That quote from U.S. deputy national security advisor for international economic affairs Michael Froman about his hopes for a final agreement in Copenhagen would be funny if wasn’t so, well… unfunny.

The full quote:

“I don’t think the negotiations have proceeded in such a way that any of the leaders thought it was likely that we were going to achieve a final agreement in Copenhagen, and yet [they] thought that it was important that Copenhagen be an important step forward…

“There was a realistic assessment . . . by the leaders that it was unrealistic to expect a full, internationally legally binding agreement to be negotiated between now and when Copenhagen starts in 22 days…”

We’re a long way from Yes We Can now folks. Forget the halcyon days of the Change campaign, when “realistic assessments” about how “unrealistic” it was to expect any meaningful change to be brought about by the political system never made the soundbites …

In these post GFC times we need something snappy to sum up the Obama administration on climate change, a view shared by pretty much every other government involved in the Copenhagen negotiations.  We need to update the merch: roll out something new on T-Shirts, mugs, magnets.

The slogan?

“Obama 09: Realistic assessments of unrealistic expectations.”

Either that, or “Yes we Can’t.”

Fits better on a badge.

Members of the G8 rich countries have pledged to halt temperature rises to two degrees Celsius.
Yet they have refused to commit to the carbon targets, which would deliver even this modest goal.
At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs.
At two degrees we would melt Greenland.
At two degrees my country would not survive.
As a president I cannot accept this.
As a person I cannot accept this.
I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do any about it.
Copenhagen is our date with destiny.
Let us go there with a better plan…..

At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible.
They never make commitments, unless someone else does first.
This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collective suicide.
We don’t want a global suicide pact.
And we will not sign a global suicide pact, in Copenhagen or anywhere.

So today, I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.
We are all in this as one.
We stand or fall together.
I hope you will join me in deciding to stand.”

President Nasheed and leaders from vulnerable countries around the world signed a declaration calling on developing countries to develop using clean energy and sustainable technology, and for rich nations to commit to fast and deep carbon reduction paired with significant assistance to poor nations.

We are gathered here because we are the most vulnerable group of nations to climate change.
The problem is already on us, yet we have precious little with which to fight.
Some might prefer us to suffer in silence but today we have decided to speak.
And so I make this pledge today: we will not die quietly….
I believe in humanity.
I believe in human ingenuity.
I believe that with the right frame of mind, we can solve this crisis.
In the Maldives, we want to focus less on our plight; and more on our potential.
We want to do what is best for the planet.
And what is best for our economic self-interest.
This is why, earlier this year, we announced plans to become carbon neutral in ten years.
We will switch from oil to 100% renewable energy.
And we will offset aviation pollution, until a way can be found to decarbonise air transport too.
To my mind, countries that have the foresight to green their economies today, will be the winners of tomorrow.
They will be the winners of this century.
These pioneering countries will free themselves from the unpredictable price of foreign oil.
They will capitalize on the new, green economy of the future.
And they will enhance their moral standing, giving them greater political influence on the world stage.
A group of vulnerable, developing countries committed to carbon neutral development would send a loud message to the outside world.
If vulnerable, developing countries make a commitment to carbon neutrality, those opposed to change have nowhere left to hide.
If those with the least start doing the most, what excuse can the rich have for continuing inaction?
I think a bloc of carbon-neutral, developing nations could change the outcome of Copenhagen.

You can read the full text of the speech here.

According to their website…

“Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found.”

It is no surprise that this is going on. Guy Pearse, Clive Hamilton and others have been raising these issue for many years. But the more exposing of this kind of political influence the better, and it’ll be interesting to see what they have managed to pin down.

When I first became interested in the relationship between the big polluters and politicians, the first place I looked was at political donations.  Interestingly, most of the really big polluters (Xstrata, BHP etc) don’t need to make big political donations – they have influence and access by virtue of royalty payments and their sheer size. It tends to be the smaller fry that need to pay for influence – property developers and the like.  The NSW Greens do good work in this area through www.democracy4sale.org

Stay tuned for the story tomorrow – and check out the global climate change lobby.

Endangered marine life? Pah. Big explosions?! Now you’re talking!

It’s an unfortunate reality: science doesn’t sell; sex (and other big bangs) does.

But what’s the lesson in all this for the environmental community? Do greenies need to suck up their pride to find a sexy, sell-able angle to their causes for the greater good? Or with a bit more persistence, can journalists (and the public) be won over with “worthiness”?

UPDATE: Reader and journalist Anastasia Joyce has let me know about her new site Wotwaste, which attempts to do this in a really constructive way by finding interesting angles to the issue of waste and pollution with articles like “What’s waste got to do with organic chemistry and Queen Victoria’s mauve dress?” and “Is human hair really used in pizzas and bakeries?”

