Copenhagen: Rhetoric vs. Reality
On the first day of climate talks in Copenhagen, I have been thinking a lot about rhetoric vs. reality. The last few days have been abuzz with rumors that the climate talks will result in a deal. Obama changed his plans to attend the final day of the conference, befitting his role as a major world leader. The pressure will be on U.S. negotiators to make sure that Obama’s trip is not in vain.
I hope that they are right and that we will get a real, enforceable, meaningful international agreement that leads to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Our planet is crying out for this. Kudos to the newspapers around the world that banded together to prove that an international agreement is, in fact, possible (at least among newspapers) by printing the same editorial calling for a meaningful agreement: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/06/copenhagen-editorial
Yet every time I turn around, I see another example where we are failing to live up to the spirit of the Copenhagen talks. Export-Import Bank just approved a $3 billion loan to ExxonMobil to build a huge liquefied natural gas project in Papua New Guinea that will vastly increase greenhouse gas emissions: http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=3187. This is Ex-Im Bank’s largest loan ever and flies in the face of a commitment by President Obama and other leaders of the G20 in September to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. The U.S. is struggling to find money to help with climate change mitigation and adaptation, especially in developing countries. Yet we take $3 billion – an enormous sum of money any way we look at it – and give it to ExxonMobil in order to emit even more greenhouse gases.
Today, Secretary Salazar of Department of Interior just gave conditional approval to Shell Oil for exploratory drilling in the Chukchi Sea: http://ow.ly/JCz3. Isn’t this the ultimate irony? Climate change leads to melting sea ice in the Arctic, which in turn makes it attractive for oil and gas development. In turn, the oil and gas development will just emit even more greenhouse gases, speeding climate change. The smartest approach in the Arctic is to take a time out so that some true science-based planning can occur before we zone the entire area for oil and gas. Indeed, our planet demands this as we figure out how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet this latest announcement signals that, again, the US government will put corporate interests ahead of the interests of local communities and the environment.
I still hope that talks over the next two weeks in Copenhagen will produce a meaningful agreement. But even more, I hope we can turn this rhetoric into reality and make sure that our actions live up to our aspirations.
Tags: Arctic, Clean Energy, climate change, Energy, energy subsidies, environment, Export Credit Agencies, Finance, Global Warming, Responsible Finance
