Big Day For Señor Trumpanzeer Yesterday

Good day for Trump yesterday? High ratings, certainly. Not ratings about quality-- rating as in eyeballs. But that's what he cares about. His UN thing (at the bottom of the post) was a doozy and that hour and a half long rambling vaudvillian press conference (above)... oy veh. Bragging, lies, bullshit...

It's hard to watch him, to listen to him. It makes me sad for our country, especially that thing at the UN, the best part of which being when the world's leaders just laughed at his campaign-mode crap. Seth Meyers was better:



Everybody who fact checks, fact checked his press conference. The one from NBC News highlighted eight lies:

1. Asked if he rejected a one-on-one meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump said, "Yeah, I did."

Nope. A press representative for the Canadian prime minister told NBC News in an email that no such meeting was requested.

2. Trump claimed President Barack Obama "wasn't big on picking judges. When I got here I said, 'How was this possible?' They just didn’t do it-- they got tired, they got complacent."

Here's what actually happened: Republicans blocked dozens of Obama's judicial nominees, including a Supreme Court pick. That left Trump with 103 court vacancies-- nearly twice the number Obama inherited in 2009.

3. Speaking of the American embassy in Jerusalem, Trump said, "We got (the embassy) open in four months, for less than $500,000, and the budget was over a billion dollars. So we saved, let’s say a billion dollars."

His numbers are off. Trump is describing modifications to an interim embassy, according to reports; the project is still ongoing and will cost more than half a million. The State Department has reportedly already awarded $21 million in contracts for the upcoming renovations.

4. The president said he was falsely accused of sexual misconduct by "four or five women" who made "stuff up about me."

Actually, 13 women have accused him of sexual misconduct in the past and provided corroborators or witnesses, according to a tally by the Washington Post, while The Guadian reports there are 20 accusers.

5. Asked why the White House did not order the FBI to investigate sexual misconduct allegations against Kavanaugh, Trump said: "There was nothing to investigate from at least one standpoint. They didn't know the location, they didn't know the time, they didn't know the year."

There are more details than Trump suggests. It's unclear which of the several accusers he is referring to, as the first woman to come forward, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, gave the year she says the alleged attack occurred, while another, Deborah Ramirez, provided the name of a college dormitory.

Ford says Kavanaugh attempted to sexually assault her during at a house party in a Maryland suburb in the summer of 1982. Ramirez said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at the Yale University dormitory Lawrance Hall during the 1983-84 school year. Julie Swetnick accused Kavanaugh of getting women intoxicated so they could be attacked by groups of men between 1981 and 1983 at house parties in the Washington suburbs.

6. Trump disputed one of his own sexual misconduct accusations by saying it was unlikely to have occurred because he had a best-selling book out that same year.

Let's get a calendar. He is referring to the allegation from Jessica Leeds, who the New York Times reported said Trump touched her inappropriately in the early 1980s on a flight. Trump's campaign later put forward a witness who said he was on the flight and sitting across from Leeds. He disputed her account, and dated the flight to either 1980 or 1981. Trump's first book, "The Art of the Deal," was published several years later, in 1987.

7. "I got 52 percent with women. Everyone said this couldn't happen,” Trump said.

The president is exaggerating the percentage of women who voted for him in 2016. He won 42 percent of women in the 2016 election, not 52 percent, according to NBC News exit polling. He won 53 percent of white women.

8. Those in the audience who laughed during Trump's big United Nation General Assembly speech this week "weren’t laughing at me, they were laughing with me. We had fun. That was not laughing at me."

See for yourself. Here's the video:

This morning, Todd Purdum noted at The Atlantic that Trump's Surreal News Conference Didn’t Do Kavanaugh Any Favors, portraying "Kavanaugh’s Democratic Senate opponents as the organizers of a 'big, fat con job,' then acknowledged without missing a beat that he would withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination 'if I thought he was guilty of something like this, sure.' He praised Kavanaugh as 'one of the highest-quality people that I have ever met,' then suggested that the judge’s life was not so spotless, allowing that even George Washington may have had 'a couple of things in his past.'

Is Trump lying, or unintentionally revealing some deep-seated truth about his nature? Surely, the answer is both. Is he being reasonable about Kavanaugh’s accusers (“They’re going to have a big shot at speaking and making their case”)? Or disingenuous (“I can’t tell you whether or not they’re liars until I hear them”)? What does he really think? It changes from minute to minute. Does he contradict himself? Of course. Like Walt Whitman, he is large (or is it huge?). He contains multitudes.

In just over an hour, the president undermined the frantic work of his own White House aides and Senate Republicans, who have been scrambling for days to salvage Kavanaugh’s nomination-- most recently by releasing copies of the judge’s appointment-calendar pages from his Summer of ’82 that list no party like the one where Ford alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her-- by confessing that he regards allegations of sexual misconduct as inherently suspect because of what he considers the spurious claims (by at least 19 women) against him.

“It does impact my opinion,” he said. “You know why? Because I’ve had a lot of false charges made against me. I’m a very famous person. Unfortunately. I’ve been a famous person for a long time. But I’ve had a lot of false charges made against me. Really false charges.” He added: “People want fame, they want money, they want whatever. So when I see it, I view it differently than somebody sitting home watching television where they say, ‘Oh, Judge Kavanaugh, this or that.’”

Trump’s disjointed, incoherent performance ignored the carefully disciplined strategy of the White House and Senate Republicans to plow through the growing swirl of allegations against Kavanaugh and press for a quick confirmation vote. His insistence that “You know what? I could be persuaded” by Ford’s testimony was hardly a ringing endorsement of Kavanaugh, whom in another breath he called “a great gentleman, a great intellect, a brilliant man.” The president’s equivocation-- fleeting though it may have been-- may also reflect the reality that crucial Republican votes like Senator Lisa Murkowksi of Alaska have publicly wavered in recent days.

The cloud of dust kicked up by Trump’s all-over-the-map arguments in no way clarified a fast-moving situation that is already cloudy enough. In addition to the accusations of sexual misconduct cited by Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, it emerged late Wednesday that another woman had reached out anonymously to members of the Judiciary Committee and reported that her adult daughter had witnessed an intoxicated Kavanaugh throw another woman aggressively and “sexually” against a wall outside a bar in Washington in 1998. Kavanaugh denied the allegation in an interview with a committee investigator.

