. Feel free to read the spin, but please, don’t get caught up in its spokes.
So Copenhagen has been and gone, with no meaningful agreement being reached, and now the politicians and lobbyists have headed home having failed to do anything meaningful to address this staggeringly pressing challenge. Hugo Chavez came up with the quote of the fortnight when he observed “if the climate was a bank, they would already have saved it”.
-Copenhagen: a look back at the most striking narratives
-If you want to know who’s to blame for Copenhagen, look to the US Senate
-There is a way ahead after Copenhagen
-Copenhagen: Things Fall Apart and an Uncertain Future Looms
-All over the map: Rounding up editorial reax to Copenhagen
-No One Is Going To Save You Fools
-Copenhagen – Historic failure that will live in infamy
-Terminator 2009
-A Climate Con: Analysis of the Copenhagen “Accord”
The economic troubles and energy concerns of the present invite comparison with the 1970s, the last time industrial civilization had to deal with the limits to growth. The abandonment of the initiatives of those years offers a troubling cautionary tale for the present, in this second part of a three-part series.
-Fairness, Personal Action and Al Gore’s House
-Do Panels Dispense Advice or Rationales?
-Unschooling & Unworking: Confessions of a stay-at-home family (Part 2)
-COP15: Climate ‘scepticism’ and questions about sex
-Can Obama Stop America’s Gas-Guzzling Ways?
Right now, on two different fronts, political progressives face a horrible choice: Accept a severely compromised political agreement or stick to their guns and run the risk of getting nothing. Sure, this is a recurring question for activists and advocates of all stripes but—unlike the so-called “death tax”—in these two cases the question really is a matter of life or death.
“as mankind proceeded to get bigger and bigger we silently crossed a threshold”
I made myself swear that I would not argue with any of my fellow Science bloggers for one full week after my arrival here, no matter what. Fortunately, my first week wound up yesterday, and with the arrival of Greg Laden’s essay on the political and intellectual dangers of relocalization, I’ve got good fodder for my first donnybrook ;-).
