Barack Obama and Copenhagen Summit

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 3

Published Date: Dec 28, 2009

Many people who followed the United Nations Summit on global climate change are aware that, at the last moments before the conference closed, United States President Barack Obama flew to Copenhagen, Denmark, where the summit was taking place.  However, his actual role is not so well understood.  Did he help the talks?  Or, as many suggest, were his efforts more for show.  Or, perhaps, more realistically, somewhere in between?  Whether or not President Obama’s role had any real and meaningful effect on the Copenhagen Summit probably depends on your perspective and stance on the issue itself.

White House reports coming out of Washington, D.C., state that President Obama’s efforts demonstrate a lofty diplomatic achievement.  Surely, Obama’s speech at the Copenhagen Summit did not mince words as he criticized the lack of a reasonable agreement between the meeting nations.  Perhaps his boldest move was reports that Obama ‘crashed’ a meeting that was occurring between China, Brazil, India and South Africa – four countries that United States representatives had been trying to meet with.  When he noticed that the four countries were meeting, Obama apparently stated something to the effect that, ‘we’ve been wanting to meet with all of these countries, and now here’s our chance.’

Although many concede that the final agreement is far from perfect, journalist and Copenhagen Summit watchers from around the world were pleasantly surprised to hear that, after two weeks of discussions that had basically been stalled, in fact quite stuck, any agreement had been made.  Barack Obama, according to his and the White House public statements is taking credit (albeit according to his own words, Obama admits that his contribution was ‘modest’) for pushing through what many had figured was the impossible; ‘enticing’ China to agree to accountability measures that it had so vigorously resisted.

The final agreement, as noted by climatologists who watched the Copenhagen Summit closely, falls far short of what needs to be done to halt global climate change.  Even so, that point may be mute as several countries are threatening to veto the accord, effectively making it null and void; representatives from Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Nicaragua particularly are incensed that the United States may have forced their, and China’s hand.  If vetoed by those countries, some may, in the end, consider the entire Copenhagen Summit a failure.

Even Barack Obama admits that the long-term picture may be bleak as, to paraphrase his words, ‘by taking one step forward, the frustration and resentment may make us take two steps back.’  Perhaps, however, the bigger step forward was the actual dialogue and contention that all participating nations agree to a transparent process for analyzing progress toward emissions reductions.  Ultimately, only the near future will tell us if the accord will ‘stick,’ and only after decades of living with the ramifications, negative and positive, of the Copenhagen Summit will tell us what the true results of the efforts of key players like U.S. President Barack Obama ultimately played.  Maybe then, Barack Obama can claim he ‘won’ a battle toward reducing global carbon emissions.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 28, 2009.

Copenhagen Summit, America, And China

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 2

Published Date: Dec 26, 2009

The landmark United Nations summit on climate change that took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, earlier this month is still causing conversation and debate.  Much of this debate was around the conflict between two major players; the United States of America and China.  In a nutshell, the discussion centered around the two countries with the highest per-capita carbon emissions on the planet.  At the core of the debate was the insistence that all countries submit to outside verification, or external monitoring, total emissions.  Still, China is hesitating over this part of the agreement.

What led up to this part of the summit?  Many blame the fact that the United States, up until this summit, had universally rejected many of the climate change accords that had been previously negotiated (at the Kyoto agreements, for example).  Despite the changing attitude toward the United States, in general, toward a more open approach, there is still a bit of ‘bully’ mentality perspective; for example, surveys taken world wide have indicated a more positive view of U.S. Politics and world stance.  But, even so, the U.S. tends to come across as an overbearing force by telling other countries, new to the worldwide power stage (aka China) what to do.

This, of course, set up some interesting discussions.  It can be argued that China has, in some way, surpassed the United States in an economic sense.  China’s economy has been growing, while the United States economy is still in recovery from what some describe as a light depression.  Considered a ‘developing’ country by some standards, China argues that in order to sustain their economic growth and position, they must be given some flexibility when it comes to emissions.  The United States, long the biggest user (per capita) of natural resources, is in no position (paraphrases China) to dictate a reduction in emissions.

