Surrey Greens

Watch Elizabeth May's video commentary

I can remember budget days in lock-ups when there was good news to be found.  Even in a bad budget, there would be a new environmental programme or two.In a good budget, like Mulroney’s in 1990 or Martin’s in 2005, you could get dizzy trying to keep track of all the great initiatives.

You can't say this for Prime Minister Harper.  His budgets will not lead to dizziness or exhilaration.  Other health effects may ensue. Depression and nausea come to mind.

For example, the 2010 budget removes all energy projects from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and places environmental reviews in the hands of the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (if nuclear).

No doubt the government will say this changes nothing.  The heading for this is  “modernizing the regulatory system.”  The problem is that the CEAA was designed to enhance public participation.  CEAA has clear processes and access for interveners and the public.  The process is informal and accessible. In contrast, the National Energy Board is quasi-judicial.  Few interveners will appear without lawyers.  It has no history for public participation, nor does it have a strong understanding of the scope of environmental review.  The CNSC is also more formal, and has suffered the slap-down in the firing of Linda Keen.  How likely is it that this board can provide environmental assessment?  This change is a significant disadvantage to environmental and aboriginal groups.  Ironically, the stated reason (to save time) will not be met.  CEAA worked very efficiently.  It is more likely and the real purpose to have projects rubber stamped.

As for Green Energy, the very successful ecoEnergy Technology Initiative will not be continued.  It died in mid-2009 as it was over-subscribed in 2008.  There are accelerated capital cost allowance measures for renewable energy, but the only new programme was $100 million over four years for the “Next Generation Renewable Power Initiative.”  This is designed only for the forest sector, likely for biomass or cellulose ethanol

The budget also hikes payroll taxes.  By 2015, there will be an additional $29 billion collected from higher EI premiums.  This job killing tax could actually threaten Canada’s economic recovery.  And while workers see their pay cheque shrink and small business has to postpone new hires, corporate tax rates will continue to be cut.

The deficit is supposed to be cut back to nearly nothing by 2015.  These figures do tend to stretch credulity.  Flaherty gets to near balanced books in five years by relying on increasing revenues from a source the government wants to tax less.  Corporate tax revenues are set to go up by 40% over 5 years, even as the rate at which corporations are taxed will go down.  Other deficit fighting measures include the payroll tax hikes, and cuts to military spending increases ($2.5 billion), to CIDA’s future funding of $4.5, and from Stockwell Day’s cuts to government “administration” --  $6.8 billion.

If you were looking for news on pension reform, there is nothing here.  A consultation will begin in March.   Interestingly, there was also nothing about change to political party financing.

There were a few good measures:  citizen oversight of the RCMP through a new board (few details),  $30 million over two years to implement an educational agreement with First Nations for K-12, $8 million/year for the Great Lakes (the proverbial drop in a very large toxic bucket) and reducing the tax impact for low-income single parent families of the child tax credit.   

Overall, this is a government with no concern for the climate crisis, no plan to avoid runaway global warming, even commenting favourably about the ice-free Arctic and the need to monitor shipping, and no real plan to create jobs.       

Give them credit for consistency.  In the Conservatives’ never ending attempt to eliminate the colour red from the primary colours palette, this budget blending blue and green arrows and leaves, manages to portray the Canadian flag in blue and white on the back cover.  First the national anthem, next the flag. They really don’t like our traditions very much.

Watch Elizabeth May's video commentary

Related Press Release: Steady Assault on NRTEE and Economy

Maxime Bernier, long time climate denier is relying on German scientist Mojib Latif to back up his claim that scientists are now casting doubt on climate change science.

In his letter to La Presse, Bernier wrote:

“Some very serious scientists believe that we are under-estimating the influence of the sun and other factors that have nothing to do with carbon emissions.

Mojib Latif, a German researcher associated with the IPCC who essentially supports the warming theory, said last fall that temperatures may decline for two decades before warming resumes. No model predicted this. But the same models claim to predict the number of degrees of warming by the end of the century. And that’s only one of the “certainties” about which there is no consensus."

Mojib Latif does not merely “essentially” support consensus science. He most emphatically supports it. He is sick and tired of his work being distorted. (I am including the Guardian article about his work). The distinction between climate and weather is well discussed by Latif.

