Friday March 29, 2024
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Dec-09-2009 22:53printcomments

Greenpeace Calls on Obama to Honor World Committment on Climate Change

We have the technology, the money, and the moral imperative to do this now. We only lack the political will.

Sofia Gidlund and Allie Simpson of Greenpeace
Sofia Gidlund of Greenpeace
Photo and video by Tim King Salem-News.com

(PORTLAND, Ore.) - When the Nobel Peace Prize Committee announced President Obama as this year’s winner, many people were surprised. The announcement was met with a mixed reaction in the United States.

Some Obama supporters interpreted the Prize as a symbol that the US was back in good standing with the world community after eight long years of conflict, arrogance, and divisive politics. Opponents viewed it as undeserved and even offensive.

As a Swede and a Greenpeace organizer, I saw the Peace Prize award through my very own lens. I have been working in communities up and down the West Coast to help save the environment and to see this country to be part of an international climate treaty ever since I came to the US.

The first time I heard President Obama speak during last year’s historical election campaign, I felt a glimpse of hope. In this president, I hoped for a leader who could stand with us and fight for justice and a better future. As a Swede growing up eating “Noble dinners” every year in front of the screened award ceremony, I viewed the Peace Prize announcement as an encouragement or challenge to our President.

I believe that President Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize with the hope that this will encourage him to engage actively and positively with the international community. Our President should accept the challenge and answer the call of history by leading a solution to the world’s most pressing humanitarian crisis and environmental problem, climate change.

Unfortunately, to date, President Obama has not stepped up to the challenge. He has acted more like a beltway politician than a leader worthy of this most prestigious Prize.

Lack of the “change” that we elected President Obama for was evident again last week when the President announced inadequate and weak US global warming emissions reduction targets. Scientists have established that developed nations need to reduce at least 25-40% below 1990’s level by 2020. US climate change policy in 2009

Sofia Gidlund and Allie Simpson of Greenpeace talk about the group's efforts to raise awareness.

In the first few months of his presidency, Obama helped institute new important measures to battle climate change--strengthening fuel-economy rules for automobiles, enforcing new energy efficiency standards, and regulating large stationary greenhouse gas emitting sources.

However, as the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen moved closer, Obama shifted further away from directly challenging the twin problems of energy and climate change. He ceded political ground to those who wish to continue business as usual, regardless of the costs to our future and the planet.

As opponents of clean energy have gained strength, they asserted their negative influence in the halls of Congress. The US House of Representatives debated and narrowly passed an inadequate energy bill with reduction targets of only 4 percent by 2020, relative to 1990 levels.

The massive amount of offsets in the bill (2 billion annual tons) means that the US can continue at its current emissions level for years and huge giveaways will lock us into a dirty energy future.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an agency that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, says that to avoid runaway climate change, developed countries must slash their global warming causing emissions by at least 25-40 percent by 2020.

President Obama, instead of pushing for a target that meets scientific standards, endorsed the bill and never called for it to be strengthened. The debate now has switched to the US Senate, where it is stalled until after the negotiations in Copenhagen.

In November, while attending the Asian Economic Partnership Conference, the President announced that the US would not seek a binding climate pact in Copenhagen, but it would instead push for a delay awaiting congressional action in 2010.

The announcement was a painful blow to the millions around the world looking to the President to live up to his promises to combat climate and help lead the world to a green and sustainable future. For many nations, such as Tuvalu and Bangladesh, an ambitious and binding treaty in Copenhagen is a matter of survival.

The Copenhagen Solution

Sofia Gidlund of Greenpeace talks Barack Obama, politics, world responsibility, and Copenhagen.

In October in Barcelona, the 43-member Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) expressed outrage at attempts to persuade the world’s most vulnerable countries to accept a watered down political agreement at the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Their demands for real solutions are supported by the Africa group which said it would only accept a legally binding commitment on deep emission cuts and adequate funding from the industrialized world for climate adaptation and mitigation, including tackling deforestation.

President Obama and other leaders of developed nations must understand that the poorer nations that will be most affected by climate change will no longer sit idly by while they stall and obstruct progress toward a new climate pact.

It would be outrageous of our President to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and on the very same week leave entire nations to sink into the sea. He must make decisions based upon his moral consciousness instead of satisfying lobbying interests in Washington D.C.