Barbra Streisand actually released a song today for Señor Trumpanzee! It's good too. Listen:

Republicans Not Even Campaigning For Independent Voters Anymore-- For Them, It's All About Their Crackpot Base Now

GOP base strategy works with hardcore Republican voters, but not with normal people

This morning when Trump tried bragging about his magnificence, the UN General Assembly burst out in sustained, audible laughter. No, Señor T, you're not in Kansas anymore. (Ironically, even Kansas may not be Kansas anymore.)

Ugly monkey: "In less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country."

World Leaders: laughter.

Ugly monkey: "It's so true."

World Leaders: more laughter.

Ugly monkey: "I didn't expect that reaction, but that's okay," smirking as though waiting for someone to feed him a banana-- or hand him a submachine gun.

Republican Party strategists have come to realize that appealing to independent voters this year is a rabbit hole for their candidates and they are now doubling down on getting out their own base and virtually ceding the independents-- as much as a third of the vote in many places-- to the Democrats. Our election coverage here at DWT has centered on independents ability to decide the midterms. GOP strategy is to now run such vile negative advertising as to just discourage independents from voting, not to get them to vote for Republican candidates.

At Axios Monday morning, Caitlin Owens outlined a Republican strategy to save hardcore red districts and basically abandon all swing districts. "With the midterm elections fast approaching and Democrats riding a clear advantage on health care, many Republicans are nevertheless doubling down on largely unpopular ideas like repealing the Affordable Care Act and cutting Medicare," she wrote."This strategy may seem counterintuitive on its face. However, it likely reveals that the party has all but abandoned independent voters this year and instead is focused on turning out its base. Republican leaders have recently become more public about the likelihood of trying again on ACA repeal, whereas a few months ago it was largely a private assumption among the party.

• Vice President Mike Pence told reporters in Wisconsin that if the GOP candidate wins the Senate seat there, the effort will be revived, per The Hill. “We made an effort to fully repeal and replace ObamaCare and we'll continue, with Leah Vukmir in the Senate, we'll continue to go back to that," he said.
• “We need to win this election and then get more seats next year" before trying again, GOP Whip Steve Scalise told the AP.

Is that a good idea in Wisconsin, a state where independents decide elections? It may be a good strategy for Mississippi but there isn't a single poll-- including partisan Republican polls that no one takes seriously-- that shows Vukmir with a pathway to victory. FiveThirtyEight gives her a 1 in 40 chance to beat progressive Democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin (in a state Trump won-- albeit narrowly and with Kremlin help-- in 2016.

As Owens explained, "ACA repeal only resonates well with one group of voters: registered Republicans. 'It’s all about the base, because as far as I can tell, they’ve lost the independents, there’s no one left to woo,' said conservative economist Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former campaign aide to John McCain. 'The Republicans face a very odd problem…when you ask actually registered voters what they want to do with the future of the ACA, no one wants to repeal and replace it except the Republicans, which the majority do,' said Robert Blendon of Harvard's School of Public Health. 'If you are looking at the aggregate, you can't imagine why you’d even mention it. But if you’re trying to encourage your own voters… then they're trying to say that we would come back and try to do something,' Blendon added."

Worse yet for the GOP's election hopes among normal voters, the Trump Regime is now talking about cuts to Social Security and Medicare again. Owens reminds us that Trumpanzee's top economic advisor, drug addict and crackpot TV personality Larry Kudlow, "recently said that the administration will probably look at entitlement cuts next year." She brought up 3 very vulnerable Republican incumbents-- in districts with huge numbers of independent voters-- who are going along with Kudlow and Trump are likely to lose their seats because of it. John Faso, for example, was keeping his seat in play. It is now starting to trend, ever so slightly, towards Anthony Delgado. Faso is making noises that will make independents (and seniors) see him as a threat to Social Security and Medicare. Fine for the GOP base-- but NY-19 is not some backward rural district in Oklahoma or Alabama. The PVI is supposedly a deceptive R+2 but Obama won it both times he ran and it was only Hillary's lousy campaign and flaws as a candidate that gave Trump his win there (50.8% to 44.0%).

Peter Roskam is another one the need to rein in spending on entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. That's a bad idea in Chicagoland. IL-06 gave Obama a win over McCain, Romney a win over Obama and Hillary a 7 point win over Trump (50.2% to 43.2%). The PVI is also a deceptive R+2. The Democratic candidate, Sean Casten, isn't especially strong but it's a neck-and-neck race that Roskam's to lose by talking about cutting Social Security and Medicare.

Very similar story in Texas' 7th district (Houston), where the Democrats nominated a weak candidate, Lizzie Fletcher, but where Hillary narrowly edged Trump (48.5% to 47.1%). Incumbent John Culberson is a poor campaigner. Fletcher has outraised him, $2,312,615 to $2,007,183 and he will be committing political suicide if he embraces-- as he appears to be doing-- an all base strategy. Fletcher isn't capable of winning this race; Culberson is very capable of losing it.

Again, Owens explained the risk to Republicans like Culberson: Although the bet is that the GOP base is concerned with deficits, "as soon as the other side switches to 'you're going to cut back Medicare and Social Security,' you're on the wrong side," Blendon said. "The highest turnout rates are among people above 60." Like clockwork, the DNC blasted out an email criticizing Kudlow's comments, saying that he "admitted that Republicans will try to cut vital programs relied upon by millions of working families."

Señor Trumpanzee's Speech This Morning Didn't Go Over That Well

My pal Roland texted me moments after Trump got up in front of the UN and he appeared relieved (and duped): "He sounds as normal as any American president." Another minute or two passed before his next text: "He's out of his mind, going crazy in front of the UN... attacking everyone." Let's see... what's the population of North Korea that he threatened to "totally destroy?" Ah, yes... 25.37 million, most of whom are the victims of the fascist state there. "Hey Roland, I don't remember any other American president-- or even any Brits-- quoting Elton John before. You?" By the end of the speech Roland was relieved Trump didn't take off his shoe and start banging it it on the lectern but he did end our text conversation as he entered his classroom in Compton by sending me this message: "Whatever else you might think of Trump, you have to admit he's stupid and he's very dangerous."

