Get E-Mail Updates

Crunch Time for World Leaders at Copenhagen

The rhetoric soared today as rich nation leaders -- UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Australia's PM Kevin Rudd and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton -- urged completion of a deal to slow global warming.

The mood in Copenhagen had been growing ever gloomier following the revelation on Wednesday of a 'text from the sky' by Danish Prime Minister Lars Rassmussen, as the Chinese negotiator Su Wei described it. The heavy snow flurry added to the chill among delegates about the prospects of any deal being struck this week.

But today the United States emerged with a proposal that lifted the atmosphere inside the Bella Centre in the Danish capital. News that the U.S. was committed to finance for developing nations of $100 billion per annum by 2020 was a breakthrough, despite its dependence on large developing nations accepting United Nations verification of their own targets to cut greenhouse gas emission intensity.

It was a day of engagement by political leaders at the final stretch of these two years of negotiations. French president Nicolas Sarkozy, in a fiery Gallic tone, named China several times and attacked the developing nation for its failure to embrace a transparent process. Yet for those of us who have been wary of the potential for a trade-off between efforts to reduce global poverty and investing in a safer climate, Mr. Brown's words were inspirational, noting that money for climate change programs ought not be siphoned from existing overseas aid commitments:

And to address the gaping sorrows of the left-out millions in Africa, the torment of our island states, the fear gripping the planet's most vulnerable communities, and the urgent need to reduce rates of deforestation, we must commit to additionality in our support so that we do not force a choice between meeting the needs of the planet and meeting the millennium development goals.

The parties have progressed today, and a small hope appears reborn, although the world is still a long way from a successful, ambitious agreement.

It remains up to the leaders, with the weight falling especially heavily on the shoulders of President Obama. He will not want to walk away from Copenhagen for the second time this year with empty hands. We pray his ability to reach across political chasms, bridging cultures from Kenya to Kansas, will nudge the process enough, building the case for a unprecedented action as a global community even in these final hours.

Tim Costello is CEO of World Vision Australia.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

Related Stories

Resources

Like what you're reading? Get Sojourners E-Mail updates!

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 8:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: NC77

12-18-2009 @ 10:00pm

This is a foreshadow of things to come. The poor will not be served by evironmentalists looking to redistribute income.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-cli...

Also, have you ever wondered why journalist are always using pictures of nuclear power plant cooling towers when they write articles on global warming? The "smoke" coming from the towers is steam not carbon exhaust.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 8:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 10:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 11:33pm

What is being proposed to reduce CO2 will result in less and less prosperity worldwide. It is somewhat novel that people think we will have expansive economic growth by using less carbon-based energy. Believing the currently available alternative energy sources can provide a cost effective energy replacement that will foster economic growth is wishful thinking or dreaming.

Our nation is already bankrupt. We as a nation are are in a similar situation as the people having their houses foreclosed on because they can't afford the house payment. This is a payment our nation cannot afford and it will do nothing to reduce CO2 levels. It will wind up in the pockets of corrupt dictators, despots, and other criminals in third world countries. Just watch and see.

by: thebootedone

12-18-2009 @ 11:04am

It makes one wonder the real agenda when hugo chavez speaks of the :ghost" that is holding things back. And that no one wants to name the "ghost". The "ghost" is capitalism he said. What did he get a BIG round of applause. What does sojourners feel about this. And as the above poster said this summit will do more harm then good by far. TO think sojourners believes this will help the poor is a wonder to me. I am not sure what they see in it or how they are seeing it.

by: fundamentalist

12-18-2009 @ 2:28pm

Good points! Real concern for the poor was what Bjorn Lomberg's "Copenhagen Consensus" was all about. The economists he gathered took the assumptions of the IPCC seriously and the fact that total resources are limited. With those assumptions, they analyzed the cost/benefit of addressing each problem and then ranked them accordingly. Alleviating global warming came way down on the list near the bottom. It seems to me that caring about the poor involves caring about their most serious problems and allocating resources to those with the highest benefit to cost.

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 11:33pm

What is being proposed to reduce CO2 will result in less and less prosperity worldwide. It is somewhat novel that people think we will have expansive economic growth by using less carbon-based energy. Believing the currently available alternative energy sources can provide a cost effective energy replacement that will foster economic growth is wishful thinking or dreaming.

Our nation is already bankrupt. We as a nation are are in a similar situation as the people having their houses foreclosed on because they can't afford the house payment. This is a payment our nation cannot afford and it will do nothing to reduce CO2 levels. It will wind up in the pockets of corrupt dictators, despots, and other criminals in third world countries. Just watch and see.

by: thebootedone

12-18-2009 @ 11:04am

It makes one wonder the real agenda when hugo chavez speaks of the :ghost" that is holding things back. And that no one wants to name the "ghost". The "ghost" is capitalism he said. What did he get a BIG round of applause. What does sojourners feel about this. And as the above poster said this summit will do more harm then good by far. TO think sojourners believes this will help the poor is a wonder to me. I am not sure what they see in it or how they are seeing it.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 10:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: NC77

12-18-2009 @ 10:00pm

This is a foreshadow of things to come. The poor will not be served by evironmentalists looking to redistribute income.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-cli...

