I have been moved to compose this imaginary Christmas message for President Obama because his moral defense of the use of military force is a profound opening for dialogue. His thinking has a background understanding of moral development like no President before him. Every time he speaks he plays the role of national, and at times international, teacher. Based on his Nobel Prize acceptance speech and subsequent interviews, this is a Christmas message I can imagine him giving. Agree or disagree, he is offering all who ponder the question of moral development and the human future the opportunity of deeply thoughtful engagement. -- Keith Helmuth, 23 December 2009
Every tradition of world religion has a collection of stories that carries its special truth to the heart of its followers. Yet, true seekers of the common good find in each tradition a story of relationship that speaks to the moral core of human development.
At this season, when several religious traditions have chosen to highlight the core message of their stories, we have a special opportunity to find the convergence of insight, understanding, and, yes, even love that will build the path of peace and diminish the resort to war.
I have no particular moral standing from which to speak of these things. I offered to lead a nation at war and my offer was accepted. My moral standing is thus radically compromised. But I know this: Although our nation is traveling through a dark time of war-making, we can be better than we have been. We can, through sacrifice, persistence, and heroism, bring this time of violence to an end, or at least, greatly reduce the size and growth potential of this malignancy. To this outcome, I pledge my leadership and my sense of moral development.
As a token of this quest, I am ordering an end to the flights of drone aircraft and their rocket attacks that are killing and maiming mothers and children in the villages of Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.
Think about it: We mourn the lost potential of children in our country who are killed young. Who knows what spiritual leadership, scientific contribution, artistic inspiration, or social and political accomplishments are being cut off, never to be realized, when children are killed by these attacks?
Are not the lives of these children of equal value in the eye of God? There can be no legitimate concept of God’s love that does not hold all children in equal care. And children need mothers.
The Christian faith, my faith, begins with a story of Divine presence in the birth of a baby. Surely this event – the birth of a baby – can be universally recognized as the way the gift of life and love comes to us whatever our cultural and religious traditions.
We live in a time when the stories of our religious traditions, and their understanding of both wrong and right relationships, are converging as never before. The human emergency of an expanding population on a resource limited and environmentally deteriorating planet, along with historic and seemingly intractable inequity, has now put the question of moral development at the center of the human future. If we act according to the gift of life and love as it comes to us in our children, and make the well being of children our moral compass, surely our religious traditions have within them the potential of rising to the challenge of the human future.
I understand that there are those in some religious traditions that reject both the idea and the reality of the common good. These folks interpret their religious stories in a partial way, a way that concerns primarily the well being of their sectarian, ethnic, or national group. This is understandable. My own tradition has a background story that is built on this partial and sectarian world-view: Understandable, perhaps, but not sustainable, and not in accord with the understanding of the larger human story to which we have now been lifted.
I have the honor of having been chosen to act for a brief time as President of the United States of America. Speaking from this position, I recently argued in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech that war is sometimes a tragic and sad necessity that can be supported on moral grounds. I was careful to point out that war is always the result of human failings and deeply wrong relationships. It should never be glorified. It is inevitably a moral catastrophe that, paradoxically, can sometimes claim moral standing.
While this argument makes sense, I know it does not suffice as a guide to the moral development to which we aspire. We live in a circumstance that requires us to hold this paradox in mind. Yet despite the burden of this situation, I am determined, as President, to work unceasingly for a better way.
In this spirit, I want to share something from the heart of my tradition that I believe offers a profound anchor point of experience for a growing sense of human solidarity. It is not an accident that the Christmas tradition has become centered on family, and most particularly on the hopes and dreams of children. Despite the commercial exploitation of this reality, it remains true that, at this time, the mystery of a baby’s birth – the gift of life – and the formation of family ties is brought to us in a story that never grows old.
Overarching all the theological accretions that have been attached to the story of the birth of Jesus, we have the fundamental story of new creation, the story of the way life comes to us, and the unfolding potential, in human terms, of this Divine gift.
At this deepest level of awareness, my tradition can joins hands with all other religious traditions in respect and reverence for the gift of life we all share
At this season, we are especially aware of how mothers and infants, and the building of the family circle are central to all we hold dear and most meaningful in human experience. For Christians there is no clearer image of the Divine than mother and child. And this central motif of creation can join all religious traditions in a bond of recognition around right relationship, and in a quest for the common good.
When I think about the way war fails this bond and this quest, and, in particular, the way it destroys and damages the lives of mothers and children, I am caught in an unbearable circumstance. Many others are also feeling the weight of our terrible war-making situation and, together, we press with all our resources to reach a better time – a time when war is ended and every effort is bent, henceforth, toward its prevention.
I said in my Nobel Prize acceptance speech that although human nature is not perfect, it is not an idle or useless quest to work for the perfecting of the human condition. We know this to be true. The evidence is all around us in the great humanitarian work that continues to be done, and in the steps, as faltering as they may be, toward global cooperation on securing a better human future.
I am not naïve. Stopping the drones and their rocket attacks will not absolutely end the killing of children and mothers in the present conflict, but it will be a step in this direction, a step we can take that honors the way all sound religious faith comes together in a quest for the common good.
Maybe, just maybe, this small gesture of respect for the lives of children and mothers will help move the hearts and minds of those who wish us harm to seek another way of bringing their hopes and faith to the table of our common humanity.
Bowen Island is 20 square miles of rock lying two miles off the west coast of Canada. It is home to 3700 people, three mountains, two valleys, four lakes, about 15 beaches, two species of salmon, one village and me and my family.
Light flurries as I leave the island for my last trip of the year. If you are worried about the road conditions, have a look at the Road Status Map, and update your section to gift information to your neighbours.
13 Dec 09 -- Last night a lovely community gathering at the Library, where 100 of us gathered to hold a candlelight vigil in support of the global call for a real deal on climate change. Caitlin organized the whole thing and she and Aine spoke. Aine talked about the need for world leaders, especially older ones, to make decisions with their grandchildren in mind so that they can tap into the perspective of the youth who are to inherit what we leave for them. The choir sang Dona Nobis Pacem and I helped the group in a rousing rendition of With my own two hands, the great Ben Harper song [click to listen - lyrics here]. We even added an improvised verse, being islanders:
We stand with Tuvalu With our own two hands They're an island too With our own two hands They're sinking into the blue With our two hands, we support them with our own two hands.
