Copenhagen: What Happened, and What Didn’t


As Copenhagen sputtered to a stop, Hillary Clinton made a surprise announcement that the US would give $100 billion annually to help poorer nations cope with climate change, but only if China and other nations would make their voluntary emissions limits binding. The “get China on board” meme continued with President Obama’s speech. His speech was longer than those of other countries, and Bill McKibben thinks he positioned super-polluting nations against poorer, would-be super-polluters. David Corn noted that Obama seemed frustrated, and said that despite America’s good intentions, if China isn’t on board, they won’t really matter. Henry Waxman agreed, saying that although he though Obama’s speech was more unifying, China’s willingness to make compromises was very key. For a while, it looked like Copenhagen would end without any resolution. But since Obama’s speech, China and the US met in one-on-one sessions, and other nations rallied round to at least put together some non-binding resolutions. The result: the Copenhagen Accords.

As the final text of the Copenhagen Accords gets hammered out, Kate Sheppard gave a detailed analysis of what meaning it could have if Congress isn’t on board. Six of Congress’s finest GOP members made a splash in Denmark, espousing “unorthodox” positions on CO2 and warming, such as the IPCC is not interested in science and that global warming is a money-making scam. Unfortunately, these six aren’t the only Americans who don’t believe in climate change.

Update: At 3 am, leaving them just enough time to get to the airport, David and Kate filed a must read piece on how Obama’s deal with the big emitters happened and whether it is something to cheer or jeer.

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.