The actual transcript of President Obama's speech about the most important issue of our lifetime is under the link above. The President's prepared text and my brief commentary follows in end notes:
Copenhagen, Denmark
__________1:
In 1959, celebrated scientist Edward Teller of thermonuclear bomb fame, laid out the case for taking action against “global heating” (as he called climate change), and for motion toward controlled nuclear fusion, to the “Energy and Man” Symposium at Columbia University in NYC before the assembled energy industry elite at their 100th anniversary celebration of the “kicking down” of Colonel Drake’s first petroleum well. His data were the first years of measurements of atmospheric CO2 gathered by (Dr. Keeling for) the “Scripps Institute of California”. After a few pages explanation (http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publish/paulsuckow/Teller_1959_EnergyPatterns.pdfPublish), Dr. Teller summarized for the oil industry:
We can know that his message was received, but not necessarily the reaction to it, based on a follow up question posed by the Dean of Columbia University in the symposium record:
Infamously, the only actions taken by the fossil fuel industry to date are tobacco-style obfuscation of the issues and "greenwashing" via token investments in research of sustainable fuel alternatives while conducting nearly all business as usual for four decades. Unrestrained, by 2009, these efforts paid off handsomely as both Shell and Exxon Mobil surpassed the former Fortune 500 #1 corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, which in turn had unseated the prior long-running global leader, General Motors. For the specific benefit of the Houston area population, lessons should be learned from GM’s experience extending business as usual past due. The former behemoth is now a half-penny stock titled “Motors Liquidation Corporation” (https://www.motorsliquidation.com/), and a serious question of recovery hangs over my beloved City of Detroit and its suburbs.
__________2:
Graphic by Paul M. Suckow relating the reductions envisioned by the failed Kyoto Protocol to the proposed U.S.-Copenhagen plan:
The commitments mentioned in Obama's speech, 17% cut in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020, 30% by 2025, 42% by 2030 and 83% by 2050 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-attend-copenhagen-climate-talks) are based roughly on the late 19th Century assumption that a doubling or halving of CO2e will produce notable effects (http://www.globalwarmingarchive.com/History.aspx). Today, science indicates that exceeding 350 ppm CO2e, not 450, enters a danger zone leading to catastrophic and irreversible changes creating a warmer and more volatile world climate. Based on current science, poorer nations are demanding greater reductions in the use of fossil fuels and in forest degradation than the United States has agreed (or not?) to legislate. It is difficult to mention, but we may had already lost human control of the climate system by 1988, about the time Dr. Teller warned of in note 1 above, also about the time when the U.S. government and the general public first came to notice global warming as an issue (Al Gore’s Senate Hearings gathering evidence from Dr. James E. Hansen in 1988). The commitments Barack Obama noted in his speech today are expected, if followed, to result in 0.9 degrees Celsius (C, 1.6 degrees F) less global temperature increase by 2100 (Climate Scoreboard 2009 http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard). However, this leaves an increase of 3.9 degrees C (7 F) above preindustrial earth. A two degree Celsius (3.6 F) industrialization increase is widely agreed to contain a 50/50 chance of avoiding catastrophic and irreversible climate change (though the actual 50/50 point is probably lower http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0316-climate_probability.html). Poor nations are demanding that temperature increase be held for safety’s sake to 1.5 C (2.7 F) above preindustrial earth, a figure that global greenhouse gas emissions over only the next few years virtually guarantee will be exceeded. Thus it is that experts speak of a rapidly closing window on climate protection.
It may well be that natural reinforcements of human climate forcing are already poised to take the earth back to a long-term average 22 C (warmer by ten degrees Celsius beyond preindustrial earth climate) as was common before any primate species or even the deciduous forests we inhabited existed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562410/). Cold-blooded creatures like the dinosaurs dominated then, and met a spectacularly immediate demise when an impact event comparable in magnitude to our modern greenhouse gas emissions eliminated their habitat.
