RE: Copenhagen result

[Matthew Hoffmann]

Stacy and all,
It was a trainwreck to be sure, though the silver lining for me (and this
will sound self-serving since it is the area of my current research), is
that perhaps now we can stop thinking that the multilateral process is the
single best (if not the only) way to fashion a global response to climate
change.  Perhaps the failure (or at least significant failing) of the
multilateral process, depending on how lots of different groups react to
that failure, can create the conditions whereby climate change becomes
embedded in a multitude of processes in a serious way. This may be naive. 
We may ultimately need a binding, specific, enforceable and enforced
climate treaty to spur significant action--I hope not.  Given the size of
the task that responding to climate change represents in terms of socio,
political, and economic systems, we (academics, the media, environmental
activists, people) have probably been naive to put so much emphasis on a
single mechanism that has never worked that well for large complex issues
that require expedience. That's not to say that multilateral negotiations
and treaties have no role in the response to climate change--they are and
can be crucial (which is why we're all so upset right now)--but we may
need to be more creative in thinking about their place in the overall
global response.

My two cents.

Cheers,
Matt




> I have read much of this exchange with interest.
> However, I am having trouble understanding some of the various
> contributors' reluctance to simply say that the summit was a near total
> and complete disaster: The outcome nearly totally meaningless with a
> complete lack of serious progress on even a single one of the major issues
> on the table in the years and months before the summit.  I must say I was
> pessimistic going in, as were most people of course, but the near complete
> lack of progress stuns even me.  I thought we would at least be assessing
> how far major states and groups of states had moved in the last days or
> hours. No.  I think I assumed that, In other words, having a summit would
> at least force the parties closer together and closer to some sort of set
> of goals - or produce even one interesting idea in a mad panic to salvage
> something. No.  In my view, this simply did not happen. It strikes me as
> the worst of all possible outcomes:  total failure, but without a general
> media and public knowledge that their leaders failed them completely.  In
> fact (in my view), the summit has dramatically lowered expectations of
> future climate change cooperation in nearly every way.  Where once major
> states at least aspired rhetorically to a functioning global regime, even
> this goal is gone.  This GEP-ED stream has confirmed this view, rather
> than moderated it, for me.  Things in the exchange noted as "progress"
> are, well, stunningly insubstantial.  The world remains on an accelerating
> emissions track and an accelerating climate change trend.  There is not a
> single decision taken in Copenhagen - much less in the totally empty
> "accord" - that alters this even in the least. Not even one of the vague
> promises made even bends those curves, much less reverses their direction
> at any point in the future.
>
> Occasionally on this list we have discussed the need to give our students
> hope and positive examples other (allegedly) empowering optimistic frames.
> I wonder what the value is in suggesting, to 20 year olds in 2009,
> anything besides the fact that their leaders have failed them in truly
> catastrophic fashion.
>
> I would truly love for someone to convince me that the more dire and
> negative assessment possible is the wrong one, but the coverage of the
> summit and this GEP-ED exchange (to date) have not done so.
>
> --Stacy
>
>

Matthew J. Hoffmann
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science, Univ of Toronto
Department of Social Sciences, Univ of Toronto Scarborough

RE: Copenhagen result

[HARRIS, Paul Gordon]

I have to agree with Lorraine, too. At some point we have to admit that the 
latest 'first step' toward solving this problem is far too little far too late, 
and then look for alternatives. Many people on this list have written about 
them (and I think a combination is the only answer), but perhaps most 
fundamentally we have to admit that the biggest problem may be 'international 
environmental politics' (international meaning 'interstate'). That's why I have 
turned my attention to alternatives (which have also been addressed by Lorraine 
and some others on the list) that attempt to look beyond states to solve this 
problem. (See my book, for which I have written a short learning guide to help 
our students consider the real problems and a package of credible alternatives: 
http://www.euppublishing.com/book/0-7486-3910-1)

All best,

Paul

--
P.G. Harris
Department of Social Sciences
Hong Kong Institute of Education
10 Lo Ping Road
Tai Po, HONG KONG
General Office Tel.: +852 2948 7707
Direct Tel.: +852 2948 6763
Fax: +852 2948 8047
Email: pharris @ ied.edu.hk
http://www.ied.edu.hk/ssc/



-Original Message-
From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Stephen Van Holde
Sent: Tue 12/22/2009 1:16 AM
To: Lorraine Elliott
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
 
Well put, Lorraine.  I have exactly the same problem standing in front  
of my classes.  And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu  
and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor  
people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says,  
what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how  
broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at  
least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform  
rather than in state-based solutions.  And while I've been reluctant  
to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they  
may be right.  But of course that does little or nothing to address  
the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world

Just my 2 cents.

Steve

Stephen Van Holde
Departments of Political Science and International Studies
Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA
vanho...@kenyon.edu

Quoting Lorraine Elliott :

> But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two  
> decades since the Toronto conference at which participating  
> governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to  reduce emissions  
> by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a  
> decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC  
> assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've probably  
> killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to  
> the 'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in  
> the time that all this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen  
> is a good first step? Somehow I don't think my students will be  
> persuaded. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of people at  
> Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who worked  
> non-stop to try to retrieve something. I know a lot of those people.  
> But I've just been in Southeast Asia where the livelihoods (and in  
> some cases lives) of millions of people are under threat a result of  
> the impacts of climate change. I have students from Bangladesh and  
> the Pacific. Despite the rhetoric and spin coming from world  
> 'leaders', they want someone to stand in front of them and tell them  
> why their homes, their livelihoods are under threat and no-one is  
> doing much about it. I no longer have an answer for them. Sorry, bit  
> of a rant, but I feel pretty dispirited by the whole process at the  
> moment.
>
> Lorraine
>
>  Original Message -
> From: Daniel Bodansky 
> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm
> Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
> To: Heike Schroeder 
> Cc: Daniel Bodansky ,  
> "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" 
>
>> But countries did move beyond position in significant ways.
>> China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US
>> agreed to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance,
>> plus personal commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was
>> far from easy - people sweated blood to get it!
>>
>> __
>> Daniel Bodansky
>> Associate Dean for Faculty Development
>> Woodruff Professor of International Law
>> School of Law
>> University of Georgia
>> Athens, GA 30602
>> Tel: 706-542-7052
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >Hi All,
>> >Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
>> >On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political
>> framework was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15
>> attendees (and some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen.
>> But given that 120 or so heads of state were coming to town
>> (including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to
>> publicly state (as he did at For

Text on EU climate change politics for class?

[Henrik Selin]

Hello all,

For one of my classes next spring, I am looking for a recent journal 
article or book chapter that outlines/summarizes EU policy on climate 
change to date. Ideally, the text should focus on EU climate change 
politics and policy making broadly and not just a specific policy 
instrument (such as EU ETS). Many students will also not be climate 
change experts. Any suggestions?


Cheers,
Henrik

Re: Copenhagen result

[Graham Smart]

Going from Mark's blog entry, I found another piece on State of the Plane, by 
Peter Kelemen, that makes pretty much the same argument that I made in my 
earlier post, only in a much more articulate way. 
 
