Obama at Copenhagen

By Matthew Rothschild, December 18, 2009

President Obama didn’t do enough at Copenhagen to meet the legitimate demands of developing nations, especially the poorest of the poor. And while he deserves credit for moving the United States back in a positive direction on global warming after eight years of the know-nothingism of George W. Bush, he has adopted some of Bush’s scolding-parent tone.

The Obama administration has its own self to blame for much of the acrimony in Copenhagen.

His administration flat-out rejected the idea of the industrialized nations paying reparations to the rest of the world for the damage they’ve inflicted on the planet.

Nor did the Obama Administration offer nearly enough to developing nations to encourage them to use non-polluting technologies. Obama promised $10 billion by the year 2012. That comes to just 0.28 percent of the U.S. budget for next year.

Then, seeming to act in a generous manner while actually behaving like a bully, he said he would “engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if –it is part of a broader accord” to his liking.

As he did in Oslo for the Nobel Peace Prize, in Copenhagen Obama talked about the United States doing the right thing not just because it’s right but because it’s in Washington’s “self-interest.”

In Oslo, he said rebuilding Europe, Japan, and South Korea after World War II was in the “enlightened self-interest” of Americans.

In Copenhagen, he said, “We’re convinced, for our own self-interest, that the way we use energy . . . is essential to our national security.”

Yet there comes a time when doing the right thing can’t always be squared with American selfishness. That time is now.

It was, after all, American selfishness and gluttony that polluted much of the earth. And now, American stinginess is preventing the kind of cleaning up that is necessary.

On global warming, the United States should do what is just – and not simply what is in its “self-interest.”

Washington should pay reparations to those nations that contributed least to global warming but that are suffering, and will be suffering, the most because of it. This sum should exceed the measly $10 billion Obama has offered developing nations to go green and go clean.

If Obama had made such a generous offer, he would have been greeted more favorably in Copenhagen.

Comments

"know-nothingism"

An interesting tag. Makes me wonder about Matt and his ilk. Are they know-nothings, or do they take us for know-nothings? Or both?

The many variables and interactions of climate change and the effects of various proposed actions are not fully understood, though Matt would have us believe they are.

Enough so that we should turn to socialism just in case.

Matt calls for "reparations". Can it get any clearer? This isn't about the physical environment, it's about the political environment. It is about massive wealth transfers. It is about less freedom and bigger government. It is about America and the developed world ceding control of their economies to the UN.

The opportunity costs could be staggering, leading to much more human suffering. It doesn't matter that the science is unsettled or that we may cause more harm by taking the wrong actions.

It fits Matt's political agenda, so he will try to shame you into going along. And he will pretend that the bombshell in East Anglia never happened, and wouldn't matter anyway.

The Senate may again vote unanimously against such reparations. Then we'll see whether Congress has the spine to amend EPA law. Will they defend Americans, or will they commit them to massive wealth transfers?

.

Submitted by Chihare on Fri, 12/18/2009 - 6:31pm.

CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012

February 2012

Progressive Matt

The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House