Over the next three months, I'll be tracking the American positions in the international climate treaty negotiations for the Adopt-A-Negotiator project. Together, we're tracking the negotiators from twelve key countries up to and through the December COP15 meetings in Copenhagen. 

I wasn't in Bangkok for more than a day before the shame was sickening. I'm an American tracking the American position at these international negotiations where America stands clumsy and tall as the biggest obstacle to an effective agreement. An agreement which--it's no hyperbole to say--could mean the difference between a manageable future and utter climatic catastrophe.  An agreement that everyone with a shred of conscience wants to be fair, ambitious, and binding. Indeed, all of us trackers in this Adopt-a-Negotiator program, and everyone in the TckTckTck campaign that we're a part of, are working to ensure that an eventual treaty in Copenhagen could be rightly described by these three characteristics. The U.S. positions, as figured at present, can't possibly be defined as either fair, ambitious, or binding.

So as I step out of the American bubble where the villains are clear and discreet--a bunch of Senators, the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, ACCCE, ExxonMobil--to the grand stage of international diplomacy where the perception is of a single, simple villain: the United States of America. The nuances of the American climate challenge that I spend most of my waking life fretting over--that our Senators have bastardized and abused the filibuster, that a huge chunk of our public is purposefully deceived by a major national news network, that a small number of very rich people have corrupted healthy debate with violent and malicious lies--don't matter a lick here. All that matters is what the United States brings to the international table. And what we've served up thus far has been bubkes.

It's embarrassing. I'm terrified to face my counterparts from around the world if the U.S. doesn't get its act together. I'm feeling continuously compelled to defend bits of the American approach to these negotiations. ("The public has been conned!" "What good's a treaty if our screwed-up Senate won't ratify it?" "It's not Obama's fault!") And I hate acting the apologist.

Now the good news: our position can only improve. And I'm confident that it will. For starters, we've got as solid a squad managing this team as you could ever hope for. Holding the playbook here in Bangkok is Jonathan Pershing, the State Department's Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change, formerly of World Resources Institute, one of the lead authors of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (and, thus, Nobel Prize winner), and a guy who absolutely and unequivocally knows exactly what the science demands in terms of international action and agreement on climate change. Pershing works alongside Todd Stern, the U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change and Obama's lead negotiator, who has been more active so far in bilateral talks (most notably with China) and who testified before the House earlier this month about the importance of being a positive force heading into Copenhagen and, significantly, explained the need for the U.S. to put new money on the table. And then, of course, there's President Obama, who did more in his first 100 days to kickstart America's transition to a clean energy economy than we'd seen in all of our country's history (though admittedly little since), and who we all know can churn public support with bold words deliberately delivered.  (Many who were hoping for such a speech two weeks back at the U.N. were sorely disappointed, but Beltway insiders seem to think it's coming.) We know that Pershing and Stern can-and want to-deliver American positions that are fair, ambitious, and binding. Obama can set them free to do so, if Americans demand it of him.

Here in Bangkok, though, Pershing will be the one to watch, and I'm here to watch him.