Originally published on The Collective Review on 04/11/2010:
As the dust settles on the US Congressional mid-term elections, President Obama appears through the haze. He’s bruised, but still standing. The Republicans did most of what they promised to do; they wrestled control of the House from a Democratic party they saw as profligate and misguided, and damaged the reputation of a President that they have long since accused of being all style with little substance, but in the Senate they fell just short. Come November 15th, the man sitting at the helm of that chamber remains a Democrat, and he will cast he eye across the floor and see marginally more blue ties than he will red.
In the end, the House race wasn’t even close. If this was baseball, they would have enacted the mercy-rule. As many as 70 Democratic politicos have now been released back into the wilderness, many having been mauled by their hungry Republican counterparts. The new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, called this a victory for America and is promising to “restore trust” in Washington. It remains to be seen if either of these sentiments will hold true.
The Senate race, by contrast, brings the only positive headlines for a Democratic party that must now at least show itself to be humbled. They lost 7 seats, retaining a slim majority of 6. With 2 seats still undecided, this margin could become even slighter. Nonetheless, key party figures were returned such as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who managed to win a contest that he described as ‘not close’ – though many others would disagree – and Senator Barbara Boxer of California, winning her eleventh straight election victory. This will provide some stability to a party that is currently rocking without the help of any Presidential ballast.
First and foremost, this election was a vote against President Obama. His voter-approval ratings have plummeted since he rocketed into office in 2008 fuelled with hope and promise, and this result was simply a confirmation of that feeling. It would be easy to put all the blame on Obama’s election strategy of high rhetoric and vague promises, but this would be to ignore recent history. It has become something of a tradition to give presidents a bit of a kicking come mid-terms. Not so much out of malice, or even genuine disdain, but as a means to keep them on their toes, batting for the team rather than their party.
For sure, there is disagreement with some of his policies. The health care bill – smartly dubbed ‘Obamacare’ by his opposition – was mis-pitched. Had the President and his Democratic Congressional counterparts chosen to stress the economic necessity of stealing back health care from the profit-driven insurance industries in order to return it to the increasingly desperate Americans who need to keep cash in their pockets now more than ever, then it may have found more success. But this is just one of many examples where Obama’s gift as a communicator deserted him.
Instead of framing the health issue as one of economic need, he and his party tried to use it to keep the momentum of 2008 going – painting Obama as the harbinger of real change – in spite of the fact that by the time it was bungled through the Senate it was already too late. He would have done well to listen to the campaign-mantra of the last Democratic President to get a mauling in the mid-terms, President Clinton: ‘it’s the economy, stupid’. Especially during a recession, stupid.
Perhaps more worrying for Obama, though, is that this was not just a vote against him by conservatives scared of what they see as the imminent nationalisation of America’s public services, but by a number of those constituents who voted him into office in 2008. One of his great advantages was that the young and vibrant loved him back then, and this in turn made Obama look young, vibrant and full of promise. But as enthusiastic as the young and vibrant are, they are also impatient. Perhaps it was unrealistic to expect major change within two years, perhaps candidate Obama really did mean “change you can believe in… but not overnight” (as he tried and failed to point out on The Daily Show last week), but it is pure folly to promise the young something great and not deliver on time. They will move on, and are doing so. Obama, though, must work hard to ensure that this is but a phase of adolescent pique, rather than a permanent phase-shift away from himself and his party.
Most of all, this election highlights the difference between campaigning and governing. Obama is a maestro at the former, but is currently floundering with the latter. This same problem will challenge none more than the newly empowered Republican establishment. They have, in their midst, a grassroots movement to make Obama’s look like it’s been sprayed with weed-killer. The Tea Party train rolls on, all the way into Union Station, with figureheads such as Rand Paul riding out front to ‘take the government’ back for the disaffected. What they may find when they arrive, though, is an institution so stuck in its ways that it would take the entire AmTrak fleet to make it budge. Congress is the home of deliberation and compromise, and promising to change it radically with tactics that are anything but compromising is a non-starter. Many and better have tried previously and fared poorly.
That will suit the Democrats and President Obama just fine. If the Republicans try to force change by blocking every initiative the President puts forward, they will quickly be branded the party of ‘no’. If they sit down and compromise, the divisions within their own party will make the disagreements across the parties seem trivial. Furthermore, they will struggle to find a Presidential candidate who can capture both the centrist swing-voters and hang-on to the Tea Party activists. They will need to select well, which automatically rules out Sarah Palin, because if there’s one thing we know Obama is very good at, it’s Presidential campaigns.