NYTimes 12 Sep -- Athens on the Net “crowdsourcing”: put citizens’ policy ideas on the Internet and allow them to vote on one another’s proposals. Bowen Island forum is created.
Sally Freeman 15 Oct -- posted a Great Bear Rainforest video.
Paul Rickett 30 Nov -- ideas from Chris Alexander, A Pattern Language.
Richard Smith 3 Dec -- more people idling in the ferry line up this morning (10:30 ferry, you know who you are...). And I picked up garbage on Adams' Road.
Brenda McLuhan 6 dec -- new island group True Green urges managed growth, higher density.
Fitch Cady 9 Dec -- I think we can speculate on future waves of immigration to the island till the two or three cows (that actually enjoy rural living here) come home. Let’s get a nice big clearly color-coded map of what’s already grandfathered - occupied and unoccupied - up on the internet.
James Glave 19 Dec -- video of ferry lineup, requesting drivers to turn off motors.
Suzanne Schoegl 20 Dec -- a potential locum [replacement] MD is interested in working on Bowen from January until May. One of the hurdles is accommodation.
Chris Corrigan 2 Jan 2010 -- a half day Open Space conversation on "What does Green mean for Bowen?"
Excerpts with the author's permission, from blog A Russia of My Own. Josefina Lundblad is a 22 year old Swede who teaches Swedish at Ural State University while working on her MA in Russian literature.
Feb 2009 -- Ulitsa Chapaeva where I live.
There’s about half a meter of snow here in Yekaterinburg, and when I went on my run this evening it snowed even more. On Saturday it was minus 34! Now it’s only minus 10....
How can I be sure that I am actually back in Russia, and not somewhere else? Today when I paid with my card at the grocery store, the cashier wasn’t pleased with the way I signed the receipt, so she said to me: “No, no, that won’t do, you have to write like it’s written here, on the back of your card. Can’t you see? Do it again!” No suspicion of fraud, no frown of lip nor brow, just the usual Russian way of dealing with things when correcting the mistakes of sloppy foreigners. I signed it a second time, making it look just like my signature on the card, below my first slapdash signature, and she was pleased.
March -- Last night I called my mom, and then my dad, and spoke with both of them for some forty minutes each, which led my brain to dream in Swedish during the night...
Ksenia and I went to the hospital to visit Marina after her operation.... The hospital is located in the outskirts of Yekat, and because they’re doing ‘remont’ (they’re always doing ‘remont’ in Russia, especially here for some reason) on one of the main roads, we had to drive around it and the bus got stuck in traffic. Only in Russia can one get stuck in traffic on a Sunday! The whole day I kept repeating what I read in my favorite weekly dose of news – Russian Reporter – on Saturday night: «не страна, а анекдот!» (not a country, but an anecdote! or joke). I wasn’t the first to say it, but I have been wanting to say it for a long time. It’s true, the more you think about it, the more you come to realize that you’re not really living in a country, but in an anecdote. And since everybody loves a good anecdote, and Russia is indeed the best one, everybody loves Russia. We brought Marina fruit and juice and chocolate and she looked good... We lingered there for an hour or two, trying to solve Swedish crosswords, but only in the end did we manage to finish one – the one for kids.
July --Tomorrow I’m heading out into the Urals, the Pilorama Festivale at the former GULAG camp “Perm-36”. It will be a weekend full of all the things I love most in life – Ural nature, Soviet concentration camp and poetry slams!In 1931 Varlam Shalamov stood and looked out over the river Вишера (the Vishera) and thought to himself: Мне уже 24 года и я еще ничего не делал для бессмертия (I am already 24 years old and I haven’t done anything for immortality yet : from his Антироман Вишера, The Vishera Antinovel). In 2009 Josefina stood and looked out over the same river and thought to herself that the first step towards immortality had been taken already some time ago – when I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
Varlam began his trip to the GULAG in 1929. On my 24th birthday I had made it, two hours by bus, to Krasnovishersk, a road that took Shalamov five days on foot.
В этой могиле мы умирали 3 суток и всё же не умерли. Крепитесь, товарищи! -- “In this grave we were dying for three days and yet we did not die. Stay strong, comrades!” These famous words on the wall of the cellar of the monastery in Solikamsk, where – possibly – Shalamov spent a night in April 1929, are from his short story “The First Tooth”... in the story he looks up at the wall and sees these words. Not the real graffito, though, this is by Shalamov fans who have written the quote – twice! – there in his honor.
After the museum excursion we tried to have some dinner at the ‘food court’, as I nicknamed the tents which served different kinds of very Russian dishes (buckwheat, anyone?), and were almost successful. We looked at the many different people gathered at the festival and marveled at the amount of tents already in place... Everywhere people were drinking beer – despite the fact that the museum’s website clearly said ‘alcohol forbidden’ – we concluded that Russians do not count beer as alcohol....
I cannot stop reading Evgeniya Ginzburg. I am in love with her. Now she was a real woman. In prison, in labor camps, on Kolyma – she was first and foremost a woman. She makes me proud not only of my sex, but my profession. Who knew being a philologist could be a secret weapon?
November - Memorabilia - oпыт феноменологического рассказа
I remember a late, warm evening one summer somewhere in a small Russian village. He’s waiting for me with hot, black tea in glasses – not cups – and dry cookies in the almost empty kitchen of his little summer house. The sun is far from setting, though it is already late, and I look around as I step out of the tiny building which is his banya [= sauna] that he has built with his own two hands. I am warm and wet and clean and smell of strawberry soap and birch trees… Everything around me is full of stillness, stillness of the coming night, stillness remaining after another lazy summer day in the countryside; the trees are bending down heavy over the small garden and the blue, cloudy sky seems lower and lower by the hour, but it is not going to rain; no, tonight it will not rain. I wrap the towel around my wet hair, leaving a couple of strands to fall down my damp back…
The front door is open and he’s standing there, smoking his BelamorKanal [the White Sea Canal, one of Stalin's GULAG megaprojects], watching me as I step down the little stone path leading from the banya up to the house. The house is almost empty now. We’re the only ones here now. His wife is in the hospital. He has been alone for three weeks and now I’m here to clean off the dirt of dusty Russian summer roads that I’ve walked, walked, walked barefoot while picking berries in the fields and looking around me in the woods and thinking that after all, despite of everything: this must be it.