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/blog/2009/12/08/real-scientists-are-climate-skeptics/#comment-4315
 
Graham

- Original Message -
From: Marc Levy 
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
To: "Hirsch, Leonard" 
Cc: Stephen Van Holde , Lorraine Elliott 
, "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" 


> For what it's worth, I posted some of my thoughts at this location:
> 
> http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/blog/2009/12/21/the-welcome-end-of-
> unanimity/
> (The title isn't mine -- an editor assigned it.)
> 
> - Marc
> 
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Hirsch, Leonard  
> wrote:> Thanks for the weeks of reporting.
> >
> > One of the elements which this group, I think, should focus a 
> bit more on, is the US internal political angle.  The President 
> was quite clear, and the Chinese President certainly heard, that 
> he did not want a Kyoto-II result--ie, the international 
> community agreeing to something the US Senate would not agree to.
> >
> > Prior to Copenhagen it was quite clear to anyone who listened 
> to the US negotiators that there would not be a binding 
> agreement until the US knew what it could agree to.  And it does 
> not.  There are too many competing bills on Capitol Hill.  When 
> they come together, the successful rounds of negotations 
> internationally will commence.  If it is before Mexico City, 
> there could be something by then, most folks think it will be 2 years.
> >
> > Did the system fail--messier than we would like.  But 
> unreasonable expectations are just that--unreasonable and 
> expectations.  This does not mean that it shouldn't be done--
> please do not attack the messenger--just that the necessary 
> pieces for an agreement that can stand the test of time have not 
> yet been fully articulated and developed.
> >
> > Watch for the development of carbon accounting methodologies 
> and proposals for verification (both remotely sensed with on-the-
> ground truthing).  This is where the major real fights will be, 
> and probably many of the solutions will come from.
> >
> > We need to remember that in 1992, carbon markets were 
> developed so that the developed world would not have to put lots 
> of ODA forward.  The sizable (not sufficient) $/euro/yen put 
> forward last week will have lots of strings, conditions, and 
> funnels included.
> >
> > Yes it is x number of years since the seriousness of this 
> issue was beginning to be addressed (I first lectured about 
> climate issues in 1978, look at Holdren's 1980s article on No 
> Regrets).  We are in a particularly negative moment as 
> corporations are fighting tooth and nail not to have to change 
> too much, being aided by over-zealous scientists and activists 
> who have played into the agnotological traps set for them, all 
> leading to a confused and wary public and thus an ever warier 
> political establishment.
> >
> > As analysts, let's be clear.  As teachers, this could be a 
> teachable moment about law, policy, aspirations, process, and 
> inflection points. As citizens, we clearly have lots to do.  And 
> as scientists, we have to work harder to be fact-based, wary of 
> all assumptions--others and our own, and clear about the 
> scientific process.
> >
> > ==
> > "People the world over have always been more impressed by the 
> power of our example than by the example of our power" (B. 
> Clinton, 2008).
> > -
> > Leonard P. Hirsch
> > Smithsonian Institution
> >
> > New mailing address:
> > 1100 Jefferson Drive SW  #3123
> > PO Box 37012
> > Q-3123 MRC 705
> > Washington, DC 20013-7012
> >
> > 1.202.633.4788
> > 1.202.312.2888 fax
> > lhir...@si.edu
> > 
> > From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep-
> e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde 
> [vanho...@kenyon.edu]> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM
> > To: Lorraine Elliott
> > Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
> > Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
> >
> > Well put, Lorraine.  I have exactly the same problem standing 
> in front
> > of my classes.  And I cannot imagine how reps from places like 
> Tuvalu> and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say 
> to poor
> > people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says,
> > what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative 
> of how
> > broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at
> > least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform
> > rather than in state-based solutions.  And while I've been reluctant
> > to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me 
> thinking they
> > may be right.  But of course that 

Re: Copenhagen result

[Marc Levy]

For what it's worth, I posted some of my thoughts at this location:

http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/blog/2009/12/21/the-welcome-end-of-unanimity/

(The title isn't mine -- an editor assigned it.)

- Marc

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Hirsch, Leonard  wrote:
> Thanks for the weeks of reporting.
>
> One of the elements which this group, I think, should focus a bit more on, is 
> the US internal political angle.  The President was quite clear, and the 
> Chinese President certainly heard, that he did not want a Kyoto-II 
> result--ie, the international community agreeing to something the US Senate 
> would not agree to.
>
> Prior to Copenhagen it was quite clear to anyone who listened to the US 
> negotiators that there would not be a binding agreement until the US knew 
> what it could agree to.  And it does not.  There are too many competing bills 
> on Capitol Hill.  When they come together, the successful rounds of 
> negotations internationally will commence.  If it is before Mexico City, 
> there could be something by then, most folks think it will be 2 years.
>
> Did the system fail--messier than we would like.  But unreasonable 
> expectations are just that--unreasonable and expectations.  This does not 
> mean that it shouldn't be done--please do not attack the messenger--just that 
> the necessary pieces for an agreement that can stand the test of time have 
> not yet been fully articulated and developed.
>
> Watch for the development of carbon accounting methodologies and proposals 
> for verification (both remotely sensed with on-the-ground truthing).  This is 
> where the major real fights will be, and probably many of the solutions will 
> come from.
>
> We need to remember that in 1992, carbon markets were developed so that the 
> developed world would not have to put lots of ODA forward.  The sizable (not 
> sufficient) $/euro/yen put forward last week will have lots of strings, 
> conditions, and funnels included.
>
> Yes it is x number of years since the seriousness of this issue was beginning 
> to be addressed (I first lectured about climate issues in 1978, look at 
> Holdren's 1980s article on No Regrets).  We are in a particularly negative 
> moment as corporations are fighting tooth and nail not to have to change too 
> much, being aided by over-zealous scientists and activists who have played 
> into the agnotological traps set for them, all leading to a confused and wary 
> public and thus an ever warier political establishment.
>
> As analysts, let's be clear.  As teachers, this could be a teachable moment 
> about law, policy, aspirations, process, and inflection points. As citizens, 
> we clearly have lots to do.  And as scientists, we have to work harder to be 
> fact-based, wary of all assumptions--others and our own, and clear about the 
> scientific process.
>
> ==
> "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our 
> example than by the example of our power" (B. Clinton, 2008).
> -
> Leonard P. Hirsch
> Smithsonian Institution
>
> New mailing address:
> 1100 Jefferson Drive SW  #3123
> PO Box 37012
> Q-3123 MRC 705
> Washington, DC 20013-7012
>
> 1.202.633.4788
> 1.202.312.2888 fax
> lhir...@si.edu
> 
> From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
> [owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde 
> [vanho...@kenyon.edu]
> Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM
> To: Lorraine Elliott
> Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
> Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
>
> Well put, Lorraine.  I have exactly the same problem standing in front
> of my classes.  And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu
> and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor
> people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says,
> what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how
> broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at
> least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform
> rather than in state-based solutions.  And while I've been reluctant
> to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they
> may be right.  But of course that does little or nothing to address
> the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Steve
>
> Stephen Van Holde
> Departments of Political Science and International Studies
> Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA
> vanho...@kenyon.edu
>
> Quoting Lorraine Elliott :
>
>> But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two
>> decades since the Toronto conference at which participating
>> governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to  reduce emissions
>> by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a
>> decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC
>> assessment reports ... and so

Re: Climategate Impacts

[Susanne Moser]

Judy Curry - a climate scientists with laurels earned in the trenches of 
dealing with skepticsm and attach (though not necessarily denialism) has 
called what Darrell describes at UEA as "tribalism" and you can search 
for her open letters to students and the world under that keyword online.


