Please post the attached flyer and forward this announcement to those who may be interested in attending this event.

 

Experience our Highest Tide of the Year
at "The Kiss" on Percival Landing

Monday, January 4, 2010

8:15 am - 8:45 am

 

Bundle up and join members of the Olympia City Council and Thurston County Commission as we contemplate a normal high tide and speculate on sea level rise. A tide of 17+ feet is expected to occur at 8:37 am.  Attendees are invited for breakfast afterwards at a local restaurant.

Sponsored by Olympia Climate Action. 
For more information, contact Barb directly at 878-9901 or barb@...

 

Dear Friend,

Earlier this month, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency
issued a formal declaration that global warming pollution is a threat to
public health and welfare -- something that the rest of us have known
for
a long, long time.

The way is cleared for the Clean Air Act to become an crucial weapon in
our fight to stop climate change. The Obama administration is now in a
position to regulate global warming pollution without having to wait for
Congress (which has been lured into writing weak climate policies by
industry lobbyists with deep pockets).

I just signed submitted a public comment to the EPA in support of a
strong
rule to regulate greenhouse gases from coal-fired plants and other big
polluters under the Clean Air Act. I hope you will, too. The deadline is
Monday, Dec. 28. Please have a look and take action.

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/stationary_sources/?
r_by=7165-489277-U8U.nqx&rc=mailto1

ICE MELTING FASTER EVERYWHERE

http://www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/indicators/C50

By Alexandra Giese

From the Arctic sea ice to the Antarctic interior and the mountainous peaks of Peru, Alaska, and Tibet, ice is melting at an alarming rate. The accelerating loss of ice sheets, sea ice, and glaciers is one of the most powerful and striking indicators of a warming climate.

The most notable ice loss in recent years has been the shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. From the beginning of the satellite record in 1979 through 1996, ice area decreased at a steady rate of 3 percent per decade in response to rising temperature. In the following decade, ice area decreased by 11 percent, reaching a dramatic minimum in 2007. In September of that year, sea ice occupied only 3.6 million square kilometers, an area 27 percent smaller than the previous record low (in 2005) and 38 percent smaller than the 1979–2007 average. Summer sea ice coverage has increased slightly in the last two years, but it is still far below the long-term average.

(See larger image of map.)

Declines in ice thickness and volume are just as dramatic. The combination of these trends has led to a decrease in the amount of ice that persists in the Arctic through multiple seasons. Multiyear ice is more stable and less susceptible to break-up than the thin, short-lived seasonal ice that forms each winter. Between 1987 and 2007, the amount of ice at least five years old has plummeted from 57 to just 7 percent. Drastic changes in sea ice cover have led scientists from the University of Washington and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to predict that the summer of 2037 could see the first ice-free Arctic in a million years. Other scientists have predicted a largely ice-free summertime Arctic as early as 2015.

Declining sea ice is a self-reinforcing trend because of what is known as the albedo effect. Ice reflects up to 70 percent of the sunlight that reaches it, while ocean water reflects only 6 percent and absorbs the rest as heat. This means that as soon as a small amount of sea ice disappears and exposes the underlying ocean water, the system starts absorbing more energy, which leads to further ice melt. Dangers associated with this runaway warming scenario include rapid destruction of diverse ecosystems that support polar bears, seals, and walruses, among other organisms; a thawing of the Arctic tundra, which can release copious amounts of the greenhouse gas methane; and increased warming of nearby Greenland.

Satellite data indicate that the Greenland ice sheet has been experiencing accelerated melt, particularly over the past several decades. In fact, Greenland’s average annual melt between 2002 and 2005 was triple that of the 1997-2003 period, and the summer melt area on the ice sheet has increased 30 percent since 1979. In recent years, changes in ice dynamics associated with higher temperatures have caused glaciers to flow faster, leading to additional ice loss. Melt water lubricates the base of gla ciers that carry ice from the interior to the sea, causing their movement to accelerate (for example, the speed of Greenland’s largest outlet glacier doubled in just five years). Surface lakes propagate fractures through the ice sheet as they drain, further lubricating the base and weakening the ice sheet with a network of cracks. And glaciers have been calving into the ocean with enough force to be detected on seismometers all over the world. The frequency of these “glacial earthquakes� has increased in recent years; in 2005, for example, there were over twice as many quakes as in any year before 2002. All told, Greenland lost 1,500 gigatons of ice between 2000 and 2008, more water than is used in U.S. homes and industry over a six-year period.

