Obama going to Copenhagen

President Obama will attend the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen next month, according to a senior administration official, a sign of the president’s increasing confidence that the talks will yield a meaningful agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The White House will also announce today that the United States will commit, in the talks, to reduce its emissions of the heat-trapping gases scientists blame for global warming “in the range of” 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, the official said. That’s the target set out in the climate bill the House passed in June.

The president will address negotiators on Dec. 9, just after the opening of the two-week summit, on his way to pick up the Nobel Peace Prize in nearby Sweden. His speech will come ahead of planned visits by prominent heads of state from Europe and around the world, and before the talks are expected to reach their most frenzied pitch.

White House officials said the decision to attend came after productive climate discussions between Obama and the heads of China and India, two developing nations whose participation is seen as critical to any successful effort to avert catastrophic climate change.

Those discussions left the president optimistic that his presence in Copenhagen could seal a meaningful – though not legally binding – climate deal, meeting the standard that Obama previously set for his attendance at the summit, the officials said.

Environmentalists have pushed for Obama’s attendance to add heft to the Copenhagen meeting, which was originally intended to produce a new climate deal to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Several nations key to the talks, including the United States and China, have conceded in recent weeks that negotiations have proceeded too slowly to produce a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen. Instead, those nations are now aiming for a sort of executive summary of a future treaty to be completed next year; that summary would nevertheless include critical issues such as emissions reduction pledges for individual nations.

Obama has stressed the importance of the talks. In public speeches and private meetings with world leaders, he has repeatedly pledged U.S. action to curb global warming, in contrast to eight years of reluctance under the Bush Administration.

But he wavered on whether to attend in person, even as leaders such as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown committed to go.

Obama’s attendance carries political risks at home, where his energy and climate bill has bogged down in the Senate behind health care, and where critics figure to pounce if he fails to lead the world to a climate agreement. Republicans in particular are mindful of Obama’s trip to Copenhagen earlier this year, when he lobbied unsuccessfully for Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics.

His absence at the talks could have brought serious repercussions abroad, where many nations are already blaming the dim prospects for a legally binding treaty in Copenhagen on the United States’ failure to adopt emissions limits.

Environmentalists were cheered by the news -- at least in part.

"Obviously, we are glad that President Obama will be in Copenhagen in the early part of the climate summit," said Keya Chatterjee, the climate director for World Wildlife Fund. "It's important that his words during this important moment convey that the United States intends to make climate change a legislative priority, not simply a rhetorical one.  

"If it becomes necessary to secure the right commitments," she added, "the President must also be willing to return to Copenhagen with the rest of the world's leaders during the final stages of the negotiations."

 

--Jim Tankersley

 

Comments

[tae]

Fake scientists and some of the so-called "corporate leaders" deny climate change for the sake of their money and power. But for US who lives in REAL WORLD need binding treaty to STOP climate change RIGHT NOW. Global warming is not debatable just like there is no doubt smoking is terrible for your health.

[Henrique Cortez]

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen climbed on the roof a few days ago, when leaders of two countries that emit greenhouse gases in the world, the United States and China, warned the rest of the world that a strong climate agreement and truth will not come out in December this year. Barack Obama and Hu Jintao threw in the towel and Europe sighed. The most powerful leader the world seems unwilling to do anything abroad without domestic signaling Beijing does not want to do nothing without Washington and Europe, for whom a slump midway aggravated internal conflicts, finally found a good excuse (other) to postpone things. The 7-day Copenhagen there is only one certainty: the gap between what science says and what the politicians want to do has never been so abysmal. [in http://www.ecodebate.com.br/2009/11/26/mudancas-climaticas-planeta-perto-do-ponto-de-colapso/ ]

[Sam]

Obama for mankind. I got an idea, lets all vote for someone int he worst econmic climite since the stock market crash of 1929 and then less then a year later talk about how awful he is. You people are never happy, your like old women playing bingo. Spoken by a true Dodgers fan, be patient.

Sam

[Marsha]

How much will this all cost you? Enough to pay for a small country. Twice.