It's hard for us outsiders to judge whether that is truly what is going 
on there.


I am just struck by not just the politics of this issue, but the 
psychology of it. There are growing numbers of people freaking out about 
what they see as a climate crisis of utmost urgency given we don't have 
a back-up habitable planet in our back pockets. On the other side is an 
equally freaked-out vocal minority that blocks action to preserve the 
status quo (as Mayanna rightfully pointed out a failure of our allegedly 
democratic and multi-lateral political systems) with a vast malleable 
populace in between. Everyone involved very human, every stance 
"explainable", yet as we get into these more existential matters, people 
do things they would not necessarily call decent under less threatening 
circumstances (and I mean, threatening to both sides of this polarized 
debate).


How do we conduct ourselves civicly in such circumstances? There is 
after all a chance it won't get any better climatologically, 
economically, psychologically and politically


Susi

Wil Burns wrote:


*Darrell,*

* *

*While I don’t agree with your portrayal of CRU, or Phil, let’s 
assume, arguendo, you’re correct about the hubris, conspiracies, etc. 
The bottom line is that CRU’s datasets for temperature increases are 
virtually identical with the raw data from weather stations; in fact, 
CRU’s findings are a little LOWER. At the end of the day I don’t give 
a plug nickel about the foibles of scientists, who like all of us in 
academia, the corporate world, and government, can demonstrate 
pettiness and vindictiveness, and yes, frustration. Also, as AP’s 
analysis, and that of Pew convincingly demonstrate, the conclusions at 
CRU have been replicated in many other venues. If you want to allege 
that all climatologists are engaged in this conspiracy (I guess for 
the big bucks, ha ha; if you want to cash in, you become a skeptic 
scientist, a lot less competition and a real pile of money supplied by 
the folks who gave you the Global Climate Coalition), then all bets 
are off. wil*


* *

* *

*Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief***

*/Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy/***

*1702 Arlington Blvd.***

*El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA*

*Ph: 650.281.9126*

*Fax: 510.779.5361*

*ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org* 
**


*http://www.jiwlp.com* **

*SSRN site (selected publications): **http://ssrn.com/author=240348***

*Skype ID: Wil.Burns*

* *

*From:* Darrell Whitman [mailto:dwhit...@dcn.davis.ca.us]
*Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2009 9:44 AM
*To:* Myanna Lahsen; williamcgbu...@comcast.net
*Cc:* Wallace, Richard; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe
*Subject:* Re: Climategate Impacts

Greetings,

I woke up this morning to this long train of GEP emails on Copenhagen 
and "climategate", all of which make interesting if now divergent 
readings. I thought I'd add a comment to Myanna's, DG's, Mat and 
Suzi's thread about East Anglia and the email fiasco as I have some 
personal experience with this matter that casts it in a somewhat 
different light and raises important questions that go beyond the 
science debate. As it happened, I made several visits to EAU between 
2001 and 2005 as part of my effort to get inside of the EU climate 
policymaking process during my tenure with California's Resources 
Agency. As it happened, I struck up a friendship with Tim O'Riodan - 
true scholar and gentleman - who generously introduced me to Phil 
Jones and the other scientists working at the Climate Research Unit. 
As has been generally true with most scientists with whom I have 
worked over the years, they were affable and enthusiastic about 
sharing their research. Yet, as time went on something less flatering 
began to emerge.


I think the problem crystalized in my mind during a conversation that 
I had with Tim in his office in 2002, which coincided with 
California's energy crisis and the emerging role of Enron in 
manipulating the Western power grid to run up the price of 
electricity. To my horror, Tim began extolling the "green" credentials 
of Kenneth Lay and opined that he would be an excellent point around 
which climate policymaking could be formed in the U.S. Of course, he 
was oblivious as to the corporate Ken Lay and his criminal activities 
onbehalf of Enron, which then suggested that Tim had a sadly limited 
view of the world of real politics notwithstanding his many, many 
years of writing about the politics of EU climate policy. From that 
point forward, I began to look at the EAU and its role in British 
climate policymaking differently, eventually coming to see how

RE: Copenhagen result

[Hirsch, Leonard]

Thanks for the weeks of reporting.

One of the elements which this group, I think, should focus a bit more on, is 
the US internal political angle.  The President was quite clear, and the 
Chinese President certainly heard, that he did not want a Kyoto-II result--ie, 
the international community agreeing to something the US Senate would not agree 
to.

Prior to Copenhagen it was quite clear to anyone who listened to the US 
negotiators that there would not be a binding agreement until the US knew what 
it could agree to.  And it does not.  There are too many competing bills on 
Capitol Hill.  When they come together, the successful rounds of negotations 
internationally will commence.  If it is before Mexico City, there could be 
something by then, most folks think it will be 2 years.

Did the system fail--messier than we would like.  But unreasonable expectations 
are just that--unreasonable and expectations.  This does not mean that it 
shouldn't be done--please do not attack the messenger--just that the necessary 
pieces for an agreement that can stand the test of time have not yet been fully 
articulated and developed.

Watch for the development of carbon accounting methodologies and proposals for 
verification (both remotely sensed with on-the-ground truthing).  This is where 
the major real fights will be, and probably many of the solutions will come 
from.

We need to remember that in 1992, carbon markets were developed so that the 
developed world would not have to put lots of ODA forward.  The sizable (not 
sufficient) $/euro/yen put forward last week will have lots of strings, 
conditions, and funnels included.

Yes it is x number of years since the seriousness of this issue was beginning 
to be addressed (I first lectured about climate issues in 1978, look at 
Holdren's 1980s article on No Regrets).  We are in a particularly negative 
moment as corporations are fighting tooth and nail not to have to change too 
much, being aided by over-zealous scientists and activists who have played into 
the agnotological traps set for them, all leading to a confused and wary public 
and thus an ever warier political establishment.

As analysts, let's be clear.  As teachers, this could be a teachable moment 
about law, policy, aspirations, process, and inflection points. As citizens, we 
clearly have lots to do.  And as scientists, we have to work harder to be 
fact-based, wary of all assumptions--others and our own, and clear about the 
scientific process.

==
"People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our 
example than by the example of our power" (B. Clinton, 2008).
-
Leonard P. Hirsch
Smithsonian Institution

New mailing address:
1100 Jefferson Drive SW  #3123
PO Box 37012
Q-3123 MRC 705
Washington, DC 20013-7012

1.202.633.4788
1.202.312.2888 fax
lhir...@si.edu

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde 
[vanho...@kenyon.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM
To: Lorraine Elliott
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result

Well put, Lorraine.  I have exactly the same problem standing in front
of my classes.  And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu
and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor
people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says,
what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how
broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at
least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform
rather than in state-based solutions.  And while I've been reluctant
to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they
may be right.  But of course that does little or nothing to address
the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world

Just my 2 cents.