A true leader can still save the Copenhagen negotiations. President Obama, emboldened by the recognition of the Nobel Committee, must go to Copenhagen and forge a deal that is ambitious, fair, and binding.

For an effective deal, rich countries like the US must agree to cut their emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels in the next decade; replace dirty energy sources like coal and oil with clean, renewable wind and solar power.

Developed nations should create a $140 billion fund to help poorer nations increase their own renewable energy sources, end deforestation, and adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change.

We have the technology, the money, and the moral imperative to do this now. We only lack the political will. President Obama ran for office with the slogan “Yes We Can.” We can and we must, Mr. President. Now is the time for action.

=================================================

Sofia Gidlund is the Greenpeace Organizer for the Pacific Northwest, based in Portland, Oregon. Sofia also travels to Washington and Idaho to raise awareness about the efforts of Greenpeace. You can send Spfia an email at this address: sofia.gidlund@greenpeace.org




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



Miles December 13, 2009 10:55 am (Pacific time)

The Greenie message is entirely emotional and devoid of all logic. They say that polar ice will melt and cause a big sea-level rise. Yet 91% of the world's glacial ice is in Antarctica, where the average temperature is around minus 40 degrees Celsius. The melting point of ice is zero degrees. So for the ice to melt on any scale the Antarctic temperature would need to rise by around 40 degrees, which NOBODY is predicting. The median Greenie prediction is about 4 degrees. So where is the huge sea level rise going to come from? Mars? And the North polar area is mostly sea ice and melting sea ice does not raise the sea level at all. Yet Warmists constantly hail any sign of Arctic melting. That the melting of floating ice does not raise the water level is known as Archimedes' principle. Archimedes demonstrated it around 2,500 years ago. That Warmists have not yet caught up with that must be just about the most inspissated ignorance imaginable. The whole Warmist scare defies the most basic physics. Sadly, what the Vulgate says in John 1:5 is still only very partially true: "Lux in tenebris lucet". There is still much darkness in the minds of men. The repeated refusal of Warmist "scientists" to make their raw data available to critics is such a breach of scientific protocol that it amounts to a confession in itself. Note, for instance Phil Jones' Feb 21, 2005 response to Warwick Hughes' request for his raw climate data: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?" Looking for things that might be wrong with a given conclusion is of course central to science. It's called PEER REVIEW! But Warmism cannot survive such scrutiny. Follow the money.


Roger December 11, 2009 2:56 pm (Pacific time)

Those of you who put your trust in UN scientists and UN leadership on climate data and projections, do you recall the "Oil for Food scandal?" Well brace yourselves for a new emerging "Cash for Carbon" scam/scandal. A story emerging out of Britain suggests "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis. A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs. The Tata Group headquartered in Mumbai anticipates receiving windfall profits of up to nearly $2 billion from closing the Corus Redcar steelmaking plant in Britain, with about half of the savings expected to result from cashing in on carbon credits granted the steelmaker by the European Union under the EU's emissions trading scheme, or ETS. Say I go up to Edmonton, Alberta at least 3 times a year on business and I never feel safe there. When I rent a vehicle I always make sure I park it in a secure location. It's pretty violent up there, though I heard Calgary is also pretty similar. Give me Oregon any ol'day.


Thomas December 11, 2009 7:16 am (Pacific time)

I believe anyone with an average IQ can look at the numbers that are provided by both the American and Canadian governments and come to the rational conclusion that those stats speak for themselves. When one needs to provide an interpretation that what you see is not what you see, then tread with caution for they are blowing smoke and disrespecting your intelligence. Here in Oregon whare we are having some record cold temps in various locations (think "micro-climates") our violent crime rate is just 1/4 that of Daniel Johnson's home province of Alberta and our murder rate is 50% lower. Our property crime rate is also quite lower. It appears that Daniel should get his own house in order before he misfires once again making assessments about us Americans. Sure we have problems, but we are the best at creating problem-solving scenarios. Beware those that cherry-pick and augment, that is why I provided the national averages, then compared two similar sized populations, i.e. Oregon and Alberta. Their stark differences really drives home the huge criminal problems existing from where Daniel Johnson is from, and ours also needs a firm approach towards amelioration. Leslie I agree that Sophie is very passionate about her opinion on this matter and that's why debate is such a useful mechanism to have a more transparent assessment rather than listen to those who say "It's settled, there is no need for further debate!"

