Is it just us, or is the political scene overrun by guys who look like turkeys? It's probably just us, but we thought we'd compile our favorites.
November 25, 2009
Battle Between David Broder And Harry Reid Heats Up: Broder Comments ‘Mind-Boggling’
David Broder simply doesn't understand the way that today's Senate operates, Jim Manley concluded on Wednesday. Manley, the senior communications adviser for Majority Leader Harry Reid, said that the longtime Washington Post columnist's charge that Reid pales in comparison to former Senate leaders misunderstands the way the contemporary Senate works.
"It's all fine and dandy to pine for the golden days of yesteryear, when politics was practiced differently, but that's not the reality we're dealing with," Manley told HuffPost. "What David fails to understand is that Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate are being pulled along by the so-called birthers, the Tea Party movement and other far right fringe groups that are completely at odds with the views David claims to hold."
Manley said that Broder's failure to see the GOP for what it is today is common among Washington-based pundits.
"David might be one of the worst examples, but he highlights a myopic, inside-the-belt phenomenon that is at odds with the views of many Americans," said Manley. There's even a term for such thinking: Broderism.
The Broder-Reid spat broke into the open on Saturday night when Reid dismissed him as "a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while." (Broder has taken a buy-out from the Post but continues to write two columns a week on a contract basis.) Reid was peeved at a column Broder had written accusing the Senate bill of not cutting costs adequately.
It may seem petty, but the Reid-Broder battle is a proxy fight between two competing approaches to politics. Reid, by attacking Broder, puts himself on the side of those attacking the Washington politico-media establishment.
"Maybe I have an idealized view of what a Senate leader ought to be," Broder told Politico Wednesday for a story headlined: "David Broder: Harry Reid's no Mike Mansfield." "But I've seen the Senate when a leader could lift it to those heights...I wish it had that kind of leadership now."
That's not possible, said Manley, because Mansfield and Lyndon Johnson, revered Senate leaders, had a Republican Party willing to work across the aisle.
"LBJ had Robert Taft [R-Ohio], William Knowland [R-Calif.] and Everett Dirksen [R-Ill.]. Mike Mansfield had Dirksen and Hugh Scott [R-Pa.]. What David fails to acknowledge is that the current Repub leadership is betting on the president to fail," said Manley.
"Why he can't understand that is mind-boggling."
"That's an interesting argument and certainly there are differences between the people now and the people then and the environment that was there," Broder told HuffPost. "But if that's their effort to explain why Senator Reid has chosen the tactics that he's chosen, that doesn't strike me as an adequate explanation."
Broder disputed Manley's contention that the GOP blocks everything. "It is not a fact that the Republicans have refused everything. At least we don't have much evidence of that so far. If he's talking about a specific reaction to the pieces of the Obama agenda that have come up so far, then he's in effect saying Obama is so frustrated that he's about to abandon everything. I don't suspect it's the case. When the first measure relating to Afghanistan comes to the floor that generalization will collapse."
Broder is probably right that the GOP will back Obama in his effort to expand the war in Afghanistan, but Manley was arguing more on the domestic policy front.
He references the fight to pass an unemployment insurance extension, which the GOP eventually supported but slowed down for several weeks.
"How David can make this kind of comment after UI bill is beyond me. It took more than four weeks to pass a bill in the senate that it took the House an hour to pass on the suspension calendar," said Manley.
Broder acknowledged the unemployment point. "It's a good argument as it implies to the unemployment extension. There have been many occasions where I have been very critical of the Republican stance."
"It is a different Senate now and if I were writing on that topic -- Mansfield, Baker, LBJ and so on -- we might very well agree. But that was not the subject of that column and in my mind, that is not a particularly powerful or relevant rebuttal to the subject I was talking about, which is whether or not the potential savings everybody knows are needed are there in the bill Senator Reid brought to the Senate floor."
Manley had specific gripes about Broder's health care column, in which he cited deficit hawks to make the case that the Democratic Senate bill might not reduce costs.
Manley said that Broder's column was discussed by "puzzled" Democrats in the Senate cloakroom. "No one could understand it," said Manley. "We had the self-described gold standard of analysis - the CBO - highlighting that the bill reduces the deficit. And David utterly failed to acknowledge that was the case."
