Crosspost from Global Voices:
Barack Obama has cancelled a trip to Australia for the second time this year, because of the oil spill crisis. Last time the reason was health care legislation. In his absence bloggers have been assessing his role and his performance as President. These are reflective pieces rather than partisan knee-jerks.Australians Reflect on Obama's Presidency So Far
A cross post from Global Voices:
“It sounds like the plot of a disaster movie!” according to Geoff Sidebottom of Views from Towradgi (Comments from the Australian city of Wollongong on local and world events). His sentiments have been shared around the country.
Australia: Oil Spill on Iconic Waters a Warning to Obama
Photos courtesy Oxfam international's photostream
OXFAM INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE
18 December 2009
HISTORIC MOMENT, HISTORIC GATHERING, HISTORIC COP OUTMore from Oxfam
The ‘climate deal’ announced in Copenhagen today is a triumph of spin over substance said Oxfam International. The agreement – which was announced by the US, India, China and South Africa - has not been endorsed by the EU and many other countries.
The deal provides no confidence that catastrophic climate change will be averted or that poor countries will be given the money they need to adapt as temperatures rise. Leaders have also put off agreeing a legally binding deal until the end of 2010.
Oxfam said this is not a done deal - any agreement must be endorsed by all countries - and demanded that it be a floor not a ceiling on action.
Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International said:
“This agreement barely papers over the huge differences between countries which have plagued these talks for two years.
“The deal is a triumph of spin over substance. It recognizes the need to keep warming below 2 degrees but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash.
“Millions of people around the world do not want to see their hopes for a fair, binding and ambitious deal die in Copenhagen. Leaders need to get back round the table in early 2010 and take the hard decisions they copped out of in Copenhagen.”
THE DEAL
$100bn a year in climate cash for poor countries
This is an aspirational goal not a commitment – poor countries will have no confidence that they will receive the money they need to reduce their emissions and adapt to a changing climate.
$100bn is only half the money needed. The shortfall could mean that health workers in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa will not get the $1.5bn they need each year to prevent climate induced deaths from malaria and diarrhoea.
There are no assurances that the $100bn will be additional to existing aid commitments. This means aid for education and health care could be diverted to pay for flood defenses.
The $100bn will not all be public money. Unless climate cash comes from public sources, there are no guarantees that it will reach the right people, in the right places, at the right time.
SPIN: Global temperature rises will be kept below 2 degrees centigrade
REALITY
The absence of any emissions reductions targets means there is no guarantee that warming will be kept below 2 degrees centigrade. Climate science is clear on the need for rich countries to cut emissions by 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Specific targets are essential.
Shorbanu Khatun, a climate migrant at the summit with Oxfam said: “I came all the way from a displaced persons camp on the flooded coast of Bangladesh to see justice done for the 45,000 people made homeless by cyclone Aila. How do I tell them their misery has fallen on deaf ears?”
Is the glass half full or is it just empty rhetoric? Three initial reactions to the Copenhagen deal:
The world's nations have come together and concluded a historic--if incomplete--agreement to begin tackling global warming. Tonight's announcement is but a first step and much work remains to be done in the days and months ahead in order to seal a final international climate deal that is fair, binding, and ambitious. It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible.So much for the optimism:
...A chilly two weeks in Copenhagen has given humanity its best chance of preventing the ravages of a warming world. Today's deal is neither perfect nor complete, but we must not this chance slip away.
Statement of Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director
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. Merely acknowledging the weaknesses of the deal, as President Obama has done, does not excuse its failings. If this is the best we can do, it is not nearly good enough. We stand at the precipice of climatic tipping points beyond which a climate crash will be out of our control. We cannot make truly meaningful and historic steps with the United States pledging to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by only 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The science demands far more.And a call to mobilise:
“The people of the United States voted for President Obama based on his promise of change and hope. But the only change today’s agreement brings is a greater risk of dangerous climate change. And the only hope that flows from Copenhagen stems not from the president’s hollow pronouncements but from the birth of a diverse global movement demanding real solutions and climate justice — demands made with a collective voice growing loud enough that in short order politicians will no longer be able to ignore it.
Center for Biological Diversity Statement on "Deal" at Copenhagen
Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries. This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one. It's just repackaging old positions and pretending they're new. The actions it suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate.The United Nations finished the week basically where it started.