She packed my bags last night, preflight
Zero hour, nine a.m.
And I'm gonna be high
As a kite by then

I miss the earth so much
I miss my wife
It's lonely out in space
On such a timeless flight

And I think it's gonna be a long, long, time
'Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh, no no no
I'm a rocket man
Rocket man
Burnin' out this fuse
Up here alone

And I think it's gonna be a long, long, time
'Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Oh, no no no
I'm a rocket man
Rocket man
Burnin' out this fuse
Up here alone

Mars ain't the kind of place
To raise your kids
In fact, it's cold as hell
And there's no one there to raise them
If you did

And all this science
I don't understand
It's just my job
Five days a week
A rocket man
Rocket Man

And I think it's gonna be a long, long, time
'Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Ah, no no no...
I'm a rocket man
Rocket man
Burnin' out this fuse
Up here alone

And I think it's gonna be a long, long, time
'Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find
I'm not the man they think I am at home
Ah, no no no...
I'm a rocket man
Rocket man
Burnin' out this fuse
Up here alone

Eric Bauman is the chairman of the California Democratic Party. He has a way with words: "Donald Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly should terrify every American. It’s clear that the peace and safety of the world is caught up between two crazy men locked in a contest to see whose rockets are bigger and shoot farther. The neocons cheering on Trump’s reckless bluster should keep in mind the fact that tens of thousands of American soldiers stationed in South Korea and hundreds of thousands of innocent Korean citizens could be killed in the opening moments of the war Donald Trump just threatened-- just as they should remember that a war between two nuclear powers could easily spill out of control and kill hundreds of millions of people. For the safety and security of the world, Congress must act to constrain Trump’s ability to drag us into a long, bloody war over his pathetic, macho posturing."

I'm guessing that when Señor Trumpanzee spouted that "If the righteous many don’t confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph," we were all thinking the same thing about who the wicked few are. Unfortunately many were also interpreting this in a different way from what Trumpanzee meant it to mean: "The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose exports are violence, bloodshed and chaos." And everyone shuddered when the orange baboon said the world faces "great peril."

The Guardian's Jerusalem correspondent, Peter Beaumont, told his readers that Netanyahu "could have written the section on Iran so closely does it ally with his own views on the threat posed by Tehran." Netanyahu: "In my more than 30 years at the UN, I have never heard such a brave and clear speech. President Trump told the truth about the world’s lurking dangers, and called for them to be addressed with fortitude, to ensure the future of mankind."

I asked a friend of mine who's part of France's delegation to the UN what kind of reaction Trump's rant was getting there. He told me most people expected Trump to brag about his electoral victory over Clinton. He also said he won a bet with a diplomat from Chad about whether Trump would criticize Russia and another bet with a diplomat from India about whether or not Trump would demand Mexico pay for his wall. The Venezuelan foreign minister:

I'm sure Paul Ryan will claim to be delighted with Trump's rant. But he progressive opponent in Wisconsin, Randy Bryce was anything but delighted: "I couldn’t believe what I heard come out of Donald Trump’s mouth this morning. In front of the assembled United Nations delegates he threatened to annihilate North Korea while referring to their leader as 'rocket man.' I fully understand that North Korea is an issue, but, to antagonize them in such a high school manner is outrageous. He also went on to slam an agreement that we have entered into with Iran while snubbing them as well. This isn’t leadership-- this is being a bully. This is how to make America hated. If we don’t take back Congress in 2018, we very well may see ourselves being considered as a rogue nation."

Doug Applegate, Ted Lieu, Randy Bryce

Last night Ted Lieu hosted an event for his Manhattan Beach constituents and invited Randy and to be his guest. This morning he and Randy were obviously on the same page about the UN rant. Ted: "President Trump’s speech to the United Nations will be remembered not for rallying the international community around our common challenges, but instead for threatening another nation with annihilation. Let us be clear: the issue is not whether the U.S. is capable of destroying North Korea, but rather whether we are willing to allow South Korea, Japan, and potentially Guam to be destroyed in the process-- along with hundreds of thousands of American lives. Name-calling and brash rhetoric make America neither great nor safe. I am also disappointed that President Trump failed to include a single mention of climate change, which poses an existential threat to America and the world."

Matt Cartwright (D-PA) is one of the few progressive Democrats who represents a district Trump won in. He told us he joins "with most Americans in believing that military action is a very last resort, and must be entertained only after all diplomatic efforts have failed. Saber-rattling and name-calling do not count as diplomacy. The United States should be looking for ways to de-escalate this conflict, not turn it into a nuclear crisis. We should be turning our energies toward lining up international support for more crippling sanctions, not impairing our own credibility with Twitter rants. We should be thinking about how to give this dictator a path to a face-saving retraction of his nuclear ambitions, not provoking him with loudmouth schoolyard taunts. I am thinking of the hundreds of thousands of American citizens in that region, and I do not like where this is going."

After reading his teleprompter speech Bannon didn't write for him, he casually told reporters, "I think the United Nations has great, great potential."

What Are The Odds That Trump Blunders Into A Major Middle East War?

Israel's friends? Really?

The American right— from right-wing Democrats like Joe Manchin to the National Review and Weekly Standard to fire-breathing assholes like Ted Cruz, Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin and, of course, el President-elect Señor Trumpanzee— is melting down over the relatively benign UN Security Council resolution that went un-vetoed by the Obama Administration. Texas defunder, Ted Cruz, said that he will make sure the UN doesn’t;’t get any more American money unless they reverse the decision. The vote was 14-0 to tell Israel to stop stealing Palestinian land for Israeli settlements in the Occupied territories.

Over in Israel, however, not everyone feels the same was Trump ands Cruz do. Haaretz ran an OpEd by Gideon Levy that was very different from Netanyahu’s stand. He called the resolution “a gust of good news, a great of hope in the sea of darkness and despair of recent years.”

Just when it seemed that everything was going downhill – the deepening occupation increasingly supported by America, with Europe galloping to the right – along came a Hanukkah resolution that lights a thin candle. When it seemed that the evil ones would remain victorious, along came New Zealand and three other countries and gave the world a Christmas gift.

So thanks to New Zealand, Venezuela and Malaysia. True, the Christmas tree they’ve supplied, with all its sparkling lights, will soon be removed; Donald Trump is already waiting at the gate. But the imprint will remain. Until then, this temporary rejoicing is a joy, despite the expected hangover.

We of course must ask U.S. President Barack Obama in fury: Now you’re doing something? And we must ask the world in frustration: What about actions? But it’s impossible to ignore the Security Council decision that rules that all the settlements are illegal by nature.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can call back his ambassadors, while his right-hand minister Yuval Steinitz can shriek that the resolution is “unfair.” (He has a sense of humor.) And opposition leader Isaac Herzog can babble that “we need to fight the decision with all means.” But there isn’t a person in the world with a conscience who won’t rejoice over the resolution.

