Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen?

This was forwarded on to me from a co-worker, who says the author is a law student at the University of Oregon who's also working with the UN around the climate talks. A follow-up e mail indicated it was tough to get through on the White House line; try http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT if you're interested in taking action.


Hopenhagen or Nopenhagen?

All,

As I write this, we are down to three days here at the Copenhagen climate talks. And I am afraid to say that there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Everybody has card to put on the table but no one is playing.

Actually, not everybody has cards. The Least Developed Countries, the poorest of the poor, and the Association of Small Island States, also mostly poor, have little to offer beyond their presence. Their emissions are so small they can offer little in the way of mitigation. They come asking for help to adapt as weather patterns change, storms grow and seas rise. They are being offered a tiny fraction of what economists say they will need. The only card they have to play is to pack up and leave, refusing to sign on to a national suicide pact. Their presence here is now on a hair trigger.

To gain some influence in the talks, they are aligned with a large group of developing countries that goes by the name of the G77. Other than the poorest countries, this group includes what have become known as the BASIC countries. Those letters (kind of) stand for the names of the biggest of the emerging economies: Brazil, South Africa, India and China. These countries have emissions profiles that are distinctive for a combination of four factors. They represent a significant portion of current global emissions and a large portion of future emissions growth, but they do not represent a significant proportion of historic emissions and their per capita emissions levels are far below the developed world. Each of these countries has made significant pledges to slow the growth of their emissions, but refuse to set absolute limits on growth for economies that includes hundreds of millions of people that still live below income levels of two dollars per day.

Distinctive among this group is China, now the world’s largest emitter, right behind the U.S. China is the largest emitter and greatest source of emissions growth, but relatively small in terms of historic emissions and per capita emissions. Chinese emissions are still one-quarter of the U.S per person. The U.S. has made China the prime target of these talks. China has proposed to reduce its emissions intensity – the amount of carbon emitted per unit of economic activity -- by 40-45% by 2020. That is a significant contribution. If implemented and assuming the U.S. gets one of the bills now before Congress passed and implemented, China will still have emissions less than half per U.S. person in 2020. But the U.S. is pushing measurement, reporting and verification of that promise. China is resisting throwing its economy open to outside review. I hope China will move on this issue, but it is certain they will not move before others, especially the U.S. puts more on the table.

There is one last group of G77 countries. They are largely oil producers led by Saudi Arabia. For the most part they are here to stop anything from happening to the oil industry. They are not afraid to take undisguised action to slow or stop the process. In the end though, they don’t have enough power alone to sink these talks.

First among developed countries is the European Union. The EU is perhaps the most transparent group here. But their pledge of 20% reduction from 1990 levels is not what it seems. The EU moves as a bloc of countries and includes Eastern European countries that had high post-Soviet emissions in 1990. Many of those countries are significantly below those levels now, allowing other EU countries higher emissions while still claiming overall reductions. But the EU is likely to move to a 30% reduction if other developing countries move further.

Of course the meaning of 30% depends on how you count. The biggest factor on counting is international offsets. Those currently come in the form of financing projects in other countries for the benefit of emission reduction credits at home. A new deal could significantly expand these offsets while also including a bunch of new credits from forestry projects in developing countries. My biggest worry for the last month has been that some kind of weak forest deal will get done here and be sold to the public as saving the forest to save the climate. So far what is on the table on forests is largely a greenwash for covering up general inaction.

After the EU comes a group of developed countries called the Umbrella Group, including Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia. These countries are a mixed bag. Canada is horrible and claims it is horrible because the U.S. is horrible. Russia is sitting on a load of hot air. That is the term for the emissions credits based on those higher 1990 levels that I talked about earlier. Russia can claim to reduce emissions about 40% below 1990 levels while nonetheless actually increasing emissions and selling that hot air to polluting countries. Japan under its new government might have a reasonable plan on the table but has been obstructive in negotiations. Australia embraces the general lack of ambition.

So it is clear, given this lack of action on the part of the rich countries that caused the climate problem in the first place, why developing countries say they need to see the rich countries move before they do.

Which brings me to the U.S. We are now proposing to reduce emissions a miserable 3-4% below 1990 levels. We have put no solid financing numbers on the table to help developing countries mitigate their emissions or adapt to the climate problem we helped create. We generally advocate for the biggest loopholes in the rules. Sometimes we even block proposals that everyone except OPEC supports. And we seem to be saying that we won’t pledge anything more, especially without China doing more. It is embarrassing to be an American at talks like these. I am incapable of defending my country’s actions.

