Entries tagged as ‘Barack Obama’
“We have a deal in Copenhagen.” Those are the words of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, spoken after days of debate among the 193 nations that attended the COP15 conference. Many people around the world saw Copenhagen as a symbol of hope that the world’s leaders could come together to make a pact that would stabilize climate change. Hundreds of thousands rallied under the banner of “350.” Just last week, tens of thousands of activists in Copenhagen demanded action against climate change. On the other hand, many people predicted that a political agreement would likely take the place of a legally binding treaty.
So what went down in Denmark? It all came down to the final day, when President Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and the leaders of India, Brazil, and South Africa. They all made compromises and produced an agreement. This in itself is important; as Andrew Light says,
“the Copenhagen Accord was not forged among our closest allies in the developed world; it was the product of cooperation between the US and a group of the largest carbon emitters in the developing world.”
But what about the agreement itself? Well, it’s just that: an agreement, part of a two-step process that was actually proposed last month by the Danish prime minister. According to the plan, the Accord will serve as a framework for the legally binding treaty, which will probably be formed in 2010. This is disappointing for those who wanted a treaty this year, but it doesn’t make the conference a complete failure.
Here’s what you need to know about the Copenhagen Accord.
- In general, the nations acknowledged a need to stabilize warming at 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, without making specific requirements for emissions reductions. The major polluters did agree to voluntary reductions. The big news: China is in the game now, pledging to reduce its carbon intensity — use of fossil fuels per unit of economic output — by 40 to 45 percent. India, Brazil, and South Africa followed suit.
- Probably the most progress was made in humanitarian aid to poor countries. Richer nations will finance a $30 billion, three-year program to help poorer nations deal with climate change and develop clean energy, with more funding possible in the future.
- Several countries, including the U.S. promised a total of $3.5 billion to reduce deforestation.
- And probably the biggest fault is the lack of an explicit deadline for a binding treaty in 2010. There is also no specific peak date for carbon emissions.
That’s the basic info. For more details, check the Guardian article, these two posts on Climate Progress, as well as Grist’s (rather negative) coverage, and the AP report.
Here’s my take: The Copenhagen Accord could have been much better. As it is, it definitely isn’t enough. If the goal was to solve the climate crisis, then COP15 failed miserably, but if the goal was to make a step forward in solving our crisis, then it turned out all right, considering the political challenges. Aside from the Accord itself, there’s another important thing that COP15 has shown us. Of all the delegates and heads of state who worked on the Copenhagen deal, I don’t know of any that stood up and declared global warming a hoax (Well, Inhofe was there, but no one paid much attention to him). Not every country agrees on how to deal with climate change, but the most powerful leaders on earth take the threat seriously. That counts for something.
Categories: Climate change · News · Opinion · Politics
Tagged: Barack Obama, Climate change, COP15, Copenhagen, global warming, Politics, UN
November 28, 2009 · 1 Comment
Whenever carbon market opponents talk about the costs of the system, they like to point that Obama himself admitted that a cap-and-trade would cause electricity bills to increase. Sarah Palin touts it in her book, and many articles quote it as well. Interestingly, this statement rings to true to many people who usually call Obama a liar. So did the President really undermine his own plan?
Well, he did say that, with a certain cap-and-trade proposal, “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,” but he wasn’t talking about the one Congress is considering now. As Media Matters explains,
Obama was talking about a different plan causing energy costs to “skyrocket.” As the Associated Press noted in fact-checking Palin’s book, Obama was not talking about the cap-and-trade legislation that has since passed in the House when he referred to energy costs “necessarily skyrocket[ting].” When Obama made that statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board in January 2008, he was describing a cap-and-trade proposal that would auction off 100 percent of available carbon allowances, and he made no mention at the time of a plan to compensate consumers for potential cost increases. But as PolitiFact.com noted, the Waxman-Markey bill initially would distribute most of the carbon allocations for free and contains substantial provisions to offset costs to consumers, and thus “should reduce costs to consumers.”
There’s still a lot of disagreement about the exact cost of cap-and-trade. While the system itself would naturally have some cost to consumers at some point, the actual legislation includes measures to lessen the impact. The often-quoted “postage stamp a day” price comes from a Congressional Budget Office report on the Waxman-Markey bill. The CBO actually predicted a net yearly savings for low-income families. There are lower and higher estimates out there, as well.