...Fortunately, while the cost of solving the climate crisis rises each day we fail to act, the crisis remains one that can largely be averted. It is up to the citizens of the world -- especially citizens of the United States, which has so impeded progress -- to mobilize and ensure that true solutions carry the day. I firmly believe that together, we can still achieve a politics in which climate justice prevails.
Friends of the Earth U.S. Reaction: Sham Deal Requires Nothing, Accomplishes Nothing
From WWF:
Powering economies into the low carbon future:If you're a Facebook friend of Barack Obama or Kevin Rudd let them know we demand a real deal now.
Business leaders claim that a strong deal in Copenhagen will be good for the economy, a weak deal will be bad.
What will world leaders produce at the end of the week? A political deal? A legally binding deal? No deal at all?
There are rumours floating in and around the Bella Center that big business would prefer caution and the status quo instead of a treaty that is bold and sets comprehensive reduction targets.
That perception is incorrect. More than 1,000 businesses from all continents, most of them global players, are advocating for a strong legally binding deal that reduces carbon pollution and accelerates clean energy innovation on a global scale.
Business – The Real Deal
Barack Obama has shifted his visit to COP15 in Copenhagen to the second week in anticipation of some kind of result.
This is the official United Nations statement:
STATEMENT FROM THE PRESS SECRETARY ON THE UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCEOne small step...
The President strongly believes that all nations have a responsibility to combat the threat of climate change. He has already taken unprecedented action to do so at home, including an historic investment in clean energy solutions that will reduce our dependence on oil and create jobs. Abroad, he has engaged leaders bilaterally and multilaterally on the issue of climate change, and agreed to participate in the climate conference in Copenhagen.
After months of diplomatic activity, there is progress being made towards a meaningful Copenhagen accord in which all countries pledge to take action against the global threat of climate change. Following bilateral meetings with the President and since the United States announced an emissions reduction target that reflects the progress being made in Congress towards comprehensive energy legislation, China and India have for the first time set targets to reduce their carbon intensity. There has also been progress in advancing the Danish proposal for an immediate, operational accord that covers all of the issues under negotiation, including the endorsement of key elements of this approach by the 53 countries represented at the Commonwealth Summit last weekend.
This week, the President discussed the status of the negotiations with Prime Minister Rudd, Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy, and Prime Minister Brown and concluded that there appears to be an emerging consensus that a core element of the Copenhagen accord should be to mobilize $10 billion a year by 2012 to support adaptation and mitigation in developing countries, particularly the most vulnerable and least developed countries that could be destabilized by the impacts of climate change. The United States will pay its fair share of that amount and other countries will make substantial commitments as well. In Copenhagen, we also need to address the need for financing in the longerterm to support adaptation and mitigation in developing countries.
Providing this assistance is not only a humanitarian imperative - it's an investment in our common security, as no climate change accord can succeed if it does not help all countries reduce their emissions.
Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the President believes that continued US leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on December 18th rather than on December 9th. There are still outstanding issues that must be negotiated for an agreement to be reached, but this decision reflects the President's commitment to doing all that he can to pursue a outcome. The United States will have representation in Copenhagen throughout the negotiating process by State Department negotiators and Cabinet officials who will highlight the great strides we have made this year towards a clean energy economy.
Some Americans seem amazed that they have a President who appears to know what he's talking about and is intelligent. Typical of the reactions this week were David Brooks and Mark Shields on PBS News Hour yesterday:
DAVID BROOKS: Well, I guess the first thing that comes across is that he does project an air of confidence, and not only confidence he projects -- one does tend to have confidence in him when one hears him. And I certainly, just as a viewer, certainly had a sense, "Well, this guy is taking it seriously." ...After 8 year of George W. Bush, it's a refreshing surprise for many.
MARK SHIELDS: I thought -- David's right. He does project incredible reassurance. I mean, if you look at what he did this week, both on the budget and this, it's a combination of boldness and sort of reflectiveness. I mean, you get a sense of -- I mean, it really is a major, major change in the way the government will be run and what it will do, but it's -- there's also -- I'm just trying to think -- thoughtfulness about him that is reassuring, especially as you listen to him in the interview with Jim.
Shields and Brooks Weigh Obama's Troop, Budget Plans
It is interesting that the discredited US Republicans and Australia Liberals are singing from the same sheet music. Obama and Rudd's stimulus packages are too large and should use tax cuts as their main weapon.