Thomas writes: “I believe anyone with an average IQ can look at the numbers that are provided by both the American and Canadian governments and come to the rational conclusion that those stats speak for themselves.” That statement, in itself, is a fact that does not speak for itself. Nothing exists in isolation. Everything has a context and the interpretation of a fact depends on how it is viewed. This is a well known concept in science but is not really acknowledged in the ordinary world where anyone with an “average IQ” can come to a “rational conclusion”. What we see, depends on what we expect to see in advance. Let me illustrate.

Let me make clear at the outset that I am not going through this elaborate exercise to convince you, Thomas, but rather to show the otherwise unsophisticated reader how you distort your argument to make an ideological point. I have an obligation to S-N readers.


The most famous example of this was Galileo and the Church in the early seventeenth century. The Church Fathers refused to look through Galileo’s telescope because they knew that the alleged facts of looking through the telescope could not possibly be true. Theywere already in possession of the truth! just as you believe you are, Thomas.

If you had bothered to read the Dan Gardner article, you would have noted the title: “Lies, Damn Lies and Crime Statistics”. Statistics are not facts, but rather conclusions arrived at after the primary data has been massaged, interpreted and dressed up.

I’ll give examples from both sides.

Douglas Groothuis, in his book Confronting the New Age says of the Bible: “You either interpret it correctly or incorrectly. There is a difference between proper interpretation and misinterpretation.…The idea that there are right and wrong interpretations is astonishingly simple. Rational adults live by it in order to forge their way through everyday life. Yet when the Bible becomes the subject matter, New Agers often throw all common sense to the winds of relativism. But we can and must return people to reality by giving them examples of how they read other written documents.” There is no such thing as interpretation. You either see things “correctly”, or you don’t—just like your statistics.

In biology, students are taught how to see through the microscope. Biologist Steven Rose writes: "In order to prepare living tissues to be viewed through such a microscope, it is necessary first to ‘fix’ them in a solution which pickles the cellular constituents…. Finally, it is necessary to cut very thin slices of the sample, perhaps to no more than a thousandth of a millimetre thick, place these slices on a copper grid, and insert the grid into a vacuum tube, ready to be pounded with electrons. [Looking at an electron micrograph] illustrates very well the extent to which one has to learn to see patterns of differing shades of grey as ‘representing’ cells, their nuclei, mitochondria, membranes and so on. To the novice these patterns make little sense. The apprentice electron microscopist is taught just how and what to see, what to regard as ‘real’ and what as ‘artefact’—the unwanted consequences of one or more of the procedures used to prepare the living tissue. Thus the new observer is initiated into the conventional wisdom developed by half a century of biological work in the artificial world of electron microscopy.”

When Isaac Asimov was a graduate student at Boston U he had to look through a microscope which “consisted, in very large part of looking through microscopes at slides of embryo sections of chicks at each day of their twenty-one day period of development, and then drawing what one saw.” He couldn’t do it.

“I was under a double handicap here. No matter how I adjusted my microscope focus and my light and my slide, I never saw what the embryology text told me I would see. I saw clearly, of course; there is nothing wrong with my vision; I just don’t have that kind of visual imagery that sorts out tiny details.”

What do you think the problem was, there, Thomas? The facts were right in front of his eye, and he couldn’t see them, whereas other students, before and after him, could.

Well, Thomas, I’ll give you this: You’re the quintessential American. As Alexis de Tocqueville said in On Democracy in America: “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America…the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases but woe to him if he goes beyond them. The majority live in the perpetual utterance of self-applause.” Believe whatever you want. Discussion of comparisons between U.S and Canadian crime statistics is now over. The same applies to your ideological helpmate, Roger.


mo December 11, 2009 2:30 am (Pacific time)

Global Warming is NOT REAL, it's a lie. The earth is cooling, and there is evidence that it is a lie. Just look at all the e-mails from the scientists. E-mails don't lie. I can't believe that there are still people out there who believe in this total Al Gore lie. You will be the first ones to cry when your taxes go up.