Broder often refers to the Congressional Budget Office with the highest praise, but relied mostly in his column on "experts" who proclaim themselves "bipartisan" but whose goals are to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and other vestiges of the New Deal.
Broder's argument was dismissed by his colleague at the Post, Ezra Klein. Broder, however, said he didn't have to look far to find people who agreed with him - which is, in fact, one of the biggest problems the blogosphere has with his type of writing and thinking. "It was hardly a unique viewpoint," Broder said accurately.
If Broder thinks that the GOP is genuinely willing to work with Democrats, the only centrist position between he and Reid might be in agreeing to disagree. "We have a Republic leadership betting on the president to fail," said Manley. "David's problem is he thinks this is all on the up and up."
"It's all fine and dandy to pine for the golden days of yesteryear, when politics was practiced differently, but that's not the reality we're dealing with," Manley told HuffPost. "What David fails to understand is that Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate are being pulled along by the so-called birthers, the Tea Party movement and other far right fringe groups that are completely at odds with the views David claims to hold."
Manley said that Broder's failure to see the GOP for what it is today is common among Washington-based pundits.
"David might be one of the worst examples, but he highlights a myopic, inside-the-belt phenomenon that is at odds with the views of many Americans," said Manley. There's even a term for such thinking: Broderism.
The Broder-Reid spat broke into the open on Saturday night when Reid dismissed him as "a man who has been retired for many years and writes a column once in a while." (Broder has taken a buy-out from the Post but continues to write two columns a week on a contract basis.) Reid was peeved at a column Broder had written accusing the Senate bill of not cutting costs adequately.
It may seem petty, but the Reid-Broder battle is a proxy fight between two competing approaches to politics. Reid, by attacking Broder, puts himself on the side of those attacking the Washington politico-media establishment.
"Maybe I have an idealized view of what a Senate leader ought to be," Broder told Politico Wednesday for a story headlined: "David Broder: Harry Reid's no Mike Mansfield." "But I've seen the Senate when a leader could lift it to those heights...I wish it had that kind of leadership now."
That's not possible, said Manley, because Mansfield and Lyndon Johnson, revered Senate leaders, had a Republican Party willing to work across the aisle.
"LBJ had Robert Taft [R-Ohio], William Knowland [R-Calif.] and Everett Dirksen [R-Ill.]. Mike Mansfield had Dirksen and Hugh Scott [R-Pa.]. What David fails to acknowledge is that the current Repub leadership is betting on the president to fail," said Manley.
"Why he can't understand that is mind-boggling."
"That's an interesting argument and certainly there are differences between the people now and the people then and the environment that was there," Broder told HuffPost. "But if that's their effort to explain why Senator Reid has chosen the tactics that he's chosen, that doesn't strike me as an adequate explanation."
Broder disputed Manley's contention that the GOP blocks everything. "It is not a fact that the Republicans have refused everything. At least we don't have much evidence of that so far. If he's talking about a specific reaction to the pieces of the Obama agenda that have come up so far, then he's in effect saying Obama is so frustrated that he's about to abandon everything. I don't suspect it's the case. When the first measure relating to Afghanistan comes to the floor that generalization will collapse."
Broder is probably right that the GOP will back Obama in his effort to expand the war in Afghanistan, but Manley was arguing more on the domestic policy front.
He references the fight to pass an unemployment insurance extension, which the GOP eventually supported but slowed down for several weeks.
"How David can make this kind of comment after UI bill is beyond me. It took more than four weeks to pass a bill in the senate that it took the House an hour to pass on the suspension calendar," said Manley.
Broder acknowledged the unemployment point. "It's a good argument as it implies to the unemployment extension. There have been many occasions where I have been very critical of the Republican stance."
"It is a different Senate now and if I were writing on that topic -- Mansfield, Baker, LBJ and so on -- we might very well agree. But that was not the subject of that column and in my mind, that is not a particularly powerful or relevant rebuttal to the subject I was talking about, which is whether or not the potential savings everybody knows are needed are there in the bill Senator Reid brought to the Senate floor."