In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica, too, is showing signs of a warming climate. Annual ice mass loss for the entire continent more than doubled between the periods 2002–06 and 2006–09. In March 2009, a 400-square-kilometer piece of ice broke off of the Wilkins ice shelf, the tenth ice shelf collapse on the Antarctic Peninsula in recent times. The most notable break-up was that of the Larsen B ice shelf in 2002, which covered some 3,000 square kilometers, roughly the size of Rhode Island. The West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS) lost 59 percent more ice in 2006 than it did in 1996. A fast-flowing drainage glacier of WAIS, the Pine Island glacier, experienced a quadrupling in its average rate of volume loss between 1995 and 2006. Previously well-established as stable or even gaining mass, the East Antarctic ice sheet may in fact be shrinking. A late 2009 Nature Geoscience study points toward a net melting of the ice sheet since 2006. This new discovery adds to the ever-growing fears of ice sheet collapse and sea level rise. With increased melting, scientists say sea level could rise as much as 2 meters by the end of this century.

Mountain glaciers are much smaller in comparison to the polar ice sheets and, thus, do not pose nearly as great a threat t o world sea levels. But due to their proximity and importance to human settlements, their melting is of grave and immediate concern. Melting mountain glaciers can create hazards like rockfalls, avalanches, and outburst floods from glacial lakes; they also have significant impacts on freshwater supplies. Worldwide, the average annual rate of mountain glacier melt was over twice as great between 1996 and 2005 as during the previous decade. The World Glacier Monitoring Service named 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, the eighteenth consecutive year of retreat for the 30 reference glaciers measured since 1976.

The glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan plateau make up the largest body of ice outside the poles and provide water to Asia’s major river systems, which supply water to over 2 billion people. This water is vital for drinking and for irrigating the wheat and rice crops in China and India, the largest in the world. In recent years, Himalayan glaciers have been retreating at rates ranging from 10 to 60 meters per year. As the glaciers disappear, the dry-season flows of river systems that depend on them may decrease by up to 70 percent, making them seasonal rivers. River systems at risk include the Yangtze, Yellow, Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra.

The Andes, home to 90 percent of the world’s tropical glaciers, are also experiencing rapid melt and a shrinking water supply: between the early 1970s and 2006, Peruvian and Bolivian glaciers lost about one third of their surface area. In Peru, glacier and snow melt provides 80 percent of the fresh water, used not only for drinking but also for hydroelectricity, which supplies more than 80 percent of the country’s power. In neighboring Bolivia, the La Paz governor is already anticipating severe water shortages and considering a program for migration out of the capital city. The 18,000-year-old Chacaltaya glacier, home of the country’s only ski resort, disappeared in 2009.

The glaciers of Tanzania’s Mount Kil imanjaro, long cultural and spiritual icons, decreased in area by 84 percent between 1912 and 2007 and continue to melt rapidly. In Alaska, 98 percent of glaciers are currently thinning or retreating. And accelerated melting puts Montana’s Glacier National Park on track to lose its namesakes by 2020. (See map and additional examples at www.earthpolicy.org/index.php?/indicators/C50/ice_melting_2009.)

