GOP Warn Dems Of Climate Bill Political Backlash In 2010

GOP Warns Of Harsh Climate On Energy Bill


Senate Republicans warned Monday that the bruising fight over health care reform could deliver a knockout blow to another Democratic priority: passage of a climate change bill in 2010.

With a united Democratic Caucus, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was able to get to cloture on health care without a single GOP vote. But Democrats aren’t united on climate change, and the bitter battle over health care has left even sympathetic Republicans with little desire to help — a dynamic that would likely doom the bill to legislative failure.

“It makes it hard to do anything because of the way this was handled,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Graham didn’t elaborate, but he didn’t have to — the fierce partisan fights during the past few weeks have torn away at the Senate’s clubby decorum, raising temperatures, fraying nerves and creating what one Democratic senator has called a “very high” level of distrust among members.

Graham’s words carry serious weight with supporters of climate change legislation because the South Carolina Republican has emerged as a leader on the issue in the Senate, working with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on a bipartisan bill.

Other potentially “gettable” Republican senators also sounded discouraging notes Monday.

“Right now, I would say that cap and trade is stalled,” said Maine Sen. Susan Collins.

“Cap and trade has been delayed by the health care debate almost indefinitely,” said Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar. “The question will be how many more battles members of Congress want to take on in an election year.”

“I give it a very low chance,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a potential GOP target for bill supporters. “What it comes down to is our ability to work together as a body. And right now, the indicators are not very positive for climate change.”

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) equivocated over the weekend, when asked whether Democrats could pass a climate bill next year. But Kerry — one of only two senators to attend this month’s U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen — lashed out at naysayers Monday, saying the Senate would deliver on the promises President Barack Obama made there.

“Not a chance in hell that after the president put American prestige on the line in Copenhagen that the Senate is going to give this issue anything less than a major push,” Kerry said. “This is big — big — bigger than any individual agenda. Big. The 111th Congress is not a one-trick pony incapable of tackling more than one big issue, and the cost of tackling climate change would only grow if the Senate got weak-kneed and kicked the can down the road. Not going to happen.”

As Kerry noted, House members put themselves on the line when they approved a climate bill earlier this year. But the health backlash is only the latest roadblock in the Senate, and it’s not at all clear that supporters will be able to clear all — or even any — of them.

“It will take a lot of work,” said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). “We need to take a break around here and step back before we try anything of any controversy.”

The bill has scheduling issues: Climate ranks at the end of a long list of Democratic priorities for 2010, behind both a jobs bill and financial reform. It has international issues: The contentious negotiations in Copenhagen provide little, if any, boost for a bill back home.

And it has caucus unity issues.

Manufacturing-state Democrats are demanding border tariffs to protect energy-intensive industries from unfair foreign competition.

“If we don’t do this right, a company in Lima, Ohio, shuts down and moves to Wuhan, and we lose jobs,” said Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown.

And the sweeteners necessary to get Republicans on board — like expanding off-shore drilling and adding incentives for nuclear energy — could alienate liberal Democrats worried about the environmental impacts.

“The drilling would be very hard for me,” said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg. “Because even if they agree not to drill off the coast of New Jersey, that doesn’t protect us from the coast of Virginia, Delaware or other places.”

A handful of Democrats want to dump the cap-and-trade concept entirely.

Earlier this month, Collins and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) released legislation that would replace cap and trade with a system that would offer direct consumer rebates to offset increased energy costs.

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) has been pushing to move energy legislation that passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in June — and leave behind the cap-and-trade proposal he opposes.

“We’re going to have wasted a year, in my judgment,” he said. “My hope is when the calendar turns and January comes, we’ll have the opportunity to be able to grab and seize the progress that was made in the energy committee.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have pronouced dead a climate bill introduced earlier this year by Kerry and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), because of the partisan way it passed through Boxer’s committee. Instead, Kerry, Graham and Lieberman have been getting input from members across the Senate as they attempt to craft a bipartisan climate bill. The legislation must contain the right trade-offs to satisfy the long list of regional energy, economic and employment issues raised by Democratic lawmakers.

At the same time, they are trying to figure out how to steer their proposal through tricky procedural hurdles. At least two more committees — Finance and Commerce, Science and Transportation — plan to mark up portions of the sweeping bill. And the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which also has jurisdiction over the legislation, is headed by Arkansas Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, a moderate who’s called cap and trade “a real problem.”

