Also See: Steve Clemons | Obama on the Court in Copenhagen, The Washington Note
Late in the afternoon on Friday, with the clock ticking down to zero, a rather dramatic scene unfolded that surprised even several top leaders at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen. In a secret meeting between Chinese, Indian, and Brazilian heads of state, the door swung open revealing President Obama, who hadn’t been invited but had arrived to crash the meeting. Several diplomats protested the intrusion, but Obama simply informed them he wouldn’t accept them negotiating in secret. He sat down and started talking.
The result of that discussion is the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks – a political agreement that gets something on paper but lacks several of the components that many had expected to be finalized at the meeting. Under the agreement, developed nations would scale back their greenhouse-gas output 80 percent by 2050, a vague target that many who wanted stronger action see as insufficient. China’s main sticking point was that it would make domestic cuts but didn’t want to jeopardize its sovereignty by allowing international regulators inside the country, so that requirement was dropped. Another proposal sought for all parties to sign a treaty as soon as possible, but no later than the next round of climate negotiations in Mexico next December. That stipulation was also dropped, leaving a window of now until 2015 for countries to continue to review the proposal before signing on the dotted line.
What was left is a loose agreement for each country to continue working on its own domestic legislation, a lackluster aim that left many environmental groups sorely disappointed. “We all know what we must do to solve global warming, but even the architects of this deal acknowledge that it does not take those necessary steps,” says Kassie Siegel, director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity. An Obama administration official admitted to The New York Times that the agreement did indeed fall short of what many had hoped, calling it “not sufficient” to combat climate change, but “an important first step.”
But some analysts like Rob Stavins, a professor of environmental economics at Harvard, see the Copenhagen agreement directly in line with other agreements that past conferences have reached. “This is a post-Kyoto architecture, which is a good one,” says Stavins. To him, Friday’s accord was the third step, following the U.N. Framework Convention on climate change reached in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol drafted in Japan in 1997. And Copenhagen revealed that combating climate change is apparently a marathon, rather than a sprint.
The most historic part of the talks, though, is the fact that heads of state engaged in direct negotiations around the same table, rather than having their bidding done by lower-level diplomats before arriving for photo ops, which is much more common. But Obama’s personal engagement in the talks opens up the White House to increased criticism from both sides—the right from having gone too far and the left for having fallen short. What comes next, Stavins can anticipate. “We can expect the spin doctors in the White House and the Republican Party will be working on overdrive this weekend.”
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.