These current ice loss trends are alarming, but perhaps more disconcerting is the fact that ice melt is occurring even faster than scientific models have predicted, emphasizing the need to cut emissions before the world sees ice sheet collapse, catastrophic inundation of low-lying coastal areas, and widespread water and food shortages. After all, in the words of Stockholm University professor Johan Rockström, “We don’t know how to refreeze the Greenland ice sheet.�

Blaming China is a long standing practice among rich nations. Yeah China got what it wanted. But so did the U.S.. The Obama admin has been pretty consistently insistent that it would support no cuts larger than 4% compared to 1990 (17% compared 2005). It has been very consistent that it had no interest in phasing out coal. There is a reason Lynas was let into the confernce and Monbiot among those excluded. Beth Doglio wrote:

This is well worth the read. I also got a personal account from a Senate staffer who relayed that Obama was negotiating at an extremely rare level of detail for a head of state and his view was that were it not for Obama coming in on the last day and personally negotiating the lame deal we eneded up with it would have been even lamer.
Clearly our work is far from over and keeping the pressure on Obama to keep the pressure on the Senate is key to anything happening next year. And, we cannot galvanize next year and pass any comprehensive climate policy unless WE are as united as possible. We can't wait any longer - we need a cap on emissions next year.
Climate Solutions will be continuing the campaign in the Northwest states and I hope that you will engage as much as possible. Cantwell has some great ideas and gets this stuff like few other Senators - but she needs to be pushed to engage in the moving vehicle to make it better. She's off on her own tangent that isn't particularly helpful to getting a bill next year. Murray needs to push within the leadership structure to make this happen - and push hard - with the help of constituents letting her know that they expect her to push.
Happy Holidays.
________________________________
From: OlyClimateAction@yahoogroups.com [OlyClimateAction@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Lazar Listserve Address [jlazar@...]
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:04 AM
To: Olympia Climate Action
Subject: [OlyClimateAction] Guardian article on Copenhagen
[cid:part1.01050106.07070101@...] <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen>
How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall account of how talks failed
*
* Mark Lynas<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/marklynas>
* guardian.co.uk<http://www.guardian.co.uk>, Tuesday 22 December 2009 19.54 GMT
[cid:part2.09070200.03000305@...]
A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change conference on 18 December. Photograph: Axel Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images
Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china> wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries".
Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon, secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations, whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his "superiors".
Shifting the blame
To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
Strong position
So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish cam
paigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.
With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
China's game
All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, "not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years' time".
This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OlyClimateAction/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OlyClimateAction/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
OlyClimateAction-digest@yahoogroups.com OlyClimateAction-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
OlyClimateAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

-- Jim Lazar, Consulting Economist
Microdesign Northwest
1063 Capitol Way S. #202
Olympia, WA 98501
360-786-1822
Direct email: jim@...
Listserves: jlazar@...

Blaming China is a long standing practice among rich nations. Yeah China got
what it wanted. But so did the U.S.. The Obama admin has been pretty
consistently insistent that it would support no cuts larger than 4% compared to
1990 (17% compared 2005). It has been very consistent that it had no interest in
phasing out coal. There is a reason Lynas was let into the confernce and Monbiot
among those excluded.