There also isn’t a decent Israeli who must fall for the propaganda that calls the resolution “anti-Israeli,” a definition that the Israeli media rushed to adopt – with its characteristic slavishness, of course.

This decision has brought Israel back to the solid ground of reality. All the settlements, including in the territories that have been annexed, including in East Jerusalem of course, are a violation of international law. In other words, they are a crime. No country in the world thinks otherwise. The entire world thinks so – all Israel’s so-called friends and all its so-called enemies – unanimously.

Most probably the tools of brainwashing in Israel, along with the mechanisms of repression and denial, will try to undermine the decision. But when the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia unite in such a clear statement, this will be difficult work.

So you can say “the entire world is against us.” You can scream “anti-Semitism!” You can ask “What about Syria?” In the end this clear-as-crystal truth will remain: The world thinks that the settlements are a crime. All the settlements and all the world.

True, the world doesn’t lift a finger to have the settlements removed, but maybe one day this will happen. Still, it will be too late by then, too late.

Resolution 2334 artificially distinguishes between Israel and the settlements in that it is aimed at the settlements, not the occupation. As if the guilt of Amona were on its settlers and not all Israelis. This deception proves how much the world continues to treat Israel with leniency and hesitates to takes steps against it, as it did with Russia’s conquest of Crimea, for example.

But Israelis who don’t live in Amona, who have never been there, who have no real interest in its fate – it seems most Israelis – have to ask themselves: Is it really worth it? All this for a few settlers they don’t know and don’t really want to know?

Resolution 2334 is meant above all for Israeli ears, like an alarm clock that makes sure to wake you up on time, like a siren that tells you to go down to the bomb shelter. True, the resolution has no concrete value; true, the new U.S. administration promises to erase it.

But two questions won’t let up: Why don’t the Palestinians deserve exactly the same thing that Israelis deserve, and how much can one country, with all its lobbying power, weapons and high-tech, ignore the entire world? On this first day of both Hanukkah and Christmas, we can enjoy, if only for a moment, the sweet illusion that Resolution 2334 will rouse these questions in Israel.

I hope someone asks Trump or Ted Cruz or Lindsey Graham… oh, and Chuck Schumer.

Will China Be the Enforcer of the Paris Climate Agreement?

Greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants

by Gaius Publius

It's amazing what can be done by a government determined to do it. In the U.S., our approach to the climate crisis is to use the "invisible hand" of the market and be careful not to get in the way of "wealth creation" (for billionaires). The Chinese don't have those constraints. Yes, they want to make their billionaires wealthier, but that's not their primary goal. There's a very nationalist strain in China, and to a greater extent, I think, than in the U.S., the Chinese government wants what's best for China, and not just its wealthy.

Put differently, the economic policy of the Chinese government is to grow the country, including its billionaires. It often seems that U.S. economic policy is to grow our billionaires at the expense of the country. That may be no more evident than in the following story.

"You Talk about Fixing the Climate, But What about China?"

One of the main reasons the climate foot-draggers, in both parties, want to go slow on climate in the U.S. (aside both parties' allegiance to "wealth creation") is the China argument. In simple form, it says, "Whatever the U.S. does to save the climate will be undone by China, so why bother?" I don't think that argument holds true any longer.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, writing in The Telegraph (my emphasis):

China is the low-carbon superpower and will be the ultimate enforcer of the COP21 climate deal in Paris

Chinese scientists have published two alarming reports in a matter of weeks. Both conclude that the Himalayan glaciers and the Tibetan permafrost are succumbing to catastrophic climate change, threatening the water systems of the Yellow River, the Yangtze and the Mekong.

The Tibetan plateau is the world’s "third pole", the biggest reservoir of fresh water outside the Arctic and Antarctica. The area is warming at twice the global pace, making it the epicentre of global climate risk.

One report was by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The other was a 900-page door-stopper from the science ministry, called the “Third National Assessment Report on Climate Change”.

The latter is the official line of the Communist Party. It states that China has already warmed by 0.9-1.5 degrees over the past century – higher than the global average - and may warm by a further five degrees by 2100, with effects that would overwhelm the coastal cities of Shanghai, Tianjin and Guangzhou. The message is that China faces a civilizational threat.

Whether or not you accept the hypothesis of man-made global warming is irrelevant. The Chinese Academy and the Politburo do accept it. So does President Xi Jinping, who spent his Cultural Revolution carting coal in the mining region of Shaanxi. This political fact is tectonic for the global fossil industry and the economics of energy.

Until last Saturday, it was an article of faith among Western climate sceptics and some in the fossil industry that China would never sign up to the COP21 accord in Paris or accept the "ratchet" of five-year reviews.

They have since fallen back to a second argument, claiming that the deal is meaningless because China will not sacrifice coal-driven growth to please the West, and without China the accord unravels since it now emits as much CO2 as the US and Europe combined.

This political judgment was perhaps plausible three or four years ago in the dying days of the Hu Jintao era. Today it is clutching at straws.

Eight of the world’s biggest solar companies are Chinese. So is the second biggest wind power group, GoldWind. China invested $90bn in renewable energy last year and is already the superpower of low-carbon industries. It installed more solar in the first quarter than currently exists in France.

The Chinese plan to build six to eight nuclear plants every year, reaching 110 by 2030. They intend to lever this into worldwide nuclear dominance, as we glimpsed from the Hinkley Point saga.

Home-grown energy is central to Xi Jinping's drive for strategic security. China's leaders know what happened to Japan under Roosevelt's energy embargo in the late 1930s, and they don't trust the sea lanes for supplies of coal and liquefied natural gas. Nor do they relish reliance on Russian gas.

Isabel Hilton from China Dialogue says the energy shift has reached a point where Beijing has a vested commercial interest in holding the world to the Paris deal. “The Chinese think they can dominate low-carbon technologies,” she said....

Do read the rest; it's fascinating.

The Chinese Century & the Next Great Power Source

There are a couple of takeaways here. One relates to the fact that, as we all know, the U.S. has been competing economically with China to make sure the 21st century won't be the Chinese Century the way the 20th century was the American Century.