Leslie Fordham December 10, 2009 7:47 pm (Pacific time)

This is a clear and thoughtful op-ed. Debating with these Flat Earth Society trolls is just a waste of time. This new denial meme about the 60s cooling craze was planted by the oil cos. I am in my 50s and remember the first Earth Day well ... They make this stuff up and then repeat one another. They're too lazy to actually look anything up, but they sure like to spend a lot of time writing silly messages on the Internet. Sofia is a knowledgeable spokesperson with strong arguments. Bravo!


stephen December 10, 2009 5:07 pm (Pacific time)

The climate changes. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then climate change. Then there is climategate that exposed the deception. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, and now war on the climate. Not going to argue about the weather, because nobody really knows, but I will debate who is doing it and why. Criminals who seek money, power and global power are the ones pushing this. Bottom line. Carbon credits have already started in Europe and some in Cananda thru a gas tax. 70% of the profits are going to push more of the agenda thru scientists such as the ones in climategate. The other 30% is going into the pocket of the bankers. Yeesh, they lie to you over and over, they get caught, then lie again, get caught, and people still believe those who lie? The bankers have already bought carbon tax credits as another deravitive for goodness sakes?? By the way, saw al gore on tv, he said that the core of the earth is "millions and millions of degress hot"...now thats funny! And I bet people actually believe him. lol Dont forget, al gore and ken ley put this scam together back in 1999. I am for clean air, THEY are for money. Its funny also, that al gore gets caught fibbing from the internet he invented! lol again.


Thomas December 10, 2009 3:29 pm (Pacific time)

Climate is dynamic, i.e., it is always changing, that's what I meant regarding climate change in my below post. It does so without man's help, which the geological record clearly shows going back long before we were walking the planet. To take snap shots of this change in short time increments and in different locations can be misleading on a global level. For example over 2000 years ago in the Great Britain area they were known for their bountiful grape and wine production. It got colder and it was not until the 14th century that it started warming up again so they could once again produce an abundant wine supply. It once again got colder and even with many different grape hybrids England has not been able to get a competitive commercial wine production to do very well. All over the world you have different micro-climates that are having wide swings in temperature and precipitation. We'll eventually all see whose right in this so-called drastic alleged human-caused change. Please note that for the last ten years it has been cooling. We all want clean air and to have a wide array of energy options available, but so far when these green energy programs have been done on a national level, like in Spain, it has caused jobs and created economic turmoil. For those interested in Canadian Daniel Johnson's comment about the much higher violent crime rate in Canada and not having a link. Please note that their violent crime rate is [year 2007] 951 per 100,000. http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Violent_crime_statistics_Canada.htm And the average U.S violent crime rate is 465.5 per 100,000. Canada is twice our national average rate. In Oregon the rate is 298.3 per 100,000. The below link references the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Go down about 2/3's of the page to view a state(s) chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

Thomas: As a pro-gun guy, you keep shooting yourself in the foot. You present what you say is evidence to support your assertion, but you don’t properly examine it yourself. The Wikipedia link you offer quotes Dan Gardner: “Direct comparison of the totals (selected) for violent crime in Canada and the U.S. have been used in articles by conservative or pro-gun writers in both countries. Their claims of higher Canadian numbers speaking to their issues however do not stand up to review as the 2 countries use widely different criteria for selection of data to include in their totals.”

To support my assertion go to the Ottawa Citizen article by Dan Gardner at http://www.dangardner.ca/Colfeb1506.html At the end of his article Gardner writes: “That's the way zealots work: Pick out the useful bits and pretend you didn't see the rest.” You, too, Thomas. It might finally creak open your closed mind.


Alex December 10, 2009 1:35 pm (Pacific time)

Great story! It's refreshing to hear some real facts on climate change and how important it is we get Obama to start acting like a leader against global warming.


John December 10, 2009 12:59 pm (Pacific time)

Wow, this is great. It's awesome to see such inspiring young people tackle this issue and see Greenpeace empowering local communities to do what they can to solve the climate crisis. What is going on in Copenhagen will determine the future of our planet and society. For some countries it will literally determine whether their country will continue to exist or not. Keep up the fight!


LocalYokel December 10, 2009 12:53 pm (Pacific time)

Many thanks to Sofia, Allie, and the thousands of people across the country who are speaking out by calling on President Obama to lead the world as we face one the greatest challenges of our time. The science is unequivocal but corporate polluters want us to think otherwise. Let's not listen to those whose bottom line depends on our ignorance and inaction.


Edyta December 10, 2009 12:41 pm (Pacific time)

Thanks to Ms Gidlund and Simpson for taking the time to articulate clearly what needs to happen surrounding the issues of climate change. President Obama and the rest of the developed world have an incredible opportunity during the Climate Conference in Copenhagen to take steps to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. Let's hope that their time there won't be wasted because we have no time to waste.