And other key Democrats have their own list of issues with the bill.

“I’m not one of those who stands against the climate bill, but I want to see it happen in a way that’s fair and gives West Virginia a chance to survive,” said West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller, who wants billions in additional funding for new coal technologies.

But not everyone was so dour Monday. Iowa Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin said the health care fight has taught Democrats that they can be “cohesive” and work together despite their differences. “What we’ve done here strengthens us for next year,” he said.


Sources: Politico

Obama's "Pyrrhic", 2nd Best Victories May Help GOP In 2010

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Compromising On 2 Issues, Obama Gets Partial Wins


President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, likes to say that the only thing that is not negotiable is success.

The last 48 hours offered a case study in how the President applies that maxim to governing.

After weeks of frustrating delays and falling poll numbers, Mr. Obama decided to take what he could get, declare victory and claim momentum on some of the administration’s biggest priorities, even if the details did not always match the lofty vision that underlined them.

From Copenhagen to Capitol Hill, the President determined the outer limits of what he could accomplish on climate change and health care and decided that was enough, at least for now. He brokered a nonbinding agreement with other world powers to fight global warming, averting the collapse of an international summit meeting. And he blessed a compromise on health care to guarantee the votes needed to pass the Senate.

Neither deal represented a final victory, and in fact some on the left in his own party argued that both of them amounted to sellouts on principle in favor of expediency. But both agreements served the purpose of keeping the process moving forward, inching ever closer toward Mr. Obama’s goals and providing a jolt of adrenaline for a White House eager to validate its first year in office.

Mr. Obama seemed encouraged by the progress. He had just left Denmark on Air Force One with the climate change agreement in hand when he reached Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and heard of the health care deal. “He was, fair to say, pretty happy,” Mr. Reid later told reporters.

After landing in a Washington-area snowstorm and retiring for a few hours of rest, Mr. Obama appeared in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House on a snowy Saturday. He called the health care deal “a major step forward” and the climate change agreement an “important breakthrough.”

Still, he acknowledged that neither was exactly what he had set out to achieve. On climate change, he said that the Copenhagen pact “is not enough” and that “we have a long way to go.” On health care, he noted that “as with any legislation, compromise is part of the process.”

In an interview, Mr. Emanuel said the developments showed that Mr. Obama “sets out the North Stars for us” in terms of broad and ambitious goals, but is willing to let his staff and allies haggle over the specifics. “He doesn’t negotiate the ends,” Mr. Emanuel said. “He’s very open to discussing alternative routes.”

Critics cautioned against making too much of the agreements. “They are Pyrrhic victories,” said John Feehery, a Republican Strategist and former Capitol Hill aide.

“Neither deal will necessarily improve his poll ratings with swing voters, nor will they energize his base. And neither take the necessary steps to put the American economy back on track, which should be the only thing he is thinking about right now.”

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The climate deal in particular may seem more than it is. With the Copenhagen conference unable to agree on binding limits on greenhouse gases linked to climate change, Mr. Obama settled for a three-page agreement with no short or midterm goals but a long-term commitment to prevent world temperatures from rising by more than two degrees by midcentury.

The health care legislation is much further along, and while it compromised on abortion and abandoned a government-run health plan, it still includes many changes long favored by Democrats. If it passes the Senate this week as now appears probable, it stands a much better chance of actually becoming law, culminating decades of largely failed efforts to revamp the nation’s health care system.

Mr. Obama has put a high value on process and keeping things moving, recognizing that history generally does not remember the to and fro, only the big sweep of presidential accomplishments. He may not get the health care plan he envisioned but, if the legislation passes, he will insure 30 million more people, stop insurers from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and at least try to rein in costs. He will not end climate change in his presidency, and may not get the market-based emission caps he wants, but he may move the country, and the world, toward meaningful action.

Of course, to many on both sides of the aisle, there is a less sympathetic narrative. To the left, Mr. Obama seems increasingly to lack the fire to fight on matters of principle. To the right, he appears to be overreaching, saddling the country with debt and the weight of a bloated and overly intrusive government.

Yet whatever their merits, coming at the end of a tough first year, the developments of the past couple of days were something of a balm for the Obama White House. Little this year has come as easily as Mr. Obama and his team once imagined, but as they sort through the balance sheet, they argue that the mediocre poll ratings do not reflect the record.