Manley had specific gripes about Broder's health care column, in which he cited deficit hawks to make the case that the Democratic Senate bill might not reduce costs.
Manley said that Broder's column was discussed by "puzzled" Democrats in the Senate cloakroom. "No one could understand it," said Manley. "We had the self-described gold standard of analysis - the CBO - highlighting that the bill reduces the deficit. And David utterly failed to acknowledge that was the case."
Broder often refers to the Congressional Budget Office with the highest praise, but relied mostly in his column on "experts" who proclaim themselves "bipartisan" but whose goals are to dismantle Social Security, Medicare and other vestiges of the New Deal.
Broder's argument was dismissed by his colleague at the Post, Ezra Klein. Broder, however, said he didn't have to look far to find people who agreed with him - which is, in fact, one of the biggest problems the blogosphere has with his type of writing and thinking. "It was hardly a unique viewpoint," Broder said accurately.
If Broder thinks that the GOP is genuinely willing to work with Democrats, the only centrist position between he and Reid might be in agreeing to disagree. "We have a Republic leadership betting on the president to fail," said Manley. "David's problem is he thinks this is all on the up and up."
7 Things You Didn’t Know About Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving is upon us and while we all know and love the traditions, what about the history left out of the mix? Did you know that FDR tried to move Thanksgiving and that this beloved holiday gave birth to the TV dinner? Check out these fun facts and more below!
Palin And Twilight: American Pilgrimages
Two events were cause for Americans to leave the house this past week: Sarah Palin and The Twilight Saga: New Moon. The mass, separate interest in each has left many who are fans of neither wondering: What the hell is wrong with these people? Sure, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. But there's more to it than that. The trips to the book store or to the movie theater were in fact pilgrimages of the faithful.
Each event was a form of cultural catnip for its respective, rather homogeneous audience. An indulgence for many who, at least for a stint, would rather see the world not as it is, but as they wish it to be. What attracts the fans and confuses everyone else is one and the same. It's about faith.
Faith is how our society conceptualizes -- and then puts a ribbon around -- intense desire. If one wants something bad enough, they begin to ignore the absurdities and believe that anything is possible. Substance gives way to wish fulfillment, and it's why those who are not fans are left so confounded.
Cinematically, the Twilight films hover somewhere between bad and god-awful -- a fact that some loyal fans readily accept. And yet they flocked to the theaters in droves. For many fans, it's actually quite difficult to explain exactly what the appeal is. But from a number of conversations I've had with them, one strong reason seems to be that element of wish fulfillment that attracts so many young women and teens (who overwhelmingly comprise the Twilight following). The cliché fantasy of being swept away, falling in love, and forever basking in the wardship of what was described to me as a "hunk" becomes an ephemeral reality.
The romance between Bella and Edward is presented as the joining of soul mates, with a theme of Romeo and Juliet-like forbidden love. It's the type of love that most teenage girls long for before learning from life's trials and tribulations. And in actuality, it more resembles an obsessive co-dependency than a healthy relationship.
Which is why the message the Twilight series sends is not without controversy. While young adult fans who enjoy escaping into fantasy for a few hours know full well that Bella and Edward's relationship is far from realistic -- and probably unhealthy -- many of the younger fans do not. Hence the concern of many parents that the films will imbue teen girls with a distorted and damaging view of relationships, to say nothing of their self-esteem. Natalie Hjelsvold, who has a 9-year-old daughter, summed up her concerns to a CNN reporter as such:
"I spent the entire movie interjecting things like, 'boys don't think about girls like that,' 'boys won't stare at you across the parking lot like that,' 'boys don't spend all day thinking about you and wishing you were sitting beside them in class,' 'boys won't sniff your hair,' " Hjelsvold said. "I think it got on her nerves after a while, but I worry that she will develop this totally warped sense of love and it makes me crazy as a parent."
And as it is with the Twilight phenomenon, so it is for the masses who bought Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue -- which she didn't actually write -- and who are waiting for hours in the cold and rain just to see her. Many cannot explain why, and when they try, it becomes obvious that their adoration has nothing to do with substance or rationality.