As John Amato argues at the Huffington Post:
Obama was elected to bring change to the economy, not to debate the merits of tax cuts all over again. We had that discussion for 18 months and Obama won. Tax cuts lost. Why is the media ignoring that fact?Too large. Should be replaced by tax cuts. This mantra echoes in Australian conservative rhetoric:
Why aren't there hundreds of economists on my TV explaining the stimulus package?
Defying the widespread support for the package from economists and business groups, Coalition MPs met early yesterday and backed Mr Turnbull's argument that, despite the political risk, the package was too big and risked passing massive debts to future taxpayers.It seems that John Howard was not the last to take his lead from Republican politicians.
Instead, he proposed a smaller package of up to $20billion based on bringing forward tax cuts already planned for July this year and next year.
Battle lines drawn on $42bn plan
Voices without Votes is winding up with a roundup of some of the best posts from around the world during the last year:
Less than one year ago, Voices without Votes was created to offer a voice of those who couldn't vote in the U.S. presidential election to those who could. Our exciting journey has reached its final destination with Barack Obama's inauguration today. However, before we say “goodbye,” our authors have chosen their top posts (in a time-line order) of the most memorable, prolific or simply silly moments from the election.The link: The best of VwV and the presidential campaign
A cross post with Voices without Votes:
The upcoming inauguration has taken an Aussie turn. Barack Obama's displacement from Blair House was caused by former Australian Prime Minister John Howard who is to receive the US Medal of Freedom from his mate George W. Bush.
U.S. bloggers were outraged apparently. Australian bloggers were just as vocal.
For more.
Another cross-post for Voices without Votes. Please write Your One Thing at Hoyden about Town:
Bloggers in Australia have been looking at what Barack Obama might actually be going to do as President.
Harry Clarke’s ‘commentary on economics, politics & other things’ discovered an Obama policy that is already under challenge. He seemed attracted to the idea of community service though his source didn’t:
Gregory Mankiw points out that Barack Obama supports the conscription of youth into community service. I wonder how many aged lefties will now dump on Obama on the basis of past Vietnam Moratorium ideals. Well of course its not this aged lot who now face the prospect of being conscripted so that a certain amount of soundly-justified hypocrisy is plausible.Nicholas Gruen, CEO of Lateral Economics who posts at Club Troppo focused on the one big thing which Obama has done since Tuesday:
Maybe spending the last week in China has dented my democratic ideals but I think the Obama suggestion makes a lot of sense.
Obama supports conscription
Paul Krugman was always critical of Obama for not being more partisan. We’ll see what happens. In my ignorance I’m expecting Obama to be like Clinton - a pro when it comes to policy who hires the best advice he can get unlike Republicans who haven’t done that since - well perhaps someone can remind me. But I don’t expect him to be particularly bold. But who knows. The thing that always struck me as ridiculous about Krugman’s critique is that being all post-partisan was a good way to build a coalatition and get into power. You find out how people are going to govern after they get into power - or hasn’t Krugman noticed. FDR was elected on a platform of balancing the budget.Another economist, John Quiggin, whose blog presents itself as a ‘Commentary on Australian & world events from a social-democratic perspective’ looked forward to:
And now we get to see how Obama governs. And his first decision is to go for a hard man as a chief of staff - Obama plays the good cop and everyone is telling us that Rahm Emanuel gets to play the bad cop. I’ll be interested to see if Krugman has anything to say on this - I’ve not seen it yet. But it’s a first sign that Obama is under no illusions about how lovely the Republicans will be towards him.
Rahm Emanuel - the enforcer
a revival of the progressive politics of the New Deal, in retreat ever since the 1970s. If Obama can combine an economic recovery with a new commitment to social equity, his election victory could prove more significant than any since that of Roosevelt in 1932.He mentioned several policy areas, one of which is global warming:
… looming over all of this is climate change. Obama has promised a cap-and-trade scheme, and a return to world leadership at Copenhagen. But, as in Australia, there will be powerful voices calling for a continuation of the Bush policy of delay and denial, and putting the financial crisis forward as a pretext. Neither the world nor the position of the US as a world leader can afford this.I feel a ‘three economists in a boat’ joke coming on. So let’s give Tigtog at Hoyden About Town the punch line. She speculated about what Obama’s priorities should be:
A tough road ahead
Just like a gazillion others, I’ve been thinking about what Obama could/should do, in his first 100 days in office, that would be small in terms of the effort required (falling within executive powers entirely, no Congressional courting/approval required) but that would make an immediate, huge, difference to many people.According to the blog, a hoyden (hoid’n) is a woman of saucy, boisterous or carefree behavior. A match for 3 economists anyday.