Daniel Johnson December 10, 2009 12:15 pm (Pacific time)

Thomas is the same guy who argues, without substantiating it, that Canada's rate of violence is double that of the U.S. Note that he says “the data clearly shows”, without presenting any or links to where the reader can verify it. Consider what he says with several bags of NaCl. He has an agenda.


educatedyouth December 10, 2009 11:50 am (Pacific time)

I'm young, I'm educated, and I believe in climate change. The recent hysterical and excuse me "academically challenged" comments popping up on any and every article related to climate change or the progress being made in Copenhagen are nothing more than noise, based on little fact and limited perspective. If you do YOUR research, you'll see who is backing most of this climate denial work-the same big oil and big industry lobby groups that will stop at nothing to keep our country hooked on fossil fuels and business as usual-which if you haven't noticed, has led us to an economic meltdown on wall street. Obviously it's not working. The world is moving forward with strong solutions to our global climate crisis that are not only economically beneficial and will contribute to our longterm financial stability, but also imperative for our earth and the future of humanity. Copenhagen is a great opportunity for the US to work constructively with other nations and lead the world with our ingenuity, technology and hope for a better world.


Dave December 10, 2009 11:39 am (Pacific time)

Thank you to Sofia and Allie for all the work that you're doing. Climate change is a huge threat to the Pacific Northwest. I hope President Obama does what's right in Copenhagen for all of us, puts politics aside, and listens to the scientists who tell us we have to lower our carbon emissions fast!


Michael December 10, 2009 11:38 am (Pacific time)

To Thomas, First you state that Climate Change is not happening, then you undermine your argument immediately by saying that if it is happening, it's not human caused. Talk to Alaskans to see if it's happening. They can see a measurable decrease in glaciation that's obvious from year to year. Talk to the people from the villages in Alaska that used to have a foundation in the permafrost that is now the not quite as permanent as the word might lead you to believe. It's understandable that people do not want to believe in global warming, and it's certainly understandable that people do not want to believe in man-made global warming. The reason it is understandable is that if a person agrees with the vast majority of scientific bodies and governments that Global Warming is in fact happening, and that we're contributing to the speed of Global Warming through our global carbon emissions, than this demands responsibility, this demands action. Many are resistant to any kind of change, but the truth is that we are always changing. If we can get energy for our houses without blowing up mountains in the Appalachians, if we can get energy without destroying the long term viability of the Alberta Tar sands, why wouldn't we? Because we're resistant to change, because to change would be to admit that we have not used our natural resources in a long-term intelligent way. I agree that Al Gore makes money, I even agree that he makes a lot of money. So do the executives of the oil and coal coal, and this is considered fine in our society, am I right? Why would we want to preserve outdated fuel sources that pollute our air and water? Why fight for companies that put mercury into our streams and into the fish that we eat? Why fight for a resource that is naturally limited and destined to run out like oil? Why not change, and why not change now? That's my questions, and I urge you to think about what the long-term effects of changing our behaviors and of not changing our behaviors.


Thomas December 10, 2009 8:45 am (Pacific time)

The data clearly shows that "global warming", and the fall back moniker "climate change", is simply not happening, or certainly any change that is happening is part of a natural process and not human caused. For those of you who have been around for a while, you are aware of past alarmists' claims of doom. The young and the academically challenged are easily recruited into this hoax in a cult-like fashion from my observations since the 1960's, when it was then called "climate cooling." By the way the north pole ice sheet has been freezing in record times and the polar bear population has been increasing going back to the 1950's when scientific measuring began. Follow the money. See whose getting all the Grant Money (our tax dollars) and who is also getting tax money/credits for questionable energy production. Al Gore has made over $100 million in profits since he began his "climate thing." Also environmentalists are putting up legal/court roadblocks for putting in transmission lines to bring all that alternative energy onto the grid. Pay attention to the EPA, and watch how it evolves into a political power.

[Return to Top]
©2024 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for December 8, 2009 | Articles for December 9, 2009 | Articles for December 10, 2009
The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Click here for all of William's articles and letters.

Sean Flynn was a photojournalist in Vietnam, taken captive in 1970 in Cambodia and never seen again.

Tribute to Palestine and to the incredible courage, determination and struggle of the Palestinian People. ~Dom Martin

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.