First thing Monday morning I will be sending Mr. Bernier a copy of Global Warming for Dummies. It is a briefing book I suggest he read, and not leave behind when he is distracted.

Maxime Bernier has a long history as a climate change denier (http://www.cyberpresse.ca/opinions/forums/201002/24/01-954783-une-position-sage.php
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/maxime-bernier-has-long...)

Prior to being an MP, he was associated with the Montreal Economic Institute.  In the 2006 election campaign that organization published the only confirmed public response from the Harper Conservatives denying climate science.  The MEI opposed the IPCC science and posted a detailed reply to its questionnaire. The Harper Conservatives rejected IPCC science then. Once Stephen Harper became Prime Minister, the IPCC science was removed from the Environment Canada website.

Still, the Harper government hopes Canadians will not learn that their government does not believe that the climate crisis is real.  Thanks to Maxime Bernier, maybe more Canadians will realize his views are consistent with those of his boss.  Canada's government is alone in the world in denying the climate science.

I had a wonderful dose of both this evening.  First, I went to one of the best local pubs, the Prairie Inn (an institution founded in 1859), with lots of large screen TVs (not since 1859).

It was the perfect spot for the spectacle of watching the opening ceremonies.  Of course, I am sure people who were actually there felt their spot was better, but they did not get to watch Team Canada marching in while eating local oysters!

Around the time Nelly Furtado and Bryan Adams finished their number, I headed off for another much anticipated event. 

I have several friends involved in a choir called “Voces Intimae.”  This community choir performs to a highly professional standard, specializing in a capella pieces. Tonight was the debut of their extraordinary Rachmaninov’s “Vespers.” Rachmaninov wrote this  liturgical 15 movement choral work composed for a sunset service in 1915. I had never heard of it.  My friend Heather who is in the choir had told me that as they practiced, she found the piece brought her to tears.  Weeks ago, I put the opening night in my calendar, forgetting it was the opening night of the Olympics.  The concert did not disappoint. I was transported and deeply moved.  It was the most extraordinary music.  Heavenly.

As I was reading the choir director’s notes in the programme, I started down the line of thought that led to this blog.

Tony Booker wrote:

“….when planning this particular concert I was not aware that it coincided with the opening of the Games, so I am really grateful to our audience members who have decided that it is more important to get out and support local community arts events than to stay home glued to the ‘box.’…When you listen to the ‘Vespers’ I am sure you will agree that performing this work is as challenging as performing in an Olympic event.  It requires

1. dedication;
2. years of training and coaching;
3. enormous courage and physical endurance (and nerves of steel); and
4. exceptional intelligence (in this case the ability to read both music and Russian).”

While I agree, no doubt, others may dispute that an a capella choir can compare with an Olympic event. The Olympics celebrate youth and physical skill.  The arts can celebrate young and old, wisdom, experience and deep spiritual awakening.  

I have been fortunate to know a number of wonderful young women in the Canadian heavyweight women’s Rowing Team.  Some have won Gold and Silver.  That I have friends who won Olympic medals may not have been the most logically intuitive connection, but I got involved with an effort to address the water pollution problems in the artificial lake where they practice near London.  I know how much they juggle school and practice, touring and competitions with other obligations, their family and studies.  How they struggle financially, all to excel in their sport.  People dedicated to their sport at the level of Olympic performance are inspiring.

But so too are our musicians and dancers, poets and community choirs.  In all this Olympic fever, it is worth asking whether we need a Cultural Olympics.  My grandmother was from Wales, where the national cultural festival, the Eisteddfod, has the national stature we give the Olympics.  The awarding of the chair for poetry and for prose conveys on the winner the aura of national hero.   (I grew up with enormous pride that my great-grandfather was twice chaired as bard at the Eisteddfod). 

I got home late and watched more of the opening ceremonies on tape.  An astonishing transformation of ice floes, to magical whales swimming across an open ocean to salmon to forest.  Sarah McLachlan singing of ordinary miracles. A celebration of fiddling and step dancers, with a rousing crescendo from Cape Breton’s Ashley MacIsaac. Donald Sutherland’s voice, quotes from Canadian literary giants.  KD Lang singing Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah.    Measha Brueggergosman and the Olympic hymn. Stunning as spectacle and profiling some of our most talented and successful artists.       