Steve

Stephen Van Holde
Departments of Political Science and International Studies
Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA
vanho...@kenyon.edu

Quoting Lorraine Elliott :

> But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two
> decades since the Toronto conference at which participating
> governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to  reduce emissions
> by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a
> decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC
> assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've probably
> killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to
> the 'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in
> the time that all this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen
> is a good first step? Somehow I don't think my students will be
> persuaded. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of people at
> Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who w

RE: Climategate Impacts

[Wil Burns]

Darrell,

 

While I don’t agree with your portrayal of CRU, or Phil, let’s assume,
arguendo, you’re correct about the hubris, conspiracies, etc. The bottom
line is that CRU’s datasets for temperature increases are virtually
identical with the raw data from weather stations; in fact, CRU’s findings
are a little LOWER. At the end of the day I don’t give a plug nickel about
the foibles of scientists, who like all of us in academia, the corporate
world, and government, can demonstrate pettiness and vindictiveness, and
yes, frustration. Also, as AP’s analysis, and that of Pew convincingly
demonstrate, the conclusions at CRU have been replicated in many other
venues. If you want to allege that all climatologists are engaged in this
conspiracy (I guess for the big bucks, ha ha; if you want to cash in, you
become a skeptic scientist, a lot less competition and a real pile of money
supplied by the folks who gave you the Global Climate Coalition), then all
bets are off. wil

 

 

Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief

Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy

1702 Arlington Blvd.

El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA

Ph:   650.281.9126

Fax: 510.779.5361

 
ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org

  http://www.jiwlp.com

SSRN site (selected publications):  
http://ssrn.com/author=240348

Skype ID: Wil.Burns

 

From: Darrell Whitman [mailto:dwhit...@dcn.davis.ca.us] 
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 9:44 AM
To: Myanna Lahsen; williamcgbu...@comcast.net
Cc: Wallace, Richard; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe
Subject: Re: Climategate Impacts

 

Greetings,

 

I woke up this morning to this long train of GEP emails on Copenhagen and
"climategate", all of which make interesting if now divergent readings. I
thought I'd add a comment to Myanna's, DG's, Mat and Suzi's thread about
East Anglia and the email fiasco as I have some personal experience with
this matter that casts it in a somewhat different light and raises important
questions that go beyond the science debate. As it happened, I made several
visits to EAU between 2001 and 2005 as part of my effort to get inside of
the EU climate policymaking process during my tenure with California's
Resources Agency. As it happened, I struck up a friendship with Tim O'Riodan
- true scholar and gentleman - who generously introduced me to Phil Jones
and the other scientists working at the Climate Research Unit. As has been
generally true with most scientists with whom I have worked over the years,
they were affable and enthusiastic about sharing their research. Yet, as
time went on something less flatering began to emerge. 

 

I think the problem crystalized in my mind during a conversation that I had
with Tim in his office in 2002, which coincided with California's energy
crisis and the emerging role of Enron in manipulating the Western power grid
to run up the price of electricity. To my horror, Tim began extolling the
"green" credentials of Kenneth Lay and opined that he would be an excellent
point around which climate policymaking could be formed in the U.S. Of
course, he was oblivious as to the corporate Ken Lay and his criminal
activities onbehalf of Enron, which then suggested that Tim had a sadly
limited view of the world of real politics notwithstanding his many, many
years of writing about the politics of EU climate policy. From that point
forward, I began to look at the EAU and its role in British climate
policymaking differently, eventually coming to see how Tim has built that
program as the flagship U.K. climate research centre that it now is as an
extension of the U.K. government and not in any sense as an independent
research entity. Hence, the problem, as Nietzsche observed, is that
developing relationships with power shifts control to the centre of power,
even while developing an illusion of power at the margins. For Tim and the
CRU, this meant that a certain hubris developed around their science
knowledge and relationships with policymakers, leading to the sad attacks on
those, such as Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who were not sufficiently
enthusiastic about their views and program. This problem, however, is not
CRU's alone, as I had similar experiences with other government associated
programs in the U.S. and Europe, and witnessed other instances of personal
and professional attacks on climate scientists and policy analysts who dared
raised questions or expressed reservations about the substance and/or
direction of climate policymaking. 

 

The problem with the CRU emails is much deeper than the evidence they
provide of disputes within climate science: they represent a pattern of
isolation and arrogance that developed as CRU and EAU moved inside the
policymaking process. Knowing some of the participants and retaining at
least one friendship at CRU, I know they are deeply troubled by what has
happened, and at least a few of them recognize how it came to be. What wa

Re: Climategate Impacts

[Darrell Whitman]

Greetings,

I woke up this morning to this long train of GEP emails on Copenhagen and 
"climategate", all of which make interesting if now divergent readings. I 
thought I'd add a comment to Myanna's, DG's, Mat and Suzi's thread about East 
Anglia and the email fiasco as I have some personal experience with this matter 
that casts it in a somewhat different light and raises important questions that 
go beyond the science debate. As it happened, I made several visits to EAU 
between 2001 and 2005 as part of my effort to get inside of the EU climate 
policymaking process during my tenure with California's Resources Agency. As it 
happened, I struck up a friendship with Tim O'Riodan - true scholar and 
gentleman - who generously introduced me to Phil Jones and the other scientists 
working at the Climate Research Unit. As has been generally true with most 
scientists with whom I have worked over the years, they were affable and 
enthusiastic about sharing their research. Yet, as time went on something less 
flatering began to emerge. 

I think the problem crystalized in my mind during a conversation that I had 
with Tim in his office in 2002, which coincided with California's energy crisis 
and the emerging role of Enron in manipulating the Western power grid to run up 
the price of electricity. To my horror, Tim began extolling the "green" 
credentials of Kenneth Lay and opined that he would be an excellent point 
around which climate policymaking could be formed in the U.S. Of course, he was 
oblivious as to the corporate Ken Lay and his criminal activities onbehalf of 
Enron, which then suggested that Tim had a sadly limited view of the world of 
real politics notwithstanding his many, many years of writing about the 
politics of EU climate policy. From that point forward, I began to look at the 
EAU and its role in British climate policymaking differently, eventually coming 
to see how Tim has built that program as the flagship U.K. climate research 
centre that it now is as an extension of the U.K. government and not in any 
sense as an independent research entity. Hence, the problem, as Nietzsche 
observed, is that developing relationships with power shifts control to the 
centre of power, even while developing an illusion of power at the margins. For 
Tim and the CRU, this meant that a certain hubris developed around their 
science knowledge and relationships with policymakers, leading to the sad 
attacks on those, such as Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who were not sufficiently 
enthusiastic about their views and program. This problem, however, is not CRU's 
alone, as I had similar experiences with other government associated programs 
in the U.S. and Europe, and witnessed other instances of personal and 
professional attacks on climate scientists and policy analysts who dared raised 
questions or expressed reservations about the substance and/or direction of 
climate policymaking. 