Or it is thought possible that global climate might move as it once did over millions of years half-way between the 12 C and 22 C steady states, and then slowly return. The only analogous past natural emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG) comparable in amount and speed to the modern anthropogenic pulse did not breach a climate tipping point but resulted in a 200,000 year climate disruption that eventually settled back to normal, so I guess that provides some hope for the future (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/).
__________3:
I worry we are at this time consider the cost of the mitigation described in note 2, variously estimated at up to $2,000 per U.S. family (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-bill-would-come-at-cost-cbo-says-2009-10-14), but not the much greater costs of global adaptation to inevitable effects of near-term climate change (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/report-predicts-significant-risks-to-citys-climate/?scp=4-b&sq=adaptation+planning+climate+change&st=nyt).
Can the rule of law and even vaunted multinational corporate powers be counted on to equitably flex borders and care for moving populations as disasters and sea levels rise? What of the natural and cultural resources that will be inundated? What will “compensation” come to mean when some lose all and others gain relationally due to “acts of God” or uncontrollable human conflicts? Can fire breaks be constructed sufficient to insulate human constructions from widespread large scale forest fires?
And much closer to home, what will we eat? What will we drink? Can the upcoming population of southern Florida be made comfortable and welcome in dry western Cuba? Can permanently inundated infrastructure be safely reused and relocated, or buffered in place adequately? Should planners be concerned about the stability of coastal areas near continental shelf methane hydrates? Can a system of disaster relocation be permanently emplaced that acts to minimize national or global suffering?
__________4:
This becomes a rhetorical question on the final day of the stalemated COP15 Copenhagen climate negotiations. Life appears always more interesting for each succeeding generation, though the levels of change and adaptations have been limited for most of our human past. 72,000 years ago in Africa (the Toba super eruption http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/Joyce/Mulu%20ash/Zielinski__Atmospheric%20effetcs.pdf) and again at the time of the ice age fauna extinction and North American “black mat” deposition 12,900 years ago (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132734.htm) modern man and related species lived for a short time under quite unimaginable conditions. How our species responds to long-term adversity is about to be made apparent. As Obama made clear in his speech text today, we in the world community must bond together or we shall surely perish separately. And we as inheritors of the western capitalist political economy must be especially flexible if human action to preserve the climate is to work in time, or at all. We should heed the world’s cry for the survival of life as we know it, damned be the cost.
* Commentary was provided by Paul M. Suckow, a graduate student at Houston’s Texas Southern University Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs Urban Planning-Environmental Policy doctoral program. The commenting author can be reached at 713-578-2018 or paul.suckow@csd.hctx.net.
December 18, 2009
Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.
So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance. 1
I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.
As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy.
These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.
So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.
After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.
First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions [compared to a 2005 base level] in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation. 2
Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.
Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if – and only if – it is part of the broader accord that I have just described.
Mitigation. Transparency. And [small nation adaptation] financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.
The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world’s fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden.
We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren. 3
Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible. 4
There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.
We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you.
__________1:
The result is that the earth will continue to heat up until
a balance is re-established. Then the earth will be at a
higher temperature and will radiate more. It has been calculated
that a temperature rise corresponding to a l0 percent
increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt
the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities
would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of
the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this
chemical contamination is more serious than most people
tend to believe (Teller in Energy and Man 1960, p.58).
We can know that his message was received, but not necessarily the reaction to it, based on a follow up question posed by the Dean of Columbia University in the symposium record:
Dean Brown: Here is another clarifying question. Would
you please summarize briefly the danger from increased
carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere in this century?
Dr. Teller: At present [1959] the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
has risen by 2 per cent over normal. By 1970, it will
be perhaps 4 per cent, by 1980, 8 per cent, by 1990, 16
percent, if we keep on with our exponential rise in the use of
purely conventional fuels. By that time, there will be a
serious additional impediment for the radiation leaving the
earth. Our planet will get a little warmer. It is hard to say
whether it will be 2 degrees Fahrenheit or only one or 5.
But when the temperature does rise by a few degrees
over the whole globe, there is a possibility that the icecaps
will start melting and the level of the oceans will begin to
rise. Well, I don't know whether they will cover the Empire
State Building or not, but anyone can calculate it by looking
at the map and noting that the icecaps over Greenland
and over Antarctica are perhaps five thousand feet thick
(Teller in Energy and Man 1960, p.70).