Beth Doglio wrote:
> This is well worth the read.  I also got a personal account from a Senate
staffer who relayed that Obama was  negotiating at an extremely rare level of
detail for a head of state and his view was that were it not for Obama coming in
on the last day and personally negotiating the lame deal we eneded up with it
would have been even lamer.
>
> Clearly our work is far from over and keeping the pressure on Obama to keep
the pressure on the Senate is key to anything happening next year.  And, we
cannot galvanize next year and pass any comprehensive climate policy unless WE
are as united as possible.  We can't wait any longer - we need a cap on
emissions next year.
>
> Climate Solutions will be continuing the campaign in the Northwest states and
I hope that you will engage as much as possible.  Cantwell has some great ideas
and gets this stuff like few other Senators - but she needs to be pushed to
engage in the moving vehicle to make it better.  She's off on her own tangent
that isn't particularly helpful to getting a bill next year.  Murray needs to
push within the leadership structure to make this happen - and push hard - with
the help of constituents letting her know that they expect her to push.
>
> Happy Holidays.
> ________________________________
> From: OlyClimateAction@yahoogroups.com [OlyClimateAction@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Jim Lazar Listserve Address [jlazar@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 10:04 AM
> To: Olympia Climate Action
> Subject: [OlyClimateAction] Guardian article on Copenhagen
>
>
>
> [cid:part1.01050106.07070101@...]
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/copenhagen>
> How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room
>
> As recriminations fly post-Copenhagen, one writer offers a fly-on-the-wall
account of how talks failed
>
>  *
>     *   Mark Lynas<http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/marklynas>
>     *   guardian.co.uk<http://www.guardian.co.uk>, Tuesday 22 December 2009
19.54 GMT
>
> [cid:part2.09070200.03000305@...]
>
> A woman listens to Barack Obama's speech at the Copenhagen climate change
conference on 18 December. Photograph: Axel Schmidt/AFP/Getty Images
>
> Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what
actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual
recriminations. The truth is this: China<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china>
wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an
awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I
know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.
>
> China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and
then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the
world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society
movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the
inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder
their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have
bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.
>
> All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George
Monbiot, writing in yesterday's Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming
Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese
delegate saying "no", over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the
Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as "a
suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance
of a few countries".
>
> Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries
that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open
sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes,
and then left its proxies to savage it in public.
>
> Here's what actually went on late last Friday night, as heads of state from
two dozen countries met behind closed doors. Obama was at the table for several
hours, sitting between Gordon Brown and the Ethiopian prime minister, Meles
Zenawi. The Danish prime minister chaired, and on his right sat Ban Ki-moon,
secretary-general of the UN. Probably only about 50 or 60 people, including the
heads of state, were in the room. I was attached to one of the delegations,
whose head of state was also present for most of the time.
>
> What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not
deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official
in the country's foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic
snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times
during the session, the world's most powerful heads of state were forced to wait
around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his
"superiors".
>
> Shifting the blame
>
> To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it
was China's representative who insisted that industrialised country targets,
previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. "Why can't we
even mention our own targets?" demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia's
prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil's
representative too pointed out the illogicality of China's position. Why should
rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said
no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded
the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get
the blame for the Copenhagen accord's lack of ambition.
>
> China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers
that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain
temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that
emissions should peak "as soon as possible". The long-term target, of global 50%
cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of
India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese
not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had
environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.
>
> Strong position
>
> So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely
strong negotiating position. China didn't need a deal. As one developing country
foreign minister said to me: "The Athenians had nothing to offer to the
Spartans." On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also
presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many
others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal
perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing
countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17%
below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.
>
> Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could
deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative
senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese
industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that
Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate
change<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change> talks with a strong
mandate. This further strengthened China's negotiating hand, as did the complete
lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign
groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that
is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at
co-opting the language of equity ("equal rights to the atmosphere") in the
service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are
hoist with their own petard.
>
> With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle
as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the
small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising
seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to
save this crucial number. "How can you ask my country to go extinct?" demanded
Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but
surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.
>
> China's game
>
> All this raises the question: what is China's game? Why did China, in the
words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings,
"not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country
to take on binding targets?" The analyst, who has attended climate conferences
for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate
regulation regime now "in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to
be more ambitious in a few years' time".
>
> This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in
both the wind and solar industries. But China's growth, and growing global
political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it
is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence
was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every
decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter
this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.
>
> Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a
profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China's century, yet
its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not
only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower's
freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long
time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave
of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and
drained away.
>
>
>
>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_RlKxz_ymQ

--
Jim Lazar, Consulting Economist
Microdesign Northwest
1063 Capitol Way S. #202
Olympia, WA   98501
360-786-1822

Direct email:  jim@...
Listserves:     jlazar@...

-- Jim Lazar, Consulting Economist
Microdesign Northwest
1063 Capitol Way S. #202
Olympia, WA 98501
360-786-1822
Direct email: jim@...
Listserves: jlazar@...