The problem with the CRU emails is much deeper than the evidence they provide 
of disputes within climate science: they represent a pattern of isolation and 
arrogance that developed as CRU and EAU moved inside the policymaking process. 
Knowing some of the participants and retaining at least one friendship at CRU, 
I know they are deeply troubled by what has happened, and at least a few of 
them recognize how it came to be. What was lost there over the years - humility 
for what they didn't know and respect for those with whom they had honest 
disagreements, is always at risk when the politics of policymaking intrudes 
into careers and creates hierarchies of power. I have worked long enough (forty 
years) in community politics to know that publics high and low, rich and poor, 
implicitly understand this problem, even when they don't know the details, and 
their skepicism about climate science, which in any case varies from culture to 
culture for a variety of reasons, reflects their exclusion from it. 

Best regards
Darrell Whitman
Davis, California
  - Original Message - 
  From: Myanna Lahsen 
  To: williamcgbu...@comcast.net 
  Cc: Wallace, Richard ; Global Environmental Politics Education ListServe 
  Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:07 AM
  Subject: Re: Climategate Impacts


  Dear all,

  In response to DG Webster's comment:

  "If we all believed the same thing, then when we are wrong we will be very 
very wrong. When there are many different beliefs, it's more likely that some 
will be right, but less likely that we'll all act together based on that 
person's position. Thus, as frustrating as the stolen e-mails, the climate 
negotiations, and the differences of opinion may be to the list, these are 
symptoms of a profound aspect of human--and non-human--existence: variation is 
key to our survival. That it could also be the source of our downfall is 
ironic, but not inevitable."

  The notion of societal strength through diversity of perspectives is a common 
one in anthropology, and an important one, also 

Re: Copenhagen result

[Stephen Van Holde]

Well put, Lorraine.  I have exactly the same problem standing in front  
of my classes.  And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu  
and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor  
people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says,  
what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how  
broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at  
least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform  
rather than in state-based solutions.  And while I've been reluctant  
to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they  
may be right.  But of course that does little or nothing to address  
the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world


Just my 2 cents.

Steve

Stephen Van Holde
Departments of Political Science and International Studies
Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA
vanho...@kenyon.edu

Quoting Lorraine Elliott :

But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two  
decades since the Toronto conference at which participating  
governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to  reduce emissions  
by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a  
decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC  
assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've probably  
killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to  
the 'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in  
the time that all this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen  
is a good first step? Somehow I don't think my students will be  
persuaded. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of people at  
Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who worked  
non-stop to try to retrieve something. I know a lot of those people.  
But I've just been in Southeast Asia where the livelihoods (and in  
some cases lives) of millions of people are under threat a result of  
the impacts of climate change. I have students from Bangladesh and  
the Pacific. Despite the rhetoric and spin coming from world  
'leaders', they want someone to stand in front of them and tell them  
why their homes, their livelihoods are under threat and no-one is  
doing much about it. I no longer have an answer for them. Sorry, bit  
of a rant, but I feel pretty dispirited by the whole process at the  
moment.


Lorraine

 Original Message -
From: Daniel Bodansky 
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
To: Heike Schroeder 
Cc: Daniel Bodansky ,  
"gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" 



But countries did move beyond position in significant ways.
China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US
agreed to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance,
plus personal commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was
far from easy - people sweated blood to get it!

__
Daniel Bodansky
Associate Dean for Faculty Development
Woodruff Professor of International Law
School of Law
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Tel: 706-542-7052

On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder
 wrote:

>Hi All,
>Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
>On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political
framework was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15
attendees (and some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen.
But given that 120 or so heads of state were coming to town
(including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to
publicly state (as he did at Forest Day) that heads of state
don't come for failure. It nurtured a sense of optimism among
attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese premier) and also EU reps
would not come empty-handed but move beyond their positions in
at least some way, either by more concrete pledging of finance
or stronger unilateral targets. None of this happened, except
the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the Accord. To
me, this is where the disappointment lies.
>Best, Heike
>
>--
>Dr. Heike Schroeder
>Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
>Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
>James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
>Environmental Change Institute
>University of Oxford
>South Parks Road
>Oxford OX1 3QY
>
>Tel: 01865 275894
>Fax: 01865 275850
>
>From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep-
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky
[bodan...@uga.edu]>Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
>To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
>Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result
>
>Hi all,
>
>I sent the message below last night from an email account not
registered with GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take
account of the subsequent discussion from others.  For
those who are interested, I've been blogging about the
Copenhagen meeting on the international law blog,
opiniojuris.org.  I plan to post some preliminary thoughts
on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.
>
>Dan
>
>Earlier email message:
>
>Hi Ra

RE: Copenhagen result

[Wil Burns]

Don't worry, Dale; in the end we'll solve it with geoengineering :)


Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief
Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy
1702 Arlington Blvd.
El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA
Ph:   650.281.9126
Fax: 510.779.5361
ji...@internationalwildlifelaw.org
http://www.jiwlp.com
SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348
Skype ID: Wil.Burns


-Original Message-
From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[mailto:owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Dale W Jamieson
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:14 AM
To: Daniel Bodansky
Cc: Heike Schroeder; gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result

i think the depth and severity of the structural problems involved in
addressing climate change are well indicated in this thread:  some
wonderful, honorable people "sweated blood" to get what would have been a
good first step in the 1990s, but are wholly inadequate for 2009.  it's time
to analyze the failures in political and structural terms, and to focus on
what it means for humanity that climate will increasingly become subject to
human domination, in much the same way that several other natural systems
are human dominated.

happy holidays,

dale

**
Dale Jamieson
Director of Environmental Studies
Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy
Affiliated Professor of Law
Environmental Studies Program 
New York University 
285 Mercer Street, 901
New York NY 10003-6653 
Voice 212-998-5429
Fax 212-995-4157
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html

"Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable
thing...--Blanche DuBois

- Original Message -
From: Daniel Bodansky 
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:25 am
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
To: Heike Schroeder 
Cc: "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" 

> But countries did move beyond their positions in significant ways.  
> China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US agreed  
> 
> to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, plus personal  
> 
> commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was far from easy - people 
>  
> sweated blood to get it!
> 
> Best
> Dan
> 
> 
> On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder 
>   > wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
> > On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political framework  
> 
> > was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 attendees (and 
>  
> > some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. But given that 120  
> 
> > or so heads of state were coming to town (including Obama himself)  
> 
> > gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to publicly state (as he did at  
> > Forest Day) that heads of state don't come for failure. It nurtured  
> 
> > a sense of optimism among attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese  
> > premier) and also EU reps would not come empty-handed but move  
> > beyond their positions in at least some way, either by more concrete 
>  
> > pledging of finance or stronger unilateral targets. None of this  
> > happened, except the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the 
>  
> > Accord. To me, this is where the disappointment lies.
> > Best, Heike
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Heike Schroeder
> > Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
> > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
> > James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
> > Environmental Change Institute
> > University of Oxford
> > South Parks Road
> > Oxford OX1 3QY
> >
> > Tel: 01865 275894
> > Fax: 01865 275850
> > 
> > From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- 
> > e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky  
> > [bodan...@uga.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
> > To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I sent the message below last night from an email account not  
> > registered with GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take account of  
> > the subsequent discussion from others.  For those who are  
> > interested, I've been blogging about the Copenhagen meeting on the  
> 
> > international law blog, opiniojuris.org.  I plan to post some  
> > preliminary thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Earlier email message:
> >
> > Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat,
> >
> > Just wanted to chime in with a few points:
> >
> > First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email:
> >
> > -- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP decision,  
> 
> > it was agreed by 20+ countries.  Saudi Arabia didn't oppose the  
> > Accord, only its adoption as a COP decision.  (Sudan was also among  
> 
> > the countries that agreed to the Accord, although don't count on it  
> 
> > to associate itself with the Accord formally.)  The Accord was  
> > reportedly endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP  
> > plenary the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group  
> > supported it