Mr. Emanuel noted that a year ago, the economy was on the brink of a depression and the financial and auto industries were near collapse. Today, the economy is growing again, and banks and one of the large car companies are repaying government bailouts, although unemployment remains perilously high and the national debt is soaring.

He also ticked off a series of legislative measures that passed with little notice — an expansion of health care for lower-income children, new regulations on the tobacco and credit card industries and an overhaul of military acquisition. With health care now looking closer to passage, Mr. Emanuel called it the “most significant legislative first year of a first-term president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.”

Even so, White House officials are frustrated at the difficulties they have had. As they talk about their agenda for 2010, some Democrats have suggested looking for a few easy, popular initiatives as sort of a breather between the big-ticket, often polarizing proposals that dominated 2009.

The problem, as they noted, is that they had expected some of this year’s proposals to be more popular, only to discover otherwise in a treacherous political climate.



View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, MSNBC, Google Maps

Climate Change Deal Sets No Emission Reduction Targets...Its Useless!

Shown on the first video below Speaker Pelosi defends yesterday's agreed upon weak COP 15 Climate Change deal which sets NO Emission Reduction Targets, doesn't reduce Greenhouse Gases and will probably create additional Taxes thus causing our Energy bills to increase, by saying "2010 for Democrats will be all about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS and JOBS".

JOBS should have been what Democrats needed to focus on in 2009, then tackled Health Care Reform but that's another story.

Do I believe that Climate Change is real? Yes!

Am I against global efforts to stop or slow down Climate Change? No however....

Since this so-called new Climate Change Deal is Legally Non-Binding and doesn't actually reduce Emissions or Greenhouse Gases what good is it?

President Obama didn't even sign this weak agreement.

Why?

He knows its NOT sufficient!

President Obama has also heard about possible "Cap & Trade" Fraud stemming from this agreement.

As I mentioned above just more Political posturing to save Democrat seats in 2010.

Is Political Posturing the "CHANGE" Americans voted for back in 2008?

And...

Since Charlotte's New Mayor Anthony Foxx recently signed the U.S. Mayors' Climate Change Agreement, this further proves most Black Politicians will do ANYTHING if they think it will procure more Federal Dollars (Stimulus Funds) of which often is wasted on junk versus anything truly effective for local Constituents.

For example Newark, NJ Mayor Corey Booker used some of his Stimulus Funds to Launch a "Green Collar" Jobs Training program.

Booker's well thought out venture is the equivalent of a Blue Collar Jobs training program which not only offers Low Income and Underemployed citizens an opportunity to learn more marketable skills to support their families but it also lowers Newark's Unemployment rate.

I applaud Mayor Booker for instead of spitting out empty "Green Jobs" rhetoric or choosing to focus ONLY on his region's Wealthy Voters (like Charlotte Politicians do), he is using Federal dollars to invest in the lives of more Needy Constituents by creating real JOBS.

After all isn't that what Pres. Obama's Stimulus Package was really supposed to do?

Democrats get a clue and take a hint from Mayor Corey Booker!

Stop all the FAKE Political Posturing, be Creative, be Bold, use Federal dollars Responsibly and Help make America a better place for ALL people, NOT just Wealthy citizens.

Kudos to you Mayor Booker and God Bless!


NOTE:

To further substantiate my commentary check out the articles below.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Copenhagen Deadlock Wrapped Up As Emissions Deal


The United Nations Climate Change Summit ended last night without setting any emission reduction targets.

President Obama forged a non-binding agreement with his counterparts in China, India, Brazil and South Africa but it was unclear whether all 192 countries would accept the compromise text.

Mr. Obama said that a “fundamental deadlock in perspectives” had overshadowed the negotiations. He described the deal as “meaningful” but admitted that it would not be enough to prevent global warming. “We have much further to go,” he said.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Despite two years of negotiations, the key sticking points — Emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal — all re-emerged in the final hours

The agreement merely repeated an aspiration to keep the global temperature increase to 2C without explaining how that would be achieved. The final text also failed to mention any deadline for turning it into a binding treaty.