Also, have you ever wondered why journalist are always using pictures of nuclear power plant cooling towers when they write articles on global warming? The "smoke" coming from the towers is steam not carbon exhaust.

by: fundamentalist

12-18-2009 @ 2:28pm

Good points! Real concern for the poor was what Bjorn Lomberg's "Copenhagen Consensus" was all about. The economists he gathered took the assumptions of the IPCC seriously and the fact that total resources are limited. With those assumptions, they analyzed the cost/benefit of addressing each problem and then ranked them accordingly. Alleviating global warming came way down on the list near the bottom. It seems to me that caring about the poor involves caring about their most serious problems and allocating resources to those with the highest benefit to cost.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 11:33pm

What is being proposed to reduce CO2 will result in less and less prosperity worldwide. It is somewhat novel that people think we will have expansive economic growth by using less carbon-based energy. Believing the currently available alternative energy sources can provide a cost effective energy replacement that will foster economic growth is wishful thinking or dreaming.

Our nation is already bankrupt. We as a nation are are in a similar situation as the people having their houses foreclosed on because they can't afford the house payment. This is a payment our nation cannot afford and it will do nothing to reduce CO2 levels. It will wind up in the pockets of corrupt dictators, despots, and other criminals in third world countries. Just watch and see.

by: NC77

12-17-2009 @ 11:33pm

What is being proposed to reduce CO2 will result in less and less prosperity worldwide. It is somewhat novel that people think we will have expansive economic growth by using less carbon-based energy. Believing the currently available alternative energy sources can provide a cost effective energy replacement that will foster economic growth is wishful thinking or dreaming.

Our nation is already bankrupt. We as a nation are are in a similar situation as the people having their houses foreclosed on because they can't afford the house payment. This is a payment our nation cannot afford and it will do nothing to reduce CO2 levels. It will wind up in the pockets of corrupt dictators, despots, and other criminals in third world countries. Just watch and see.

by: thebootedone

12-18-2009 @ 11:04am

It makes one wonder the real agenda when hugo chavez speaks of the :ghost" that is holding things back. And that no one wants to name the "ghost". The "ghost" is capitalism he said. What did he get a BIG round of applause. What does sojourners feel about this. And as the above poster said this summit will do more harm then good by far. TO think sojourners believes this will help the poor is a wonder to me. I am not sure what they see in it or how they are seeing it.

by: thebootedone

12-18-2009 @ 11:04am

It makes one wonder the real agenda when hugo chavez speaks of the :ghost" that is holding things back. And that no one wants to name the "ghost". The "ghost" is capitalism he said. What did he get a BIG round of applause. What does sojourners feel about this. And as the above poster said this summit will do more harm then good by far. TO think sojourners believes this will help the poor is a wonder to me. I am not sure what they see in it or how they are seeing it.

by: fundamentalist

12-18-2009 @ 2:28pm

Good points! Real concern for the poor was what Bjorn Lomberg's "Copenhagen Consensus" was all about. The economists he gathered took the assumptions of the IPCC seriously and the fact that total resources are limited. With those assumptions, they analyzed the cost/benefit of addressing each problem and then ranked them accordingly. Alleviating global warming came way down on the list near the bottom. It seems to me that caring about the poor involves caring about their most serious problems and allocating resources to those with the highest benefit to cost.

by: fundamentalist

12-18-2009 @ 2:28pm

Good points! Real concern for the poor was what Bjorn Lomberg's "Copenhagen Consensus" was all about. The economists he gathered took the assumptions of the IPCC seriously and the fact that total resources are limited. With those assumptions, they analyzed the cost/benefit of addressing each problem and then ranked them accordingly. Alleviating global warming came way down on the list near the bottom. It seems to me that caring about the poor involves caring about their most serious problems and allocating resources to those with the highest benefit to cost.

by: NC77

12-18-2009 @ 10:00pm

This is a foreshadow of things to come. The poor will not be served by evironmentalists looking to redistribute income.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-cli...

Also, have you ever wondered why journalist are always using pictures of nuclear power plant cooling towers when they write articles on global warming? The "smoke" coming from the towers is steam not carbon exhaust.

by: NC77

12-18-2009 @ 10:00pm

This is a foreshadow of things to come. The poor will not be served by evironmentalists looking to redistribute income.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-cli...

Also, have you ever wondered why journalist are always using pictures of nuclear power plant cooling towers when they write articles on global warming? The "smoke" coming from the towers is steam not carbon exhaust.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 8:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 8:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 10:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.

by: RobTam

12-19-2009 @ 10:42pm

Agreed. It is time to set aside the well-meaning naivete expressed by Costello and other bloggers on this site, and begin to realize that the only winners in any kind of global carbon trading scheme or multilateral transfers (ostensibly in recompense for developing first and 'polluting' the atmosphere with CO2) are the wealthy transnationals and the corrupt political leaders of the developing world. What we know from people like John Perkins ('Confessions of an Economic Hitman') is that multilateral aid of any form is normally used by the lender to indenture the recipient, thereby enabling the lender to later extract their "pound of flesh". Even though the money transfers are not proffered as "loans" per se, they will nevertheless result in a new level of enslavement to the major economic powers that only compounds that which already exists. There is no such thing as a free lunch in the world of international multilateral aid.

Who will benefit from the hundreds of billions that will be transferred from the developed world to the underdeveloped world? It certainly will not be the common person. Poverty and destitution will remain as deeply inscribed as it currently is. Rather, we will see the continued accumulation of wealth in the hands of the political elites of the recipient countries. Similarly, the transnational business interests will gladly step in to offer their services to help "alleviate the dreadful impacts of climate change," while happily pocketing the sudden windfall of new cash made possible by international climate change agreements. None of this will result in any ultimate good for the poor of this world. And to boot, it will also do nothing about climate change.