This election was, as President Obama rightly points out, a right “shellacking” for him and his party. But it wasn’t the bloodbath it could have been. He must and will do better. The first and possibly only item on his agenda from now until 2012 has to be the economy. He has started well by offering an olive branch to the newly victorious Republicans. This has put the ball in their court. Either they start to play and the economy grows to everyones benefit, or they bicker and stall allowing Obama to prey on them in 2012 just as they gorged on his Democratic colleagues yesterday.
Either will do for a President who is down, but whom it would be foolish to count out.
Monday 8 November 2010
The plug is not the end, it's just the beginning...
Originally published on The Collective Review on 17/09/2010:
On the 20th April, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 people. Early estimates of the extent of the spill were appealingly optimistic; starting at ‘no oil leak at all’ before sharply increasing to a manageable 1000 barrels a day. Before long, though, the real extent of the disaster became apparent. No longer was it 1000 barrels of oil but anything in the region of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels seeping its way into the fragile ecosystem every 24 hours. Numbers such as this barely do justice to an event that President Obama himself described as ‘the greatest environmental disaster of its kind’ in American history. Now, almost six months on from the explosion, the leak is reportedly hours from being plugged. It seems that even with BPs greatest minds working around the clock on all manner of imaginative solutions and a full-time governmental Nanny, General Thad Allen, leading from the front, little could be done to stop an estimated 5m barrels of crude oil funnelling forth into the vulnerable Gulf. Despite appearances, the plug is not the end, though; it is merely a punctuation mark in a continuing story of struggle between Americans and the environment they inhabit.
In the short-term, there are the local communities that depend on their livelihoods to consider. Residents of this part of the world are now battle-hardened, having had to endure it all after Hurricane Katrina tore through the region in 2005. That, though, was a faceless natural phenomenon, as much unfortunate as it was unexpected. This time, it’s different. The former-CEO of BP was a Brit who paid for his company’s carelessness, as well as his own astounding lack of tact, with his job. The new American incumbent, Bob Dudley, would do well to learn from his predecessors mistakes and treat the residents of this most unfortunate piece of America with the same amount of care and respect that Tony Hayward markedly did not. Needless to mention that BP should, and surely must, bear the brunt of the considerable investment needed to get the local economy running again.
No less urgent but considerably farther reaching than the economic redevelopment of Louisiana is the far greater issue of America’s national energy policy. In the medium term, the spill represents a genuine opportunity for political change. President Obama used every opportunity he could to voice his continued desire to cure America of its oil-addiction while being careful not to further upset the BP employees who rely on that very same resource for their income and, as Bob Dudley rightly pointed out, are woven into the fabric of the Gulf community. Before President Obama can address that particular elephant in the room though, he must deal with another great political elephant; the Congressional Republicans. With Tea Party climate sceptics fighting themselves into winning positions in the Republican Congressional primaries, and the Democrats bracing themselves for an unfavourable mid-term appraisal at the hands of the electorate, the President must try to use the memory of this catastrophe for good and persuade his Congressional party that clean energy is not only the right strategy, but a winning one.
Regardless of the outcome of that particular conflict, though, the way in which this disaster must live in the memory in the long-term is as a story of nature biting back. Environmentalists have a unique opportunity, served up by the fantastic unpredictability of nature, to drill home a much deeper message; we are residents of this planet, not its proprietors. We hold this planet on a lease, and nature has the right and ability to revoke that at its will – just as it did on that tragic April day. As businesses are rebuilt, and energy policies are debated, what must remain in the mind at all times is that for all the products we mine from the earth, we ourselves remain a product of it. Ultimately, that should be the legacy of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; albeit plugged.
On the 20th April, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico killing 11 people. Early estimates of the extent of the spill were appealingly optimistic; starting at ‘no oil leak at all’ before sharply increasing to a manageable 1000 barrels a day. Before long, though, the real extent of the disaster became apparent. No longer was it 1000 barrels of oil but anything in the region of 35,000 to 60,000 barrels seeping its way into the fragile ecosystem every 24 hours. Numbers such as this barely do justice to an event that President Obama himself described as ‘the greatest environmental disaster of its kind’ in American history. Now, almost six months on from the explosion, the leak is reportedly hours from being plugged. It seems that even with BPs greatest minds working around the clock on all manner of imaginative solutions and a full-time governmental Nanny, General Thad Allen, leading from the front, little could be done to stop an estimated 5m barrels of crude oil funnelling forth into the vulnerable Gulf. Despite appearances, the plug is not the end, though; it is merely a punctuation mark in a continuing story of struggle between Americans and the environment they inhabit.