It was a humiliation for Gordon Brown, who has spent longer working on it than any other world leader. He admitted the conference had only taken the first step towards tackling climate change and said that he hoped that progress would be made at a conference in Germany next summer or one in Mexico at the end of the year.

The one positive outcome for developing countries was a commitment by rich countries to provide $30 billion of climate aid over the next three years and $100 billion a year from 2020.

The US announced by far the lowest pledge. It will contribute $3.6 billion between 2010 and 2012, while Japan will give $11 billion and the European Union $10.6 billion.

A deadline of February 1 is expected to be set for all countries to publish emissions targets, although there was no sign last night that any country would move beyond existing offers.

In a statement, released at 10.30pm, the White House described the agreement as meaningful.

“No country is entirely satisfied with each element but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress,” it said.

It had been a day of tension, elation and snubs. US negotiators were taken aback that the Chinese leader sent his deputy to the main negotiations. Wen Jiabao, the Prime Minister, was said to have taken offence at President Obama’s speech to delegates not to agree on “empty words on a page”. World leaders began leaving the summit before anything was signed.

The Kenyan delegation expressed horror that President Chávez of Venezuela had been given the opportunity to grandstand from the podium denouncing “the Yankee empire”.

Drafts of the “Copenhagen accord” were leaked every couple of hours, each one sacrificing another commitment in the desperate scramble to achieve a compromise. And despite two years of negotiations, the key sticking points — emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal — all re-emerged in the final hours.

Commenting on the draft Copenhagen Accord, the Greenpeace climate campaigner Joss Garman said tonight: "This latest draft is so weak as to be meaningless. It’s more like a G8 communiqué than the legally binding agreement we need.

"It doesn’t even include a timeline to give it legal standing or an explicit temperature target. It’s hard to imagine our leaders will try to present this document to the world and keep a straight face."





Anthony Foxx Signs Mayors' Climate Agreement



New Mayor Anthony Foxx has added Charlotte to a long list of U.S. cities committed to taking action on climate change.

Foxx on Thursday signed a U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement that his predecessor, Pat McCrory, helped draft in 2005 but himself refused to endorse.

McCrory led the mayors' committee that drafted the agreement, but faulted it for not including nuclear power among possible solutions.

Charlotte City Council instead approved an alternative climate resolution in 2007.

Foxx noted that signing the Mayors' Agreement now is largely symbolic since Charlotte is already doing much of what the document requires.

But, he added, “we cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.”

The Sierra Club's Cool Cities Campaign has pushed Charlotte to join the 48 N.C. communities that have already signed the agreement. Josh Thomas, chair of the Central Piedmont group, called Foxx's signing a “strong statement” to protect the city and its resources.

The agreement, already adopted by more than 1,000 U.S. cities and towns, commits Charlotte to curbing emissions of greenhouse gases. The overarching goal is a 7 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2012.

Charlotte's recently-completed inventory of greenhouse gas emissions, its light rail system and new sustainable-facility policy are steps in that direction, said local Sierra Club members.

Charlotte is also applying for $6.5 million in Federal Stimulus grants to pay for 18 energy-saving projects. Among them are retrofits of low-income housing and commercial buildings, the purchase of several electric vehicles for city staff and bicycle-safety improvements.



View Larger Map


Sources: Timesonline.co.uk, NJ.com, MSNBC, Politico, Fox News, Charlotte Biz Journals, Sierra Club, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, City of Newark, Charmeck.org, Whitehouse.gov, Recovery.gov, Google Maps

Obama Seals $30 Bil COP 15 Climate Deal

"Meaningful" Climate deal reached


The United States, China, India and South Africa have reached a "meaningful" climate change deal that sets a cap on worldwide temperature increases at no more than 2 degrees, contains no binding emissions standards — and a deal one senior administration admitted "is not sufficient" to combat long-term global warming.

The deal was struck after a day of frantic talks — and following a hastily organized multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Indian Prime Minister Singh and President Zuma.

"[A] meaningful agreement was reached," the official said. "It's not sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but it's an important first step... No country is entirely satisfied with each element, but this is a meaningful and historic step forward and a foundation from which to make further progress."

The official added: "We entered this negotiation at a time when there were significant differences between countries. Developed and developing countries have now agreed to listing their national actions and commitments, a finance mechanism, to set a mitigation target of 2 degrees Celsius and to provide information on the implementation of their actions through national communications, with provisions for international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines."

