Copen-bloggin’: Obama, the Nobel, and the Problem of Low Expectations


Danish Minister for Climate and Energy Connie Hedegaard said she came home one day last February to find her teenage son painting a giant mural of Barack Obama on his bedroom wall. The painting, she said, should be a symbol for Americans of just how much hope the new president has instilled in the rest of the world.

“How many years is it since you had an American president that a new youth generation, not only in Denmark, not only in Europe, in Asia, in Africa … who through his presidency has allowed hope in the United States?” said Hedegaard. “It’s fantastic that a new generation of youth worldwide sees this new hope in American leadership.”

“I know all the troubles back home on your domestic scene,” she continued. “But those of us who love the US, it is a fantastic and unique possibility of reinventing the American strong position in the world.”

Hedegaard noted this in a meeting with a small group of American reporters here in Copenhagen on Friday, just minutes after word hit the press that Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize. Denmark, like the rest of the world, is abuzz about the award. Like many Americans, I’m befuddled by the choice. While I hope that he may some day earn such a prize, I’m not sure that he’s done anything in his barely nine months in office that would merit this honor.

On climate change in particular, I’m rather surprised by the credit he’s getting. The prize committee stated, among other reasons, that, “Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting.” Hedegaard, Danish leaders, and the average Danish citizens I’ve met here also seem to be giving him quite a bit more credit than is deserved on this issue.

I was disappointed by his recent speech at the UN on climate, and I’ve been disappointed by the administration’s unwillingness to take a hard line on climate policy or even prioritize it, considering there’s a major international summit coming up in 60 days. We’re well past the point where “playing a more constructive role”—i.e., not denying climate change is happening, actually talking about the issue—is adequate.

The rest of the world has committed. The Danes, like other EU nations, are on board to cut carbon 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, and could go to 30 percent if they get wider cooperation. Norway, at this week’s UNFCCC meeting, said they would cut emissions 40 percent by 2020, conditional on the outcome at the Copenhagen summit, and 30 percent even without a stronger deal. The Japanese government has committed to 25 percent cuts. Even China is now willing to commit to at least a quanfiable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

It seems like the past 8 years have moved the bar extremely low for the US on climate. European leaders aren’t asking the US to commit to cuts nearly as steep as what they’ve outlined. Hedegaard was fine with the fact that the House bill, the only carbon cutting plan the US has passed so far, only calls for cuts of 17 percent below 2005 levels of carbon dioxide. That’s just a 3 percent cut below the 1990 baseline that the rest of the world is using. But expectations for the US are so low that even that is acceptable.

“The rest of the world is not ignorant of the challenges that the US political leaders face,” said Hedegaard. “What the rest of the world just asks from the US is you must be as much into this as the rest of us. We understand your challenges and your problems. Don’t believe it’s easy for the rest of us. But you must take your fair share of responsibility.”

Hedegaard did caution that Obama needs to have something to show here in December if he’s to live up to the promise of the Nobel and the expectation of young people around the world like her son.

“That is what is at stake here. If the United States comes to Copenhagen and says we cannot deliver, I’m not sure whether that picture on the wall will be scrubbed away again,” she said, “but I think that there is the possibility for the US to take this leadership position in the world that has been a traditional role for the Americans to have.”

And what was her top request for Obama for the December summit?

“He should show up.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight 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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.