I ended up deciding that there were so many things that needed fixing, that I would be better off focussing on what I would be horrendously disappointed to find that he was not going to do. So here’s my One Thing that I will be broken-hearted if he does not do it:
1. negate the Global Gag Rule (aka Mexico City Policy)
Our continuing research shows the gag rule is eroding family planning and reproductive health services in developing countries. There is no evidence that it has reduced the incidence of abortion globally. On the contrary, it impedes the very services that help women avoid unwanted pregnancy from the start.
What's Your One Thing?
Just one thing
A post for Voices without Votes:
Australian bloggers found their voices after being glued to the media or live-blogging the election for most of Wednesday our time.
Man of Lettuce, Sydney taxi driver and author of Cablog, joined work and pleasure as usual on election night:
Last night the City was awash with the intoxicating ambience of Barack Obama’s victory. An earlier invitation to the Democrats Abroad celebration party on Oxford Street had alerted me to a premier content source...sheer exhilaration plus alcohol - perfect.His account of an encounter in his cab with an African American couple should be read in full on his unique blog. He finishes on his own note of hope:
…Let’s pray he can fulfil this vision and unify all Americans, thereby becoming one of their great Presidents.An Onymous Lefty, Jeremy, raised a sour note. Known for his sarcastic posts, he put that aside to express his disgust at the California vote against gay marriage in straightforward language:
O-ba-ma
…the fact that many of his voters (he won California, after all) turned out to take this basic civil right away from gay people seriously tarnishes his victory. It implies that had he been more principled, and really stood for civil rights - and asked his voters to genuinely consider why, at a moment of the triumph of African Americans as a previously-persecuted group, they would even consider turning that persecution on others - then the gay people of California would not have just lost theirs.Mark Bahnisch at Larvatus Prodeo looked at the impact of the web on the elections and possible future directions:
I stand by my earlier refusal to get too excited by the election result.
Obama refuses to stand up for civil rights; Californians lose theirs
No doubt one of the big stories about the US election will be the influence of the blogosphere and the netroots. In many ways, the rise of the intertubes in politics was an unintended consequence of the Rove approach to politics…Andrew Bolt has been posted on Voices without Votes before. He is a daily newspaper columnist with Melbourne’s Herald Sun and media spokesperson for the right wing in Australia. He is a climate change denier, a critic of anything progressive (the dreaded left-wing, latte and chardonnay drinking socialists) and has “issues” with race.
All technology is shaped socially. Blogging, YouTube, and other social media have been enablers and not just causes of this invigoration of democracy. I’d like to see some research and analysis focused on the wellsprings of activism we’ve seen bubbling up. I think that would be, in many ways, a more productive frame through which to look at what’s interesting, distinctive and exciting about this campaign than yet another round of “journos v. bloggers” style articles.
US election: Yes we can!
Should McCain win, against all predictions and the polls, there will be trouble:The old politics of fear and prejudice still live with us. Judge for yourself.
Toledo police are gearing up for possible “civil unrest” during and after tomorrow’s elections.
Indeed, the menace outside one polling booth, patrolled by Black Panthers, is palpable
Obama or McCain. UPDATE: It’s Obama
Today’s election result heralds the rise of Green Keynesianism. The US economy is in the toilet and smart economists are advocating direct investment over a more consumer-based fiscal stimulus.This is serious stuff. Miriam also reflected on possible impacts on Australia by Obama’s approach to war, economics and international relations. As a think-tank person herself, it was no surprise that she concluded with their likely role in the Obama era:
The Obama campaign’s target for emissions cuts was 80% by 2050 - a fair way ahead of Oz Labor’s as-yet-unaltered election promise of 60% by 2050. With the Arctic ice-sheet melting rapidly even an 80% target is too low for a developed country like the US, but it should certainly give Professor Ross Garnaut reason to revise his pessimism about the likely outcome of the Copenhagen round of climate negotiations. It’s worth noting that the Obama campaign’s climate and energy platform specifically called for 100% auctioning of permits.