It's not clear how many nations — particularly poorer nations who felt shut out of the process — were included in the final deal or how they will react to the announcement.

Earlier Friday, a visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come "not to talk but to act" on climate change.

Obama’s public ultimatum kicked off a furious round of bilateral negotiations between the world’s two largest pollution emitters as the conference entered its final hours, with Obama plunging into a pair of bargaining sessions involving Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who had earlier boycotted a larger, multi-nation meeting with Obama.

As night fell in the Danish capital, the talks dragged on, with Obama extending his visit to complete a deal even as a big snowstorm closed in on Washington, D.C.

The outlines of a relatively vague “political” agreement seemed to be taking shape, according to three drafts of possible statements leaked to the press Friday. The latest draft contained a goal of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 percent — a tougher standard than the previous 2 percent threshold in earlier drafts.

Still, there was no hint of the emissions caps that were thought to be critical before the conference began two weeks ago.

On Friday morning, Obama warned delegates that U.S. offers of funding for poor nations would remain on the table “if and only if” developing nations, including China, agreed to international monitoring of their greenhouse gas emissions.

"I have to be honest, as the world watches us ... I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt and it hangs in the balance,” Obama told the COP-15 plenary session, as hope faded for anything more than a vague political agreement.

“The time for talk is over, this is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of an historic endeavor, or we can choose delay,” he said.

He added, “The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. … We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years.”

Back home, senators critical to getting a climate bill through Congress have stressed that developing nations must submit to international monitoring — particularly if they want the U.S. to pay hundreds of billions to help combat the destructive impact of climate change.

"The only way we'll be successful in America is for countries like China and India to make an equivalent commitment," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is crafting a bipartisan climate bill. "We're not going to unilaterally disarm."

While Obama emphasized the U.S. commitment to taking action on climate change, he did not set a deadline for specific Senate action on the climate bill.

Former Vice President Al Gore and other environmental activists have pushed the Senate to pass legislation by April 22, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, in hope of providing momentum to international talks next year.

The lack of specific domestic and international commitments in Obama's address indicated that an international agreement still hung in the balance — even as the talks moved into the final weekend.

Overnight reports that world leaders had agreed to a tentative final climate change deal in Copenhagen were greatly exaggerated — and the outcome of the COP-15 conference was still very much up in the air when Air Force One touched down at 9:01 a.m. local time.

“What’s on the table still has large gaps and unanswered questions," said David Waskow, climate change program director at Oxfam America. "The United States must get more specific to make a real deal possible.”

After addressing the delegates, Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao for close to an hour to discuss emissions goals, verification mechanisms and climate financing. The lack of agreement between China and the U.S. — the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters — has been a major stumbling block in the talks.

A White House official described the discussion as “constructive” and said that the two leaders asked their negotiators to get together one on one after the meeting.

Obama had been expected to meet one on one with Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen immediately after landing in Copenhagen Friday morning, followed by an 11 a.m. speech to the conference's plenary session. But recognizing the urgency of the situation, he quickly canceled those plans to sit in on a much larger session with Rasmussen, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, a Chinese representative, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and others.

"There are big problems, it is moving very slowly, and China and India are blocking," Sarkozy told the Danish daily Politiken after leaving the meeting, which broke up at 11:30 a.m.

Weary and frustrated negotiators described a process that still involved the nibbling of policy appetizers at a time when prior conferences were already on to the coffee and dessert of their valedictory speeches.

They warned that none of the several drafts circulating in Copenhagen represented even the bones of a final deal, with many key issues still in flux and time running out. Moreover, U.S. predictions that roadblocks could be thrown up by smaller countries seemed to be coming true, with last-minute objections voiced by Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, according to people familiar with talks.

"There are deep differences in opinion and views on how we should solve this. We'll try our best, until the last minutes of this conference," Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told reporters as overnight talks ended.

Negotiators from nearly 200 nations, working around the clock, did agree to a broad mandate to cap the global temperature increase from pre-industrial levels at 2 degrees Celsius. But there was no deal on emissions caps or specific carbon cuts, according to officials briefed on the talks.

One key sticking point: a demand by industrialized nations that the document produced here be legally binding, the so-called operational agreement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about yesterday.