Re: Copenhagen result

[Dale W Jamieson]

i think the depth and severity of the structural problems involved in 
addressing climate change are well indicated in this thread:  some wonderful, 
honorable people "sweated blood" to get what would have been a good first step 
in the 1990s, but are wholly inadequate for 2009.  it's time to analyze the 
failures in political and structural terms, and to focus on what it means for 
humanity that climate will increasingly become subject to human domination, in 
much the same way that several other natural systems are human dominated.

happy holidays,

dale

**
Dale Jamieson
Director of Environmental Studies
Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy
Affiliated Professor of Law
Environmental Studies Program 
New York University 
285 Mercer Street, 901
New York NY 10003-6653 
Voice 212-998-5429
Fax 212-995-4157
http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html

"Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable 
thing...--Blanche DuBois

- Original Message -
From: Daniel Bodansky 
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:25 am
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
To: Heike Schroeder 
Cc: "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" 

> But countries did move beyond their positions in significant ways.  
> China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US agreed  
> 
> to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, plus personal  
> 
> commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was far from easy - people 
>  
> sweated blood to get it!
> 
> Best
> Dan
> 
> 
> On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder 
>   > wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> > Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
> > On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political framework  
> 
> > was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 attendees (and 
>  
> > some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. But given that 120  
> 
> > or so heads of state were coming to town (including Obama himself)  
> 
> > gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to publicly state (as he did at  
> > Forest Day) that heads of state don't come for failure. It nurtured  
> 
> > a sense of optimism among attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese  
> > premier) and also EU reps would not come empty-handed but move  
> > beyond their positions in at least some way, either by more concrete 
>  
> > pledging of finance or stronger unilateral targets. None of this  
> > happened, except the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the 
>  
> > Accord. To me, this is where the disappointment lies.
> > Best, Heike
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Heike Schroeder
> > Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
> > Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
> > James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
> > Environmental Change Institute
> > University of Oxford
> > South Parks Road
> > Oxford OX1 3QY
> >
> > Tel: 01865 275894
> > Fax: 01865 275850
> > 
> > From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- 
> > e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky  
> > [bodan...@uga.edu]
> > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
> > To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I sent the message below last night from an email account not  
> > registered with GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take account of  
> > the subsequent discussion from others.  For those who are  
> > interested, I've been blogging about the Copenhagen meeting on the  
> 
> > international law blog, opiniojuris.org.  I plan to post some  
> > preliminary thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > Earlier email message:
> >
> > Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat,
> >
> > Just wanted to chime in with a few points:
> >
> > First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email:
> >
> > -- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP decision,  
> 
> > it was agreed by 20+ countries.  Saudi Arabia didn't oppose the  
> > Accord, only its adoption as a COP decision.  (Sudan was also among  
> 
> > the countries that agreed to the Accord, although don't count on it  
> 
> > to associate itself with the Accord formally.)  The Accord was  
> > reportedly endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP  
> > plenary the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group  
> > supported its adoption as a COP decision.
> >
> > -- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to negotiate 
>  
> > a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico City (along with  
> 
> > the EU, AOSIS and others).  The proposal was killed by China and  
> > India.
> >
> > -- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about adoption of 
>  
> > a KP second commitment period amendment reflects the view of the  
> > G-77 generally.
> >
> > With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses:
> >
> > 1.  I agree with Wil on this point.  Pretty much everybody had given 
>  
> > up on a legal agreement in Copenhagen by the end of the Barcelona  

Re: Climategate Impacts

[Myanna Lahsen]

Dear all,

In response to DG Webster's comment:

"If we all believed the same thing, then when we are wrong we will be very
very wrong. When there are many different beliefs, it's more likely that
some will be right, but less likely that we'll all act together based on
that person's position. Thus, as frustrating as the stolen e-mails, the
climate negotiations, and the differences of opinion may be to the list,
these are symptoms of a profound aspect of human--and non-human--existence:
variation is key to our survival. That it could also be the source of our
downfall is ironic, but not inevitable."

The notion of societal strength through diversity of perspectives is a
common one in anthropology, and an important one, also in climate science
and associated politics. I personally do not conflate the categories of
"climate skeptics" and "climate deniers," as many commentators and even
scholars do; there are very honest and earnest skeptics whose
interpretations get muffled by that, and they may indeed know part of the
puzzle - see the third of the articles listed below for an example of that.
So it is important to not alienate these scientists through use of such
language. Others may rightly be called deniers.

A key point I want to make in response to you, DG, is the importance of
attending to power inequities. There is a need to analyze, expose and seek
to transform the political and economic systems that give such power to the
voice of a few, in particular those I indeed would call the "deniers." In
other words, recognition of strength through diversity should not result in
laissez-faire - in a position which overlooks the financial and political
machinery that explains why climate skepticism is so strong in the US
compared to other countries. I have developed this argument in the first of
the articles listed below.

I appreciate Susi's rejection of the term "ClimateGate"; those of us who
generally support the IPCC and are concerned about global warming should
seek not to use it, as its mere use places the IPCC scientists in the
position of accused and guilty by association.

Having analyzed US climate politics since the mid 1990s, this hacked email
incident is yet another instance of carefully crafted theater, similar to
that which was been crafted in the wake of the releases of IPCC reports. The
second of the references below is a careful analysis of one such incident.
Only with hindsight did the key IPCC scientist involved also himself
recognize that he was but an unwilling actor in a staged event, which
started at a hearing in US Congress.

It seems to me that the important role for concerned analysts is to seek
ways to inform decision-makers and publics (those who are disposed to listen
and think, anyhow; the rest are a lost cause) about both the limits and the
strenghts of peer-reviewed science; we need to develop a more critical
understanding of what science can and cannot do, getting rid of the
erroneous "scientific fundamentalism" that exists in US culture (cf. Chris
Toumey's book, Conjuring Science) without throwing the baby out with the
bath water - that is, while salvaging and strengthening recognition of the
importance of peer-reviewed science. Again, see the first reference for my
attempt to do that. The second article serves the same purpose to the extent
that it shows, in careful detailed analysis, that the distortions and biases
that prevail on the anti-environmental side is much, much greater than those
that exist on the other side, and also in large measure disingenuous.

A key point, however, is that this kind of analysis needs to get outside of
the academy. My own article is a case in point. It's difficult to do that,
in current academic incentive structures and an age of sound bites...which
gets us to the problem of the political economy and orientation of current
educational and media structures. By contrast to the work of most academics,
the theatrics of the anti-climate forces and associated scientists are
supported by the expensive services of top public relations firms.