As a politician, Palin is a veritable failure. As an abstract idea, she is the fulfillment of millions of Americans' wildest dreams. As it happens, something that stands for nothing can end up standing for everything.
The fact that Palin has no policies or constructive ideas to offer actually makes her the perfect vehicle for wish fulfillment. "Drill, baby, drill" is not a serious policy prescription. It's verbal gold that translates into practical lead. But that doesn't matter. It feels good to say for those who chant it, just as it feels good for the more mature Twilight fans to see the fantasy play out for a few hours. Who cares if the plot sucks and the characters are ridiculous.
The problem though is with that other group. The 'Twilight teenyboppers' who think it's real or possible or even remotely reasonable to believe. Faith of this kind is fine as a feel-good indulgence, but when it blurs the lines between fantasy and reality too much -- which it inevitably does -- one has to wonder what the damage is.
We're in hard times, it's reasonable to expect that people will look for saviors and fantastical escapes -- be they in the form of vegetarian vampires or meat eating pseudo-author/pseudo-politicians. The portion of Sarah Palin fandom who falls into that 'Twilight teenybopper' category -- those who fail to draw the distinction between fantasy and reality -- seems rather large (though it's not easily quantified). Let's just hope that sooner, rather than later, they realize it's just a movie.
Each event was a form of cultural catnip for its respective, rather homogeneous audience. An indulgence for many who, at least for a stint, would rather see the world not as it is, but as they wish it to be. What attracts the fans and confuses everyone else is one and the same. It's about faith.
Faith is how our society conceptualizes -- and then puts a ribbon around -- intense desire. If one wants something bad enough, they begin to ignore the absurdities and believe that anything is possible. Substance gives way to wish fulfillment, and it's why those who are not fans are left so confounded.
Cinematically, the Twilight films hover somewhere between bad and god-awful -- a fact that some loyal fans readily accept. And yet they flocked to the theaters in droves. For many fans, it's actually quite difficult to explain exactly what the appeal is. But from a number of conversations I've had with them, one strong reason seems to be that element of wish fulfillment that attracts so many young women and teens (who overwhelmingly comprise the Twilight following). The cliché fantasy of being swept away, falling in love, and forever basking in the wardship of what was described to me as a "hunk" becomes an ephemeral reality.
The romance between Bella and Edward is presented as the joining of soul mates, with a theme of Romeo and Juliet-like forbidden love. It's the type of love that most teenage girls long for before learning from life's trials and tribulations. And in actuality, it more resembles an obsessive co-dependency than a healthy relationship.
Which is why the message the Twilight series sends is not without controversy. While young adult fans who enjoy escaping into fantasy for a few hours know full well that Bella and Edward's relationship is far from realistic -- and probably unhealthy -- many of the younger fans do not. Hence the concern of many parents that the films will imbue teen girls with a distorted and damaging view of relationships, to say nothing of their self-esteem. Natalie Hjelsvold, who has a 9-year-old daughter, summed up her concerns to a CNN reporter as such:
"I spent the entire movie interjecting things like, 'boys don't think about girls like that,' 'boys won't stare at you across the parking lot like that,' 'boys don't spend all day thinking about you and wishing you were sitting beside them in class,' 'boys won't sniff your hair,' " Hjelsvold said. "I think it got on her nerves after a while, but I worry that she will develop this totally warped sense of love and it makes me crazy as a parent."
And as it is with the Twilight phenomenon, so it is for the masses who bought Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue -- which she didn't actually write -- and who are waiting for hours in the cold and rain just to see her. Many cannot explain why, and when they try, it becomes obvious that their adoration has nothing to do with substance or rationality.
As a politician, Palin is a veritable failure. As an abstract idea, she is the fulfillment of millions of Americans' wildest dreams. As it happens, something that stands for nothing can end up standing for everything.
The fact that Palin has no policies or constructive ideas to offer actually makes her the perfect vehicle for wish fulfillment. "Drill, baby, drill" is not a serious policy prescription. It's verbal gold that translates into practical lead. But that doesn't matter. It feels good to say for those who chant it, just as it feels good for the more mature Twilight fans to see the fantasy play out for a few hours. Who cares if the plot sucks and the characters are ridiculous.