Developing countries, led by China, India and the African Union, still seemed unwilling to sign off on a final document, despite a new deal sweetener that could add as much as $30 billion to the $100 billion annual international fund for poor nations by 2020 outlined by Clinton on Thursday.

An official with a developing nation told Reuters that rich nations were offering to cut their carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, a proposal that had been rejected by developing nations. Developing nations have always insisted on the need for midterm targets.

"The situation is desperate," a top Indian negotiator told the wire service. "There is no agreement on even what to call the text — a declaration, a statement or whatever. They (rich nations) want to make it a politically binding document, which we oppose."

And the U.S. was still wrestling with China and India over international monitoring of their emissions cuts, a sticking point that ground the entire conference to a halt early Thursday.

Danes monitored the progress of Obama's arrival obsessively, with cabbies craning at dashboard TV sets to monitor the approach of Air Force One from distant dot to Obama's arrival. He was accompanied by environment czar Carol Browner, aide Valerie Jarrett, press secretary Robert Gibbs and National Security Adviser Jim Jones.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, The Daily Beast, Google Maps

Obama Reaches Tentative Deal On Climate Change

US, China, India, South Africa reach deal


A senior Obama administration official says the U.S., China, India and South Africa have reached a "meaningful agreement" on climate change.

The official characterized the deal as a first step, but said it was not enough to combat the threat of a warming planet.

Details of the deal with these emerging economies were not immediately clear.

The agreement was reached Friday at the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen after a meeting among President Barack Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh (MUHN'-moh-hahn sing) and South African President Jacob Zuma (ZOO'-muh).

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the agreement had not yet been officially announced.

The agreement was with the smaller group of countries, but was being worked by Obama and various negotiating teams with a larger number of countries, the official said.



On the verge of a deal in Copehnagen


President Obama and world leaders are on the verge of finalizing a climate deal that caps the global temperature rise at 1.5 degrees — but punts major emissions decisions until 2012 — after a day of frantic leader-to-leader talks in Copenhagen.

"We're very close," said a person close the negotiations this evening, involving President Obama and leaders from China, Indian and Brazil.

Earlier Friday, a visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come "not to talk but to act" on climate change.

Obama’s public ultimatum kicked off a furious round of bilateral negotiations between the world’s two largest pollution emitters as the conference entered its final hours, with Obama plunging into a pair of bargaining sessions involving Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, who had earlier boycotted a larger, multi-nation meeting with Obama.

As night fell in the Danish capital, the talks dragged on, with Obama extending his visit to complete a deal even as a big snowstorm closed in on Washington D.C.

The outlines of a relatively vague “political” agreement seemed to be taking shape, according to three drafts of possible statements leaked to the press Friday. The latest draft contained a goal of capping global temperature increases to 1.5 percent – a tougher standard than the previous 2 percent threshold in earlier drafts.

Still, there was no hint of the emissions caps that were thought to be critical before the conference began two weeks ago.

On Friday morning, Obama warned delegates that U.S. offers of funding for poor nations would remain on the table “if and only if” developing nations, including China, agreed to international monitoring of their greenhouse gas emissions.

"I have to be honest, as the world watches us ... I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt and it hangs in the balance,” Obama told the COP-15 plenary session as hope faded for anything more than a vague political agreement.

“The time for talk is over, this is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of an historic endeavor, or we can choose delay,” he said.

He added, “The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. … We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years.”

Back home, senators critical to getting a climate bill through Congress have stressed that developing nations must submit to international monitoring — particularly if they want the U.S. to pay hundreds of billions to help combat the destructive impact of climate change.

"The only way we'll be successful in America is for countries like China and India to make an equivalent commitment," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who is crafting a bipartisan climate bill. "We're not going to unilaterally disarm."

While Obama emphasized the U.S. commitment to taking action on climate change, he did not set a deadline for specific Senate action on the climate bill.

Former Vice President Al Gore and other environmental activists have pushed the Senate to pass legislation by April 22, the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, in hope of providing momentum to international talks next year.

The lack of specific domestic and international commitments in Obama's address indicated that an international agreement still hung in the balance — even as the talks moved into the final weekend.

Overnight reports that world leaders had agreed to a tentative final climate change deal in Copenhagen were greatly exaggerated — and the outcome of the COP-15 conference was still very much up in the air when Air Force One touched down at 9:01 a.m. local time.