Perhaps there is a happy medium to be found between tabloid twists and uber-dry science spiels after all.

There is a lot at stake. Arguably it is the future of the planet. Some countries are literally fighting for their survival while other countries are fighting to defend the status quo. The divisions between the rich countries that have largely caused global warming, and the poorer countries who in many cases will be the most affected, could not be more stark. So far the talks have been proceeding slowly but as the deadline for an agreement draws nearer, the tensions are starting to show.

Yesterday (last night Australian time), the talks were brought to a halt by the African group of countries who are demanding that rich countries commit to higher targets. They named the elephant in the room.

A ‘trust building’ lunch between the Umbrella group (chaired by Australia) and African nations ended with African nations walking out saying we’re dying and you’re not doing enough. Africans told them specifically that people were dying by the minute, ambitious reduction is not negotiable because the survival of millions of people depends on it, and if they
weren’t here to talk about numbers then it wasn’t the right place to be.

It must have a been a great lunch. You can imagine the head of the US and Australian delegations chowing down on big fat juicy steaks, while everybody else sat around waiting for their food to arrive. And the airconditioner was probably stuck on hot, with people gradually sticking to those awful plastic chairs you find in conference centers. And then, just as the Australian delegate was cackling hysterically at a US joke about starving children, the African delegates decided that the future was actually important, and got up and walked out.

Well, maybe it wasn’t quite like that, but the outcome was the same. At the G77 press conference, the Africa group put it bluntly: “When asked why they are not willing to put the number s on the table…they say its politically and economically difficult ….for us it is a questions of life and death, people are dying in Africa because of the actions of people in the west.”

And then they lanced the boil that has been plaguing negotiations for months. “ We are not ready to give annex 1 countries a blank check through LULUCF rules and the flexible mechanisms before they give us their aggregate numbers and individual numbers”.

Rich countries have put weak (or no) targets on the table and have been focusing on fixing the rules of the new treaty so that they can have as many loopholes as possible to allow them to continue with business as usual. They won’t put forward targets until they know how they’ll be able to squirm out of them.

Australia is a classic. First Kevin Rudd put out a target that was so low (5-15%) that it was only just enough to stop us being kicked out in disgrace, and then when it became clear that our low ambition had dealt us out of any influence, increased it to a highly conditional 5-25%. This is still far below what a rich country like Australia should be committing to and what African countries and the science demands :– 40% or more by 2020.

Australia is doing as much as anyone (apart from a couple of rogue states) to undermine prospects for a strong global climate treaty through our low ambition and relentless push for loopholes. It is remarkable that Kevin Rudd has somehow managed to position himself as a leader on climate change in spite of the reality of our negotiating position. Its not hard to look good on climate when you are compared to the US or to the Federal Coalition, but climate change can’t just be about spin or about public relations. There is far too much at stake, and we are rapidly running out of time.

Nope, the all powerful cabal in this equation, according to Peter Walsh’s retiring presidential address to the Lavoisier Group and published in The Australian’s opinion pages, is the Greens.

Peter Walsh served as minister for resources and energy from 1983 to 1984 and finance minister from 1984 to 1990 in the Hawke government. His take on the CPRS?

The driving force behind this campaign to decarbonise Australia has been the Greens.

Don’t think there’d be any argument there. But Walsh continues:

Although they are small in terms of numbers they are extraordinarily influential.

Not influential enough to have the controlling vote in the Senate, mind you, but Walsh continues:

Their influence is derived from the support they have in the media – notably the ABC and the Fairfax media – but also because they are well off with secure jobs and they live in the best suburbs.

Malcolm Turnbull’s seat of Wentworth, which is probably the richest seat per capita in all of Australia, is a prime example of this wealth and influence.

Notwithstanding their personal prosperity the Greens seek to reduce the standard of living of other Australians (often in states far from Sydney and Melbourne, such as Western Australia) through measures that will reduce our productivity and progress.

Never mind that the Greens failed to secure the vote there in the last election (key words here: Turnbull’s seat). A mere trifle. There’s more to this conspiracy theory:

The extreme Left realised early on that a regime that controlled emissions of carbon dioxide would enable them to control in great detail the lives of every Australian.

…At the heart of this campaign is the creation of a powerful rent-receiving and rent-seeking alliance of banks and other financial institutions that will make billions from trading the emissions permits and that, once the emissions trading scheme is established, will be able to spend hundred of millions in ensuring, as best they can, that repeal is politically impossible.

…It is an extraordinary thing that the Left has become a willing accomplice in this racket.

The government is facing one of the greatest policy challenges in recent times, so how about some thoughtful, insightful and informed commentary from the national broadsheet instead of stuff straight from the grassy knoll?

Cue the Stonecutters tune …

What rhymes with Bob Brown?