So the first takeaway is this — thanks to our billionaires and their control of the U.S. political process, that competition is over. In a world without a climate crisis, China will win economically. The U.S. has already, as part of an unspoken national economic policy, handed China control of the world's manufacturing, in exchange for major additions to American CEO bottom lines, like Phil Knight's at Nike. Put simply, U.S. national economic policy is to make China and Phil Knight rich at the expense of most Americans. Both China and Phil Knight have taken that deal.

The second takeaway is an insight from Kevin Phillips' book American Theocracy, that world power ("greatness") moves to the country that adopts the next great power source. For a while, the Dutch dominated with wind power (they really did), until coal power allowed the British to take their place as the world's leading nation. The U.S. ran its economy on oil, not coal, and supplanted the British. The next great energy source is going to be renewables (if we can get to a stable world run on renewables).

The Chinese are counting on that being true, that the first nation that owns and runs on renewables is the next great national power. They want to control the world's manufacturing and control the next-generation power source. They see this as their path to the Chinese Century, and they're going to try very hard to get there. Again, from the article: “The Chinese think they can dominate low-carbon technologies”. In a world without catastrophic climate change, it's likely they're right.

But the third takeaway is this:

• If I'm right that we have at most 10 years to start a massive conversion to zero-carbon power generation in the U.S....
   
• If warming of at least +1.5 °C is "baked in" and guaranteed no matter what we do, and not stopping means we can only go higher that that...
   
• If we don't soon have a national "wake up call" that motivates us to emergency action...

... then no one will own this century, not us, not the Chinese, not anyone, because it won't be ownable. If we're lucky, civilization will survive this century more or less intact. Period. Every nation will spend its energy in adaptation, not expansion; in survival and self-preservation, not dominance. Consider, for example, that if 45°N latitude is the cutoff point for livability in the second half of a hot next century, China's breadbasket, the North China Plain, at about 39°N could be at risk. That's where China will spend its time and money. We may have similar problems.

Dismissing the "China Argument"

It's true that we can't "fix" (mitigate, in climate-speak) or avoid the worst of the climate crisis without both the U.S. and China lending a serious hand. If the Chinese are going to do their part — and it looks like they are — it does come down to us then. The Chinese are not saying, "Let's wait for the U.S. before we get serious." They're taking a leadership role and acting. Time to take a page from that book and do our own part? Looks like the "China argument" just went away.

GP

A Look at the Scope of the Climate Work Ahead

by Gaius Publius

One small but important piece of the climate puzzle post-Paris is the vast divide between the stated aspirational goal — to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degree Celsius over the pre-industrial level — and the commitments made by nations to achieve that goal. Naomi Klein expresses the problem very well in the short video above.

In sum (my emphasis):

The Paris Climate Deal Will Not Save Us

The agreement will still raise global temperatures 3 to 4 degrees Celsius.

... The climate deal that has been negotiated at COP21 crossed multiple red lines: Scientific red lines, equity red lines, legal red lines, and more. The emissions targets outlined in the deal still amount to increases of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius—an increase incompatible with organized civil society. So today, protesters came together in the center of Paris to say that the deal cannot be the end of our climate justice struggle. ...

I referenced that data here, quoting Scientific American (my emphasis):

It is still difficult to say how much temperatures will rise by 2050 or 2100 due to the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere known as the warming in the pipeline. There is a lag between any rise in CO2 levels and the heating that results, so the planet is locked in to further warming and to the chief repercussions such as further sea level rise. But the IPCC has released good estimates of the pipeline: the best case is that the average global temperature at the Earths surface will rise 1.5 degrees C by 2100, compared with 1990 levels. The worst case is 4.5 degrees C, and the most likely case is 3 degrees C.

In his own assessment of the numbers, Dana Nuccitelli, a physicist who writes at the Skeptical Science blog known for deep analysis of these matters notes that the 1.5 degrees C case would only be possible if the world stopped increasing emissions by 2020 and then began reducing them by 3.5 percent a year. As he notes, that scenario involves extremely aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Best case–worst case analyses express a range with probabilities (likelihoods) assigned to values within that range. Here, the range of the warming in the pipeline is between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, with the highest likelihood value being 3°C. Note that this is just the statistical most likely outcome out of a range of possible outcomes under a given analytic scenario. Still, the lowest number in that range is already 1.5°C warming.

Other Studies Confirm This Conclusion

Compare that analysis, from the IPCC, with this very similar finding, from a peer-reviewed paper published in PNAS. The abstract is below (language alert, this is science-talk, but understandable if you take it slow; my emphasis):

On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: Formidable challenges ahead

The observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) since the preindustrial era has most likely committed the world to a warming of 2.4°C (1.4°C to 4.3°C) above the preindustrial surface temperatures. The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity. The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels but without any other anthropogenic forcing such as the cooling effect of aerosols [airborne particles from burning coal]. The range of 1.4°C to 4.3°C in the committed warming overlaps and surpasses the currently perceived threshold range of 1°C to 3°C for dangerous anthropogenic interference with many of the climate-tipping elements such as the summer arctic sea ice, Himalayan–Tibetan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. IPCC models suggest that ~25% (0.6°C) of the committed warming has been realized as of now. About 90% or more of the rest of the committed warming of 1.6°C will unfold during the 21st century, determined by the rate of the unmasking of the aerosol cooling effect by air pollution abatement laws and by the rate of release of the GHGs-forcing stored in the oceans. The accompanying sea-level rise can continue for more than several centuries. Lastly, even the most aggressive CO2 mitigation steps as envisioned now can only limit further additions to the committed warming, but not reduce the already committed GHGs warming of 2.4°C.

Notice that their most-likely (highest probability) temperature is not exactly halfway between the extremes, but still, these findings are very similar to the IPCC's. Caveat one: These are models, not measurements. Caveat two: Most models are wrong to the slow side.

Giving Fire Back to Prometheus

Does this mean we're "doomed"? Not in my estimation. But I agree with those who left Paris with guarded optimism. Yes, it matters a great deal, the admission that 2°C is the wrong target. But there's one whale of a lot of work to do to force the desired result — hold warming to "just" 1.5°C, and then bring it down by planting and reforestation.

This may be the hardest work this species has ever done. In the beginning, as we emerged into civilization, we were given fire as a source of energy — all we had to do was light it.

Prometheus, bringer of fire, punished for the crime of rendering less "the sum of human wretchedness" (Byron). Can we replace his gift with another?

Now at the other end of our civilized life, we have all the fire we want — all we have to do is not light it.