I remember how he cared for me that evening; I remember how he turned out to be something of a country gentleman... from another time very long ago. I remember his heavy grey eyebrows and his long, straight forehead, and his hair that lay like curly silver on top of his large head, and those big, blue eyes as he placed the glass in front of me on the table. I sit down on the chair by the table; he places himself on the bed behind the table as to be closer to me. We talked of old times and of his wife and he told me of his grand children and I listened to his soft voice echoing in such a poor room… There was nothing on the walls. Not even a single picture. Except for the icon over the stove. There was only one single, lonely light bulb hanging from the ceiling. It was the only light. The cookies placed on the wooden table without anything underneath them. The glass was old and steaming with hot tea. I sip and he sips as he watches me and I remember how I liked the way his blue eyes kept looking at me. I remember his large hands, I remember how they lay so still placed on his knees and how we discussed old times and how I couldn’t help but not to forget that we belong to different generations; of this we also talked and he sat so close to me and kept filling my glass with more tea and never tired of caring for me. He didn’t let a single glance of mine pass unseen. His name is Anatoly, but he insist I call him Tolya. Uncle Tolya. I do not object; I call him uncle Tolya and he smiles. Sitting there in that kitchen in a Russian summer house that evening made me remember another kitchen in another Russian summer house two summers before this…. I remember waking up in the double bed next to ___, on white, wet sheets; I remember stretching out my arms to touch the yellow sunrays coming in through the open window; his body was sweaty and young next to mine and I was wearing a purple silk nightgown and we had the entire house to ourselves. We had the entire day to ourselves. We had the entire world to ourselves. There was nothing outside our window but blue sky and green trees and deep Russian woods and somewhere, further down the road, a river running through from somewhere, and all of this belonged to us. We were young and we had never promised each other anything, and in the mornings I would make him breakfast while he walked the dog – yes, there was a dog, we had a dog – I fried eggs, made a salad from fresh vegetables that I picked in the garden, brewed black coffee and cleaned the table from what had been left there the night before: an empty wine bottle, a torn copy of some Murakami book in a poor Russian translation, a half-empty package of condoms… And then we sat there and ate together, playing with each other laughing about something, drinking our coffee slowly and looking out over the garden, expecting nothing but another hot day filled with sunshine. I remember we took long walks together with the dog. I remember how we sat together in the dark in the evenings and read Murakami together, how we discussed everything and nothing and then it really seemed to me that there would be no end to this summer. That there would be no end to our youth, that we would always be this young and that this summer house would forever stand in sunshine and warmth and that the fall would never come, that our arguments would never begin, we would never fight, we would never have any worries every again but stay like this. Right there. I remember running through the wet grass in the evenings down to the lake after sitting in the banya for an hour, sweating and beating each other’s naked bodies with birch trees… I remember jumping into the water, I remember swimming side by side with him; I can’t forget the way the grass felt against my bare feet, how the water felt to my naked body, how free we were that summer. It was as if everything in the whole world was just us: the house, the dog, he, I.
This and following photo: Tanya Emshanova's Ural series on Flickr.com
I remember standing outside in the small garden with uncle Tolya, we’re standing barefoot in together the grass and he’s smoking BelamorKanal and I’m smoking what he calls ‘women’s cigarettes’; it is dark outside now. The sun has set, the moon has come out. We’re watching our shadows on the grass in front of us, the light coming from the kitchen is behind us and falls before us on the grass. His shade is bigger than mine; his shoulders are broad, the smoke coming from his cigarette is thicker, fuller than the smoke coming from mine. My hair has almost dried now and I remember letting it out of the towel as we stand there looking at our two shadows – so different and yet almost the same – on the ground before us and in silence we contemplate. Somehow both of us know that life must go on, that life always goes on, that I will have to take my things and walk back from where I came, that his wife will come back from the hospital, and that we’ll never have an evening together like this again. We want to tell each other what’s important, what matters, and I remember thinking that even in silence, even when we’re not saying anything, we’re still staying within the territory of what matters the most, what is truly important in this world. “I don’t think I’ve ever loved anyone,” I say and he nods. “What makes you think that?” “All of this is so new to me…” He smiles: “It is new to all of us, my dear.” “Can you love more than once in your life?” “You can love a million times,” he answers. “But will it ever be like the first time?” “Every time is special, every time is a universe in itself,” he says and continues: “Every relationship is a world of its own, and you will never know that world if you don’t close your eyes and let go and fall into it with your back first… keeping your arms stretched out as if you wanted to fly, as if you not only could fly, but knew that this is the time that you’ll really soar.” “I think I’m scared,” I say. I remember how uncle Tolya looked at me, how his stern face of an old man who’s served over thirty years in the Russian army broke into the kindest, the warmest glow and how his one hand took a hold of mine. “I don’t know what it is like for you young people these days…” “I think it is nothing new, I think it is the same as it was for you, just…” “Just?” “Just nothing.” He smiles again and again and again. “I want to love another man now, and I want to give him everything, but I’ve already given everything once and that…” “We’re not in this for eternity, we’re in it for the moment,” says uncle Tolya. “It is not about forever?” I ask. He shakes his head. “No, my dear, it is all about now.”
This account originally appeared in Schumacher College's Participant Experience, reprinted here with the permission of the college and the author. We are 17 people assembled in the library of an 18th century English country estate in Devon in the Southwest of England. Looking around, we couldn’t be much more different from each other. As it turns out, we come from various countries, from England, Scotland to Belgium, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine as well as Columbia, Mexico and the USA; our age range is from 27 to late sixties. Our professional backgrounds are not quite as varied, as most include an interest in some form of humanistic concern and an interest in ecology, science and spirituality brings us together, as well as being intrigued by the invitation to join science and soul.