That was culture, wasn’t it?  And if the Olympics can deliver such a breath-taking show as David Atkins and Ignatius Jones put on tonight, then is it churlish to say we need more? 

No.  Now is the right time to say we need more arts support.  More chances for singers to be supported before they win Grammies.  For poets to be celebrated even if they aren’t Leonard Cohen.  Even if they are young, unheard of performers of spoken word poetry, of young violinists and ballet dancers, let’s support their training and coaching. Let’s start dreaming of the world cultural Olympics. 

It is not a choice between athletics and the arts.  We don’t choose between our lungs and our heart.  A healthy society needs both.  We can choose both. 

It seems a long time ago that an untried Conservative Party leader led a fledgling party (created by the merger of Progressive Conservatives and Alliance party) into an election.  The 2004 election campaign gave only a tenuous minority to the Liberal Party.  Within another 18 months, that same Conservative leader took his party to government with a well-focused, disciplined campaign with one core message: Demand accountability. 

Stephen Harper’s success in 2006 owed much to the Sponsorship Scandal.  Ironically, former Prime Minister Paul Martin’s anger at his political adversary (and former Prime Minister) Jean Chretien contributed to Martin’s defeat.  Had he treated the scandal differently, shrugged it off as the cost of saving the country, he might have survived the election.  But he was so outraged at the discovery that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been diverted to Liberal ad agencies and kick-back schemes that he established an investigation headed by John Gomery.  And the rest is history. 

With the shut down of Parliament, the cry of “accountability” is once again abroad in the land.  This time it is directed at the most unaccountable Prime Minister in Canadian history. 

Those who had hoped for real accountability -- reduced access to lobbyists and a real commitment to meet electoral promises -- have been gravely disillusioned.  The Accountability Act was passed in Parliament, but omitted about 30 key measures that had been in the Harper 2006 campaign pledge. In fact, the bill, once passed, removed the “duty to act honestly” which had previously been in place for senior bureaucrats and Cabinet members. 

Accountability has been ducked in ignoring bills passed by Parliament which the government never wanted (the bill to demand climate action) or which the government initially wanted and then found to be inconvenient (the fixed election date law).

The most recent prorogation of Parliament has been linked by many to the government’s wish to shut down the hearings into allegations of torture of Afghan detainees.  Richard Colvin, that singularly decent federal civil servant, appeared on a subpoena to the committee.  He told the Parliamentary committee that those handed over by Canadian military to Afghan authorities were not necessarily combatants.  They were taxi drivers, farmers, men at the wrong place at the wrong time. He testified it was a virtual certainty they would be tortured and that he passed this information to Ottawa.  As a trusted and high ranking member of Canada’s foreign service in Washington, he hardly fits the “Whistle-blower” profile.  This week his lawyer accused the government of seeking reprisals by refusing to pay his legal bills.  The truth is even stranger and more Machiavellian.  It turns out that when Colvin was first subpoenaed, a Justice Department lawyer offered to be his counsel.  Knowing that his personal legal interests and those of the government might diverge, he immediately refused the offer.  Subsequently justice lawyers claimed that since he was once a client, all communications with Colvin, going back to when he sent emails warning of torture were “privileged.”  So the production of the documents to prove Colvin was telling the truth is being blocked by the bogus claim that it would violate his solicitor-client privilege.

The level at which accountability is evaded would shock traditional conservatives.  Let’s return to the kind of scandal where government misspends taxpayers’ dollars to boost their electoral fortunes.   This is an area where Stephen Harper’s tactics make the Sponsorship Scandal look like a Sunday school picnic.  The abuse of MP householders, mailings paid for by the taxpayer, is being used to bombard voters with partisan propaganda.  Giving up at getting some controls over the Conservative use of these fliers, now the Liberals are doing it too.  

Meanwhile, demands to know the amount of money being spent to advertise the wonders of the stimulus programme fall on deaf ears.  Martha Hall-Findley, Liberal MP, charged that the spending to orchestrate the last stimulus package update in September was one million dollars for that day alone.  No government member rejected the claim.  Millions upon millions of federal dollars were spent last fall to urge voters not to allow the programme to be slowed, as though an election would do that.  There has been zero accountability of the amount of money spent on advertising.