Chaos
CHAOS NEVER DIED. Primordial uncarved block, sole worshipful monster,
inert & spontaneous, more ultraviolet than any mythology (like the
shadows before Babylon), the original undifferentiated
oneness-of-being still radiates serene as the black pennants of
Assassins, random & perpetually intoxicated.
Chaos comes before all principles of order & entropy, it's neither a
god nor a maggot, its idiotic desires encompass & define every
possible choreography, all meaningless aethers & phlogistons: its
masks are crystallizations of its own facelessness, like clouds.
Everything in nature is perfectly real including consciousness,
there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Not only have the chains of
the Law been broken, they never existed; demons never guarded the
stars, the Empire never got started, Eros never grew a beard.



On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Gita Moulton <gitamoulton@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>



--
Douglas Goslin

>
>

 

We need to meet at the Kiss stature at 8:00am on Janusary 4th.  sped the word.  It may be wet under our feet.

 

-- "The world is now too dangerous for anything less than utopia." - Buckminster Fuller 

 

I agree with this message. pb 

--

Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:00:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Maggie Zhou <mzhou_us@yahoo.com>
To: no-offsets@googlegroups.com, wg@securegreenfuture.org,
  Discussion List for StateCom members <statecom-discuss@green-rainbow.org>,
  Beth Adams <eadams333@gmail.com>,
  Climate Change and Biodiversity List <gwspecies@lists.onenw.org>
Subject: [gwspecies] Obama's Copenhagen Accord (discussion went all night,

 still going)

here is my read of what Obama is pushing onto the world, with lots of skillful spins:

1. overall target only set for 2050: globally 50% emission cut, annex I (developed) countries 80% cut.  Continue to glaringly pretend that this will hold temp rise to 2 degrees (UNEP conclusion is 3 to 4 degrees C).  Africa will see 1.5x global average temp rise.
2. the two tracks seem preserved at the moment, one of the few upshots.
3. no target set for the crucial near term.  no country specific numbers on the table.  no real enforcement mechanism.
4. market mechanisms will continue and further scale up.
5. developed countries will provide 30 billion dollars in the period 2010-2012 (didn't say annual, so i presume it's total?), and reaching 100 billion annually by 2020, to help with developing countries' mitigation and adaptation costs.
6. the money will be managed by an entity set up by the UNFCCC, not world bank etc. (upshot)
7. accelerating technology development and transfer is taken de facto, no mention of technology evaluation for safety and effectiveness as urged by civil societies.

This is beyond an outrage. We need to be all out in the streets and refuse this planetary destruction!

Maggie

Begin forwarded message:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/climate-change/copenhagen-accord-4.30pm.pdf

Purposes: To gather and transmit information about the the
ecological impact of global warming, to promote public and
conservationist education about the ecological impact of global
warming, and to identify and encourage appropriate policy for
species affected by global warming.  The related topic of how to
reduce emissions, although crucially important, will be left for other
settings.

To facilitate free discussion without adherence to a "party line,"
messages posted by members of this list represent the opinions of the
individual members and may not reflect the opinions of all members or
the list's founders.

FAIR USE NOTICE
gwspecies@lists.onenw.org sometimes circulates copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the
copyright owner. The material is being made available for purposes of
education and discussion of the ecological impact of global warming .
We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted
material as provided for in relevant national laws.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in human and environmental rights for educational, personal
and non-commercial use only.

All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though
ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the
reader. Gwspecies@lists.onenw.org cannot guarantee that the information
it circulates is complete and correct or be liable for any loss incurred
as a result of its use. Nor can gwspecies@lists.onenw.org be responsible
for any subsequent use of the material. Anyone intending to use this
material for commercial or other purposes not covered by Title 17
U.S.C Section 107 must contact the copyright holder for permission.

-- Jim Lazar, Consulting Economist
Microdesign Northwest
1063 Capitol Way S. #202
Olympia, WA 98501
360-786-1822
Direct email: jim@...
Listserves: jlazar@...