Two weeks lay ahead of us, being ‘educated’, lectured to, by two imminent scientists and scholars, Arthur Zajonc in the first week and Rupert Sheldrake in the second. Each week we also have the pleasure of listening to Satish Kumar, the initiator and founder of Schumacher College as well as two of the resident professors, Brian Goodwin and Stephan Harding [see their articles here] . It is not only the intellectual and factual information that is unique. All four professors are not only well versed in their academic knowledge and are authors of several books and numerous articles, they also combine their science in the service of ecology, or the planet Earth, called Gaia, taken from James Lovelock’s writings, as a living organism as well as a larger Whole and have a spiritual world view.
Arthur Zojanc and Rupert Sheldrake both embedded their knowledge in a historical and philosophical summary, which gave us much understanding of today's prevalent world-view. Not only did they speak of their research, their insights into how all this elates to a bigger whole, but they also shared their very personal spiritual practices; most of us were deeply touched and moved by it. They, as well as Satish Kumar, Brian Goodwill and Stephan Harding, truly walk their talk.
The two week long course, called ‘Soul of Science’ is residential, we all live on the premises; the rooms are distributed in three buildings, are simple but adequate. In typical British fashion, the windows are single-paned and often difficult to open and close. We share toilets and showers; there seems to be an unlimited supply of hot water 24 hours long.
In order that our minds and spirits, brains and souls are able to soar and dance, we have a clear structure in our daily routine.
The day starts with an optional meditation at 7:15, a wholesome breakfast buffet awaits us from 7:45 until 8:30, when we assemble in the hall. Included in this meeting are not only we course participants, the staff and helpers but as well the few graduates of the yearly Masters of Science programme, who have stayed on to write their dissertations.
After an reading by anyone who feels inspired, any pertinent information for the day is given and ‘off to work we go’, either back as a staff or helper or to our one hour long ‘job assignment’, part of the course participants day. The jobs range from cleaning, clearing to cooking and gardening and are fun, as we do them in small groups of three to four. The physical work keeps us firmly on the ground as well as allowing us to experience some community living without the chores becoming burdensome.
My favourites are cooking and gardening. The “Edible Forest Garden” is the inspired work of a former graduate that evolved out of his dissertation. The two chefs, one has even written a recipe book ‘Gaia’s Kitchen’ prepare glorious vegetarian food. It is inspirational to work along such experts in their field who also combine their professional knowledge and skills with dedication and love.
The first academic lecture begins at 10 am and lasts, with a coffee – or tea, since we are in England – break, until 1pm. Our brains are buzzing and excited; we scribble notes and are happy that the second part of the morning is dedicated to questions and discussion.
We use the break times also to share personal information and stories, discuss the presented knowledge and ideas and how we might incorporate them in our daily and professional lives and how they might affect us individually.
Afternoons can be a lecture by a resident professor, a tutorial in a small group, free time to digest the ideas, go for a walk or visit nearby Totnes or a field trip. And we have time to avail us from the extensive library as well as watching videos and DVDs of related topics or previous lectures.
The visiting professors to Schumacher College throughout the year are all at the cutting edge of their field and incorporate it into a holistic world – view, in other words, are part of the new emerging paradigm. The various one, to three weeks long courses one can choose to attend at Schumacher College will differ in content with the various and diverse professors teaching, but each one, as I understand it from previous participants are only one part of the ‘Schumacher Experience’.
The spirit of Generosity, Gentleness, Awareness, Acceptance, Devotion (not in a religious, but spiritual way to Gaia, our planet earth and home) pervades the College and can be experienced not only simply as a sense, but also when interacting with the staff, the helpers, the MSc students and encourages and allows us participants to open up, to ourselves, to each other, be relaxed and truly enjoy learning.
The very last session, dedicated to the integration of the two weeks, showed that we not only gained information and knowledge from our two wonderful professors, but also on a different level, and just as important, from the way they walk their talk. We also discovered many new insights and ideas from the atmosphere, from the staff, the resident professors and from each other. Some of us had plans of ideas or actions to incorporate immediately, others need some more time to digest and plan.
And all of us, as we said our goodbyes, felt not only intellectually enriched and stimulated but deeply nourished in body and soul.
We are being consistent -- and barking mad. As represented by our leaders and lobbies, we repeatedly choose our comfort over the lives of our grandchildren. At Rio. At Johannesburg. At Copenhagen. ...Like the economists whose "cost-benefit" discounts a life in 2020 as less than a life in 2010, and prices a 3rd world life at 1/15 one in rich countries. "The American lifestyle is not negotiable!" said Bush Sr at the 1992 Earth Summit. Let them eat cake, and après moi le déluge, to quote two former rulers (who later lost their heads).
23 Nov 09 Glenn Beck of Fox News launches the denial industry's Climategate campaign: If your gut said, "Wait a minute, this global warming thing sounds like a scam," you're seeing it now. [details and rebuttals here - Ed.]
8 Dec 09 Danielle Smith of the fast-rising rightwing Alberta party Wildrose Alliance, quoting denier Lawrence Solomon: climate change is 'unproven'. I oppose signing a Copenhagen treaty. I'm worried about us embarking on costly schemes to try to reduce our overall emissions rather than doing the obvious things that will come easier.
Bishop Tutu: I too, stand before you as a witness. I have seen with my own eyes the changes in my homeland, South Africa. The Southern Cape is currently experiencing the worst drought anyone can remember. There is not enough food. There is too little water. The situation is becoming increasingly desperate.
Cuyetano Huanca, an indigenous farmer from Peru: Our glaciers are melting. Our water is diminishing. Our crops do not grow. The food for our children diminishes. We indigenous people shall not pay the consequences. Are we guilty? ...We will keep speaking until we see real change. Our voice is the voice of the earth.