In the end, the United States made a situation during the Copenhagen summit that forced China’s hand.  It was, some say, a strategic move by the U.S.  And, others say that it is a bit of manipulation.  Either way, the result was that the U.S. would contribute more than $100 billion to poor countries, via an international fund.  But, there was a catch (here’s where the manipulation might have been involved) in that any major countries signing onto this assistance would be required to to commit to a reduction in carbon emissions by signing a binding agreement and submit to verification by external means or so-called ‘transparent verification.’

The assistance ‘catch’ specifically mentioned “all major nations,” and all who were involved in the discussions, and close observers knew that “all major nations” really meant China.  From the beginning of the summit, China steadfastly refused ‘transparent verification,’ and so this deal was a way to put to rest some of China’s stubbornness on this part of the agreement.  Nevertheless, the end result was what most saw as an important facet to the entire Copenhagen summit.

But, there’s some bad news.  Reports are that China is quite angry over having been ‘forced’ into this particular agreement.  Some Chinese officials made statements that these demands were, in fact, an ‘insult’ to China and might even be considered a violation of China’s sovereignty and national security interests. Another report states that China, more or less, snubbed bilateral discussions that had been previously arranged with President Barack Obama. 

Only time will tell if China and the United States will be able to find some common ground on the talks that started at the Copenhagen summit.  Needless to say, decades may pass before we know the ultimate result of these accords; both environmentally and politically.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 26, 2009.

Copenhagen Summit – Only The Beginning

Copenhagen Summit Roundup – Part 1

Published Date: Dec 22, 2009

Dubbed the largest environmental meeting in the world, the United Nations Climate Summit that took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, from December 7 thru December 18, 2009.  With almost 200 (192, to be specific) nations from around the globe gathering to discuss possible solutions to the state of our environment, the summit has been getting intense attention since its opening ceremonies, and will surely be examined as the years go by.

The main issues that the climate summit tackled were related specifically to reduce carbon emissions, believed by the vast majority of environmental scientists to be a major contributor to negative changes that we’re seeing in today’s climate, due to human-kinds activity and use (and/or abuse) of natural resources.

The challenge is finding consensus between the 192 countries related not only to the definition of the issue at hand, but the possible solutions, and (more complex) each nations’ role in the solution.  Finally, the summit had to agree on the verbiage of the agreement – this is where much of the debate occurs as all of the countries involved in the summit had to come to a mutual understanding, and stated in a way where they could all agree.

Key challenges also included core issues; carbon emissions, of course, being the main core issue.  Other core topics included the developing worlds’ use of carbon emitting resources, how might a global industrial system operate when considering a reduction of carbon emissions, and deforestation, especially in the rain forest regions of South and Central America.

Trying to agree on any one of these points would be difficult, so you can imagine how heated some of the debate might have gotten when factoring all of these highly complex topics.  Most of the critical debate came from the hardship of finding common ground between developing countries (China, for example) who have quickly growing economies, and are, as a consequence, emitting extremely high levels of carbon-based particles into the environment.  At the same time, there are so-called developed countries (the United States of America), for example, who argue that developing countries must curb their carbon emissions, while (at the same time) some developed countries (and the United States is an example of this) emit high carbon emissions per capita.  Therefore, must of the discussion resembles a finger-pointing type of scenario. 

Ultimately, the summit did result in a lengthy written agreement – critics state that the accord does not go far enough.  Basically, the agreement was to work toward reducing carbon emissions allowing each country to set their own so-called ‘green-house gas’ reduction goals for 2020.  In addition to the goal to reduce emissions, other parts of the agreement state, essentially, that an emissions verification (for accountability purposes) system will be setup, and that deforestation (the stripping of trees in fragile ecosystems like the rain forests in Central and South America) will also be reduced.

Although some may be disappointed by the, let’s be honest, highly limited reach of the summit agreement, the good news might be that the problem of global climate change was recognized as scientifically valid, and deemed an extremely important priority for public health.  In addition, another positive outcome was that all countries agreed that global warming should be limited to 2 (celcius).  Additional talks and actions will follow, and this summit was really only the beginning of a world-wide look at this global issue.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Dec 22, 2009.

Copenhagen Negotiations Creating a Stir

Negotiation Focus on U.S. Possible

First Published Date: Nov 19, 2009

Obama trumps the pack as the House passes the Cap and Tap Bill, leading into the Copenhagen Negotiations. Under heavy fire from the U.S. citizens as they stand divided against or with the new bill is still an enormous volleying game. President Obama took this Bill as a proof positive to lead the Negotiations that the U.S is serious about stopping their damaging greenhouse emissions by capping the amount certain companies and industries can produce in a given period. In the future years, this cap will lower on a basic percentage until they are safely under the damage control level of concern.

