Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @kate_sheppard

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Island Nations Make A Splash In Copenhagen

—By Kate Sheppard

| Fri Dec. 11, 2009 5:20 PM PST

They may be the least powerful nations represented in Copenhagen, but those facing imminent threats from a warming planet have made it clear that their future depends on a meaningful agreement here.

The Alliance of Small Island States and the G77, the bloc of the world's most impoverished nations, are presenting a united front against proposals from the developed nations that are neither legally binding nor as strong as they would like to see. The level of warming that would be allowed under the proposal will mean certain catastrophe for some nations, say the leaders of the AOSIS negotiators.

"Some of the delegations need a dose of reality. We bring that reality," said AOSIS chair Dessima Williams of Grenada. "We will go underwater. There's no doubt about that."

Delegates from the AOSIS nation Tuvalu, one of the first victims of a warming world, drew attention earlier this week for walking out of one meeting over this issue. Now the bloc has produced its own PROPOSAL as a counter to the draft from developed nations, calling for a legally binding deal and a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celcius warming. They also call for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be limited to 350 parts per million—a figure that has been endorsed by a number of climate scientists but has not been included in draft agreements from developed nations so far.

[Read more in the Blue Marble blog]

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Climate Deal: Only A Little Warmer

—By Kate Sheppard

| Fri Dec. 11, 2009 11:01 AM PST

A new draft proposal for a climate agreement was released on Friday, but negotiators don't seem to have made much progress in reaching consensus. US negotiators criticized the draft for not imposing emissions requirements on developing powerhouses like China and India, while delegations from nations most threatened by global warming rejected it as too weak.

This text calls for more significant cuts from industrialized nations, but lacks concrete goals for developing nations. US climate envoy Todd Stern called it "a constructive step." But, he continued, the draft "does not in any sense call on major developing countries to set forth their own steps." Without goals for rapidly developing countries, he said, "We do not believe that as it stands it can serve as the basis for real environmental results."

And though the draft lacks specific direction on emission targets for China, the Chinese delegates were still apprehensive about it. "I doubt the sincerity of developed countries in their commitment," said He Yafei, China's vice foreign minister, at a press conference on Friday.

The draft proposes that developed nations cut emissions by 25 to 45 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. This target has received positive reviews from NGOs. But it is a far more ambitious goal than what the United States is expected to accept. The cap-and-trade bill passed by the House included a 17 percent cut below 2005 levels—which is only about 4 percent below 1990 levels. The Senate proposal and the Obama administration's offer at the summit are also in that range. The draft also calls for limiting warming to either 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius (2.7 or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).

While the new text eases tensions after an earlier, weaker draft provoked outrage from poorer nations, it's a long way from what the most vulnerable countries want.

But this latest draft is still just a road mark in the marathon process of writing a new climate agreement. Actually, it's probably better to think of it as a relay race. This week's talks have been conducted by negotiators; over the weekend, ministers will arrive and begin the next level of discussions. The real action won't take place until the end of next week, when the heads of state arrive.

Meanwhile, At the Other Climate Summit...

—By Kate Sheppard

| Thu Dec. 10, 2009 10:57 AM PST

Capitalism, corporate lobbying, and consumptive culture are killing the planet—and the only acceptable solution is a radical overhaul of the global political and economic system, say delegates at a climate summit in Copenhagen this week. Not the climate summit, where negotiators are painstakingly haggling over a modest deal that may or may not slow the pace of global warming. This clarion call is what a climate agreement might sound like if matters were decided by Klimaforum, otherwise known as the "people's climate summit."

Headquartered in an old slaughterhouse in Copenhagen's red light district, near shops named "Sex Porn" and "Non-stop Sex Show," this shadow conference takes a very different approach to solving the problem of global warming than the one being pursued by the official United Nations meeting. Participants hail from the leftward end of the activist spectrum (although they shouldn't be confused with the even leftier group planning to disrupt the UN summit on December 11, whose equipment was confiscated by the police yesterday, or yet another group of protesters planning an action on the 16th). When I arrived for the afternoon plenary on Wednesday, a guy was on stage strumming a guitar. Hemp-fiber clothing appeared to be the negotiating attire of choice. "All the signs are that the governments, the leaders of the world, are going to betray the people of the world and every living thing," said British climate activist Jonathan Neale of the Campaign Against Climate Change. "We have to mobilize a mass movement that is going to make the governments of the world act."

While it's a much lower-profile enterprise than the COP15 summit, Klimaforum received $1.6 million in funding from the Danish government, and expects 7,000 attendees representing 95 countries, according to Safania Eriksen, head of activities and logistics for the event. One of its goals is to draft a "people's declaration" which will be sent over to the official negotiations next week. "There is so much lobbying from the transnational corporations. Many, many different economic interests are involved in the negotiations at the Bella Center. The decision making is really not democratic," said Kirsten Gamst-Nielsen, a member of the Klimaforum board. " We represent the grassroots."

I sat in on the consensus process for drafting this declaration. There were some welcome improvements over the official summit. Negotiations at the UN meeting occurs behind closed doors—hence the controversy over the leaked Danish text earlier this week—but at the alternative forum it takes place in the open. Participants lined up to suggest changes to a draft statement—their suggestions included requests to endorse a world-wide carbon tax and to acknowledge the specific impact of climate change on women, people of color, and indigenous communities.

But in one very striking way, the people's forum was a lot like the official forum—which is to say there was plenty of disagreement. In the same way that industrialized nations and emerging economies are duking it out at the United Nations talks, at Klimaforum there's a visible divide between what you might call the hippies and the hard-liners.

[Read more in the Blue Marble blog]

Q&A: Are Rich Nations Being Honest Brokers at Copenhagen?

—By Kate Sheppard

| Wed Dec. 9, 2009 11:08 AM PST

Will backroom deals among rich nations lead to death and devastation for poorer ones? That's the fear of negotiators from world's most impoverished countries—a bloc known as the Group of 77, or G77—especially after an early draft of proposed negotiating text was leaked to the media on Tuesday. It outlined a weak agreement that required fewer emissions cuts from wealthy nations. In the conference's first flashpoint, G77 negotiators stormed into a main hall in the middle of the busy conference center. "We will not die quietly," they chanted.

"We have been asked to sign a suicide pact," declared Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the G77. The proposed levels of warming that the draft would allow mean "certain death for Africa," he said. The group also slammed the proposed levels of funding from rich nations to help developing countries adapt to climate change and curb their own emissions. "Ten billion dollars is not enough to buy us coffins," charged Di-Aping, according to reports from the scene.

The leaked draft is not necessarily the negotiating position for many developed nations. But it has raised suspicions that rich nations aren't being honest brokers. Mother Jones talked to Di-Aping on Tuesday night about the draft and what it means for those countries for which the talks at Copenhagen are already a matter of survival.

To read the interview, click here.