Don’t underestimate the sense of disillusionment and even anger among some young Australians, who don’t see this as an environmental issue but one of survival. The protests will become less peaceful, the actions more extreme and more disruptive, the longer politicians treat climate change as a playground for intra- and inter-party political games.

Keane pointed to actions to halt production at coal mines in the Illawarra (and we’ve already seen protests like this in Newcastle and the LaTrobe Valley in Victoria) as a sign that things are getting increasingly desperate. But for those of you who are really, truly, genuinely concerned about your future and you’re willing to back your concerns with direct action, there is an alternative available to you that should prove to be much more effective than just blockading a few trucks on the way to the coal mine.

You need to take this man out of the political picture.

Here’s a quote from Senator Steve Fielding today in response to the Greens’ proposed amendments to the government’s CPRS:

“I don’t know what planet the Greens are on, but by the look of their ‘Safe Climate Bill’ they look like they’re lost in space…

“If [Greens leader] Bob Brown and his hippy friends really believed in their cause, they’d ride their bikes to Parliament House instead of using the Commonwealth’s petrol-guzzling V8s.

“If we did what the Greens propose, Australia would no longer exist because there’d be no industries left to drive our economy.”

Another series of searingly insightful political statements from the man who once stood in the middle of a busy intersection in his jocks in order to drive home a point.

So kids, if you’re really serious about climate change, don’t tie yourselves to the nearest coal fired power station, tie this bloke to it instead.

For any chance of promoting meaningful dialogue, and subsequent action –  fast — on climate change in Canberra, this sausage has to be excluded from the conversation. Preferably before hell freezes over.

In terms of return on investment, it makes sense for them to spend a few million on an ad campaign if they stand to avoid paying up $8 – $14 billion in carbon costs (depending on who you believe) over the next decade.

A little bit of fear mongering goes a long way. Which is probably why various creative people have taken it upon themselves to give the ad a good makeover. I’ve seen two crackers so far.

One of them is from the Hungry Beast. The other is a youtube special. Both very funny.

Check em out.

The department of planning this week released documents outlining plans for a new coal or gas plant at Mt Piper (near the Blue Mountains) and Bayswater in the Hunter valley.

The option of either coal or gas is still open, however given the cost of gas, and likely future increases in gas prices, it is unlikely that large scale, baseload gas power stations will be built. And the CPRS isn’t going to make enough difference to tip the balance.

Al Gore has been encouraging people to engage in civil disobedience to stop new coal power stations being built. NASA’s James Hansen has supported this view. I reckon a lot of people in this country are feeling the same way too.

With an election in early 2011, the NSW Government might be biting off more than they bargained for.

Magda Szubanski being stupid about cyclists

Now, I know this is hardly the worst rant ever, and it is even somewhat funny in parts. But I do find it extremely disturbing, as does another blogger over at OzSoapbox, that Szubanski’s call out to people at the end of her rant to run down cyclists or open car doors on them was greeted by whoops and cheers from the audience.

In terms of serious advocacy of violence towards cyclists, it certainly doesn’t rate against this column in the London Times which caused a tremendous furore in the UK and in cycling communities around the world. Matthew Parris, a former Tory MP, opened his column with the following:

A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists.

Charming.

I am not going to defend littering by cyclists. I think it’s abominable. And neither am I going to defend ugly lycra – it’s perfectly fine to ride in shorts and t-shirts, folks. But advocating violence against a set of people because you find them annoying is absolutely beyond the pale. I find right wing columnists bloody annoying, but I don’t say we should lynch them!

This light-heartedness, however, masks what is a very serious underlying issue. As someone who rides to and from work every day, trailing 2 kids behind me in one direction, I have noticed a disturbing increase in aggressive behaviour on the part of drivers towards cyclists.

On one occasion recently, having had a driver accelerate towards me on an empty stretch of road (this is Canberra – we have very wide, empty roads!), honk loudly and shout abuse out of his window at me for no apparent reason, I posted a comment about it to my twitter and Facebook. Within minutes it had been widely re-tweeted and I had a stream of comments on my Facebook with people recounting similar experiences. One friend in Melbourne had even had a dickhead deliberately reverse into her on a Melbourne street – looking her in the eye while doing so.

Cyclists have a right to be on the road as much as drivers and pedestrians. Yes, some cyclists abuse that right by riding aggressively, and I won’t defend that. But many more drivers drive dangerously and we don’t demonise all drivers for the sins of the few. We certainly don’t advocate lynchings because we don’t like the look of their cars (even though their cars are capable of killing us, and are polluting the planet needlessly).

This is a growing issue and we need to be very vigilant to make sure we don’t let it grow. I’d be interested to hear if others have also noticed this trend.

Update: Szubanski has apologised. Good on her!