Two Ways You Can Help

I've urged this before, but in light of the above it bears repeating endlessly. The paper I cited said unequivocally (my emphasis): "The estimated warming of 2.4°C is the equilibrium warming above preindustrial temperatures that the world will observe even if GHG concentrations are held fixed at their 2005 concentration levels". Holding "concentrations" fixed means making sure the current atmospheric CO2 concentration — 400 ppm — not increase. It means ... well, "stop now," right?

There's only one scenario under which that is remotely achievable. Let's say the "now" in "stop now" is 10 years, that the U.S. converts to 100% renewable energy in 10 years' time. I hear from friends in the renewables industry that this is doable if sufficient resources are committed to the task. We have those resources, just as we had them in World War II, but the "free market" won't solve this one, certainly not at the speed needed, and everyone reading this knows that. The "free market" is what David Koch manipulates every day of his life to increase his wealth. Only the government can force commitment of resources on the scale necessary, and I think everyone reading this knows that as well.

So the first way to achieve this goal is to spread the word as far and wide as you can — that a World War II-style mobilization is the answer, and the only one, in the long term. One group that's spreading that word is these people. You can help, either by joining with them or just by saying this to everyone you know:

"To get the best climate result, stop emissions completely at the earliest date possible. Every increase from 400 ppm is another climate wound our children will bear."

I mean exactly that: Say it to everyone and say it now. If Florida real estate became worthless tomorrow and the whole country freaked about it, we'd have one shot to direct that energy. Let's direct it to a solution that can work. Again, your voice — Stop Now, Mobilize Now — is as needed as anyone else's.

A second way to help, and I mean this too, is to back Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. Sanders gets it on climate, and he's the only viable candidate not beholden to the money that owns this country and its governance. You can contribute to his campaign here (adjust the split any way you like at the link). And thanks!

GP

The Paris Climate Conundrum — Three Facts and a Question

He's been to London and to Gay Paree. A fine live performance (source)

by Gaius Publius

I'll publish a fuller analysis of the Paris climate agreement in due time — yes, climate negotiators in Paris did reach an agreement — but for those fresh to the news, I'd like you to put three facts together, then ask a question. Note: This is not a "give up" post. It's a "what the right next move" post. First, the three facts. 

1. World Leaders Agree — Two Degrees Warming Is Too Much

I'll let Bill McKibben tell this part of the story:

In the agreement, the world promises to hold the rise in the planet’s temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius. Heck, it promises to aim for 1.5 degrees, which is extraordinary. It’s what actually needs to be done; if we succeeded, it might just head off complete calamity. (We’re now at 1 degree above average pre-industrial temperatures, and considering what that’s already done in terms of melt, flood, and drought, 1.5 C will still be trouble, but maybe manageable trouble.)

He quotes the preamble to the Paris agreement (pdf):

Emphasizing with serious concern the urgent need to address the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C …

So that's fact one, and your first major takeaway. World leaders want to hold global warming to "well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels" and are shooting to "limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C".

2. If We Stop Emissions Today, 1.5 Degrees Is Still Guaranteed

If your car is moving at 60 mph and you slam on the brakes, will it stop instantly? Of course not. It will continue to move a certain amount. That "certain amount" in the world of DMV tests is called the "braking distance" for a given speed. You'd be foolish not to take it into account. If you put take a roast out of a hot oven and set it on a cool surface, it will continue to cook for a while, and a meat thermometer would show that. (Same with your hand, by the way, if you touch a hot stove. Done that.)

In the climate world, the tendency to continue to cook is called "in the pipeline" warming, and it reflects what they call "climate latency" — the lag between a force applied (a single-pulse emission of a greenhouse gas, say) and the final effect on surface temperature after equilibrium is reached. It's the temperature at equilibrium that counts, since that's the world we'll be living in. (Other temperatures, such as "global warming by 2100," are called transient temperatures, since they're on the way to something else.)

Turns out, if we stop today, most best-estimates of the equilibrium temperature — the temperature after everything still "in the pipeline" is accounted for — is 1.5°C. Let's look at just a few of the people saying this:

Scientific American (my emphasis throughout):

It is still difficult to say how much temperatures will rise by 2050 or 2100 due to the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere known as the warming in the pipeline. There is a lag between any rise in CO2 levels and the heating that results, so the planet is locked in to further warming and to the chief repercussions such as further sea level rise. But the IPCC has released good estimates of the pipeline: the best case is that the average global temperature at the Earths surface will rise 1.5 degrees C by 2100, compared with 1990 levels. The worst case is 4.5 degrees C, and the most likely case is 3 degrees C.

In his own assessment of the numbers, Dana Nuccitelli, a physicist who writes at the Skeptical Science blog known for deep analysis of these matters notes that the 1.5 degrees C case would only be possible if the world stopped increasing emissions by 2020 and then began reducing them by 3.5 percent a year. As he notes, that scenario involves extremely aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reductions.

Skeptical Science:

[Climate skeptic (!) Christopher] Monckton, on the other hand, is calculating how much surface warming remains "in the pipeline" from the CO2 we've already emitted, due to the thermal lag of warming the oceans, and the fact that there is still a planetary energy imbalance. We can calculate this by instead plugging in the current CO2 concentration (390 ppm [at that time]) into the formula above:

dT = 0.8*5.35*ln(390/280) = 1.4°C

Since the surface air has warmed about 0.8°C above pre-industrial levels thus far, there remains approximately 0.6°C warming "in the pipeline" from the CO2 we've emitted to this point, roughly consistent with Monckton's calculations (0.7°C).

That was written in 2011, and we've certainly emitted a lot more since then, so the "pipeline"' number has moved. If you recalculate the formula with 400 ppm instead of 390, you get 1.526°C. Note that our emissions are also accelerating.

Finally, Dr. Michael Mann, from an interview I did with him in October 2014 (listen here). His best estimate of the "in the pipeline" number gives us a Stop Now equilibrium temperature of ... 1.5°C. Remember, the final number depends on the climate system reaching equilibrium — "settling down," in other words, after period of imbalance due to the force of new atmospheric CO2.

3. If We Never Stop Emissions, the In-the-Pipeline Number Keeps Going Up

And finally, to just say the obvious, the equilibrium number keeps going up with each new ton of atmospheric CO2 we add. Global carbon emissions are currently at 10 GtC (gigatons of carbon) per year. Our atmospheric concentration (ppm) is at 400 ppm and rising at more than 2.1 ppm per year. Our current "stop now" equilibrium number is already 1.5°C. We haven't stopped, and Paris, so far, isn't an agreement to stop emitting CO2, simply to slow down.