Shorbanu Khatans, a cyclone Aila survivor from Bangladesh: We were all starving. My husband went to forage for food; he was eaten by a tiger.
18 dec 09 Todd Brilliant on Obama's speech: Barack Obama’s honeymoon with both the environmental community and greater Europe has come to a end. At Øksnehallen hall in Copenhagen, loud boos fill the room. Hundreds of NGO representatives and media members have responded to a live telecast of the President’s utterly disappointing speech with loudly derisive grunts moans and hisses.
We’ll meet our aggressive reduction goals of 17% by 2020. Boos.
The United States is serious about addressing climate change. Hisses.
Obama’s delivery was flat, uninspired. Given the chance to ignite the world at what is arguably the most significant moment in history, the man mailed it in.
Amy Goodman's Democracy Now blog includes transcripts of Obama's and podcast interviews with various 3rd world participants.
Colin Mayes, Conservative MP from Vernon BC: We should not overreact because a few scientists say CO2 causes global warming. Is it really a trend? We must be careful with taxpayers' money. (He refused to answer followup questions)
Rick George CEO of Suncor, and David Collyer of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers are calling for "trade-exposed" subsidies so tarsands will be "competitive" [in case US cap-and-trade puts penalties on dirty oil]. Though "unofficial", this proposal is being studied in Cabinet, along with reduced energy efficiency targets. [Over and above the Liberal "flow-through" rebates of 2000 that give back half of oil & mine investors' money as a tax credit. Guess who is paying for this?]
17 Dec 09 Kate Dooley of fern.org: An agreement has been reached to prepare the final draft of the Copenhagen Accord, which will then be circulated to countries for consideration (the first time it will be ‘officially’ released and circulated today). Countries, regional groups and negotiating blocs are meeting now to prepare their positions for the final plenary.
On all other issues except this Accord, nothing will be agreed in Copenhagen. While some work was done in bilateral and very small working groups on different issues, no new texts have been released, and all work of the KP and LCA will continue for another year until COP 16 in Mexico (Germany pushing for this to be held in July, but seems strong consensus that this will not be until December.)
This means that REDD will not be agreed here, and work will continue on this, as for LULUCF and many other issues.
These issues will go forward to the ongoing LCA and KP deliberations, probably in a new draft decision form. The changes in REDD include that the brackets have been removed from safeguards but the language weakened, and the brackets removed from sub-national, but am not sure of the changes made to allow this. Also, the finance section was made 'stand alone'. This is because it previously cross-referenced to other parts of the LCA work that have not been pulled off in this accord.
The COP Plenary has just opened to present the draft Accord and give countries 1 hour to consider this and return to plenary, and Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba are making very strong statements that they do not agree to being given one hour to consider this document which a small group of countries put together, and are commenting on Obama’s arrogance and disrespect for Democracy and the UN process to make a press statement that there was a deal before half the world had seen it.
If (and hopefully) this Accord is rejected, there is hope that it will precipitate some kind of change in the way negotiations process on the same issues in the same tracks where very little progress has been made for the past 6 months.
---
18 Dec 09 A Filipina at Copenhagen summarizes negotiations:
Chinese US blame game: The issue of transparency is a smokescreen. The reality is that the US did not come to Copenhagen with anything to offer on the table. Yet, China has done more than the US has.
The United States failed to show leadership by coming to Copenhagen with empty pockets. Now it is scapegoating China on the issue of transparency.
Lack of ambition: Developed countries did not come to Copenhagen to solve the problem. Their offers were inconsistent with what science and equity demands.
The current low levels of ambition by developed countries ensure a temperature increase of at least 3 C, meaning death to millions of the world's most poor and vulnerable.
Flawed process: The Danish Prime Minister has betrayed Denmark's long tradition of being fair and balanced in international affairs. Instead of providing for the equal participation of a all countries, the Danes wrote secret texts in back rooms with a select group of group of countries.
The lack of transparency paralyzed the negotiating process and undermined the good faith efforts of many countries to reach agreement.
*****
Reactions to the "Copenhagen Accord"
6.30 pm 18 Dec 09 comment by a CJN leader, on draft Accord (sections reported in Times of London)
Looking at the latest draft - which is the one Greenpeace must have been reacting to, and it does indeed read a bit like a G8 communique. Let's gut it a bit and try to see who's come out on top from the various tussles over the past fortnight. Remember it's only a draft.
Firstly the name: Copenhagen Accord. That is stronger than the Copenhagen Declaration or some such, so it is an international agreement, which makes it binding in at least a moral sense.
Winners: the Danes, unless this treaty is trashed in which case they might ask for its name to be changed.
There's no explicit binding target on temperature - just a recognition of the "scientific view" that limiting temperature rise to 2C would "enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change".
Winners: Oil producers. Losers: Small island states, LDCs, the planet as a whole
A new clause further down the document says later reviews of the Copenhagen Accord would look at a target of 1.5C.
Winners: Tuvalu and the low-lying islands (if that review ever takes place)
The parties agree that that deep carbon emission cuts are required, according to the science, and "with a view to reduce global emissions by 50 per cent in 2050 below 1990 levels, taking into account the right to equitable access to atmospheric space".
Winners: the emerging economies including Brazil will be pleased by that last clause.
No specific target on "global peaking" (the point at which emissions peak - a crucial target for scientists) which the UK had wanted to be set at 2020. Instead the text says: "We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in develoing countires and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries..."
Winners: Again, China, Brazil and other emerging economies such as India. There's no target on their peaking.
Developed countries commit to reducing their emissions individually or jointly by at least 80 per cent by 2050. Individual 2020 targets to be listed in an appendix (which is still blank). Verification to be rigorous, robust and transparent. The EU was offering the 80 per cent target.
Winners: In the longer term, the planet.
But there is no overall target on emission limits or "mitigation actions" by major emerging economies, such as China, India and Brazil. An earlier draft today set a 15-30 per cent target. Instead individual country targets will be listed in an appendix to the accord. Countries will be asked to report on their progress every two years via national communications - but there's no comeback if they're lying.
If countries want international support for their mitigation actions - China and Brazil have made clear that they don't - then they face international measurement.