The problem though is with that other group. The 'Twilight teenyboppers' who think it's real or possible or even remotely reasonable to believe. Faith of this kind is fine as a feel-good indulgence, but when it blurs the lines between fantasy and reality too much -- which it inevitably does -- one has to wonder what the damage is.
We're in hard times, it's reasonable to expect that people will look for saviors and fantastical escapes -- be they in the form of vegetarian vampires or meat eating pseudo-author/pseudo-politicians. The portion of Sarah Palin fandom who falls into that 'Twilight teenybopper' category -- those who fail to draw the distinction between fantasy and reality -- seems rather large (though it's not easily quantified). Let's just hope that sooner, rather than later, they realize it's just a movie.
Sorting Blinks From Winks In The Copenhagen End Game
In the world of military intelligence, much time is spent trying to distinguish "blinks" -- unpremeditated random actions -- from "winks" -- deliberate moves designed to communicate intent and draw out a response. The climate change negotiations have now entered a phase where a team of tame "spooks" is needed by anybody trying to make sense of the myriad messages emerging from the hectic schedule of pre-Copenhagen meetings.
The APEC Summit saw confident headlines that the US and China had agreed to a Danish proposal to make the Copenhagen outcome non-legally binding. On closer examination these reports came from a US press conference following an informal Heads breakfast. Meanwhile the real US-China Summit two days later agreed that both countries are "striving for final legal agreement" at Copenhagen, and the Chinese confirmed they are still "studying" the Danish proposal. A "Pre-COP" Ministerial meeting held in parallel in Copenhagen showed a range of conflicting messages from countries; with Saudi Arabia defending the Kyoto Protocol, some developing countries backing a new single negotiating process but a strong push from Brazil and others to maintain a legally binding Copenhagen outcome.
Even the US seems unclear what it wants: on the one hand, Obama is promoting an agreement at Copenhagen which has "immediate operational effect", but his lead negotiator is discussing a mid-year deadline for completing a treaty. Of course, these outcomes need not be mutually exclusive, but in the fevered atmosphere of the end game confusion is predictably interpreted as conspiracy.
This is damaging to the negotiations. The APEC story drowned out the positive announcements of new mitigation commitments by Brazil and South Korea. It also markedly increased the already high level of distrust between countries. Conversations in the negotiating corridors increasingly circle round what these events imply about the motivations of the main players. Is the US Administration acting in good faith but hamstrung by a hostile Congress? Or is there a subtle strategy to neuter the international regime and avoid pressure to increase US commitments? Will China align with its traditional allies in the G77? And if so, can it support the proposals from the industrialized countries? Will India stick with its oft-quoted red lines, or are these merely negotiating chips to be relinquished in return for new finance? The inability to sort blinks from winks - and conspiracy from confusion - makes countries fearful of making the bold diplomatic moves needed to make Copenhagen a success. It also fuels an increasingly pessimistic media cycle and undermines public faith in the effectiveness of the international negotiations.
This is the wrong way to approach the climate change process. We are not back in the Cold War trying to determine the aggressive intent of a declared and secretive enemy. Copenhagen is a multi-polar negotiation between highly interdependent countries who are aiming to preserve their mutual climate security. It is not a game any one nation can win, but it is one we can all lose.
Stripping away the confusion the underlying dynamics of the Copenhagen end-game are rather more straightforward:
There is no credible alternative to a legally binding international agreement to limit global climate change below 2°C; any "bottom-up" system of country pledges will always fail to drive the necessary scale and pace of reductions as it does not help countries take on domestic interest lobbies.
The US will not accept a binding target unless China and India also agree to be bound to commitments that are internationally verifiable.
But China will not commit to decarbonise its economy unless the US accepts a binding and ambitious emissions reduction target.
The majority of developing countries will not agree to any new framework unless it binds developed nations and contains significant new medium term public finance for adaptation, forestry and clean energy.
Europe and Japan - who have met their reduction commitments under the binding Kyoto Protocol - can only accept the weak US commitments which are on the table if a new agreement is at least as binding as Kyoto, and the US commits to comparable emission reductions by 2030 at the latest.