Those are simply facts. So...

Question: What Should We Do In Response?

This is the question. I don't mean "what should world leaders do in response?" We know what they will do — the best the owners of the world's wealth will let them.

The question is — what should we do, the ones who will be left behind when they take their corporate jets to Sweden and Canada forever, to inhabit their new, climate-safe homes and leave the wreck to us? We have time — I give us a window of 5-10 years unless truly catastrophic tipping points are reached. What should we do with that time?

I think the climate movement is clear on half the answer: We should do everything we can. I don't think it's as clear on the schedule: The press for the end result — zero emissions — has to start immediately and be pursued more aggressively than the "free market" will allow. Otherwise, the math is against us.

With that in mind, I challenge you — what next steps would you consider, assuming you chose to help, if you knew we had five years, and only that?

As I said, I'll have a fuller analysis of Paris in due time. These are the big ones, though; three facts and a question. (If your answer to the question tends toward the electoral, you might consider supporting this guy, the only viable candidate who seems to get it; adjust the split any way you like at the link.)

GP

About That Blackmail Deal in Paris...

"Loss and Damage": U.S. Stymies Push for Compensation for Climate Devastation at U.N. Climate Summit (source)

by Gaius Publius

More about the Paris climate blackmail deal we wrote about recently, the offer by the U.S. delegation (and others in its camp) that they would agree to a lower cap on global warming — a less-damaging 1.5°C ceiling instead of 2°C — in exchange for the most vulnerable nations never again asking for reparations, i.e., damage liability claims.

The video at the top is telling and not very long. I suggest listening through. The transcript with my annotations is below. But first, five climate-related terms you should know:

• Adaptation — How a group or a nation protects itself against damage due to climate change. For example, putting up a sea wall to offset sea level rise is an adaptation.
   
• Mitigation — How a group or a nation helps to lessen the severity of climate-caused damage. For example, eliminating carbon emissions and replanting forests are mitigations.
   
• "Loss and damage" — Destruction of property or well-being, suffered by of a group or nation, caused by climate change. For example, loss can include destruction of a coastal village or a town due to flooding after permanent sea level rise. Examples of loss are numerous and varied; economically, for instance, a whole region's agriculture industry could completely disappear if a climate-induced drought never lifts.
   
• "Liability and compensation" — Payment for climate-induced "loss and damage" by those responsible for climate change. The developed countries are universally recognized as the greatest cause of climate change, since they burned the most accumulated atmospheric carbon. "Loss" is what's suffered. "Compensation" is what's paid by those responsible.
   
• "Finance" — In the world of U.N. climate negotiations, finance is code for "money made available to nations like India so that they can pay for ("finance") solar power projects, for example, instead of coal-fired power plants. Under the reported U.S.-backed offer, no additional money will be made available for "finance."

Losses occur to the small, poor, vulnerable nations first — low-lying Bangladesh, for example, or any number of small island countries. It's beyond question that the majority of climate-caused losses result from the two centuries of fossil fuel use that created the wealth of the developed nations, like the U.S. and Western Europe. Most of those emissions are still in the air and they still warm the earth.

Cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850 (click to enlarge; source)

The U.S.-led group of developed nations is telling the poorer and more vulnerable nations, in effect, "We'll commit to a lower warming limit, and we'll put more money for damage compensation on the table. But if you agree to this deal, that's all you get. You agree to never again to ask for more money. You release the developed nations, in other words, from all future claims of liability." In short, you can talk about your losses, but not about compensation for them.

As you'll hear in the interview, there's also a certain amount of strong-arm going on to get the smaller nations to accept this deal. Ugly stuff.

The Democracy Now piece is introduced this way:

On Monday, the prime minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, said world leaders must prevent the world from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Many of the countries most impacted by climate change—but who did little to cause it—are also calling for the U.N. climate agreement to include compensation for adjusting to climate change, known as "Loss and Damage." But documents obtained by our guest reveal the United States is pushing these countries to forgo such rights. Nitin Sethi is senior associate editor at the Business Standard in India. His recent piece is called "US and EU want Loss and Damage as a toothless tiger in Paris agreement."

Now the transcript with my interspersed comments.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re broadcasting from Le Bourget, Paris, France, from the COP21, the U.N. climate summit. We’re here for the full two weeks. We end today’s show with an update in the negotiations taking place here at the summit. On Monday, the prime minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, said world leaders must prevent the world from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.

PRIME MINISTER ENELE SOPOAGA: At the current warming, my country, Tuvalu, and many others like us in the Pacific, Caribbean and Indian Ocean, our future is already bleak. We must urgently cut greenhouse gases and dramatically transform the global economy to a renewable energy pathway. Any further temperature increase beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius will spell—will spell the total demise of Tuvalu and other low-lying and island nations.

As you'll see later in this piece, the minister quoted above was the subject of some "pressure" to take a less strong stance. Now the main interview (my emphasis throughout):

AMY GOODMAN: Joining us now is Nitin Sethi, senior associate editor at the Business Standard in India. His recent piece is called "US and EU want Loss and Damage as a toothless tiger in Paris agreement." "Toothless tiger," Nitin, what exactly do you mean? You got a hold of documents that most people haven’t seen.

NITIN SETHI: Loss and damage, as an issue, refers to a couple of things. One, primarily, it’s been about that if you cannot adapt to inevitable climate change, what do countries do? They will suffer loss and damage. And will they be able to seek compensation? Will they be able to claim liability cases against countries which have not cut their emissions enough? Now, in this case, the U.S., particularly, on the Umbrella Group [presumably a group of developed nations that the U.S. is negotiating for], and then supported by EU, they’ve come back and said, "We want to make sure that in Paris you actually forgo all your compensation rights in the future," saying, "You must explicitly say that you shall never, ever ask for compensation hereafter the"—

AMY GOODMAN: Wait. Wait, wait, wait. So they’re saying you can use the words "loss and damage."

NITIN SETHI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: The United States is saying.

NITIN SETHI: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: But only if you agree that you don’t get compensation.