Just as an aside, it will be interesting to follow the relationship between progressive think tanks & the new administration. Expect to see the traditional influx from conservative think tanks to Republican administrations mirrored on the Democrat side this time around.If George W. Bush represents the Dark Ages in terms of intellectual progress and political awareness, Barack Obama seems squarely planted in the Enlightenment.
Guest Post by Miriam Lyons: What does an Obama win mean for Australia?
One of our TV presenters has just suggested that there was a fair bit of evangelical fervour about Barack Obama's victory speech. What really impressed me was that he didn't rev up the crowd. He chose not to join their attempts to turn the slogan "Yes We Can" into a mindless chant. He challenged them with ideas not theatre. His performance was controlled and rational. He is the teacher not the preacher.
For world reaction please see President-Elect Barack Obama: The blogosphere reacts
This article from Guardian correspondents around the globe has been picked up by Melbourne's Age newspaper as Change they want. Some of the comments include:
From Kabul
"I think we have almost reached the point of no return. There are no good solutions left," said Ali Padsha, 19, who was raised in America. "The longer foreign forces stay, the more problems will be created. When we [Afghans] see foreign forces in our country, it makes us crazy, it always has.From Paris
"The new Taliban are smarter than before and not as hardcore. They know what to do to keep the people happy."
"We don't lynch Americans in the street," said Charlotte Lepri, a US specialist at the French thinktank, Institute for Research in Integrated Strategies (IRIS). "But there are certain associations with Bush. Now there is a turnaround and real enthusiasm for a black candidate who represents France's ideal of the American dream."From Gaza
Like many Gazans, Mohammed Telbani, the factory's general manager, says he has little interest in the election. "Presidents have changed but no one did anything for us," he said, waving his hand dismissively. He doubts that a new president will have the power or the will to reverse decades of US policy in the Middle East which he, like most here, sees as decisively pro-Israeli. "Without pressure on Israel there won't be any solution to the problem," he said.For more views from outside the United States please visit Voices without Votes, where bloggers from around the globe analyse the US election.
The world holds its breath as America decides
Barack Obama has a decisive lead over John McCain in both national and state opinion polls. My preferred poll for the finish line is Pew Research Center. It is objective and authoritative. Their 52%/46% shouldn't be far off the mark.
Poll junkies can use my Delicious polls bookmarks if you wish.
It’s no longer a case of will Obama win but by how many Electoral College Votess. Even Zogby has the battleground States Obama’s way today with a comfortable lead in the national vote.
The Republicans are supposed to be praying for a miracle. Perhaps a less supernatural event would be enough for McCain to win. According to a U.S. study rain affects voter turnout by up to 1%:
The relationship between bad weather and lower levels of voter turnout is widely espoused by media, political practitioners, and, perhaps, even political scientists. Yet, there is virtually no solid empirical evidence linking weather to voter participation. This paper provides an extensive test of the claim. We examine the effect of weather on voter turnout in 14 U.S. presidential elections. Using GIS interpolations, we employ meteorological data drawn from over 22,000 U.S. weather stations to provide election day estimates of rain and snow for each U.S. county.All good right-wing evangelists should be praying for rain on Tuesday!
We find that, when compared to normal conditions, rain significantly reduces voter participation by a rate of just less than 1% per inch, while an inch of snowfall decreases turnout by almost .5%. Poor weather is also shown to benefit the Republican party's vote share. Indeed, the weather may have contributed to two Electoral College outcomes, the 1960 and 2000 presidential elections.
The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in U.S. Presidential Elections
Jillian York of Voices without Votes has reported on Huffington Post about websites which cover global election maps tracking world opinion:
A quick glance at Voices without Votes or the global blogosphere and it's clear who the world wants for president: Barack Obama. It seems that, despite the relative closeness of the race in the United States, the rest of the world likes his charisma, his foreign policy, his take on the issues, and perhaps most of all, the fact that he's so different from George W. Bush, whom it's clear the world does not approve of.
The World Is Not Undecided
This video is at Talking Point Memo's TPM election Central
The Republican ad for one of its congressional candidates is about as subtle as it gets.
According to the BBC's Dan Collyns, Peruvian shamen overwhelming support Barack Obama with only a few for John McCain:
As the US presidential election nears, the shamans of Peru have been displaying their own methods for ensuring the success of their chosen candidate.My Quechua is a bit rusty so we'll have to trust the translator. Click the image or the link to see the video.
Peru's shamen send US election vibes