This is the inexorable logic of the multilateral negotiations and leaves a clear set of decisions for the US. The Obama administration will struggle to convince the US Senate to pass a domestic Climate Bill if it cannot show that this is part of a wider international effort that delivers climate security for America. A binding international agreement that commits China and India to real emission reductions would show the value of US leadership. To achieve this, the US will have to agree to be bound itself and to put its 2030 mitigation target and some commitment to medium term finance on the table.
None of this need breach the wise position of the US negotiators that they are not prepared to sign up to an international agreement unless they are confident they can pass the domestic legislation needed to implement it. The administration has a good story to tell of how committing to US legislation has catalysed serious emission reduction commitments from all major economies.
The US has more room for manoeuvre than it currently thinks. If President Obama wants to make real the leadership he has proclaimed so eloquently in his speeches, now is the time to send a clear, unified and unambiguous message to the other Parties. We want a 2°C agreement; we will put forward what is needed to secure this; we expect others to agree to be bound by their promises - as we agree to be bound by ours; this will require a legally binding treaty. We may need more time to agree final details, but we are ready to make substantial and lasting commitments in Copenhagen.
All of this leads to a simple conclusion: if political leaders are unable to reach a binding international agreement in Copenhagen in December they must come up with a credible plan for concluding that agreement no later than June 2010, before US Congressional mid-term elections. Allowing the process to drag on beyond June 2010 risks a repeat of the Doha WTO negotiations, which have limped along without resolution for over a decade. Reaching agreement by June 2010 is challenging but achievable if Copenhagen provides the necessary political impetus.
Specifically, Copenhagen needs to do three things:
Give a clear political mandate to negotiators to reach agreement on all key issues by at the latest June 2010 and to enshrine this agreement in a legal instrument or instruments.
Set out in as much detail as possible the content of the eventual legal instrument(s), including emissions reduction targets for developed countries, nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing countries, the long-term financing architecture, and the international framework for measurement, reporting and verification of commitments.
Maintain momentum through commitments to immediate action before 2012, including quick-start funding for adaptation, tackling deforestation and low carbon growth plans.
There are no fundamental obstacles of interest to such an agreement, but it will require great diplomatic skill and significant trust between countries to deliver; neither of which is yet apparent in the current negotiations. There are still some countries trying to block any substantive deal, but they are now a vanishing minority. In contrast, the impetus to agreement is supported by an unprecedented range of global business, finance, labour, faith and civil society coalitions who are aligned around the common elements of a Copenhagen deal.
In the final weeks towards Copenhagen it will be easy to be caught up in the day-to-day turmoil of events, but while fascinating as a spectator sport, this chatter is not what will determine the final outcome. The world is close to an ambitious deal; what is missing is the trust needed to cement the process through to a legal conclusion. Trust will be built through plain speaking not hints, spin and clever tactics. That is why Obama must go to Copenhagen along with other leaders. Only a personal face-to-face commitment will generate the trust needed to seal the deal.
The APEC Summit saw confident headlines that the US and China had agreed to a Danish proposal to make the Copenhagen outcome non-legally binding. On closer examination these reports came from a US press conference following an informal Heads breakfast. Meanwhile the real US-China Summit two days later agreed that both countries are "striving for final legal agreement" at Copenhagen, and the Chinese confirmed they are still "studying" the Danish proposal. A "Pre-COP" Ministerial meeting held in parallel in Copenhagen showed a range of conflicting messages from countries; with Saudi Arabia defending the Kyoto Protocol, some developing countries backing a new single negotiating process but a strong push from Brazil and others to maintain a legally binding Copenhagen outcome.
Even the US seems unclear what it wants: on the one hand, Obama is promoting an agreement at Copenhagen which has "immediate operational effect", but his lead negotiator is discussing a mid-year deadline for completing a treaty. Of course, these outcomes need not be mutually exclusive, but in the fevered atmosphere of the end game confusion is predictably interpreted as conspiracy.