In the short-term, there are the local communities that depend on their livelihoods to consider. Residents of this part of the world are now battle-hardened, having had to endure it all after Hurricane Katrina tore through the region in 2005. That, though, was a faceless natural phenomenon, as much unfortunate as it was unexpected. This time, it’s different. The former-CEO of BP was a Brit who paid for his company’s carelessness, as well as his own astounding lack of tact, with his job. The new American incumbent, Bob Dudley, would do well to learn from his predecessors mistakes and treat the residents of this most unfortunate piece of America with the same amount of care and respect that Tony Hayward markedly did not. Needless to mention that BP should, and surely must, bear the brunt of the considerable investment needed to get the local economy running again.
No less urgent but considerably farther reaching than the economic redevelopment of Louisiana is the far greater issue of America’s national energy policy. In the medium term, the spill represents a genuine opportunity for political change. President Obama used every opportunity he could to voice his continued desire to cure America of its oil-addiction while being careful not to further upset the BP employees who rely on that very same resource for their income and, as Bob Dudley rightly pointed out, are woven into the fabric of the Gulf community. Before President Obama can address that particular elephant in the room though, he must deal with another great political elephant; the Congressional Republicans. With Tea Party climate sceptics fighting themselves into winning positions in the Republican Congressional primaries, and the Democrats bracing themselves for an unfavourable mid-term appraisal at the hands of the electorate, the President must try to use the memory of this catastrophe for good and persuade his Congressional party that clean energy is not only the right strategy, but a winning one.
Regardless of the outcome of that particular conflict, though, the way in which this disaster must live in the memory in the long-term is as a story of nature biting back. Environmentalists have a unique opportunity, served up by the fantastic unpredictability of nature, to drill home a much deeper message; we are residents of this planet, not its proprietors. We hold this planet on a lease, and nature has the right and ability to revoke that at its will – just as it did on that tragic April day. As businesses are rebuilt, and energy policies are debated, what must remain in the mind at all times is that for all the products we mine from the earth, we ourselves remain a product of it. Ultimately, that should be the legacy of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; albeit plugged.
Monday 14 June 2010
The Ash Cloud: A Victory for Computer Modelling - Now why can't we apply the same logic to climate change?
The ash cloud from the Eyjafjallajokull volcano has caused havoc, millions of dollars in corporate losses, and untold hilarity at its mispronunciation (it's pronounced AY-yah-fyah-lah-YOH-kuul according to the Icelandic embassy in Washington, apparently - http://phreakaholic.com/news/iceland-volcanos-name-eyjafjallajokull-pronunciation/). All this, based on a computer model that has an informed but nonetheless imperfect idea of its whereabouts and density, combined with widely varying estimates as to the damage it will do to the aircraft that would probably/possibly/almost certainly encounter it. Fortunately I wasn't planning on flying anywhere, which means I am something of a bemused spectator to the media ruckus that occurs every time the cloud 'moves' (I don't like 'move' as an adjective for clouds, it makes them sound too athletic; clouds 'drift' or 'saunter' or 'meander' in a manner that is vaguely whimsical and for the pleasure of those with time to cast an eye to the sky on a warm summer evening with a glass of cider in one hand and rapidly melting strawberry-split in the other, surely). What does interest me though, is that the authorities have taken what appears to be relatively immediate and drastic action on the basis of modeling estimates that tell them they probably should - estimates that are precisely the same in nature as our best sophisticated forecasts on climate change. Yet on the latter issue, they continue to do nothing.