By bringing this Bill into the negotiations, Obama hopes this will ensure U.S. dedication and aid in developing countries to make the decisions to join in the efforts as well. Does Obama plan to back the heavy requests by the developing countries or add this Bill as the top offer and non-negotiable? That is where the negotiations could hamstring. It is perceived that the Bill will represent the top offer to appease these developing countries, in reference to ask what they have done on their own to help the present circumstance clouding our future progress as a unified global economy.

The many debates regarding the Bill will filter into the negotiations and will plausibly be the turning key in these talks. There are several flaws rumored to be found in the Bill and these flaws will be the main propaganda used against the U.S. As one of the leading polluters in the world, it is believed that the U.S is simply not doing enough. The Bill, it seems, keeps companies with revenue to by the rights to produce green house pollutants, and if they exceed their limit, they buy more. This can create extreme energy costs for consumers and further kill the economy as well as let the powerhouse industries keep polluting while they overshadow and buy out smaller companies by purchasing their energy pollutant tickets.

The upside is that if the government can legitimately mandate this program it could be successful. However, the faith and trust in the U.S. from other countries will prove as to if this Bill is the answer. The percentage of those aware of the Bill believe it is an underhand ploy to maintain confidence that the U.S. is serious in expunging green house emissions but at a profit. If everything leading to the negotiations remains focused on big business, and monetary gains or losses the focus is going in the wrong direction.

It is also assumed that Negotiations will focus strongly on the fact that we as a global environment need to change our energy resources dramatically, which can also boost the economy of several countries and create a magnitude of employment opportunities. Developing countries will still need aid from the U.S., China, and Russia as well as other powerhouse countries to comply with these demands, the same demands they faced at Kyoto. The same demands that have never been negotiated will hang heavy as talks begin.

Will there be a concern that we as a global community need to aid our fellow brothers and sisters, at every cost to ensure our children will have a future? Who will be the first to point fingers? What arguments will ensue and what type of damage control tactics are in place. There are so many variables it is unclear as to whether everyone is ready to reach a negotiable resolve. As the populations around the world watch their governments prepare there is a since of apprehension, and uncertainty. One can only hope as a populous the best concerns for health and the well-being of people and planet will be addressed, as wealth and competitive gains are not mandating the outcomes. It is important to remain on an economic incline, but the costs to humankind must be highly regarded and evaluated safely.

Let us hope for once that our governments are working in our best interests.

To streamline and minimize blog maintenance, I will be discontinuing maintaining the Thegreenlivingblog.com website (however, I will still hold the domain). I will gradually move all articles from this site to A Dawn Journal. This article originally published on the above website on Nov 19, 2009

The Great Pyramids of Giza | Egypt Travel Blog: Day 2 (Part 19) 01D19

Egyptian Tent Lunch | Eating Experience Like Never Before

Egypt Travel Blog: 10 DAYS Egypt Explorer - Felucca Cruise & Red Sea

Lunch was not included with our tour on Day 2. We were given an option to go to an Egyptian-style tent outdoor restaurant. Those who don’t want to eat can still join and just sit or have tea.

I decided to have lunch because of the unique experience. We drove a while and the tent restaurant was in the middle of nowhere. The area was big and there were chairs and tables separated into sections to accommodate various tour groups.

The tents were not really closed tents. They were protecting us from the desert sun, but all sides were open so I could still have the views of outside.

Our group all sat together. Most of us ordered lunch. I ordered chicken kebab with rice. They grilled the kebab on the table in front of us. I also had Egyptian tea, which I started liking by then.

There were several smaller portion items that came without meals. I didn’t know the names of many of them, but they were all delicious. Lunch costed 200 LE (Egyptian Pound), which was around $16 CAD. I found it a bit expensive compared to the other Egyptian meal I bought outdoors.

The overall experience, sitting in an open space and eating together, was unimaginable. The food tasted very good, but spicy with lots of oil and salt. Still, it felt like food from heaven as we were hungry and thirsty from the activities and desert sun.

From here we would go back to the hotel and get some rest. A very long 16-hour bus journey to Aswan awaited us.