This is damaging to the negotiations. The APEC story drowned out the positive announcements of new mitigation commitments by Brazil and South Korea. It also markedly increased the already high level of distrust between countries. Conversations in the negotiating corridors increasingly circle round what these events imply about the motivations of the main players. Is the US Administration acting in good faith but hamstrung by a hostile Congress? Or is there a subtle strategy to neuter the international regime and avoid pressure to increase US commitments? Will China align with its traditional allies in the G77? And if so, can it support the proposals from the industrialized countries? Will India stick with its oft-quoted red lines, or are these merely negotiating chips to be relinquished in return for new finance? The inability to sort blinks from winks - and conspiracy from confusion - makes countries fearful of making the bold diplomatic moves needed to make Copenhagen a success. It also fuels an increasingly pessimistic media cycle and undermines public faith in the effectiveness of the international negotiations.
This is the wrong way to approach the climate change process. We are not back in the Cold War trying to determine the aggressive intent of a declared and secretive enemy. Copenhagen is a multi-polar negotiation between highly interdependent countries who are aiming to preserve their mutual climate security. It is not a game any one nation can win, but it is one we can all lose.
Stripping away the confusion the underlying dynamics of the Copenhagen end-game are rather more straightforward:
There is no credible alternative to a legally binding international agreement to limit global climate change below 2°C; any "bottom-up" system of country pledges will always fail to drive the necessary scale and pace of reductions as it does not help countries take on domestic interest lobbies.
The US will not accept a binding target unless China and India also agree to be bound to commitments that are internationally verifiable.
But China will not commit to decarbonise its economy unless the US accepts a binding and ambitious emissions reduction target.
The majority of developing countries will not agree to any new framework unless it binds developed nations and contains significant new medium term public finance for adaptation, forestry and clean energy.
Europe and Japan - who have met their reduction commitments under the binding Kyoto Protocol - can only accept the weak US commitments which are on the table if a new agreement is at least as binding as Kyoto, and the US commits to comparable emission reductions by 2030 at the latest.
This is the inexorable logic of the multilateral negotiations and leaves a clear set of decisions for the US. The Obama administration will struggle to convince the US Senate to pass a domestic Climate Bill if it cannot show that this is part of a wider international effort that delivers climate security for America. A binding international agreement that commits China and India to real emission reductions would show the value of US leadership. To achieve this, the US will have to agree to be bound itself and to put its 2030 mitigation target and some commitment to medium term finance on the table.
None of this need breach the wise position of the US negotiators that they are not prepared to sign up to an international agreement unless they are confident they can pass the domestic legislation needed to implement it. The administration has a good story to tell of how committing to US legislation has catalysed serious emission reduction commitments from all major economies.
The US has more room for manoeuvre than it currently thinks. If President Obama wants to make real the leadership he has proclaimed so eloquently in his speeches, now is the time to send a clear, unified and unambiguous message to the other Parties. We want a 2°C agreement; we will put forward what is needed to secure this; we expect others to agree to be bound by their promises - as we agree to be bound by ours; this will require a legally binding treaty. We may need more time to agree final details, but we are ready to make substantial and lasting commitments in Copenhagen.
All of this leads to a simple conclusion: if political leaders are unable to reach a binding international agreement in Copenhagen in December they must come up with a credible plan for concluding that agreement no later than June 2010, before US Congressional mid-term elections. Allowing the process to drag on beyond June 2010 risks a repeat of the Doha WTO negotiations, which have limped along without resolution for over a decade. Reaching agreement by June 2010 is challenging but achievable if Copenhagen provides the necessary political impetus.
Specifically, Copenhagen needs to do three things:
Give a clear political mandate to negotiators to reach agreement on all key issues by at the latest June 2010 and to enshrine this agreement in a legal instrument or instruments.
Set out in as much detail as possible the content of the eventual legal instrument(s), including emissions reduction targets for developed countries, nationally appropriate mitigation actions for developing countries, the long-term financing architecture, and the international framework for measurement, reporting and verification of commitments.
Maintain momentum through commitments to immediate action before 2012, including quick-start funding for adaptation, tackling deforestation and low carbon growth plans.
There are no fundamental obstacles of interest to such an agreement, but it will require great diplomatic skill and significant trust between countries to deliver; neither of which is yet apparent in the current negotiations. There are still some countries trying to block any substantive deal, but they are now a vanishing minority. In contrast, the impetus to agreement is supported by an unprecedented range of global business, finance, labour, faith and civil society coalitions who are aligned around the common elements of a Copenhagen deal.