Winners: China and Brazil. Losers: US and EU
Caveat: there is a square bracket [Consideration to be inserted by US and China], which suggests that this battle is not yet over.
Funding: developed countries are promised "scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding" to help them avert and cope with climate change. They will get $30 billion in "fast start" financing over the next three years and the developed countries also "support the goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020. This funding will be a mixture of public, private , bilateral and multilateral and "alternative" - ie market-based - finance. The multilateral funding will be channeled through trust funds on which developed and developing countries have equal representation.
Winners: developing countries, especially the Africans and small island states. Developed world will be happy to have flexibility in funding
There will be a review of this accord and its implementation by 2016, including the 1.5C target. But there is no commitment to making it a legally binding international treaty and no mention of the next COP meeting in Mexico City next year, which an earlier draft had suggested should be held within six months.
Winners: China and G77 countries, which wanted to avoid new international treaty - but, interestingly, the only mention of the Kyoto Protocol, which they want to keep, is in the preamble, which endorses the decision that the KP working group should continue its work on a new round of commitments by developed countries under that pact. That omission could be read both ways.
Overall winners: You do the math.
Lumumba Di-Aping of Sudan: It's the worst treaty in history.
South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma: I am satisfied...although the deal is not perfect, it is the best we could achieve... SABC News adds: The controversial compromise agreement was brokered by the US together with major emerging economies such as India, South Africa, Brazil and China.
[An independent South African observer says: the African Union was twisted and U-turned to support the capitulation by Zuma and Ethiopia PM Zenawi on the last day]
Guillermo Kerber of the World Council of Churches: the agreement reached this past week... without consensus but rather in secret among the powerful nations of the world... [was] a strike against multilateralism and the democratic principles in the UN system.
Britain's PM Gordon Brown and climate minister Ed Miliband accuse China, Sudan, B0livia and other leftwing Latin American countries, of trying to "hold the world to ransom". They want to change UNFCCC rules in future. No consensus. The big boys will decide for everyone. [see Major Economies Forum]
Jeffrey Sachs, Earth Institute, Columbia U: Obama's decision to declare a phony negotiating victory undermines the UN process by signalling that rich countries will do what they want and must no longer listen to the “pesky” concerns of many smaller and poorer countries. [G&M 21 Dec 09]
Mark Lynas, author of Six Degrees: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room. [details in Guardian 22 Dec 09]
Nicolai Brandt, 21 year old Danish student: we have lost a historic opportunity.
Reactions of environmental leaders (These may seem to contradict each other, but you will understand their positions better if you look at the 6 groupings in Environmental Networks )
group 6: ecojustice
Nnimmo Bassey, Friends of the Earth International Chair: First the US came to Copenhagen with nothing new to offer, and now it's trying to package the weak, flawed, unjust 'Copenhagen Accord' as a replacement for the UN process -- and armtwist poor countries into signing on. The US is so desperate to claim a Copenhagen success that it is now attempting to destroy the existing climate process and sideline 20 years of real multilateral negotiation.
The Copenhagen Accord announced on December 18 by U.S. President Barack Obama was not adopted by delegates to the United Nations climate conference here. Instead, delegates merely 'noted' the agreement's existence, giving it no force whatsoever.
Kate Horner, Friends of the Earth: This is the United Nations and the nations here are not united on this secret backroom declaration. The US has lied to the world when they called it a deal and they lied to over a hundred countries when they said would listen to their needs. This toothless declaration, being spun by the US as an historic success, reflects contempt for the multilateral process and we expect more from our Nobel prize winning President.
Steven Guilbeault of tcktcktck: The climate negotiations have ended and we do not have the fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty that millions of people worldwide have demanded. But it is impossible to be without hope as we have come so far in this short space of time. World leaders still have a chance to get this right, but time is ticking. They are not done yet, and neither are we.
Nelson Muffuh of Christian Aid: The poor in the developing world will pay with their lives for the strong arm tactics and intransigence of rich countries which today led to a seriously flawed outcome from the crucial UN climate change summit in Copenhagen.
The statements that emerged today from President Obama after he attended the summit amounted to a shadow of what could and should have been achieved.
Already 300,000 people die each year because of the impact of climate change, most of them in the developing world. The lack of ambition shown by rich countries in Copenhagen means that number will grow.
Rich countries resorted to strong arm tactics and intransigence to shirk their responsibilities. A statement of inadequate political intent is not the fair, ambitious and legally binding deal that is required. It represents a set back in the fight for climate justice, but the battle goes on.
Christian Aid had hoped President Obama would come bearing gifts for the world, but all we got were empty words.
He said the US, EU and other developed countries faced a moral imperative to restart the talks as soon as possible with a view to agreeing:
- At least 40 per cent cuts in carbon emissions by rich countries by 2020 from 1990 levels
- At least $150billion in public finance from rich countries every year to help poor countries counter global warming. The money must be additional to aid.
Rich countries at Copenhagen put far too little on the table. An opportunity to provide poor countries with real hope was largely squandered.
The historic responsibility for the vast majority of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming lies with industrialised countries - but it is poorer countries that suffer worst from the impact of the droughts, floods, typhoons and the higher incidence of disease that are a result of climate change.
He added that there has been an alarming lack of transparency about the way the summit has been run. Poorer countries have complained throughout that their concerns have not been listened to or taken into account.
The summit, he added, has been characterised by mistrust between rich and poor countries, and between rich countries and major emerging economies. It was important that in the coming months developed countries undertook a series of trust building measures, including delivering rapidly on short term finance for the developing world and taking domestic political decisions to step up mitigation actions. Only in that way would negotiations move forward.
Avaaz.org: It's been a tough ending to an amazing week. In all-night negotiations, leaders have reached a weak agreement in Copenhagen that fails to set the emissions targets needed to prevent catastrophic global warming. The agreement was stronger on funding, but it was not binding, and set no urgent deadline to sign a real climate treaty. Big polluters like China and the US wanted a weak deal, and potential champions like Europe, Brazil and South Africa didn't fight hard enough to stop them.
