![On the back of a Dragonfly [B&W]](http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6128449851_14ec409b56_s.jpg "On the back of a Dragonfly [B&W]")
Many here at the Bella Center (late...check that, very late Tuesday night) are reacting with a mix of shock and outrage at word of a new proposal put forth by France and Ethiopia that is being alternatively described as weak, compromised, and dangerous.
The appeal by France and "Ethiopia, representing Africa" is calling for a so-called "Copenhagen Accord," and has some good on the surface: it would be binding on all parties immediately upon signature, it would lead to a "legal international instrument" "as early as possible in 2010," and the finance numbers and timeline are actually encouraging.
But the overall lack of ambition completely ignores the scientific reality, and the modest mitigation targets would--to be blunt--allow for utter devastation throughout the African continent that Ethiopia claims to be representing.
Here's where things get sketchy: the announcement by French President Sarkozy and Prime Minister Zenawi of Ethiopia comes the same week as some phone calls from U.S. President Obama to the African leader. Coincidence? It seems unlikely.
"The ugly and overt pressure on developing countries to sign an agreement that will put their very survival in jeopardy has begun,” said Bill McKibben. “It’s very tough to stand up to the Americans, especially Barack Obama. But even the U.S. president can’t protect nations against rising waters, withering droughts, and dried-up glaciers. This is the moment for Africa, for island nations, for the developing world to insist on a future.”
The proposal would allow for 2 degrees Celcius in global temperature rise. “The IPCC science is clear," said Mithika Mwenda of Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance. "Two degrees is 3.5 degrees in Africa –- this is death to millions of Africans."
“You cannot say you are proposing a ’solution’ to climate change," said Augustine Njamnshi of Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance, "if your solution will see millions of Africans die and if the poor, not the polluters, keep paying for climate change.”
What's more, other African delegates and civil society are already distancing themselves from the proposal. "If Prime Minister Meles wants to sell out the lives and hopes of Africans for a pittance," said Mwenda, "he is welcome to. But that is not Africa’s position."
The big questions is: how involved was the U.S. in launching this weak-willed text? And if Ethiopia took the bait, are we to think that the rest of Africa will eventually be talked into it as well?
See more of Ben's reports from Copenhagen as part of OnEarth's ongoing coverage.
What a sellout! When I learned of this action I felt anger and deep disappointment that our country was involved in doing a back-room deal, against the poorest nations who are already suffering from the warming trend. Our vigil on Saturday went beyond just talking or walking; it leaped to prayer, that justice would prevail over laziness, or greed or power.
Ben Bernanke has just been named "Person of the Year" for saving the global economy from utter ruin by avaricious fat cats and their minions on Wall Street. When is someone going to be recognized for saving the Earth from greed-mongering economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians?
My vote goes to Yvo De Boer for "Person of the Year", even though everyone realizes he will likely fail to save the planet because Father Profit seems to regularly triumph over Mother Nature. After all, greed rules and rules absolutely in our time, does it not?
Dear Friends,
Thanks for your many helpful efforts. I deploy the word, helpful, because what you report uniformly supports what appears sane to me. Please forgive me for saying that it does seem to me as there is more insanity in the world than I realized at an earlier age. Of course, it may be that my advanced age, diminishing sight and waning faculties are making it impossible for me to distinguish any longer (if I ever could) what is sane from what is insanity. This possibility cannot be ruled out.
Perhaps you can assist me. In the last decade, extant evidence of human population dynamics and the human overpopulation was assiduously avoided and everywhere denied. Dishonesty, disinformation, duplicity and disasterous decisiomaking seemed to rule the world, including the world of science. How are we to understand, and take the measure of, experts who willfully refuse to perform their duties to science by carefully examining peer-reviewed articles in established scientific journals and then directly reporting their findings in an intellectually honest way? How is such silence justified and the open communication of science shunned?
Sincerely,
Steve