We do know that “$3,128 per household” claim is false. It was based on an MIT study, which some House Republicans blatantly misinterpreted (read the full story at PolitiFact). In general, the most dramatic figures are produced by ignoring the features that save money. Obviously, if you leave out the cost-cutting measures, you’re going to end up with a higher cost.
Categories: Climate change · Politics
Tagged: Barack Obama, cap and trade costs, cap-and-trade, carbon market, CBO, clean energy, fact check, Media Matters
In its second recent decision on behalf of animals, the European Union has joined the United States, Mexico, and Croatia in closing its borders to the internationally-condemned seal slaughter. In an article on the HSUS website, Rebecca Aldworth says,
I grew up in sealing country, and I have observed the commercial hunt for 11 years. In that time, I have witnessed cruelty that no thinking, compassionate person could ever accept. It has been difficult, often heartbreaking. But I have always known that in bearing witness to this slaughter, we can stop it…
…This is the beginning of the end for the Canadian seal slaughter. The EU was a primary market for Canadian seal products, and the Canadian government estimates the loss of the EU market will cost Canada’s sealing industry $6.6 million (CAD) annually. Given that the landed value of the Canadian seal hunt last year was less than $7 million, the implications are enormous.
With this ban, the EU joins the United States (which outlawed seal products in 1972) and Mexico and Croatia, which ended the trade in 2006. Soon there will be nowhere left to trade the products of cruel commercial seal slaughters, and seals will be worth more alive than dead.
Seals’ lives have already been saved. Just the promise of an EU ban was enough to drive this year’s price for seal fur down to $15 (CAD) per skin—a decline of 86 percent since 2006.
As a result, many sealers stayed home. Out of Canada’s quota of 338,200 seals, fewer than 60,000 have been killed to date. By the regulated closing date of the seal hunt—May 15—it is likely more than a quarter of a million baby seals will have been spared a horrible fate.
Now that the EU has banned its trade in seal products, countless more seals will live their lives in peace from this year forward.
If you haven’t heard of the Canadian seal slaughter, or if you want to learn more about the campaign against it, visit Protect Seals 2009.
Interestingly, then-Senator Barack Obama sent PETA a letter in 2006 expressing his outrage over the annual seal hunt. According to ecorazzi,
“I share your concerns about the Canadian seal hunt,” Obama wrote to a member of People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, in the letter, dated April 13, 2006. “As you know, Canada annually opens its eastern waters to commercial seal hunting. The United States and European Union have been unified in their opposition to the slaughter of seals by passing legislation decades ago to restrict the sale of seal-based products within their borders,” Obama wrote. “I certainly believe in the spirit of these acts; the U.S. should not condone this recent Canadian action.”
PETA recently rediscovered the letter in files it keeps of correspondence with the US government and released it today in an effort to drum up support for ending the hunt and remind Obama of his previous sentiments. “The rediscovery of this letter came as a surprise. But we are not totally shocked by what Obama said because so far he has been very responsive on animal rights,” said Dan Mathews, senior vice-president of PETA said to The Star. “But there is obviously an opportunity now for Obama to use his good office to renew and fulfill this pledge. We are anxious to hear a response from the White House.”
So far, no comment from the White House — but it’s great to hear that Obama is already on board for ending this inhumane hunt. Let’s see if his Presidential power moves us any closer to stopping it once and for all.
Categories: Animal Welfare/Animal Rights · News · Politics · Wildlife
Tagged: animal rights, Barack Obama, Canada, European Union, harp seal, Humane Society, hunting, News, Obama, PETA, Politics, protect seals, seal hunt, seals
“We have a deal in Copenhagen.” Those are the words of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, spoken after days of debate among the 193 nations that attended the COP15 conference. Many people around the world saw Copenhagen as a symbol of hope that the world’s leaders could come together to make a pact that would stabilize climate change. Hundreds of thousands rallied under the banner of “350.” Just last week, tens of thousands of activists in Copenhagen demanded action against climate change. On the other hand, many people predicted that a political agreement would likely take the place of a legally binding treaty.