Last month I met with Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  He has, quite rightly, pointed out that Canada faces a serious structural deficit.  The Harper government denies it despite the fact that it is undeniable.

The government stimulus package is being rolled out without any mechanism to trace if money is being spent on its intended goals.  Meanwhile, in the US, President Obama created web sites for the citizenry to trace every single project. When asked how Canada was tracing the flow of the billions, Transport Minister John Baird rejected calls for accountability.  Incredibly, he stated that it was not the role of “big government” to trace how the money was spent.   How can it not be the role of government to make sure taxpayers’ dollars are spent appropriately?  Yet, relying on message over sense, he demonized the call for government accountability as “big government” intrusiveness. 

This is something of the tip of the iceberg.  No doubt there have been other politicians whose actions in office would have earned their contempt when they were in Opposition.  But Stephen Harper’s cynical rejection of accountability has taken such hypocrisy to new heights.          

I have blogged before trying to chase the shifting (and constantly weakening) climate targets of the Harper government.

Our news release from Sunday will tell you some of what just happened -- a dodge based on using the US target as Canada’s target.  Canada has shifted from our legally binding Kyoto target (6% below 1990 by 2012) to Harper’s first target, breaking the law, (20% below 2006 levels by 2020) to the second Harper target, claimed by Prentice to be the US target: 17% below 2005 levels by 2020.  European nations, meanwhile, are committed to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 (Scotland is committed to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and others have a range of more ambitious targets).

But do we really have the same target as the US?

We do not.  

IF we hit the new 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 (and I say IF because the Harper government has no plan to get to that target), we would have emissions above 1990 levels, while when the US hits its targets (and I say WHEN  because the US has in place plans to over-achieve and get more than 17% reductions), US emissions will be below 1990 levels.

All of this confusion is created by Canada’s contribution to global climate negotiations – the base-year fudge.  Until Harper picked 2006 as the base year, all nations in the world operated from the same base year: 1990 -- the year climate negotiations began within the UN system.  Sadly, Canada made it possible for other nations, notably the US, to start fiddling with base years.

When we shifted from 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, most eyes focused on the reduction in the percentage cut -- a 3% weakening.  But the big fudge is in the base year.

This is because 2005 emissions were above 2006 and so the final target is weaker by 6%, not three. 

Stick with me and let’s walk through the numbers.  (Thanks to John Streicker, Green candidate in the Yukon and northern issues critic on Green Cabinet, for this analysis)

According to UNFCCC, Canada's emissions are/were:

1990 = 592 mega tonnes CO2e
2005 = 734 mega tonnes CO2e
2006 = 721 mega tonnes CO2e

This makes our Kyoto target:  1990 - 6% = 557 mega tonnes CO2e
The first Harper target:  2006 - 20% = 577 mega tonnes CO2e
The new Harper target: 2005 - 17% = 610 mega tonnes CO2e

By choosing this new baseline year they have weakened the target not by 3% but by nearly 6%!

So, if we ever hit this target, we will be above 1990 levels in 2020.  This represents a gross level of irresponsibility.  The Harper government pretends it is committed to avoiding a 2 degree global temperature increase.  To do that, the industrialized world must reduce to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020.   If world governments followed Canada, we would lock the world's climate into meltdown.

There are not words.  To hear our Governor General speak of her family, to know so many Canadians cannot reach their brothers and sisters, to know that the misery of poverty in Haiti is not a natural condition of one end of Hispaniola Island, but relates to long-standing political post-colonial injustice, but to somehow feel this is not the time to look for anyone to blame, all this rushes through my brain.  I am very grateful to Stephen LeFrenie, Green candidate in Trinity-Spadina (see his updates) for his work in keeping the issue of Haiti in our minds at all times, for calling for Canada to take responsibility for our role in repression, and now for providing immediate updates on the situation in a country where he has so many links..
 
We must try to hang on to the new glimmers of recognition of the political struggles and desperate need for poverty alleviation in Haiti to continue the work, but….Now a few things can help.  We can get out the credit cards, trying to find one not maxed out after the holidays, and make a donation.  I just went to the Humanitarian Coalition site.  You can find them and other great groups like Médecins sans frontières on our site by clicking onto the map of Haiti.
 