Cheers,

Myanna

-- 
Myanna Lahsen,
Associate Researcher
Center for Earth System Science,
The National Institute for Space Research (INPE),
Av. dos Astronautas, 1.758 - Jd. Granja
São José dos Campos, SP 12227-010 Brazil
Telephone: Direct tel. number: +55 12 3945-7133; Secretary +55 12 3945 7126
/ 3945-7127
Fax: +55 12 3945-7126

--

*Lahsen, Myanna. “Technocracy, Democracy, and **U.S.** Climate Politics: The
Need for Demarcations” *Article published in *Science, Technology, and Human
Values* Vol. 30, No. 1 (Winter 2005), pp. 137-169. Electronically available
at:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1892-2005.50.pdf



Ulrich Beck and other theorists of reflexive modernization are allies in the
general projectto reduce technocracy and elitism by rendering decision
making more democratic and robust. However, this study of U.S. climate
politics reveals complexities

Re: Copenhagen result

[Lorraine Elliott]

But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two decades since 
the Toronto conference at which participating governments committed, 
voluntarily it is true, to  reduce emissions by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years 
since the FCCC was adopted, over a decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; 
we've had four IPCC assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've 
probably killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to the 
'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in the time that all 
this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen is a good first step? Somehow 
I don't think my students will be persuaded. I have no doubt that there were 
hundreds of people at Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who 
worked non-stop to try to retrieve something. I know a lot of those people. But 
I've just been in Southeast Asia where the livelihoods (and in some cases 
lives) of millions of people are under threat a result of the impacts of 
climate change. I have students from Bangladesh and the Pacific. Despite the 
rhetoric and spin coming from world 'leaders', they want someone to stand in 
front of them and tell them why their homes, their livelihoods are under threat 
and no-one is doing much about it. I no longer have an answer for them. Sorry, 
bit of a rant, but I feel pretty dispirited by the whole process at the moment. 

Lorraine

 Original Message -
From: Daniel Bodansky 
Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm
Subject: Re: Copenhagen result
To: Heike Schroeder 
Cc: Daniel Bodansky , "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" 


> But countries did move beyond position in significant ways. 
> China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US 
> agreed to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, 
> plus personal commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was 
> far from easy - people sweated blood to get it!
> 
> __
> Daniel Bodansky
> Associate Dean for Faculty Development
> Woodruff Professor of International Law
> School of Law
> University of Georgia
> Athens, GA 30602
> Tel: 706-542-7052
> 
> On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder 
>  wrote:
> 
> >Hi All,
> >Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
> >On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political 
> framework was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 
> attendees (and some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. 
> But given that 120 or so heads of state were coming to town 
> (including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to 
> publicly state (as he did at Forest Day) that heads of state 
> don't come for failure. It nurtured a sense of optimism among 
> attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese premier) and also EU reps 
> would not come empty-handed but move beyond their positions in 
> at least some way, either by more concrete pledging of finance 
> or stronger unilateral targets. None of this happened, except 
> the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the Accord. To 
> me, this is where the disappointment lies.
> >Best, Heike
> >
> >--
> >Dr. Heike Schroeder
> >Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
> >Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
> >James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
> >Environmental Change Institute
> >University of Oxford
> >South Parks Road
> >Oxford OX1 3QY
> >
> >Tel: 01865 275894
> >Fax: 01865 275850
> >
> >From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep-
> e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky 
> [bodan...@uga.edu]>Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
> >To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
> >Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I sent the message below last night from an email account not 
> registered with GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take 
> account of the subsequent discussion from others.  For 
> those who are interested, I've been blogging about the 
> Copenhagen meeting on the international law blog, 
> opiniojuris.org.  I plan to post some preliminary thoughts 
> on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >Earlier email message:
> >
> >Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat,
> >
> >Just wanted to chime in with a few points:
> >
> >First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email:
> >
> >-- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP 
> decision, it was agreed by 20+ countries.  Saudi Arabia 
> didn't oppose the Accord, only its adoption as a COP 
> decision.  (Sudan was also among the countries that agreed 
> to the Accord, although don't count on it to associate itself 
> with the Accord formally.)  The Accord was reportedly 
> endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP plenary 
> the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group supported 
> its adoption as a COP decision.
> >
> >-- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to 
> negotiate a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico 
> City (along with the EU

Re: Copenhagen result

[Daniel Bodansky]

But countries did move beyond their positions in significant ways.  
China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US agreed  
to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, plus personal  
commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was far from easy - people  
sweated blood to get it!


Best
Dan


On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder > wrote:



Hi All,
Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political framework  
was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 attendees (and  
some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. But given that 120  
or so heads of state were coming to town (including Obama himself)  
gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to publicly state (as he did at  
Forest Day) that heads of state don't come for failure. It nurtured  
a sense of optimism among attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese  
premier) and also EU reps would not come empty-handed but move  
beyond their positions in at least some way, either by more concrete  
pledging of finance or stronger unilateral targets. None of this  
happened, except the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the  
Accord. To me, this is where the disappointment lies.

Best, Heike

--
Dr. Heike Schroeder
Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY

Tel: 01865 275894
Fax: 01865 275850

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- 
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky  
[bodan...@uga.edu]

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result

Hi all,

I sent the message below last night from an email account not  
registered with GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take account of  
the subsequent discussion from others.  For those who are  
interested, I've been blogging about the Copenhagen meeting on the  
international law blog, opiniojuris.org.  I plan to post some  
preliminary thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.


Dan

Earlier email message:

Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat,

Just wanted to chime in with a few points:

First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email:

-- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP decision,  
it was agreed by 20+ countries.  Saudi Arabia didn't oppose the  
Accord, only its adoption as a COP decision.  (Sudan was also among  
the countries that agreed to the Accord, although don't count on it  
to associate itself with the Accord formally.)  The Accord was  
reportedly endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP  
plenary the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group  
supported its adoption as a COP decision.


-- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to negotiate  
a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico City (along with  
the EU, AOSIS and others).  The proposal was killed by China and  
India.


-- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about adoption of  
a KP second commitment period amendment reflects the view of the  
G-77 generally.


With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses:

1.  I agree with Wil on this point.  Pretty much everybody had given  
up on a legal agreement in Copenhagen by the end of the Barcelona  
meeting in November, and many had seen the writing on the wall much  
earlier.  I have to strongly disagree with Mat's view that the  
Copenhagen Accord was easy.  Given the total opposition by China  
(and to a lesser degree India) to any form of listing of their  
intensity target or any form of international review, getting  
agreement on the Copenhagen Accord was a huge stretch -- so if one  
regards the Accord as a pretty modest outcome, just imagine what  
getting a legal agreement will be like!!


2.  Generally agree with Wil on this too, although I agree with Mat  
that the legal nature of the KP has been significant.


3.  Nothing to add here.

4.   The Copenhagen Accord may well be the high water mark for  
climate agreements anytime soon, so let's hope it proves to be  
significant!!