Infamously, the only actions taken by the fossil fuel industry to date are tobacco-style obfuscation of the issues and "greenwashing" via token investments in research of sustainable fuel alternatives while conducting nearly all business as usual for four decades. Unrestrained, by 2009, these efforts paid off handsomely as both Shell and Exxon Mobil surpassed the former Fortune 500 #1 corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, which in turn had unseated the prior long-running global leader, General Motors. For the specific benefit of the Houston area population, lessons should be learned from GM’s experience extending business as usual past due. The former behemoth is now a half-penny stock titled “Motors Liquidation Corporation” (https://www.motorsliquidation.com/), and a serious question of recovery hangs over my beloved City of Detroit and its suburbs.
__________2:
Graphic by Paul M. Suckow relating the reductions envisioned by the failed Kyoto Protocol to the proposed U.S.-Copenhagen plan:
It may well be that natural reinforcements of human climate forcing are already poised to take the earth back to a long-term average 22 C (warmer by ten degrees Celsius beyond preindustrial earth climate) as was common before any primate species or even the deciduous forests we inhabited existed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562410/). Cold-blooded creatures like the dinosaurs dominated then, and met a spectacularly immediate demise when an impact event comparable in magnitude to our modern greenhouse gas emissions eliminated their habitat.
Or it is thought possible that global climate might move as it once did over millions of years half-way between the 12 C and 22 C steady states, and then slowly return. The only analogous past natural emission of greenhouse gasses (GHG) comparable in amount and speed to the modern anthropogenic pulse did not breach a climate tipping point but resulted in a 200,000 year climate disruption that eventually settled back to normal, so I guess that provides some hope for the future (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/).
__________3:
I worry we are at this time consider the cost of the mitigation described in note 2, variously estimated at up to $2,000 per U.S. family (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/climate-change-bill-would-come-at-cost-cbo-says-2009-10-14), but not the much greater costs of global adaptation to inevitable effects of near-term climate change (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/report-predicts-significant-risks-to-citys-climate/?scp=4-b&sq=adaptation+planning+climate+change&st=nyt).
Can the rule of law and even vaunted multinational corporate powers be counted on to equitably flex borders and care for moving populations as disasters and sea levels rise? What of the natural and cultural resources that will be inundated? What will “compensation” come to mean when some lose all and others gain relationally due to “acts of God” or uncontrollable human conflicts? Can fire breaks be constructed sufficient to insulate human constructions from widespread large scale forest fires?
And much closer to home, what will we eat? What will we drink? Can the upcoming population of southern Florida be made comfortable and welcome in dry western Cuba? Can permanently inundated infrastructure be safely reused and relocated, or buffered in place adequately? Should planners be concerned about the stability of coastal areas near continental shelf methane hydrates? Can a system of disaster relocation be permanently emplaced that acts to minimize national or global suffering?
__________4:
This becomes a rhetorical question on the final day of the stalemated COP15 Copenhagen climate negotiations. Life appears always more interesting for each succeeding generation, though the levels of change and adaptations have been limited for most of our human past. 72,000 years ago in Africa (the Toba super eruption http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/dmcfarlane/Joyce/Mulu%20ash/Zielinski__Atmospheric%20effetcs.pdf) and again at the time of the ice age fauna extinction and North American “black mat” deposition 12,900 years ago (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091208132734.htm) modern man and related species lived for a short time under quite unimaginable conditions. How our species responds to long-term adversity is about to be made apparent. As Obama made clear in his speech text today, we in the world community must bond together or we shall surely perish separately. And we as inheritors of the western capitalist political economy must be especially flexible if human action to preserve the climate is to work in time, or at all. We should heed the world’s cry for the survival of life as we know it, damned be the cost.
* Commentary was provided by Paul M. Suckow, a graduate student at Houston’s Texas Southern University Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs Urban Planning-Environmental Policy doctoral program. The commenting author can be reached at 713-578-2018 or paul.suckow@csd.hctx.net.