We can afford to be generous.  Think about our lives.  Then think about Haiti.  Pray. Donate. Help however you can.

Since I posted my last blog on New Year's Eve, urging Canadians to demand respect for democracy and accountability from their government, I have been heartened to see so many actions launched.  People who have never been political in their lives are organizing.

January 23 has been chosen as a day for rallies for democracy.  I am going to post all those sites where actions are proposed.  These efforts are not those of the Green Party. I want to be clear that we are not trying to claim "credit" for this grassroots movement, neither do we necessarily support every call for action.  But the word needs to spread and greens from across Canada should support local actions in their area.  The list grows daily, so let me know if we have missed any.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=260348091419

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=380925270572

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=225434253378

The Prime Minister's latest move, to pick up the phone and ask the Governor General to shut down parliament until early March, proves once again his extreme cynicism and mastery in political calculation.  As commentators, from Jeffery Simpson, to John Ibbitson, to Andrew Coyne have pointed out, there is no excuse for this affront to democracy.  But as Ibbitson noted, Harper is probably right in guessing that in the week between Christmas and New Year, on New Year's Eve, not enough people will be outraged.  As Kady O'Malley pointed out, you cannot even dream up the talking points for this one.  Parliament gets in the way of Olympic games?  Athletes will find Question Period an artificial performance enhancer?

There is no precedent for this.  Amazingly other nations have managed to have government continue during the Olympics. PMO flak Dimitri Soudas, last seen in Copenhagen  haranguing and wrongly accusing Stephen Guilbault of a prank that embarrassed Canada, announced that prorogation was necessary as the government's economic approach required "recalibration." "Recalibration"--  there's a word to conjure. Obviously having Parliament in session would exude vibrations  interfering with the total stillness required for recalibration.   As Coyne said, this is "bilge."

What now?  We need to expect the unexpected. We need to kick and scream at this insult to democracy -- because that is what it is.  We need to support each other, efforts by other parties, non-political leadership. Wherever a clear and compelling call for democracy emerges, that voice must be supported.

When I wrote my last book ("Losing Confidence- Power, politics and the crisis in Canadian democracy") I thought we had seen the most outrageous abuse of our system of government. But this is worse. Harper's move this week is premised on the assumption that enough Canadians simply do not care about democracy or the role of Parliament.   It presumes that Parliament can be shuttered for trivial political reasons;  that legislation, committees, government accountability, a climate plan, progress on pensions, the investigation of the alleged cover-up in the treatment of Afghan civilians and other detainees --- that none of that matters enough to have consequences for Mr. Harper.

In the interests of democracy, let's hope this time his cynicism has miscalculated.

The negotiations in Copenhagen did not produce what the planet and, more particularly, what humanity needs.  What did it accomplish?

The Kyoto Protocol remains operational through to 2012.  That is unchanged.  The Copenhagen Accord is unclear as to the future of the Kyoto Protocol past 2012.  Some claim it will replace Kyoto, but that is not yet clear.  One reason is that it is open to many interpretations is that the full conference managed to accept the importance of the document (the "take note" route) without adopting it as a full decision of the COP.

I saw Norman Spector's blog was already ridiculing such language, which surprised me as I thought he had more international experience. Just to give a sense of the significance of "take note," the Earth Charter process has tried for years to get a UN document "taking note" of the Charter. While endorsed by a number of nations and UN Agencies, we couldn't get "take note" into the final statement out of Joannesburg in 2002 despite Kofi Annan's help. The US blocked it.  So this language is not without meaning.

What the COP did after nearly being hijacked by a very non-UN, shot-gun wedding kind of negotiation, was hang on to the limited progress in the Copenhagen Accord, without sacrificing what is needed to avoid GHG rising past 2015.  Progress is primarily found in a framework for mutual trust and verification of carbon cuts into the future.  This trust is critical between the US and China, and especially for President Obama's benefit in getting both domestic legislation and any future protocol through Congress.

The "take note" route also solidifies the trajectory for those countries in the group of 5 and then 20-something nations that signed on.  While their promised cuts are not good enough, and while they are not legally binding, the final COP decision makes it harder for those countries to drop their pledges.  As UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon clearly hopes, this puts pressure on the world's biggest polluters (and that includes Canada) to start emission reductions immediately.