Asher Miller of Post Carbon Institute:
Despite dire warnings from his own nation's leading scientists, and over the cries of millions of voices in hundreds of countries across the globe, US President Barack Obama has chosen political expediency over truth and justice.
The so-called Copenhagen Accord is merely the repackaging of old and toothless promises, which holds no one accountable and utterly fails to reflect the urgency of the moment at hand.
Less than one year ago, President Obama took the oath of office on a cold winter day in our nation's capital, calling upon each of us to summon a new spirit of patriotism, of service and responsibility where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves, but each other.
Now, on another cold winter day, our President appears to be more concerned about saving face and avoiding sacrifice than honoring his own lofty words.
It is now time for the American people to lead, to demand action, and to show the way, as Obama himself said "block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand."
PCI Fellows: Erika Allen - Social Justice, Bill McKibben – Climate & Ecology, Majora Carter – Social Justice & Communities, Richard Heinberg – Senior Fellow in Residence, Rob Hopkins – Community Organizing, Richard Douthwaite – Economics & Money, Joshua Farley – Ecological Economics, Stephanie Mills – Biodiversity & Bioregionalism, David Orr – Climate & Education, Zenobia Barlow – Ecological Literacy, Michael Bomford – Organic Farming, Hilary Brown – Buildings & Design, Gloria Flora – Public Lands, David Fridley – Renewable Energy & Biofuels, David Hughes – Fossil Fuels, Wes Jackson – Sustainable Agriculture, John Kaufmann – Government & Oil, Warren Karlenzig – Urban Sustainability, Chris Martenson – Finance & Preparedness, Cindy Parker – Health & Climate, Anthony Perl – Transportation, Sandra Postel – Water, William Rees – Ecology & Resilience, William Ryerson – Population, Brian Schwartz – Health & Oil, Bill Sheehan – Products & Waste, Michael Shuman – Local Economies, Tom Whipple – Peak Oil
group 5: science-based
Bill McKibben of 350.org: This is a declaration that small and poor countries don't matter, that international civil society doesn't matter, and that serious limits on carbon don't matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight.
Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club: “The world’s nations have come together and concluded a historic —if incomplete— agreement to begin tackling global warming.”
Graham Saul, CAN Canada: negotiators should return to the table between now and June and work out an agreement.
group 4: UNFCCC
19 dec 09 press conference by Gen.Sec. Yvo de Boer: the accord has "significant elements" and is “politically important” but not legally binding. "The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from now." [contrast group 5's call for a fair, ambitious and binding treaty -- and see the leaked UN draft that caved in on all these points - Ed.]
group 3: conservationists (NGOs who depend on corporate donations for nature preserves)
Frances Beinecke, President of NRDC: The whole UNFCCC process was headed for a breakdown, averted at the last moment by the direct intervention of President Obama.... Environmental activists around the world had hoped for more, much more, to avert the most damaging impacts of climate change around the world. The Accord will not avert the melting of the arctic, sea level rise or serious consequences to the world' s poor and vulnerable. But it will take us to the next step, where the US, China, India and the major emitters have agreed to set carbon mitigation targets, put real money into preserving forests and helping the world's most vulnerable people cope with climate change and to put in place a transparent process to ensure commitments are met. And most importantly for the United States, it sets the stage for action in the Senate, where one of the major barriers has been lack of transparency for commitments by China. Now we have that, it can not be an excuse for our Senators not to act.
David Doniger, NDRC Climate Center: It's a big step forward... a mutual action pact. Point-by-point rebuttal of criticisms by other environmentalists.
IUCN: a first and useful step... a global, legally-binding climate change treaty must be the next step.
Mark Tercek of The Nature Conservancy: "a great deal of work still to be done". He calls for Senate action, 2010 emissions targets, REDD, mitigation and carbon funds.
Jonathan Lash of World Resources Institute: Much more is needed, but today marks a foundation for a global effort to fight climate change....Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat. As a small group of countries threatened to block the deal, the vast majority of countries elected to go ahead without them.
group 2: green capitalists
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund: Tonight’s announcement is but a first step and much work remains to be done in the days and months ahead in order to seal a final international climate deal that is fair, binding, and ambitious. It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible. Today’s agreement takes the first important steps toward true transparency and accountability in an international climate agreement.
Senator Inhofe: The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade. The chances are"zero" and will remain so if the bill is financially harmful to Americans in any way.
British denier Lord Monckton 9 Dec 09: the new world government outlined in [various Copenhagen proposals] will tax the American economy to the extent of 2 percent GDP, impose a further tax of 2 percent on every financial transaction….close down effectively the economies of the west, and transfer your jobs to third world countries.
Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister: very satisfied...it meets our objectives and respects our interests. [Michel David in Le Devoir20 Dec 09 comments: Canada is just protecting its economic interests in the tarsands -- like the countries that shut their eyes to growing opium.]
*****
Thoughts on mobilizing from a spiritual base:
Mark Barrett of Climate Justice Now! responding to irate developing-country NGOs:
What we need for a paradigm shift is to organise ourselves under one banner, in which all are welcome, and across ALL the local communities in the world. How many times does it need to be said, before we make the simple call out for ALL local groups to converge on the local arms of the state at the same time, and then build our networks from there, and to do it again and again and again, to build local groupings across all th ideological divides, and thereby at last to carve out the visible, independent spaces, in every locality, where a new sovereignty - based on stewardship - can be realised, so then finally everyone can chose which side of the barricade they are on, and so the world can no longer misrepresent, or ignore what we really stand for?
In answer to others' queries:
> who decides where the barricades are set?
A: Do you believe in radical localism (or 'local sovereignty') via inclusive, consensus decision-making as a key means to work our way out of the environmental crisis? I think that for the huge number that do, and - tantalisingly - for the very many others who (though not environmentalists) nevertheless also believe the better, freer, enlilghtened society begins with the same realisation, for us ( ie us vs. everyone who does not believe in that ideal) doesn't the barricade sets itself accordingly? People either believe that a vital solution to globalisation rests in ordinary people responsibly taking control of their immediate resources together, with collective stewardship and everyone equally included in decision-making, and with federating support for other similar groupings across the communities who wish to do the same, or they do not, or they are not even aware of the possibility. The clear setting out of those barricades, on our terms not theirs as is the case with Copenhagen and all the other jamborees would give them the opportunity to decide whose side they are on. No?