“What’s on the table still has large gaps and unanswered questions," said David Waskow, climate change program director at Oxfam America. "The United States must get more specific to make a real deal possible.”

After addressing the delegates, Obama met with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao for close to an hour to discuss emissions goals, verification mechanisms and climate financing. The lack of agreement between China and the U.S. — the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters — has been a major stumbling block in the talks.

A White house official described the discussion as “constructive” and said that the two leaders asked their negotiators to get together one-on-one after the meeting.

Obama had been expected to meet one-on-one with Danish Prime Minister Lars Rasmussen immediately after landing in Copenhagen Friday morning, followed by an 11 a.m. speech to the conference's plenary session. But recognizing the urgency of the situation, he quickly cancelled those plans to sit in on a much larger session with Rasmussen, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, a Chinese representative, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and others.

"There are big problems, it is moving very slowly, and China and India are blocking," Sarkozy told the Danish daily Politiken after leaving the meeting, which broke up at 11:30 a.m.

Weary and frustrated negotiators described a process that still involved the nibbling of policy appetizers at a time when prior conferences were already on to the coffee and dessert of their valedictory speeches.

They warned that none of the several drafts circulating in Copenhagen represented even the bones of a final deal, with many key issues still in flux and time running out. Moreover, U.S. predictions that roadblocks could be thrown up by smaller countries seemed to be coming true, with last-minute objections voiced by Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan and Saudi Arabia, according to people familiar with talks.

"There are deep differences in opinion and views on how we should solve this. We'll try our best, until the last minutes of this conference," Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt told reporters as overnight talks ended.

Negotiators from nearly 200 nations, working around the clock, did agree to a broad mandate to cap the global temperature increase from pre-industrial levels at two degrees Celsius. But there was no deal on emissions caps or specific carbon cuts, according to officials briefed on the talks.

One key sticking point: a demand by industrialized nations that the document produced here be legally binding, the so-called "operational" agreement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about yesterday.

Developing countries, led by China, India and the African Union, still seemed unwilling to sign off on a final document, despite a new deal sweetener that could add as much as $30 billion to the $100 billion annual international fund for poor nations by 2020 outlined by Clinton on Thursday.

An official with a developing nation told Reuters that rich nations were offering to cut their carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, a proposal that had been rejected by developing nations. Developing nations have always insisted on the need for mid-term targets.

"The situation is desperate," a top Indian negotiator told the wire service. "There is no agreement on even what to call the text — a declaration, a statement or whatever. They (rich nations) want to make it a politically binding document, which we oppose."

And the U.S. was still wrestling with China and India over international monitoring of their emissions cuts, a sticking point that ground the entire conference to a halt early Thursday.

Danes monitored the progress of Obama's arrival obsessively, with cabbies craning at dashboard TV sets to monitor the approach of Air Force One from distant dot to Obama's arrival. He was accompanied by environment czar Carol Browner, aide Valerie Jarrett, press secretary Robert Gibbs and National Security Adviser Jim Jones.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, Huffington Post, Politico, Google Maps

UN Report Reveals Climate Change Deal Leads To 3C Rise

Leaked UN report shows cuts offered at Copenhagen would lead to 3C rise


The Emissions cuts offered so far at the Copenhagen climate change summit would still lead to global temperatures rising by an average of 3C, according to a confidential UN Analysis obtained by the Guardian.

With the talks entering the final 24 hours on a knife-edge, the emergence of the document seriously undermines the statements by governments that they are aiming to limit emissions to a level ensuring no more than a 2C temperature rise over the next century, and indicates that the last day of negotiations will be extremely challenging.






A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern economic review of climate change for the UK government – as well as leaving up to 50% of species facing extinction. Even a rise of 2C would lead to a sharp decline in tropical crop yields, more flooding and droughts.

Tonight hopes of the summit producing a deal were rising after the US, the world's biggest historical polluter, moved to save the talks from collapse.

The secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, committed the US to backing a $100bn-a-year global climate fund from 2020 to shield poor countries from the ravages of global warming. Barack Obama is expected to offer even more cash when he flies in tomorrow.

Another key obstacle – the fate of the Kyoto treaty – was solved, with China and the developing world seeing off attempts to kill the protocol. But the UN analysis suggests much deeper cuts will have to be agreed tomorrow to achieve the stated objective of limiting temperature rises to 2C.