Why, in actuality, are governments and associated federations willing to penalise and annoy British Airways and Ryanair but not BP and ExxonMobil (ignoring the fact Ryanair is run by a obnoxious self-publicising man from the British Isles who has a penchant for unsubtle and ill-advised comments in the face of major crises, oh wait...)? BAA claims that the restrictions on flights cost it £28bn, the city of London supposedly saw £100m lost from reduced tourism, and even little East Midlands Airport claims the cloud cost it £1m in revenue (BBC News). These are not insignificant amounts, and represent a good hack off the profit margins of those who rely on flights and tourism for their businesses. Yet, while making decisions on climate change - a problem that will cost considerably more to confront than the ash cloud and increases significantly the longer we wait - those with the power insist on delay in the face of corporate opposition. Loathe am I to describe the until-recently-unheard-of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as 'brave'; but it seems that this is precisely what they were. In the face of a natural challenge with immediate consequences and very apparent costs, they chose action in the name of safety rather than inaction in the face of market opposition. Yes, Mr Bureaucrat in your grey suit and unnatural interest in air pressure, yes you; take a bow.
The ash cloud example shows us something more, though, than just how officials can act on the best information available to them if they so choose. It shows us how the public will respond when - grounded, stranded, and grumpy - they are presented with no other option. Yes, they will whinge, moan, question the decision and blame everyone 'foreign' (to the point where poor old Iceland were forced to put what can only be described as a year-7 papier-mache art project model of a volcano filled to the brim with baking powder in front of them while performing on Eurovision in the hope of garnering some empathy/sanity when the votes came in). But, ultimately, they will relent; they will understand and intelligently question, rather than belligerently disobey. After all, when there is no other option, what can Little Sammy stuck abroad really do other than accept that his fate is in the hands of nature, and that by being born on this planet he implicitly agreed to abide by Mother Nature's occasional whimsy.
The worst is over; the decision was made, the immediate effects were felt, and the fallout has all but passed. People have now accepted that if they want to fly abroad then they have to account for the small risk of an angry Scandinavian mount spewing its guts. Corporations have started to go quiet realising that no-one unnecessarily dieing is probably more valuable to their long-term financial security than their immediate quarterly losses. And the CAA - bless them - have dismounted thier shiny white horses, taken off the chainmail, and returned to grey-suited drudgery; happy that tomorrow will involve spreadsheets rather than press releases. I can't help but feel that if the equivalent officials showed the same faith in the science of climate change as the CAA did in the met-office - and, frankly, had some kahunas - then we would be much closer to radical and effective action on the greatest problem of a generation, any generation, than we currently are.
Why, in actuality, are governments and associated federations willing to penalise and annoy British Airways and Ryanair but not BP and ExxonMobil (ignoring the fact Ryanair is run by a obnoxious self-publicising man from the British Isles who has a penchant for unsubtle and ill-advised comments in the face of major crises, oh wait...)? BAA claims that the restrictions on flights cost it £28bn, the city of London supposedly saw £100m lost from reduced tourism, and even little East Midlands Airport claims the cloud cost it £1m in revenue (BBC News). These are not insignificant amounts, and represent a good hack off the profit margins of those who rely on flights and tourism for their businesses. Yet, while making decisions on climate change - a problem that will cost considerably more to confront than the ash cloud and increases significantly the longer we wait - those with the power insist on delay in the face of corporate opposition. Loathe am I to describe the until-recently-unheard-of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as 'brave'; but it seems that this is precisely what they were. In the face of a natural challenge with immediate consequences and very apparent costs, they chose action in the name of safety rather than inaction in the face of market opposition. Yes, Mr Bureaucrat in your grey suit and unnatural interest in air pressure, yes you; take a bow.
The ash cloud example shows us something more, though, than just how officials can act on the best information available to them if they so choose. It shows us how the public will respond when - grounded, stranded, and grumpy - they are presented with no other option. Yes, they will whinge, moan, question the decision and blame everyone 'foreign' (to the point where poor old Iceland were forced to put what can only be described as a year-7 papier-mache art project model of a volcano filled to the brim with baking powder in front of them while performing on Eurovision in the hope of garnering some empathy/sanity when the votes came in). But, ultimately, they will relent; they will understand and intelligently question, rather than belligerently disobey. After all, when there is no other option, what can Little Sammy stuck abroad really do other than accept that his fate is in the hands of nature, and that by being born on this planet he implicitly agreed to abide by Mother Nature's occasional whimsy.