In the final weeks towards Copenhagen it will be easy to be caught up in the day-to-day turmoil of events, but while fascinating as a spectator sport, this chatter is not what will determine the final outcome. The world is close to an ambitious deal; what is missing is the trust needed to cement the process through to a legal conclusion. Trust will be built through plain speaking not hints, spin and clever tactics. That is why Obama must go to Copenhagen along with other leaders. Only a personal face-to-face commitment will generate the trust needed to seal the deal.
Verizon Wireless Violates Environmental Regulations In 655 Facilities, To Pay Nearly Half A Million In Fines
The EPA has just announced that Verizon Wireless has agreed to pay a penalty of $468,000 for violating environmental regulations at 655 facilities in 42 states.
From the press release from the EPA:
Verizon voluntarily entered into a corporate audit agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted environmental compliance audits at more than 25,000 facilities nation-wide. The Environmental Appeals Board at EPA has approved an administrative settlement resolving violations Verizon found through its compliance audits.
Verizon audited facilities that include cell towers, mobile switch centers, call centers, and administrative offices. As a result of its audit, the company reported violations of clean water, clean air, and emergency planning and preparedness regulations to EPA. Verizon promptly corrected the violations found during its audit, which included preparing and implementing spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plans, applying for appropriate air permits, and submitting reports to state and local emergency planning and response organizations informing them of the presence of hazardous substances.
EPA encourages companies with multiple facilities to conduct corporate-wide audits and develop corporate-wide compliance systems. A corporate audit agreement allows corporations, universities or other organizations with many facilities to plan corporate-wide or facility-wide audits with an advance understanding between the entity and EPA regarding schedules for conducting the audit and disclosing violations. EPA factors in the companies' cooperation and willingness to do the audit voluntarily, and the penalties are typically lower than if the same violations were discovered through enforcement.
Since 1998, nearly 5,400 telecom facilities have been brought into compliance through 35 settlements as part of EPA's enforcement effort to improve compliance in the telecom sector.
Verizon is required to pay the penalty within 30 days.
From the press release from the EPA:
Verizon voluntarily entered into a corporate audit agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and conducted environmental compliance audits at more than 25,000 facilities nation-wide. The Environmental Appeals Board at EPA has approved an administrative settlement resolving violations Verizon found through its compliance audits.
Verizon audited facilities that include cell towers, mobile switch centers, call centers, and administrative offices. As a result of its audit, the company reported violations of clean water, clean air, and emergency planning and preparedness regulations to EPA. Verizon promptly corrected the violations found during its audit, which included preparing and implementing spill prevention, control, and countermeasure plans, applying for appropriate air permits, and submitting reports to state and local emergency planning and response organizations informing them of the presence of hazardous substances.
EPA encourages companies with multiple facilities to conduct corporate-wide audits and develop corporate-wide compliance systems. A corporate audit agreement allows corporations, universities or other organizations with many facilities to plan corporate-wide or facility-wide audits with an advance understanding between the entity and EPA regarding schedules for conducting the audit and disclosing violations. EPA factors in the companies' cooperation and willingness to do the audit voluntarily, and the penalties are typically lower than if the same violations were discovered through enforcement.
Since 1998, nearly 5,400 telecom facilities have been brought into compliance through 35 settlements as part of EPA's enforcement effort to improve compliance in the telecom sector.
Verizon is required to pay the penalty within 30 days.
Top 10 Thanksgiving Recipes You’re Cooking This Year That You Didn’t Cook Last Year
I know you've been on tenterhooks waiting for the winners of the contest with the longest name of any contest -- the Third Annual Huffington Post Tell Us What You're Cooking for Thanksgiving This Year that You Didn't Cook Last Year Contest -- and here they are.
I myself am inspired by the sweet potato pudding recipe and just might have to try it.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone and thanks for all the great entries.
Get HuffPost Style on Twitter and Facebook!
I myself am inspired by the sweet potato pudding recipe and just might have to try it.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone and thanks for all the great entries.
Get HuffPost Style on Twitter and Facebook!