The "take note" route also makes it harder for the promised financing to be ignored.  The US and UK, who pushed this, now have to find the money.  Hillary Clinton said "public and private sources.". Clearly the $100 billion/year pledge by 2020 is not going to come from either existing aid monies, nor is it going to come through existing aid sources.  Something innovative is needed.  The Tobin Tax would fit the bill.  A tax on speculative currency transactions, applied universally and globally, would accomplish two things --  stabilize national currencies and help economies around the world (Nobel Prize winner in economics, James Tobin, saw this as the proposal's main benefit), while raising the funds to meet the Copenhagen Award pledge.

The COP15 summit thus had something to show for the frantic negotiations, but, thanks to a lot of developing country push-back, did so without creating a COP decision that would weaken our chances.  It did not take the heat off the process to develop a legally binding treaty. And, it raises the possibility of aligning to avoid 1.5 degrees, instead of 2 degrees, which is not a level of increase to keep the world's peoples safe.

There remains much about the accord that is dangerous (the review in 2016 being actually terrifying, as if GHGs do not peak and fall by 2015, 2016's review becomes a post-mortem), but with non-stop meetings continuing between now and COP16 in Mexico City, we have the possibility of getting to where we need to be in time.

Take heart. Be brave. Fear not.  The global movement for climate justice has a long road ahead. Enjoy family and friends over the holidays. (I will, so not likely to be blogging as I get some post-COP15 recuperation time).

For anyone for whom this holiday break is a celebration of faith, have a very Merry Christmas. Enjoy Chanukah. And for everyone else, enjoy the sense of peace the holidays bring. Recharge your energies. Hug your loved ones. Enjoy.

The New Year will be dedicated to making the difference that protects our world.

I have been to quite a few Conferences of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (COPs).  Some have been brilliant, like COP11 in Montreal.  Some were dismal, like COP14 in Poznan.  But, Copenhagen takes the cake as a bad COP.

We were welcomed to a city postered in the encouraging slogan "I live in HOPE enHagen." By the time we left, one clever friend was calling it "Hopeless Hagen."

It was rough at a couple of levels --  some substantive, some just atmospheric (no pun intended).   The impact of the bad logistics, crazed and paranoid security and abusive treatment of civil society participants did impact on the substantive.  Delegations whose members had been trapped in security cordons (some for as long as 8 hours in bitter cold) were not in a good mood to negotiate.  When the UN has a venue that holds 15,000, it should not register 40,000 to attend..  Clearly the reduced access to some level was needed. But then they over-did it reducing NGO participation from 20,000 to 300. The halls and chairs in Bella Forum were empty.  But why?

The exclusion of civil society turned out to be just the beginning. On Friday, once President Obama arrived, a very non-UN approach took over.  Brokering a deal between the US, India, China, South Africa and India would have been a brilliant starting place to the negotiations, had it been accomplished in advance.  As it was, the arrogance of ignoring so many nations resulted in another 12 hours, through the night, of negotiations.

What is the result?  The two page Copenhagen Accord is a political statement, non-binding. It leaves targets for GHG reductions to be filled in later.  It pledges to keep global average temperature below 2 degrees C, promises to consider 1.5 C but would, on current commitments take the world past 3 degrees.

The same nations will meet again for COP16 in Mexico. Meanwhile the June G-8 and G-20 would be an excellent place to push for more and stricter commitments.  Too bad those meetings are in Canada.

A spring election could help, but only if climate and the responses to the climate crisis could play a role.

In the meantime, we cannot let up the pressure for a nanosecond.  Mexico City's COP16 had better be a very good COP.

...it appears that Bolivia and Venezuela just walked out of the COP.

Rumours flying but appear confirmed that the Danish organized a meeting of the "most important" leaders and forgot to invite China. The level of distrust and anger between the G77 and China and the Danes is so large now, even this political fig leaf may not get support now.

The UK Guardian has published an excellent summary of why no deal is better than a bad deal (in the words of Desmond Tutu). It is all about the science. On current carbon reduction commitments, the stated G-8 goal of keeping temperture to no more than a 2 degree temperature rise would be overshot by a full degree. The article doesn't mention that a global average temperature rise of 3 degrees puts us into a scenario of self-accelerating, unstoppable run-away global warming.