The document was drafted by the UN secretariat running the Copenhagen summit and is dated 11pm on Tuesday night. It is marked "do not distribute" and "initial draft". It shows a gap of up to 4.2 gigatonnes of carbon emissions between the present pledges and the required 2020 level of 44Gt, which is required to stay below a 2C rise. No higher offers have since been made.

"Unless the remaining gap of around 1.9-4.2Gt is closed and Annexe 1 parties [rich countries] commit themselves to strong action before and after 2020, global emissions will remain on an unsustainable pathway that could lead to concentrations equal or above 550 parts per million, with the related temperature rise around 3C," it says. It does not specify a time when 3C would be reached but it is likely to be 2050.

Greenpeace campaigner Joss Garman said: "This is an explosive document that shows the numbers on the table at the moment would lead to nothing less than climate breakdown and an extraordinarily dangerous situation for humanity.

The UN is admitting in private that the pledges made by world leaders would lead to a 3C rise in temperatures. The science shows that could lead to the collapse of the Amazon rainforest, crippling water shortages across South America and Australia and the near-extinction of tropical coral reefs, and that's just the start of it."

Bill McKibben, founder of the campaign 350.org, said: "In one sense this is no secret – we've been saying it for months. But it is powerful to have the UN confirming its own insincerity." He did not know why his name was written on the top of the document.

However, Bob Ward, at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics, said current ambitions could still be consistent with a 50% chance of meeting the 2C target. "But it would require steeper reductions after 2020, which are likely to be more costly, to be well below 35 billion tonnes in 2030 and well below 20 billion tonnes in 2050."

The goal of keeping the increase in global average temperatures below 2C, relative to pre-industrial levels, has become the figure that all rich countries have committed to try to achieve in Copenhagen. However, 102 of the world's poorest countries are holding out for emission cuts resulting in a temperature increase of no more than 1.5C.

Failing to do that, they say, would leave billions of people in the world homeless, facing famine and open to catastrophic weather-related disasters. But such an ambitious target would mean carbon would have to be removed from the atmosphere.

The internal paper says: "Further steps are possible and necessary to fill the gap. This could be done by increasing the aggregated emission reductions [in rich countries] to at least 30% below the baseline levels, further stronger voluntary actions by developing countries [such as China and India] to reduce their emissions by at least 20% below business as usual, and reducing further emissions from deforestation and international aviation and marine shipping."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Oxfam International's climate adviser, Hugh Cole, said: "At this stage, a deal that fails to keep temperature rises below two degrees is simply not good enough."

Earlier this week Rajendra Pachauri, who heads the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said that even with 1.5C rises, many communities would suffer.

"Some of the most vulnerable regions in the world will be worst affected. These will be the largest countries in the developing world. They have little infrastructure that might protect them from climate change. The tragedyof the situation is that those countries that have not at all contributed to the problem of climate change will be the ones most affected," he said.

"Some parts of the world, which even with a 1.5C rise, will suffer great hardship and lose their ability to lead a decent and stable form of existence. If we are going to be concerned about these communities, then maybe 1.5C is what we should be targeting. But if we can find means by which those communities can be helped to withstand the impact of climate change with substantial flow of finances, then maybe one can go to 2C."

A UK government spokesman said last night: "The UK government continues to work towards a 2 degree deal at Copenhagen and current ambitions set us on track to meet that target. We know however that more needs to be done before the talks conclude and that's why the Prime Minister, the Climate Change Secretary and British negotiators will be working over these crucial next hours to secure a deal that delivers."



View Larger Map


Sources: Guardian.co.uk, Huffington Post, Daily Mail, MSNBC, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama's Climate Deal Speech, U.S. - China Blamed For Chaos

Pres. Obama's Climate Talks Deal Speech. (Full Speech Text Below)






Pres. Obama In Copenhagen Speech: FULL TEXT


Good morning. It's an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you - like me - were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge - the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

As the world's largest economy and the world's second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home - by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America's economic future - that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America's national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I'm pleased that many of us have already done so, and I'm confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if - and only if - it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula - one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord - one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.

We know the fault lines because we've been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor - one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year - all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it's time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past - with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.



View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, MSNBC, Daily Mail, Youtube, Google Maps