The worst is over; the decision was made, the immediate effects were felt, and the fallout has all but passed. People have now accepted that if they want to fly abroad then they have to account for the small risk of an angry Scandinavian mount spewing its guts. Corporations have started to go quiet realising that no-one unnecessarily dieing is probably more valuable to their long-term financial security than their immediate quarterly losses. And the CAA - bless them - have dismounted thier shiny white horses, taken off the chainmail, and returned to grey-suited drudgery; happy that tomorrow will involve spreadsheets rather than press releases. I can't help but feel that if the equivalent officials showed the same faith in the science of climate change as the CAA did in the met-office - and, frankly, had some kahunas - then we would be much closer to radical and effective action on the greatest problem of a generation, any generation, than we currently are.
Friday 8 January 2010
Copenhagen Contradictions
For those who take any interest in green politics, politics of the environment, climate change, or international relations at all can't have missed the palava that was the UNFCCC's COP15 in Copenhagen in December. It was two weeks of unbridled politicking, bitching, policy-making, policy-wrecking, and all round political giggles that as far as most can see had rather little to do with mitigating disastrous climate change and quite a lot to do with (poorly played) power games. What emerged at the end was the 'meaningful' (not 'historic', nor 'effective', not even 'quite good') Copenhagen Accord. While this has been received as it should have been (that is, laughably) in most quarters, the Accord is not really what is interesting about the event.
What I find most interesting is the plethora of reaction, response, recommendation, reflection, and soothsaying that occurred post-fiasco. The number of quoted 'successes' and 'failures' of the Conference is truly astounding. And, what's more, often the 'successes' are recorded as 'failures' (and vice-versa) simply depending on which publication you happen to read. I have had the privilege (no, Mat, it really is a privilege, come on now, don't be defeatist, you have a lot to be thankful for, such as the ability to type, even if you're hands are freezing because they won't fix the heating in your tiny, neglected, empty, grey, lonesome office)... sorry... I have had the privilege of looking through about 180 mainstream broadsheet news articles published since the end of the Conference and it is amazing at the sheer lack of agreement on such a large number of issues post-event. Ignoring the major question of whether the Conference as a whole was a 'success' or 'failure' (it's probably becoming increasingly obvious which side of that I fall on), there is extremely little agreement on even whether the smaller happenings in the Conference represent a good or bad thing. So, to that end, below is a list of my favourite post-Copenhagen media contradictions:
1. Getting States talking about Climate Change
Success: The UNFCCC got 193 States in all one place talking about Climate Change, yes!
Now, this is in fact an impressive feat. To get the representatives of all the 193 UN accredited nations into the Conference centre in Copenhagen, largely at the same time, largely together, talking about Climate Change represents a massive increase in the official interest in the issue since the Kyoto talks of 1997 where there were more like 90 delegations.
Failure: The UNFCCC got 193 States all one place only talking about Climate Change, bummer.
Of course, given the impressive nature of getting all the delegations to the Conference to discuss the issue (and putting aside the fact that most of the less important little delegations got left outside, in the snow, in Denmark) what would have been great if there was actually some action following all the talk. Unfortunately, what occurred was much like a Monty Python sketch except that instead of trying to one-up each other on how little they had, the smaller countries competed on how badly hit they would be by climate change and how they couldn't possibly do anything about it themselves while the developing countries stood around arguing the finer philosophical points of regulation. By this I mean America asks China to let people check they were actually doing what they said they might say they might do in terms of emissions reductions, to which a junior Chinese aide replied 'if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?', to which America went 'huh? Yes. No. Maybe. Look, are you gonna let us police it or not?!' The end result being that all parties came away declaring boldly that climate change was a 'bad thing' for much the same reasons they (and everyone else) thought it was before.
2. The Accord
Success: They did actually agree, an Accord was written, and something 'meaningful' happened
They all sat down, made signs at each other that suggested they each thought that climate change was 'bad', Ed Miliband made the V-sign in response to the whole process and someone took this as a signal that there was unified agreement to try to reach a 2 degree cut in emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change while still slowly killing the planet ('two, Ed, is that two degrees you're trying to suggest, Sir?'). A 'meaningful' moment it was.
Failure: They all sat down, and agreed... to do nothing, really
It is well publicised, well known, and well repeated that the UNFCCC's science bods themselves admit the Accord goes nowhere near the reductions needed - in word, spirit, or policy. It's not even a proper UN declaration; for that you need unanimity. As such what we're left with is the UN 'noting' something that they had already 'noted' before (in the form of an actual treaty at Kyoto, shoddy as it may have been) thanks to a few small, holdout states.