>how do we set these without enough information being given to the "grass roots"?
A: The barricades would get set by a call out being framed in the terms above, so question could turn on "do you believe in an alternative society? Another world, built by the grassroots? If so, let's show what democracy really looks like.. if so, let's all get ourselves, and our groups down to our local town hall, for a global picnic / dance / festival / occupation / on such and such day at such and such time in response to such and such event. We could use this idea to create the space for more autonomy and network building in our local areas, while also putting the idea of a new global to local sovereignty, the free society in the making into the minds of the mainstream, boosting and building and joining up with all the other local areas in solidarity. For the environment, for the politics, for the economics, for the human rights, for all the socially controlled, downtrodden and oppressed. The message is a new start, for a new people a new covenant. Maybe a blank placard could be our symbol..?
>Who decides what this information should be. this is a lot more complicated than a simple call.
A: But it's not THAT difficult, is it? As we know, everything, whether local or in an anti- conference setting needs to be done with groundrules, so why should a call for decentralised joined up organising be any different. Democratic inclusion, equality, consensus, independence, accountability, transparency etc are a given, right? Surely we are by now mostly agreed on what constitutes good, democratic practice, aren't we? If not now, after all this time, when? Isn't that enough info?
>Who decides whether the call is for 2 degrees or 1.5 degrees or 0.8 degrees which is already bad enough if you are one of the communities who are dying of drought or flood.
A: I'm not saying this is not important, it really is, and we need to keep the pressure on. But also I really don't think we can hope for a real democratization of the global process (and therefore a new urgency and openness to the needs of all in the embryonic global governance / regulatory process) until we ourselves get our act together as a people (we are the 'global justice people' right?).
And what this means, for me is putting ourselves on the map as a people rooted in our communities and not just as a traveling circus of resistance, important though that may be. We've won most of the arguments about globalisation now, the only thing that's missing is the political will and we need to push for that, yes of course. But we are much more than this travelling conscience. Much much more. Not only are we 'everywhere'; but we always have been; so we are everytime too. As a people questing for universal justice we transcend space and time.
"Take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’.. ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’"
What is new is the force of global technology that allows us to communicate, mobilise and thereby publicly constitute ourselves across the planet. And that is totally unprecedented. But until we start using the amazing technological tools at our disposal to create a genuinely democratic, visible 'Other' to the capitalist / interstate mode of globalisation I really do not think we can expect people power to come to its fruition as a force for real change in the world. As activists, we are in a ghetto. Maybe the biggest ghetto in human history, but a ghetto nevertheless. We need to break out by calling upon the highest, and best plan ever, and mobilising according to the principles of the society we want to see born. A decentralised, joined up movement for the best dream of all, rooted in local communities and thereby able to speak to everyone in the context of local conditions, would be very difficult to hold back, because people would begin to get what we are about. And, eventually this localism, pursued properly will reduce emissions as so much of what we burn is in transport. And we will become what we are destined to be the force for real change at the national, international and global level that transforms the world for the good of all. Of course it needs to happen quickly to save people, as you suggest, which is why I am writing with urgency.
>Who has this right to decide that its Ok if some of us die? who decides who dies? sorry I dont think anyone is qualified to make that call. how can all be welcome when some of us think its OK to shift carbon from one accounting head to another for money : no matter how much money.
A: Sorry I didn't mean to say that everyone is welcome in a simplistic sense, although I do think everyone is capable of hearing the truth about how we should live and act, and that no-one is damned until the final moment of truth either devours or save them. There are those who will fight us, as they always have done, and they will of course lose. But those who hear the truth of what we say, that the world's salvation lies in the making of a new society, built in every local community but joined up across the world, not state not market but independent civil society; they will come. And they may well come from unexpected places - just as the nay sayers will. And the nay sayers are the culprits for the deaths you speak of, those who put their store in the state and the market place to fix things, or who just don't care. And the longer those people drag their feet, the longer the process will take, and the more people will unnecessarily die, and it is their responsibility, and theirs alone, as it always has been.
From the same passage: "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left...Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ "http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/25.htm
I know it's unfashionable to say it. But if we are believers we should pray for divine assistance to take us out of our ghetto. And if we are not, we should call upon whatever force we do believe in to come to our collective aid, and then, from there we should start trusting that history is on our side, and start mobilising for a new society, with completely different values, and new cultural engine at heart, and beginning in every community, because there are people dying, in all sorts of ways, everywhere.
That's our calling, isn't it?
A Salaam Aleykum
*****
Midnight Oil "Beds Are Burning" video (lyrics here) for tcktcktck.org - other videos and Copenhagen interviews at timeforclimatejustice.org. See also Anne Petermann's "What really happened in Copenhagen?" Z magazine1 Feb 2010, and Vanessa Baird, "New hope..." on the conference in Cochabamba , Bolivia in April from New Internationalist 1 Mar 2010. In a BBC interview 16 Mar 2010, Nicolas Stern blamed the failure of COP-15 on the "arrogance" of rich countries, and their refusal to take seriously poor countries' concerns.
I have been moved to compose this imaginary Christmas message for President Obama because his moral defense of the use of military force is a profound opening for dialogue. His thinking has a background understanding of moral development like no President before him. Every time he speaks he plays the role of national, and at times international, teacher. Based on his Nobel Prize acceptance speech and subsequent interviews, this is a Christmas message I can imagine him giving. Agree or disagree, he is offering all who ponder the question of moral development and the human future the opportunity of deeply thoughtful engagement. -- Keith Helmuth, 23 December 2009
Every tradition of world religion has a collection of stories that carries its special truth to the heart of its followers. Yet, true seekers of the common good find in each tradition a story of relationship that speaks to the moral core of human development.