What is especially frustrating is that about half of the biggest, richest environmental groups from the U.S. continue to back the U.S. negotiating position. They are like a broken record that argues that we can’t take strong action in Copenhagen because then the Senate will be scared off from passing a climate bill in the U.S. Arrgh! People used to say we needed a strong bill in the Senate to get a strong deal in Copenhagen. Now we are hearing we need a weak agreement in Copenhagen to get any bill in the Senate at all.

So it is easy to see why I say there is almost no reason to be encouraged. Almost no reason. Let me point out the cracks of light. First, other than the elites that run the show here, the world largely supports strong action on an international climate deal. The hundred thousand or so in the streets here on Saturday were just one example. Next the people I work with everyday are tireless, fierce and refuse to take no for an answer. It is almost impossible of believe that this level of dedication can fail. And finally, a solution lies in the hands of one man who can change everything.

President Obama could come here and unlock a deal that is fair, ambitious and legally binding. He could instruct negotiators to stop creating loopholes and blocking honest progress. He could commit to go beyond the weak levels proposed in the current bills before Congress. He could pledge to raise funds to help the world’s most vulnerable adapt to a problem that was created by our American lifestyles of consumption. He could sign up to a deal that has real consequences for the failure to meet commitments.

The amount of goodwill that would be unlocked in the world from the result of such action would be like a flood. So many people are waiting for leadership. There is a vast ocean of positive action held back by a dam of fear and self-interest. The kind of deal the world needs is all on paper right now in brackets; it simply needs to be released from those brackets, to be agreed. The leaders of 110 countries are arriving already. Everybody necessary to tackle this greatest of all problems head on will be in the same city on the same day with the same purpose. This can still happen.

When so many people all want the same thing and their leaders fail to deliver, it rocks my faith in democracy to the core. But I am not a quitter. Let me try one more time. Let’s give this guy one more chance to really be different. We effectively have three more days there in the U.S. to ask for what we want. So I am going to ask you to help.

I know, it seems like such a weak response to such a big problem, but let’s at least try. Let’s try everything we can to get the message to Obama that we want real leadership on this issue. Many of you have been asking me if you can share my emails. I am not only giving you permission to share or publish this email anywhere you want, I am asking you to please do so. Please share this email with anyone you think might care.

Then I am asking you to make that one phone call a day until this deal is done – White House switchboard – 1-202-456-1111. “President Obama, please show real leadership on the climate issue, not just a greenwash deal. Deepen our cuts, put long-term funding on the table and stop waiting for other countries to go first. Prove that America is the world leader we always claim.”

Again, I know it is a small effort on such a big problem, a forwarded email and three one-minute phone calls. But don’t let its small nature stop you. The Earth needs people who care more than ever. Rare moments in history arise when the way forward appears as a fork in the road. We’ll never know what might have or failed to have tipped the balance.

Please give a little push with me.

Tim Ream

Copenhagen

15 December, 2009

Forever Your Tree (a live blog)

1:50 pm - Picked up "forever" tree from Nina's house, where it's been surreptitiously stored for six months. We don't have the storage space to receive wedding presents, much less store a six-foot evergreen, however collapsible.

4-5 pm - Braved the Albany Target to find Christmas lights and other flights of Christmas fancy. Christmas fancy was in short supply.

5:57 pm - Adam hauled disassembled tree up three flights of stairs to apartment.

6 - 8:30 pm - Recovered from tree trip.

8:30 pm - Discussed turning off Tough Love 2 in favor of decorating tree.

9 pm - Adam started piecing together tree. Found multiple plugs attached to its pre-lit limbs. More plugs than holes in which to insert. Luckily, found note attached to tree:


Question: If this tree is dangerous enough that one should wash one's hands after touching, why is the largest font conveying only that one shouldn't throw away the directions?


9:10 pm - Discover camera is out of batteries. Scrounge used batteries out of other household objects. Adam starts taking pictures of...stuff. Amy says batteries should be saved for something Christmasy. Adam takes this photo:


9:24 pm - Began adding hooks to Target-purchased $5 ornament set. Amy feels dumb because she can't find a hole in which to stick a hook. Discovers it was just her unfortunate luck that she got a defective first ornament—the Chinese didn't drill the hole all the way through. Proceeds with same procedure she used on her belly button piercing when it closed up in 2001—poking hard with sharp object.


9:27 pm - Began adding last year's tree decorations—Adam's collection of tiny Muppets. Kermit got the topper position. Obvi.


9:28 pm - Added the two actual ornaments we've procured this year (for a grand total of two): a Mickey Mouse hat (from Amy's birthday at Disneyland) and Michael Jackson (which Amy found in Old Town San Diego, and called Adam to declare that, in all the time they're married, he'll never receive a better gift).


Et, viola:

They look sensitive, but aren't for THE sensitive

Adam has friends in high places, and last week we went to a fundraiser for the San Francisco Conservatory of Music. I mean, we paid to go. But I'm fairly certain we wouldn't have known about it if he didn't have all these important friends.

So, I don't know anything at all about music, and have long suspected that I might be tone-deaf. I can judge with the best of them, but I tend to focus more on the aesthetic. (I can't tell you what my favorite Neverland performance piece is, but I can tell you it's the one where the singers jump around.)

We got to the venue and ran into one of Adam's bandmates, who was all excited about this bass clarinet group. He and his date were all, like, "When do you get to see FOUR bass clarinets together?!?!" and looked at me in that friendly, I-don't-know-you-but-I-want-you-to-feel-included sort of way. And since I wanted THEM to feel included, too, I was like, "Yeah, I know, right?"

Really what I was thinking was, What's a bass clarinet?

Lucky for you, dear reader, I've found a photo of precisely that group, with their instruments. They call themselves Edmund Welles, and, while I have no proof of who calls the shots amongst these four fellows, I'd stake a bet on the fact that it's the dude named Cornelius Boots. He's the little yogi on the left.

And the show really was spectacular, although I'm thankful we arrived late for it, because I'd forgotten this little piece of information: wind instruments collect a LOT of spit. And you know what musicians do at the end of each song? There are two options. One, they shake their instrument out on the stage; two, they take a big suck out of the thing and swallow.

Literally, my gag reflex has kicked in just WRITING about it.

I definitely wasn't listening to you

OK, we changed our wedding date.

BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU TOLD US TO.

It's because, right off the bat, it's $3,000 cheaper to get married on a Sunday than on a Saturday.

Want to know how many dance floors that would buy us? Six. Or, on a Sunday, TWELVE.

And if there's one indicator of a successful wedding, it would be 12 dance floors.

An anteater wouldn't put up with this

It looks like Adam and I will be getting married on September 11.

Yeah, I know. But it’s not like the date could be any WORSE. Talk about built-in levity when faced with a wedding “disaster,” like rain. And, geez, people get married on D-Day.

We floated the idea past a few Trusted People when we learned that that was the only Saturday in September on which all three of our chosen venues were available. All of our Trusted People said things like, “Well, it’s not like people will always avoid events on that day,” which is how I came up with my new favorite retort: “What, are you doing a service project that afternoon or something?”

But then there are the people I’m not as close to, who are horrified at the thought. These are the same people who don’t stand a chance at being invited to the wedding, so I don’t really mind when they crinkle their nose and wait for the punch line. (Most of these people work in politics. I definitely couldn’t get married on a Day of National Tragedy if I ever planned on running for office.)

And the third reaction, I think, is people who give me a hard time about it. I’m fairly certain anyone reading this already knows that I plan on being pretty relaxed about the whole thing (see "The Industry Looked Me Over"), but trust me on this one: YOU NEVER TEASE A BRIDE. And that rule doesn’t necessarily hold true because she thinks that her wedding day is going to be the most important and/or most perfect day of her life. I’d hate to think I’m going to peak at 29. It’s only because she’s already putting up with so much. For those of you who haven’t gotten married, or those of you who have forgotten: YOU HAVE A MULTI-THOUSAND DOLLAR COMMITMENT HANGING OVER YOUR HEAD, AND PEOPLE EXPECT YOU TO HAVE OPINIONS ON FLOWERS. Why would you poke at me at a time like this? Even our allegedly low-key, theme-less, bridesmaid-less wedding is going to cost more than any car I’ve ever owned, and no one ever told me I need to bone up on flora before three weeks ago.

So when my friend’s husband sent me a message saying something to the effect of, “Who gets married on September 11?” I Googled HIS wedding date and sent back the message, “Who gets married on the anniversary of the sinking of the USS Edmund Fitzgerald?”…and I haven’t received a response.