Finally a few additional comments:

-- The Copenhagen meeting proves the utter dysfunctionality of the  
UNFCCC process.  The final night, a handful of essentially rogue  
states, led by Sudan, blocked a COP decision adopting a political  
agreement by the Heads of State/Government of all of the major world  
powers.


-- The Copenhagen meeting also revealed the complete breakdown of  
the G-77 as a negotiating group.  In the closing plenary, some  
developing countries openly criticized their G-77 "brethren" (read  
China) for preventing inclusion of more ambitious emission reduction  
numbers in the Copenhagen Accord.


Best Dan

Re: Copenhagen result

[Daniel Bodansky]

But countries did move beyond position in significant ways. China  
agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US agreed to  
$100 billion annual funding and short term finance, plus personal  
commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was far from easy - people  
sweated blood to get it!


__
Daniel Bodansky
Associate Dean for Faculty Development
Woodruff Professor of International Law
School of Law
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602
Tel: 706-542-7052

On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder > wrote:



Hi All,
Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political framework  
was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 attendees (and  
some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. But given that 120  
or so heads of state were coming to town (including Obama himself)  
gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to publicly state (as he did at  
Forest Day) that heads of state don't come for failure. It nurtured  
a sense of optimism among attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese  
premier) and also EU reps would not come empty-handed but move  
beyond their positions in at least some way, either by more concrete  
pledging of finance or stronger unilateral targets. None of this  
happened, except the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the  
Accord. To me, this is where the disappointment lies.

Best, Heike

--
Dr. Heike Schroeder
Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY

Tel: 01865 275894
Fax: 01865 275850

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- 
e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky  
[bodan...@uga.edu]

Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result

Hi all,

I sent the message below last night from an email account not  
registered with GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take account of  
the subsequent discussion from others.  For those who are  
interested, I've been blogging about the Copenhagen meeting on the  
international law blog, opiniojuris.org.  I plan to post some  
preliminary thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.


Dan

Earlier email message:

Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat,

Just wanted to chime in with a few points:

First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email:

-- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP decision,  
it was agreed by 20+ countries.  Saudi Arabia didn't oppose the  
Accord, only its adoption as a COP decision.  (Sudan was also among  
the countries that agreed to the Accord, although don't count on it  
to associate itself with the Accord formally.)  The Accord was  
reportedly endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP  
plenary the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group  
supported its adoption as a COP decision.


-- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to negotiate  
a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico City (along with  
the EU, AOSIS and others).  The proposal was killed by China and  
India.


-- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about adoption of  
a KP second commitment period amendment reflects the view of the  
G-77 generally.


With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses:

1.  I agree with Wil on this point.  Pretty much everybody had given  
up on a legal agreement in Copenhagen by the end of the Barcelona  
meeting in November, and many had seen the writing on the wall much  
earlier.  I have to strongly disagree with Mat's view that the  
Copenhagen Accord was easy.  Given the total opposition by China  
(and to a lesser degree India) to any form of listing of their  
intensity target or any form of international review, getting  
agreement on the Copenhagen Accord was a huge stretch -- so if one  
regards the Accord as a pretty modest outcome, just imagine what  
getting a legal agreement will be like!!


2.  Generally agree with Wil on this too, although I agree with Mat  
that the legal nature of the KP has been significant.


3.  Nothing to add here.

4.   The Copenhagen Accord may well be the high water mark for  
climate agreements anytime soon, so let's hope it proves to be  
significant!!


Finally a few additional comments:

-- The Copenhagen meeting proves the utter dysfunctionality of the  
UNFCCC process.  The final night, a handful of essentially rogue  
states, led by Sudan, blocked a COP decision adopting a political  
agreement by the Heads of State/Government of all of the major world  
powers.


-- The Copenhagen meeting also revealed the complete breakdown of  
the G-77 as a negotiating group.  In the closing plenary, some  
developing countries openly criticized their G-77 "brethren" (read  
China) for preventing inclusion of more ambitious

RE: Re: Copenhagen result

[Heike Schroeder]

Hi All,
Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well...
On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political framework was off the 
table well before 43,000 registered COP15 attendees (and some 100,000 
protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. But given that 120 or so heads of state 
were coming to town (including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope 
to publicly state (as he did at Forest Day) that heads of state don't come for 
failure. It nurtured a sense of optimism among attendees that Obama, Wen (the 
Chinese premier) and also EU reps would not come empty-handed but move beyond 
their positions in at least some way, either by more concrete pledging of 
finance or stronger unilateral targets. None of this happened, except the 2 
degrees inclusion in the final version of the Accord. To me, this is where the 
disappointment lies.
Best, Heike

--
Dr. Heike Schroeder
Tyndall Senior Research Fellow
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow
Environmental Change Institute
University of Oxford
South Parks Road
Oxford OX1 3QY

Tel: 01865 275894
Fax: 01865 275850

From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu 
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky 
[bodan...@uga.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM
To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result

Hi all,

I sent the message below last night from an email account not registered with 
GEPED, so it bounced.  It doesn't take account of the subsequent discussion 
from others.  For those who are interested, I've been blogging about the 
Copenhagen meeting on the international law blog, opiniojuris.org.  I plan to 
post some preliminary thoughts on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday.

Dan

Earlier email message:

Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat,

Just wanted to chime in with a few points:

First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email:

-- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP decision, it was 
agreed by 20+ countries.  Saudi Arabia didn't oppose the Accord, only its 
adoption as a COP decision.  (Sudan was also among the countries that agreed to 
the Accord, although don't count on it to associate itself with the Accord 
formally.)  The Accord was reportedly endorsed by all of the regional groups, 
and in the COP plenary the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group 
supported its adoption as a COP decision.

-- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to negotiate a 
legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico City (along with the EU, AOSIS 
and others).  The proposal was killed by China and India.

-- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about adoption of a KP 
second commitment period amendment reflects the view of the G-77 generally.

With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses:

1.  I agree with Wil on this point.  Pretty much everybody had given up on a 
legal agreement in Copenhagen by the end of the Barcelona meeting in November, 
and many had seen the writing on the wall much earlier.  I have to strongly 
disagree with Mat's view that the Copenhagen Accord was easy.  Given the total 
opposition by China (and to a lesser degree India) to any form of listing of 
their intensity target or any form of international review, getting agreement 
on the Copenhagen Accord was a huge stretch -- so if one regards the Accord as 
a pretty modest outcome, just imagine what getting a legal agreement will be 
like!!

2.  Generally agree with Wil on this too, although I agree with Mat that the 
legal nature of the KP has been significant.

3.  Nothing to add here.

4.   The Copenhagen Accord may well be the high water mark for climate 
agreements anytime soon, so let's hope it proves to be significant!!

Finally a few additional comments:

-- The Copenhagen meeting proves the utter dysfunctionality of the UNFCCC 
process.  The final night, a handful of essentially rogue states, led by Sudan, 
blocked a COP decision adopting a political agreement by the Heads of 
State/Government of all of the major world powers.

-- The Copenhagen meeting also revealed the complete breakdown of the G-77 as a 
negotiating group.  In the closing plenary, some developing countries openly 
criticized their G-77 "brethren" (read China) for preventing inclusion of more 
ambitious emission reduction numbers in the Copenhagen Accord.

Best Dan