3. Having the US on board, discussing climate change properly
Success: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to actually do something about climate change
It is hard to refute that seeing the massive, over-the-top, heavily 'secured' delegation that the US took with them to Copenhagen is an improvement. The big man himself showed up and everything. They are willing to talk, and isn't that the start of any rehabilitation process; admitting you've got a problem (even if it's bleeding obvious to eeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone else) is the first step, right?
Failure: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to do something, but going about it in an oh-so-American way
Sure they were there, but did that actually help? Obama insulted China, so China insulted Obama, so Obama insulted China some more then smiled and moved on, so the Chinese frowned and sulked and will hold a grudge (God only knows how long for). Likewise, Todd Stern (Obama's Climate Change Special Envoy) said climate change wasn't a social problem at all but all Math(s) - something the drowning masses will no doubt ponder as another unexpected Tsunami hits their homes built on nothing but numbers and engineering. Oh wait, that's not right is it - homes are built by people, who then live in them as people, and die in them when an unexpected weather event hits like people do. Ah well, at least the US were there to show themselves up, unlike last time.
4. Developed countries showing leadership
Success: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way
The EU, UK, and US all turned up prepared. They had knowledge, expertise, delegations, and nicely prepackaged policy. I have absolutely no doubt that much of this policy would be great and would make a massive difference (in real terms) but to try and get it rubber stamped without having the courtesy to at least pretend some of it came from elsewhere is just not how the UN works, ya know.
Failure: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way, so long as the developing nations do as they say
Seriously guys, a leaked policy document from the (ever agreeable) hosts proposing to take power away from all other countries who aren't HD-ready on day two?! Even by our colonial standards that's a bit quick.
5. Brazil, China, and India talking to each other about doing something about climate change
Success: They were in a room, they were talking climate change
Like point (1), that's actually pretty impressive. The fact that they are prepared to talk about multilateral action on this issue is genuinely a massive step, and a darn significant one.
Failure: They were in a room, they were talking about climate change, when the Chinese Premier was meant to be in a room, talking about climate change, with Obama
In one of the most public and balls-out snubs of what promises to be a great decade of Chinese snubbery Obama was sent a junior aide instead. And when he tried to meet the Premier again 'just found all these other people' (the Heads of State of Brazil and India) in the room too. How dare they, this was meant to be Obama and China's alone-time, darn it.
All in all, a bit ridiculous. Not so much one-step forward, one step back as 20 horses trying to do the Samba, on ice, thin ice, because of the climate change and all that. Whether or not Copenhagen was a 'success' or 'failure' I really can't say. It just kinda 'was', like climate change will 'be', until we find a frankly less ludicrous way of going about trying to abate it than this.
What I find most interesting is the plethora of reaction, response, recommendation, reflection, and soothsaying that occurred post-fiasco. The number of quoted 'successes' and 'failures' of the Conference is truly astounding. And, what's more, often the 'successes' are recorded as 'failures' (and vice-versa) simply depending on which publication you happen to read. I have had the privilege (no, Mat, it really is a privilege, come on now, don't be defeatist, you have a lot to be thankful for, such as the ability to type, even if you're hands are freezing because they won't fix the heating in your tiny, neglected, empty, grey, lonesome office)... sorry... I have had the privilege of looking through about 180 mainstream broadsheet news articles published since the end of the Conference and it is amazing at the sheer lack of agreement on such a large number of issues post-event. Ignoring the major question of whether the Conference as a whole was a 'success' or 'failure' (it's probably becoming increasingly obvious which side of that I fall on), there is extremely little agreement on even whether the smaller happenings in the Conference represent a good or bad thing. So, to that end, below is a list of my favourite post-Copenhagen media contradictions:
1. Getting States talking about Climate Change
Success: The UNFCCC got 193 States in all one place talking about Climate Change, yes!
Now, this is in fact an impressive feat. To get the representatives of all the 193 UN accredited nations into the Conference centre in Copenhagen, largely at the same time, largely together, talking about Climate Change represents a massive increase in the official interest in the issue since the Kyoto talks of 1997 where there were more like 90 delegations.
Failure: The UNFCCC got 193 States all one place only talking about Climate Change, bummer.
