How the Sausage Gets Made in Copenhagen

The first substantive declarations of the climate talks came from 1,029 kilometers away in Paris.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Greenpeace Finland

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Nearly two decades after writing a book that popularized the term “global warming,” MoJo contributing writer Bill McKibben founded 350.org. He is chronicling his journey into organizing with a series of columns about the global climate summit in Copenhagen. You can find the others here. Check out MoJo’s live stream of collaborative Copenhagen coverage here.

I have read, on occasion, global warming denialists who insist the whole thing is a plot to produce a “world government.” If there’s anyone here in Copenhagen who dreams of such a thing, they may be having second thoughts—as it turns out, the UN is unable even to figure out how to manage the flow of people in and out of the Bella Center. Somehow taken surprise by the thousands of people who had carefully registered in advance, the lines now stretch half a kilometer just to reach the metal detectors.

The UN solution, in part, is to reduce dramatically the number of pesky NGO people allowed inside the hall. On Wednesday Friends of the Earth International was shut out altogether; by Friday, when Barack Obama arrives, some 500 of the 25,000 or so accredited NGO representatives will be permitted to enter the giant hall. If you’re ever looking for a numerical definition of tokenism, that should suffice.

But the joke, in a sense, may be on the rest of the conference. After all the giant globes, endless late-night sessions debating paragraphs, wraparound ad campaigns and so on, one of the first substantive declarations of these talks came from…1,230 kilometers away in Paris. The Ethiopian leader Meles Zenawi stopped there en route to Copenhagen for a little meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy. And apparently en route he’d taken a phone call from some guy named Barack Obama. And that was enough to persuade him to sign off on, in essence, the American deal. Two degrees. (Never mind that the IPCC had made clear that two degrees more heating means four degrees in Africa, which means better find some habit to replace eating.) $10 billion in “fast-start” financing. (Given the 4 billion people in the developing world, that’s $2.50 apiece; sorry about that global warming, but enjoy this fries-and-a-Coke.) This is how power works. The US president doesn’t want to put political capital on the line to push the US Senate, so the leader of the African negotiating bloc gets the word, and the deal gets cut. It’s wonderfully naked, and the extra bonus up-yours was cutting the deal along the Champs Elysees.

There’s been “pushback inside the hall.”  The wonderful Desmond Tutu immediately put out a statement. “A global goal of about 2 degrees C is to condemn Africa to incineration and no modern development,” he said. But the divide and conquer tactics grow steadily stronger—it’s incredibly difficult for tiny and poor countries to withstand this kind of pressure. I’ve heard credible reports from one African country that the Chinese promised two hospitals were they to vote the right way, and from one island nation that their IMF loans have been threatened. On the other hand, there are folks applauding Zenawi for preventing “collapse” of the talks.

All of which is to say that there’s a sense that this enormous gathering has been something of a sham. The real action has always been outside. In national capitals, in those fabled boardrooms and backrooms. But also in the streets. We’ve only had a discernible global grassroots movement about climate change for a year. It built to a remarkable crescendo on October 24, with what CNN called “the most widespread day of political action in the planet’s history.” But it hasn’t yet had time to fully penetrate down into the depths of this process. It’s a player, but not yet as strong a player as the guys calling the shots today from Washington and Paris.

 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate