Print This Post
COP17: Climate Change Terrorism is “Politically Pragmatic”
U.S. Climate Envoy Todd Stern: Staying Below The 2°C Threshold Is Just A ‘Guidepost’
Over at ThinkProgress Brad Johnson dissects the US position at the climate talks:
“At a press conference on Wednesday, top U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern explained to reporters in Durban that he sees the goal of limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — more than double the amount of existing warming — as a “guidepost,” instead of “some kind of mandatory obligation”:
“I think that we look at two degrees as an important and serious goal which ought to guide what we do, which ought to guide the action that we take in order to try and attain it. That is — so it’s important, it’s serious, and it’s a guidepost I would say. That is still different from looking at it as an operational cap that you must meet, and that if you, you know, see yourself off of it based on science, then you have some kind of mandatory obligation to change what you’re doing, whether you’re in the United States, or Europe, or China, wherever you might be. I think you have — I mean, I think as we look at science, and we see the trajectories, it ought to inform our sense of what needs to be done. It might well cause us or anybody else to say, jeez, we need to do more. But we don’t see it as akin to a national target.
Watch it:
At the beginning of the Durban climate talks, U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing brushed aside concerns that commitments made under the Cancun agreements in 2010 put the world on a pathway much higher than 2°C, arguing there are “essentially an infinite number of pathways” that allow stronger cuts starting in 2020 to “stay below 2 degrees.” Pershing later conceded that it is “desirable to do a great deal earlier” but argued the negotiators have to be “politically pragmatic.”
Infinite ways to spell ‘i n s a n i t y’?
“… it’s a guidepost I would say.”
Right, and “Warning: lethally toxic high voltage radioactive explosive” is just a health tip.
Stern’s statement is trivially true; any information is a “guidepost.” This particular guidepost informs us that 2oC is almost certainly catastrophic and knowingly going above it is insane. The cavalier manner with which he tosses the statement out, as though we were talking about highway signs advising motorists about rest stops, is criminally irresponsible.
OK, that’s not entirely fair. Departments of Transportation generally take rest stop signs far more seriously than our governments regard climate change. If you think that last statement was unfair, consider how most highway rest stops actually have visible, appropriate and accurate signage. Compare that to our various governments inaction on climate change, QED.
” … infinite number of pathways” that allow stronger cuts starting in 2020 to “stay below 2 degrees.”
Actually it’s entirely possible that we have already missed the 2oC window of opportunity. If we haven’t, 2015 is almost certainly too late, and to imagine we will do it in 2020 is delusional.
Stern is effectively saying that while large cuts in carbon emissions are impossible now, total and virtually instantaneous de-carbonization in 2020 can be accomplished any number of ways. Just what mythical being with magical powers does he imagine is going to make that happen? It’s an absurd claim to make.
“…as we look at science, and we see the trajectories, it ought to inform our sense of what needs to be done.”
Yes, it ought to, so why isn’t it? Why do the Durban positions of the USA and Canada look like they are guided by the science of the 1950s? To invoke science as somehow informing what is/has happened in Durban is a ludicrous obscenity.
Statement of the Obvious
So ” … negotiators have to be “politically pragmatic.”?
Let me see if I got this right:
There is a lack of political will for change because the public does not support real action. It seems that after years of being lied to about how serious the problem really is (or indeed if there even is a problem), the public does not seem to understand just how serious the problem really is. Is that it in a nutshell?
Here’s a radical thought, tell the people the truth in an honest and straightforward manner and see if that changes anything. Stop pandering to monied interests, muzzling scientists and protecting political careers; try providing actual good governance for a few minutes, or is that a subversive suggestion?
Can someone tell me please what is “politically pragmatic” about condemning the world to climate catastrophe? That isn’t pragmatism, it’s narrow, self-serving abrogation of responsibility. It’s a cowardly betrayal of the Earth and it’s people in the name of political expedience. It’s the wanton condemnation of whole peoples to suffering and death for the short term indulgence in an empty ideology.
A tangled web
Telling the public what is really going on is not going to happen of course. The politicians and bureaucrats are now caught in their own web of deceit. There is no way to admit the gravity of our current situation without acknowledging the years of dissembling and gross mismanagement of the climate issue. Being honest now would merely underscore how dishonest they were in Cancun, and Copenhagen, and every conference since Rio92; not going to happen.
Further, “We’ve been misleading you for years, but now we’re telling the truth.” rarely inspires confidence in whatever follows. Be that as it may, it is still the only course open to anyone with even a shred of decency. At Copenhagen, or even Cancun, it was possible to imagine that something meaningful might be done in the coming year. It was a slim and fragile thread of a hope, but possible to imagine nonetheless.
That is not the case with Durban. We know we are up against the wall and we know that further delay is unacceptable. Historically accepting delay could have been excused as unwarranted and naive optimism that something significant might change in the coming year. Now it is nothing less than criminal.
Denouement
- Resignation And Anger In Durban: ‘What is the news I’m going to take home to my flooded country?’
- Draft Climate Deal Dubbed a “Death Sentence for Africa”
- African Soil in the Blood and Dust of the Durban Climate Summit
- WWF: Governments fail on ambition, courage at UN climate change talks
- Durban climate change: Talks descend into farce
- A second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol: a victory or a deception?
- America’s Position on Climate ‘A Tragedy,’ Losing U.S. Prestige to China
- New Zealand Earns First Place Fossil, United States and Canada Share “Colossal Fossil”
- Climate Action Network Canada responds to outcome of UN climate talks in Durban
- “The Canadian Government has been the poster child of inaction at these talks, and although they no longer have the global credibility to have a meaningful impact here, they have been constantly singled out as a laggard and even a pariah in these negotiations.“
UPDATE 23:00 EST Dec 10 from One Climate
“The World Development Movement has slammed the outcome of the UN climate talks in Durban as a ‘spectacular failure’ that will condemn the world’s poorest people to hunger, poverty and ultimately, death.
The world is now on course for devastating temperature rises as a result of the failure of developed countries to act. Instead of coming to Durban to take action, developed countries have stonewalled on the real issues and kicked decisions down the road.”-Friends of the Earth … headlining with “Broken Promises, Weak Rules.” A few choice quotes from them:
“The outcome would provide little restriction on the destruction of the world’s climate system.
Led by the US, developed nations have reneged on their promises, weakened the rules on climate action and strengthened those that allow their corporations to profit from the climate crisis.”
.
Copenhagen Durban, I cried so hard I laughed
350 or bust noted the resemblance of COP17 to COP15 (Copenhagen), not to mention COP16 (Cancun), 14, 13 … and re-posted a two year old audio critique. In case anyone missed it at the time, British comic Marcus Brigstoke did an excellent Dr Suess parody underscoring the diplomatic waffling at Copenhagen which, sad to say, continues to be relevant.
.
A luta continua – Wall Street Journal Pipeline Poll
Open online polls are pretty much meaningless in every sense, except that people tend to treat them as if they reveal something or other worth talking about. As such, you should probably register your opinion on:
Should the proposed Keystone XL pipeline between Canada and Texas be built?
.
So much has gone
and little is new
And as the sparrow sings
Dawn chorus for
Someone else to hear
The Thinker sits alone growing older
And so bitter…
And I Want to Believe
In the madness that calls ‘Now’
And I want to Believe
That a light’s shining through
Somehow
David Bowie – Cygnet Committee