Of course, given the impressive nature of getting all the delegations to the Conference to discuss the issue (and putting aside the fact that most of the less important little delegations got left outside, in the snow, in Denmark) what would have been great if there was actually some action following all the talk. Unfortunately, what occurred was much like a Monty Python sketch except that instead of trying to one-up each other on how little they had, the smaller countries competed on how badly hit they would be by climate change and how they couldn't possibly do anything about it themselves while the developing countries stood around arguing the finer philosophical points of regulation. By this I mean America asks China to let people check they were actually doing what they said they might say they might do in terms of emissions reductions, to which a junior Chinese aide replied 'if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?', to which America went 'huh? Yes. No. Maybe. Look, are you gonna let us police it or not?!' The end result being that all parties came away declaring boldly that climate change was a 'bad thing' for much the same reasons they (and everyone else) thought it was before.
2. The Accord
Success: They did actually agree, an Accord was written, and something 'meaningful' happened
They all sat down, made signs at each other that suggested they each thought that climate change was 'bad', Ed Miliband made the V-sign in response to the whole process and someone took this as a signal that there was unified agreement to try to reach a 2 degree cut in emissions to avoid the worst effects of climate change while still slowly killing the planet ('two, Ed, is that two degrees you're trying to suggest, Sir?'). A 'meaningful' moment it was.
Failure: They all sat down, and agreed... to do nothing, really
It is well publicised, well known, and well repeated that the UNFCCC's science bods themselves admit the Accord goes nowhere near the reductions needed - in word, spirit, or policy. It's not even a proper UN declaration; for that you need unanimity. As such what we're left with is the UN 'noting' something that they had already 'noted' before (in the form of an actual treaty at Kyoto, shoddy as it may have been) thanks to a few small, holdout states.
3. Having the US on board, discussing climate change properly
Success: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to actually do something about climate change
It is hard to refute that seeing the massive, over-the-top, heavily 'secured' delegation that the US took with them to Copenhagen is an improvement. The big man himself showed up and everything. They are willing to talk, and isn't that the start of any rehabilitation process; admitting you've got a problem (even if it's bleeding obvious to eeeeeeeeeeeeeeveryone else) is the first step, right?
Failure: The US were there, with a delegation, seeking to do something, but going about it in an oh-so-American way
Sure they were there, but did that actually help? Obama insulted China, so China insulted Obama, so Obama insulted China some more then smiled and moved on, so the Chinese frowned and sulked and will hold a grudge (God only knows how long for). Likewise, Todd Stern (Obama's Climate Change Special Envoy) said climate change wasn't a social problem at all but all Math(s) - something the drowning masses will no doubt ponder as another unexpected Tsunami hits their homes built on nothing but numbers and engineering. Oh wait, that's not right is it - homes are built by people, who then live in them as people, and die in them when an unexpected weather event hits like people do. Ah well, at least the US were there to show themselves up, unlike last time.
4. Developed countries showing leadership
Success: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way
The EU, UK, and US all turned up prepared. They had knowledge, expertise, delegations, and nicely prepackaged policy. I have absolutely no doubt that much of this policy would be great and would make a massive difference (in real terms) but to try and get it rubber stamped without having the courtesy to at least pretend some of it came from elsewhere is just not how the UN works, ya know.
Failure: The developed countries finally agreeing to lead the way, so long as the developing nations do as they say
Seriously guys, a leaked policy document from the (ever agreeable) hosts proposing to take power away from all other countries who aren't HD-ready on day two?! Even by our colonial standards that's a bit quick.
5. Brazil, China, and India talking to each other about doing something about climate change
Success: They were in a room, they were talking climate change
Like point (1), that's actually pretty impressive. The fact that they are prepared to talk about multilateral action on this issue is genuinely a massive step, and a darn significant one.
Failure: They were in a room, they were talking about climate change, when the Chinese Premier was meant to be in a room, talking about climate change, with Obama
In one of the most public and balls-out snubs of what promises to be a great decade of Chinese snubbery Obama was sent a junior aide instead. And when he tried to meet the Premier again 'just found all these other people' (the Heads of State of Brazil and India) in the room too. How dare they, this was meant to be Obama and China's alone-time, darn it.
All in all, a bit ridiculous. Not so much one-step forward, one step back as 20 horses trying to do the Samba, on ice, thin ice, because of the climate change and all that. Whether or not Copenhagen was a 'success' or 'failure' I really can't say. It just kinda 'was', like climate change will 'be', until we find a frankly less ludicrous way of going about trying to abate it than this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)