In other words, to all the critics, I’d like to send out Adam’s mantra:

A Sure Thing

I was on the phone with my Wunderfriend Abbey when I said I really needed to get to the store to shop for dinner. The thing about my Safeway is that there are really very few times you can shop without conviction that something weird will happen. And the ABSOLUTE worst time to go is 5:30 pm, when everyone comes home from work and bum-rushes the roasted chicken supply. And then stands in the self-checkout line, which extends into the cereal aisle, which is my single most-frequented aisle.

Anyway, my last words to Abbey were that I was headed to the Safeway to collect blog fodder. It was 5:30 pm.

And I was let down! The store was totally calm, I didn't have to push anyone, the fundraising PA system they always seem to have going there was silent (thank God Breast Cancer Awareness Month is finally over), and while I was in line behind a woman buying four fridge packs of Caffeine-Free Diet Coke (who in this neighborhood has storage for that?), everything was fine, and I started thinking that I RARELY mention to people when my blog radar is up. But there are definitely occasions I go into thinking that something will go wrong, and when it does, it'll be OK, because at least I can bitch about it on my blog.

AND THEN THE ANSWER TO ONE OF LIFE'S GREAT MYSTERIES REVEALED ITSELF.

You know those women with the really long nails? I mean the really long ones...like, they're either fake or curling up weird at the end. Obnoxiously long. You only ever really see them on the street, or on public transportation, and you wonder, "How do these women get through their day?"

The cashier at my Safeway had those nails. They're red. And because of a fear of...something...the cashiers at my Safeway wear latex gloves at all times. Surgical gloves. And this woman's nails were poking through SEVEN OF THE FINGER HOLES.

Why seven? Why, knowing that this will happen to you, would you not start your shift by just poking all of your nails through? Or, better, cutting out tiny holes for your fingertips? This means the pressure had been SLOWING BUILDING UP THROUGHOUT HER SHIFT, until finally, a fingernail POPPED through.

Repeat six times.

People are so weird.

And one of life's great mysteries has been replaced with another. A successful Monday.

The industry looked me over

I'm fairly certain that I've already warned all brides, past and present, who are close to me that they can't read my blog as insulting in any way over the next several months.

But for those of you who haven't already heard it, I'm going to apologize right now. Because when Adam and I decided we'd like to get hitched, a provision of that was that we weren't at all ready to plan a wedding.

The thing is, when you tell people you made the decision to get married, their first reaction is, "Oh my God, you got MARRIED?," when, really, I only phrased it that way because "engaged" sounds too fancy for what's going on in my life. And the decision we made was to marry each other, not to throw a wedding...which, obviously, we're now doing.

I've been to some really beautiful weddings, planned by people who always knew they wanted to get married and thus had lots of time to think about it, and I've been to some purely awesome weddings, mostly thrown by people who are super-creative and got really into it.

And while I have strong opinions on why I have and have not had fun at particular weddings, the idea of planning my own is a little overwhelming. And while Adam and I have the sort of relationship that makes it easy to split responsibilities 50/50--and, of course, he's the creative one here--it makes more sense that I put in more wedding-planning time for now, while I'm not getting paid to work full-time.

But, again, we had DECIDED WE WEREN'T READY TO PLAN A WEDDING. But, I've discovered, nor am I prepared to think about wedding plans indefinitely. I'm exhausted. I know people who have been engaged for up to two years, but that's because they had other things distracting them, like law school. And I've heard it's popular to drag out your engagement so you can save up money for the wedding, or have multiple bridal showers, or to accommodate bridesmaids' schedules. But that's why God invented credit cards, I don't want a single bridal shower, and we're not going to have a wedding party. In my mind, there's no reason we can't just throw this party next week. Except I haven't a thing to wear.

And the ante got upped early this week, when a bride I know, who is getting married in the same city as Adam and I, and may even have an overlapping guest list, started telling me what sorts of tricks she has up her sleeve for her own wedding. This is a woman who has actually been employed as a costume designer. And she and her fiance live in this incredibly classy apartment and she throws dinner parties. I'll bet she harvests her own honey. I don't think I should reveal what it is she's planning for their wedding, but I'll tell you this: It's going to blow ours out of the water.

And part of me doesn't care, because she's having so much fun with it and I, frankly, wouldn't. But the other part of me feels the same way I feel about Halloween costumes: If you don't stand a chance of having the absolute best one, why even bother showing up to the party?