Obsidian Wings

Copenhagen: A Death Panel for Countries like Tuvalu

by Lindsay Beyerstein

 The tiny nation of Tuvalu has taken center stage in Copenhagen. 

"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit," Tuvalu's chief climate negotiator, Ian Fry, told hundreds of delegates in the Bella Center in Copenhagen on Saturday. "The fate of my country rests in your hands," he said, his voice breaking. Global warming is an existential issue for Tuvalu and other small island nations. If global warming goes unchecked, these countries will literally be wiped off the map. For countries like Tuvalu, COP15 is effectively referendum on their continued existence. Will the rest of the world step up, or will it write them off?

Tuvalu and its supporters want a treaty to protect island states. They also seek legally binding emissions targets for all countries geared to stop global warming at 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. Last week, Tuvalu managed to get the negotiations suspended while delegates informally considered its proposal.

Obviously, it's not just in Tuvalu's interest to get serious about climate change. According to a report released last week, even if we check warming at 2 degrees, the rise could still acidify the oceans enough off most cold water coral, the bedrock food chains that help feed millions. The prospect of entire countries and low-lying regions being inundated raises the specter of mass migrations.

During the aftermath of the Iranian election, supporters sported green twitter icons to show their support for the protesters. In that spirit, I decided to change my twitter icon to an "I heart Tuvalu" button. The picture is from Tuvalu's official Cafe Press store. Join me!

Waxman-Markey as National Security

by publius

The military is increasingly worried about the national security threats posed by climate change.  The million dollar question, then, is whether these concerns will persuade skeptical, and/or industry-purchased, legislators to get behind bills like Waxman-Markey.

The short answer is who knows.  But there's an interesting parallel here, I think, with the early civil rights movement.  It would be nice to think that most white leaders came around on civil rights because of the sheer injustice of segregation.  In reality though, as people like Mary Dudziak have argued, civil rights became a Cold War issue.  Indeed, one of the reasons the Court in Brown in 1954 was unanimous was because Justice Stanley Reed was more anti-Communist than pro-segregation.

In short, the Cold War gave many leaders political cover to support civil rights. 

Maybe national security concerns can eventually do the same for today's legislators on climate change.  The immorality of leaving future generations with an irreversibly overheating planet doesn't seem to be doing the trick.

Your Yearly Peeing In The Shower Post

by publius

There's an old Seinfeld episode where George gets caught peeing in the shower at the gym, and is then ostracized for it.  Turns out, he (like Al Gore) was just years ahead of his time.  Peeing in the shower, it seems, is the latest . . . green . . . fad.

Via Grist, here's a video from an ad campaign in Brazil urging people to save water by peeing in the shower:

Of course, what this ad campaign really shows is Grist virtual persona writer Umbra Fisk's ability to inspire global trends.  Turns out she made a video a couple of weeks ago recommending shower peeing, and even wrote a column on the subject years ago.

The Return of Climatologist George Will

by publius

I'm not entirely sure why the Post keeps allowing George Will to write about climate change.  It's one thing to have different opinions -- that's fine.  But it's quite another to write demonstrably false factual statements again and again. 

Will's basic argument seems to be that the United States shouldn't do anything about emissions because no one else in the world is.  The point, however, of unilateral action is that it makes it easier to get international emission cuts -- the goal is for a snowball effect. 

But anyway, Will can't stop there.  Near the end, he has to add (with no evidence) that skepticism of global warming is "growing."  Then, he goes on to quote Mark Steyn (who himself relied on the discredited freelance report from the EPA economist) for the point that global warming hasn't even happened in the last few years.

Of course, the long-term temperature trend shows clear warming.  And short-term variation doesn't change that objective fact.  It's like measuring annual rainfall by looking only at what happened last week.  It's blatant factual dishonesty. 

Waiting for Nothing

by publius

Many things annoy me about the calls to "slow down" on health care coverage.  But what most annoys me is the idea that we should wait for a "bipartisan" result, as the latest letter from the "Gang of Moderates Protecting Really Rich People" suggests.

In the abstract, these requests sound reasonable.  But these requests assume that Republicans are interested in passing real reform -- which they're not.  They've never made any serious efforts -- institutionally speaking -- to enact reform, and there's exactly zero reason to think that they will.  They're slowing things down to kill reform -- and the Gang is facilitating them.

My hope is that this reality will eventually color the coverage of the Gang, who are often portrayed as Platonic statesmen, high above the fray of nasty partisanship.   More broadly, I wish the reality would sink in that Republicans (again, institutionally) aren't interested in passing meaningful policy reform on either of the two most pressing issues of the day -- health care and energy.

Exhibit A for this argument is the good Senator from Arizona, John McCain.  One frustrating aspect of McCain's campaign coverage was that it often treated him as a strong environmentalist.  Several editorials said something to the effect of "We're so lucky to get to choose between two candidates who embrace cap-and-trade."  Here's the LA Times:

Regardless of who wins the November election, our next president will back a cap-and-trade program, eliminating the worry that good legislation in this area will die by veto. Democrat Barack Obama would impose tougher restrictions than Republican John McCain, but the latter is still a national leader on the issue.

And the Post:

[C]limate change will get the aggressive attention it deserves from the White House, no matter which party wins in November.  The centerpiece of Mr. McCain's plan is a reduction in carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system[.]

And David Simon's favorite paper:

Fortunately, whichever candidate is elected . . . [b]oth the Republican and Democratic nominees have at least recognized the threat and have pledged to take significant action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country and around the world.

John McCain was good at saying enough to get Sunday morning talk show praise.  But when the real effort was needed, "national leader" McCain has been almost uniformly critical.  He's referred to the plan as "cap and tax," and has provided no muscle whatsoever in building political support for this effort.  And remember -- he's supposedly the best one.

And that's the larger problem.  Republicans aren't serious about doing anything on either front.  A McCain administration wouldn't have pushed for a real cap and trade; neither would it have pushed for real health care reform beyond nibbling at the edges of the status quo.  The GOP just isn't interested -- and all the debates about "costs" shouldn't obscure this fundamental reality.

The Dems should hold together on the procedural votes, and then oppose the ultimate bill if they want.  But there's no reason to bend over backwards to appease the GOP.  Let Olympia Snowe and Chuck Grassley and Richard Burr take their chances on voting no. 

This opportunity is likely fleeting -- and so the Dems shouldn't hold up the process under the pretense that Republicans are going to shift on anything.  When they do, I'm all for bipartisan compromise.  But given the lack of real effort, for decades really, the strong presumption should that they will not.