In any event, meaningful and deeper GHG cuts are urgent. If Obama has some of those in his back-pocket we might be able to see a meaningful deal here. But the rich countries offering money and leaning hard on the poor and most vulnerable to take a bad deal is an ugly picture. I know the meek are supposed to inherit the earth. Soon, please.

Sarkozy and Lula are not giving up.  Working the phones.  Sarkozy to Obama. Is it possible?

Yes.

There were some brave speeches, claiming there is still a chance of a legally binding and transparent agreement in Copenhagen.  But it is increasingly hard to believe them.

Gordon Brown has tried to save the negotiation. He said that Copenhagen will be "blessed or blamed" by future generations. He argued against narrow self-interest. The only new bid was more money - starting at $10 billion/year working to $100 billion/ year.


HiIlary Clinton repeated the US target.  -17% below 2005 by 2020…but she topped it up with the US goal to jointly mobilize $100 billion/year by 2020 - from public and private sources....(Same target as Gordon Brown). What this amounts to is a pledge to find or raise the money.

Chancellor Angela Merkel was correct, speaking from Germany before headed to COP15, noting that the US target was not "ambitious."

And she is right.  The US should offer to reduce emissions more rapidly, but it does not seem likely.  The health care crisis and that legislation in the US Congress has impacted this meeting, with US Senators who had planned attend COP15, have stayed in Washington.  The Waxman Markey bill is linked in terms of political priorities. It has not passed, but it is also not good enough.  It means Barack Obama comes here without the key ingredient to unlock the deadlock and save these negotiations. A 20% cut against 1990 levels by 2020 would be enough (I think) to get China to agree to leveling off emissions and other pieces would fall in place.  But it is late, with President Obama coming tomorrow, and Hillary Clinton repeating today what everyone had heard of the US target, only offering more money, it is unlikely Obama will bring anything new.  Of course, he still could. And others could do more as well.  But at this writing the police repressive tactics, the unbelievable exclusion of NGOs from the negotiations, the combination of arrogance and incompetence from the Danish government have all contributed to a sense of inevitability about looming failure.

Nauru, Marcus Stephen.

We want a fair, legally binding agreement.  Negotiations very contentious and we have failed to reach a good outcome. It is clear that not all countries understand the severity of the issue.  I am under intense political pressure to abandon my principles.

We are told to be realistic. We have been offered $10 billion, for all the world. How is that realistic?

We have nowhere to go. I cannot compromise my commitment to my people.

We must be realistic and practical. We must follow the science.

We face a serious problem. What we need are serious solutions.

The large emitting countries must take responsibilities for their actions. There can be no political agreement when there is no political will.

[I have heard from Green colleagues that Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown are twisting arms to get the African nations and low-lying island nations to cave]

Kenya; Kibaki. Equity means an approach that is fair.  Committing to a 10% forest cover by 2028, up from 2%, and investments in wind and solar. $25 billion by 2020 in investments and needs help.

There was a break in the leaders' speeches.

I went to a side-event from ICLEI, now chaired by an old friend from BC, David Cadman.   In a discussion of local cities initiative, Sir Nicholas Stern opened.  He pointed out that at current rates of emissions, continuing and shooting past 2015, we would not be able to avoid 5 degrees celsuis averge global temperature increase...making the planet as hot as it was 30 million years ago....when no humans lived here.

Hard to keep up. Right now it is the Pres of Micronesia as climate crisis is a threat to existence.

I ask your help to save my people. I ask your help to save our planet. We are not here by accident, we are here for a purpose, let us seal the deal...

Maldives: PM Nasheed. This is the "end game" in more ways than one.  Negotiations have been fraught, time consuming and difficult....I am still optimistic that we can still leave this meeting with a planet-saving deal.  As of now, we have discovered the text we negotiated all night is now not agreed upon.  We will have no text to share with the leaders.  For us this is more than just another meeting. This is a matter of life and death. Any GHG above 350 ppm, and temperature higher than 1.5 degrees is not acceptable.  If we go over that, it will submerge our nation, turn our oceans to acid,--  you cannot imagine I could agree with the idea that 350 is impossible. If it were, we would be saying, saving our countries is impossible.  We must ensure that GHG levels peak and start dropping by 2015.