$79 billion so far. To track the $, go to www.gefonline.org, the UN's database for "green" treaties. Choose climate change and take a look at what your taxpayer dollars are paying for.

Or take a look under Project Type, something called "Enabling Activity" -- that's paperwork. All the Developing Countries, including China, have to submit reports, and Developed Countries, that's us, pay the bulk of these costs. Some of these reports cost $37,000 a page!

It's a scam.

[John]

this treaty or deal, is a 2% on everything in america that will go to other countries. now this is wrong. this punishing americans. cap and trade is just as bad. i wish i voted for someone else in 2008. i will never fall for the Cult of Personality of Obama ever again, i am done with democrats for the first time.

[TonyP4]

Recently there have been some discussion on China’s rapid development, industrialization, increased pollution and destruction of environment such as deforestation.

China, as a developing country, can do so much. It has done its share so far. It is unfair to say China is the world polluter #1 or #2. You need to take out pollution due to production of goods for export. Then, you calculate pollution per capita. From this calculation, US is #1 and China is way, way down. China pollutes only 1/4 of US on per capita basis.

* It is #1 or #2 in most renewable energy such as solar, hydro and wind energy.

* China is blessed with coal, but lacks oil resource. Coal generates heat via burning the carbon and it can never be cleaned even with the best technology from the west/US, which can improve less carbon monoxide and acid-rain-causing SO2.

* The better quality of coal is in the north east. Transporting coal from this area to urban cities adds pollution. It is more effective with barges.

* Grid to distribute energy in China is primitive at best. It needs a lot of technology from the west/US plus its own development to exploit and copy/enhance the technology. Made In China on grid technology is idealistic but still has a long way to go.

Hydro and nuclear generators when strategically located would cut down the grid dependency and transportation of coal for certain area.

A wind farm is idle due to it is not connected to the grid.

* Nuclear generation is very aggressive, but it is a small percentage of the total output of energy. All are foreign technology. China copied and developed the pebble nuclear technology which is promising for safety/cost but its capacity is very limited.

* The priority to highways (auto) and some air transportation should take a back seat to public transportation such as subways, trains, HSR…The recent cut in gas subsidy is a good measure.
* It has transformed a small scale of semi desert to livable land in the north west. The big impact will be from the diversion of water from south to north/west. This semi desert will turn to oasis easier than real desert. Will see the cost/benefit.

* China has about 1/4 of the average water per capital and Bijing about 1/30.

How ironic the #1 polluter of the world (based on per capita) accuses China, which does not even make to the top 10?

[NickJ]

To Jim Tankersley:
Every comment so far has referenced the CRU email scandal. Are you unaware of that, or are you simply doing what MSM journalists do best - suppressing news that doesn't fit your agenda?

The CRU scandal has the potential to blow the lid off the biggest case of scientific fraud in history, yet MSM reporters like Tankersley will keep their heads carefully covered in sand until the obvious can no longer be avoided.

It's no wonder that no one trusts the MSM any more.

[John Bibb]

***
Why not reduce our carbon emissions to the 1000 AD level and really save the planet? No cars, no planes, no factories, no heated homes, no electricity, no jobs, no medicines, starvation diets, etc.
***
"GLOBULL WARMING" (aka "climate change") is a red herring fraud intended to help big government take over more of our economy. Why shoot yourself in the foot to fight a non-existent enemy?
***
Rocketman
***

[Paul Taylor Examiner]

The new American president has lost his credibility in attempts to "re-make" America. As with his other foreign policy apologia, he will have no credibility or effect in trying to boost the prospects of global climate policy in Copenhagen. Last week's hacking of climate "scientists" bias has cooled global governments' interest in silly carbon tax schemes that will punish economic recovery with no significant environmental benefits.
Environmentalists offer no product or service in support of future prosperity. Eco-groups have become a partisan "axis of antagonism."

[wnaegele]

This piece is straight from the Twilight Zone...

[Stan]

Good Lord. The man is tone-deaf!

Did anyone bother to inform him about the Hadley CRU data dump? About the E-mails?

Does he even care?