NITIN SETHI: Absolutely. Now, that really means loss and damage is only a notional idea at the end of the day. You’re looking at risk insurance at the best of the times that might comfort some countries, but the poor countries can’t afford insurance because the premiums are going to be so high. So consider the fact that if you have sea level change, no insurance company is going to ensure you against sea level rise, because it’s almost a certainty. The risk levels are so high. The premiums are going to be so high, the poor countries can’t afford it. So the only option they had in the long run was some hope that you would be compensated, in different ways, and there could be liability charges, where if the countries haven’t cut their emissions enough, which causes the climate change, they should be paying for it. Now, U.S. is saying, "We want to cut this off right away. We should never have a conversation about it hereafter."

Notice the bolded part above. Sethi is saying that the vulnerable nations, if they suffer "loss and damage," might seek "compensation" from nations that are liable because they have not met their carbon emissions goals. The U.S. (Obama and Kerry) and the group of nations on whose behalf they are offering this deal want to forestall those claims.

Now about the framing. I think in the U.S. particularly, claims against the money of the wealthy are positioned as requests, claims against our generosity. Goodman asks about that:

AMY GOODMAN: So, I think it’s framed in the United States as a kind of—should the U.S. be charitable for those who are less able to take care of themselves in other parts of the world?

NITIN SETHI: Well, I don’t think it’s about charity. You’re paying compensation for the damage you’ve caused to your neighbor, in some sense. You break somebody’s fence, you set it upright. This is when you’re destroying lives of people, you’re paying them compensation for the fact that they will never be able to live in their homelands, perhaps, thereafter. This is not charity. This is a completely different ballgame.

Sethi has gotten his hands on some documents that back this up:

AMY GOODMAN: So what are these documents that you’ve gotten?

NITIN SETHI: Well, the document is an offer that the U.S. made informally to the G77 and other developing country groups, saying, "This is loss and damage. I agree to this. But if you have this explicit one sentence saying you shall forgo all rights to compensation and lability."

Barack Obama is personally involved in these "negotiations," in presenting this offer. Note how Obama first positions himself:

AMY GOODMAN: Now, President Obama met with small island nation presidents.

NITIN SETHI: Mm-hmm, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: This is—is this actually what he was telling them? We got the word he said, "I’m an island boy myself, right, grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia."

NITIN SETHI: Absolutely. Well, as per all countries, I think there’s a big degree of game that they all play, a theatric that they play. If you look at what happened after President Obama met these few countries—say, Marshall Islands, Saint Lucia and others—each of them came out saying, "Well, we’re working with the U.S. for a language which is convenient to the U.S." Now, that actually signifies that there’s a break even amongst what’s called the Association of Small Island States, which is comprised of Caribbean island states, those in the Pacific, those in the Indian Ocean and the African region. The Association of the Island States are cracking away under the pressure from U.S. We’ve seen the Caribbean islands move away. In fact, we hear now that even Tuvalu is saying, "Maybe we can live with the fact that we’ll not have compensation." This has happened just about an hour ago, where Tuvalu, behind closed doors, said, "We can look for language that, you know, kind of makes you happy. Just don’t say it so loudly. Say it in a polite fashion that we have a face saver at the end of the day."

The bolded part above refers to the representative from Tuvalu, whose minister is quoted speaking in strong terms at the beginning of this clip. This speaks to the strong-arm going on. These nations really are weak, pawns in the game of international chess, finance and development. There are many ways the powerful can "influence" them to back away from threats to the money of the wealthier nations.

Which leads to this exchange, about strong-arming from the U.N. itself:

AMY GOODMAN: You also talk about U.N. censorship. What is that?

NITIN SETHI: Sorry. Could you say that again?

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about U.N. censorship? What I mean is, we spoke to Yeb Saño the other day. Now he is a pilgrim who walked from Rome here to Paris, but he’s not the chief climate negotiator for the Philippines, as he was. He was pulled right before Lima, Peru, the last COP ["Conference of the Parties"].

NITIN SETHI: Absolutely.

AMY GOODMAN: What happens to climate negotiators who speak out?

NITIN SETHI: I mean, if you remember, you can go back to Copenhagen, where you had Di-Aping Lumumba from Sudan. If you remember, he was the first one to talk about issues of apartheid, the way developing countries were being treated. We never saw him back in the negotiations thereafter. It’s happened to Yeb Saño two years ago, because he fought really hard to get loss and damage in when nobody else was standing up for it. He disappeared. In fact, so far, the Philippines had to walk away. Philippines was forced to move away from the like-minded developing countries, because they were pretty strong. Now Philippines is part of the vulnerable countries group, where they actually don’t have a stand on loss and damage anymore. This year, again, if you remember, a few days ago, the G77 chair, Ambassador Diseko from South Africa, she actually on the court said, "My country is getting phone calls saying take certain negotiators out of the talking rooms because they’re being hardliners." And we’ve seen one of the key negotiators for the G77 group was Juan Hoffmaister from Bolivia, and he’s nowhere in the room anymore. And he’s the key guy on loss and damage and adaptation.

AMY GOODMAN: Who’s taking him out? Who’s taking all these people out?

NITIN SETHI: Well, nobody said who’s taking them out. But you clearly know in whose favor it is if you take these guys out. It’s primarily the U.S. and other developed countries. They’re the only ones who make this call to say these specific guys should be removed. And this is not the first time it’s happened. If you remember Bernarditas Muller from Philippines, she doesn’t come from the Philippines badge anymore. Again, Philippines being under pressure not to have these people who know the convention, who know the rules, who know the history of these negotiations.

See what I mean? This is beyond ugly. It's criminal.

Three Takeaways

First, it should be clear by now that no one currently in power in the U.S. — not Obama nor anyone working for him — is negotiating on your behalf. They're negotiating on the behalf of those who put them in power in the first place. That won't change until he is out of office, if then.

Second, the idea of using the force of international litigation is clearly something the Obamas, the Merkels and the Camerons are worried could happen — worried enough that they're willing to burn cred floating a dirty little blackmail deal like this one. That possibility, using international litigation with failure to meet national climate targets as evidence of liability, should be investigated and pursued.

Third, I still think that the main avenue for change will be force of some kind, perhaps of all kinds combined. But if you're electorally inclined, you can support this guy. Of the Democratic candidates with a chance of winning, I take him at his word; he gets it about climate disaster and the need to address it. (You can adjust the split any way you want at the link.)

More on this as it develops. This isn't Copenhagen 2009, with no one paying attention. This is Paris, and the eyes of the drought-filled, drowning world are watching closely.

GP