It is not carbon we want, but development. Not coal that we want, but energy. Not oil that we want, but transportation.  I urge China to take a lead. We urgently need to move forward. Giving us intensity targets that are close to business as usual is not acceptable.

The Maldives have pledged to be carbon neutral by 2020.

To the industrialized world ... you have the financing and the technology. Please make it available for others.
Climate has nothing to do with money.  We have never taken aid from the EU countries.  We have fended for ourselves.  I want to be able to have grandchildren. It has nothing to do with money.  Impressed with what some sub-national governments are doing, like California and Quebec.

We must come to an agreement. It is a matter of life and death.

Comments from the President of Venezuela:

• Back to the earlier concerns over the lack of transparency.  Bolivia said earlier, the text presented is not democratic or inclusive.  A new document? Top Secret!  It is not democratic, it is not inclusive. Well, ladies and gentlemen is that not the reality of this world. There is an imperial dictatorship in this world. This is a reflection of this.  There's a group of countries who think they are better than us in the developing world.
• There is no democracy in this world.  There were two young people in here earlier.  The police were kind. They pushed them but not very much.  There are lots more people out there.
• Let's say hello to all the people out there in the streets. And they are mostly young. And they have a right to be concerned. We could say there is a ghost lurking. That ghost is silent somewhere in this room that ghost, a terrible ghost, capitalism is that ghost.
• The rich countries of the north helped the bankers and. One of the signs I saw in the street.."If the climate was a bank, they would have saved it."  Obama isn't here yet.  He got the Nobel Peace Prize pretty much the same day they sent 30,000 people to Afghanistan.

And those were introductory comments.

• Climate change most devastating environmental treats of the last century.  Endangering life on this planet. 7% of the world population (500 million) responsible for 50% pollution. The 50% poorest only responsible for 7%....
• You cannot really ask the same of the US and China.  

I missed a bit of this crowd pleasing entertainment, but he threw in "capitalism is the road to hell " and used Jesus (and the camel thru the eye of the needle...) as support.

The system of national governments negotiating is a "Fundamentally dysfunctional political system."  Prime Minister Zenawi of Ethiopia speaking on behalf of all countries of Africa.

"Not here as victims of the past....but as stakeholders of the future..."

"A commitment to develop Africa in a way that is not carbon intensive. Ethiopia to be Carbon neutral by 2025." (Bill Clinton told me about this goal of Ethiopia.)

Tillman Thomas, PM of Grenada on behalf of low lying island states...the entire world comes together. Demands that industrialized countries cut by 45% reductions below 1990 by 2020. First reference to 2015, peak and decline. No more than 1.5 degrees. "One point five to stay alive."

Lesotho PM Bethuel Mosisili on behalf of least developed countries.  Decline in agricultural production, increased disease...rising sea levels, or as in case of Lesotho, fragile mountain environments.

Very limited capacity to cope with these threats.

I have never seen anything like this.  The meeting was adjourned for Environment Minister Connie Hedegaard to be replaced by the Danish PM to introduce leader after leader for speeches.

BUT before leaving the Chair, Connie said there would be new proposed language soon on Kyoto Protocol text...not available now. So as the PM tried to gavel in the high level session, speaker after speaker has denounced the process as not transparent.  China spoke of a "matter of trust with the host country." (Strong language in UN deiplmatic-speak) and then Brazil agreed -- where is the text? And India (still visibly shaken from whatever happened to him in Security) agreed...Ecuador agreed and developing countries . The PM now insists they go on with leaders' speeches.

Another point of order from Brazil.  They negotiated all night long. I ran into delegates leaving at 6:45 am when I got off the metro, they were getting on having worked all night.  They know there is a new text.  They have it. They want to know if it is the basis of further work.

Now South Africa Minister Mabhudafhasi has taken the floor to support India, China, Sudan etc...

There is clearly deep distrust that the text agreed to overnight may disappear.  The PM Rasmussen is totally unprepared and keeps saying "we have to move forward." But his measures of progress are not shared. He is watching the clock on getting speeches from leaders going.  These delegations want to ensure they have a text.

Now China takes the floor on a point of order. China's lead is now speaking English. (He usually has a female voice over of a translater.) He is sticking to his point that the Danish presidency has not properly consulted...