[Cosmo]

With the CRU emails out, the cats out of the bag on the AGW hoax. This was going to turn out to be the largest redistribution of wealth swindle in history of mankind. Now everything is starting to fall apart for Gore and his cronies. Rome is burning for the religion of Global Warming but yet the president still hangs on...

[fredcpa]

of course he wants to go!! now that the emails have been released showing that anthropogenic GW is at best dubious. and certainly NOT science. he is on board! he LIKES people who make stuff up. like jobs saved.....and how to DECREASE defcitis by spending MORE....and ...and....and....theese are HIS kinda folks. too friggin funny!! this guy is so done it's shakespearian. tragic. and a farce at the same time. peace.

[Joan H.]

If Obama went to Copenhagen to expose the utter fraudulence of the AGW movement it would go a long way towards restoring his sinking poll numbers. How can anyone take the desperate need to reduce CO2 emissions seriously after the release of all the CRU email and documents showing that it's a fraud wrapped in a lie supported by a conspiracy?

The AGW movement is dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Media cheerleading like this article which completes ignores the CRU cache won't be enough to reanimate the zombie.

[JEM]

I would like to think that if he signs anything in Copenhagen we won't let him back into the country afterward.

Particularly after the revelation that so many of the scientists at the top of the climate-change heap have been fudging, conspiring, and manipulating for the past decade.

[Graham]

And yet no mention in this article on how the leading "scientists" were caught manipulating data to hide cooling, intimidating editors who wanted to publish alternative views on warming, and how they failed to replicate the warming trends they claimed their own data initially revealed.

Man caused global warming is as much a fraud as is Obama.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/25/the_skeptics_are_vindicated_99296.html

[MacGhil]

There is not one word in this piece about the criminal fraud committed by the CRU "scientists" who falsified results relied upon by the IPCC to reach their "consensus on anthropogenic global warming."

Of course, I expect nothing less than untruths from the progressive ideologue in the WH, but members of the press are supposed to disseminate facts to the American people and act the watch dogs of the WH, not shill for fraud and act the lap dogs of the WH.

You statist hacks in the MSM lose more credibility with every passing day.

[Doug]

You've got to be kidding!!! Climate change is a HOAX, much like the Obama "Presidency". What a waste of tax payer $$$, I'd rather see him waste it on taking his angry wife on a date night.

[Jack Herman]

Yes, by all means, ignore the possibility that some climate scare theocrat scientists may have fabricated their work to gain the results they wanted. Let's just ignore that. Proceed with your policy of causing electricity prices to "necessarily skyrocket".

Or how about using the more reasoned approach. Contrary to Al Gore and Ed Begley, the facts are not all in. Evidenced by the leading climate scare cultists manipulating data. Let's slow down with detroying America until the facts are truly in.

[Tmom]

He really needs to stay here and work on our current economy, which is going to crash long before our climate does. His priorities are totally wrong.

[merle]

Hmm...

Not ONE, teeny tiny word in this article about the emails blowing the lid off the legitimacy of man-made global warming due to C02 emissions (you know, the "pollutant" we all EXHALE).

Why, oh why, could that be?

[JFS]

No mention of the e-mails of the prominent climate change trying to hide information bully opposition ... I cannot believe the crap they write in these articles without regard to these damaging e-mails. They get on Fox about fair and balanced and they write this which is far from fair and balanced. If it were a republican issue they would be dragging them through the streets.

[jbjm]

With the recent release by the New Media of email which seem to prove climate change calculations have been intentionally doctored and distorted, this overseas trip will lead to more embarrassing headlines for the President.

[RickS]

Doesn't the POTUS have better things to do than go gladhand a bunch of warm-mongers in Copenhagen? Thanks to the nitwits at the CRU we now know that AGW is a bunch of made-up BS. Climategate ( http://tinyurl.com/ykyapob ) makes all this hand-wringing about "climate change" a moot point. With the revelations that the "science" was totally cooked, does anyone actually think Congress will have any interest in passing Cap n'Tax now? What a complete joke.

[jason]

Climate Change is a hoax.