In a brief speech this morning at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, President Barack Obama pressed the world's nations to agree on how they'll combat climate change. "I believe that we can act boldly and decisively in the face of this common threat," said Obama in a 10-minute address (shown below) that took on climate change deniers and promised billions in aid to the countries that can least afford to deal with the effects of climate change.
"You would not be here unless you -- like me -- were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science," said Obama, who, at home, faces skepticism among Republicans such as Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, who has called global warming a "hoax" and vows that climate change legislation will not be passed by Congress. Obama continued: "Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies and our planet. That much we know."
Many of the poorer countries that will bear the brunt of climate change, including rising waters in some areas and drought in others, cannot afford to mitigate its effects. In recognition of that, Obama promised aid:
"America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton made it clear that we will engage in a global effort to mobilize $100 billion in financing by 2020, if -- and only if -- it is part of the broader accord that I have just described."
As for that accord, it remains in jeopardy because China has balked at having its efforts to cut emissions of greenhouse gases scrutinized. Other countries have complained that developed nations, which are most at fault for climate change, are pushing too much of the burden onto poorer nations. Obama addressed the ongoing disagreements that threaten a global climate change pact:
"This is not a perfect agreement, and no country would get everything that it wants. There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price. And there are those advanced nations who think that developing countries cannot absorb this assistance, or that the world's fastest-growing emitters should bear a greater share of the burden."
Reacting to the president's speech, the director of the NAACP's Climate Justice initiative, Jacqui Patterson, said, "The biggest emitters should bear more of the cost. It's a simple responsibility and accountability thing. As the Bolivians have said as their mantra during this conference, 'You break it. You buy it!'"
Patterson said that overall, she was underwhelmed by Obama's speech. But, she said, "I was somewhat encouraged that he was exercising some of the things that we think are important in terms of accountability, transparency and making sure there are mechanisms to review how [nations are] measuring up to their commitments." She added that the NAACP will seek to work with the government, academic institutions and nonprofits to continue fighting for climate justice for people of color.
For more on how climate change affects African Americans, see my previous posting, 'Copenhagen Climate Summit: Why Black Americans Should Care.'
______________
Sheryl Huggins Salomon is contributing editor of Black Voices, where she writes about politics and society. She is co-editor of the 'Nia Guide for Black Women' series of self-improvement books and the former publisher of Shade magazine. Follow her on Twitter or contact her at BVCEditor@aol.com.



Comments: (10)
Add a comment
By: tell the truth on 12/18/2009 5:26PM
…the only question that really matters this week at the Copenhagen Conference on climate change is whether President Obama is really going to end up corrupting the American constitutional system in front of the entire world.
Who will President Obama heed? The American people and our constitutional system of checks and balances, or the collection of dictators, tyrants, and mostly undemocratic heads of government convened by the United Nations in Copenhagen this week? They are tempting the American president to do what he wants to do and what they mostly do: ignore the will of their own people and sign a political agreement based on an unconstitutional sham.
Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: He[the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
In 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to tell President Clinton that it was the view of the Senate that the United States should not sign any international agreement on climate change that either did not mandate all countries to limit emissions or which would otherwise result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.
Nevertheless, Vice President Al Gore signed an agreement a few months later that did not meet the Senate?s test. Knowing how the Senate would vote, President Clinton never even bothered to submit this Kyoto agreement to the U.S. Senate. It would have been dead on arrival and President Clinton wasn?t interested in political embarrassment
Twelve years later the world has moved from Kyoto to Copenhagen but the same dynamics apply. Instead of having taken a formal vote, the U.S. Senate has stalled in its effort to adopt binding cap and trade carbon emission reductions along the lines that President Obama, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the delegates in Copenhagen would have the U.S. do. While not the same as a 95-0 vote, the situation in the U.S. Senate conveys the same message: no cap and trade deal is going to get out of the Senate, either as ordinary legislation or as a part of an international agreement that would require the approval of 2/3 of the Senate.
Just like Vice President Al Gore before him, President Obama might sign such an agreement with great fanfare and receive the accolades of fawning delegates from around the world, only to return home and be bitterly reminded that his signature, without the Senate?s approval, is meaningless.
Yet, today, President Obama is asserting that the constitutional principles governing Gore and Clinton in 1997 don?t apply to him in 2009.
How?s that?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: tell the truth on 12/18/2009 5:28PM
It seems that our president, a Harvard law graduate and former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, has discovered an interpretation of our Constitution that had escaped the notice of two centuries of American citizens and lawyers and judges before him.
President Obamas apparent view is that the Environmental Protection Agency, one of his executive branch agencies, can claim the regulatory power to impose, on its own authority, a system of taxation akin to what the Congress has so far refused to adopt. And since the executive branch can now implement what the legislative branch has failed to enact, then there is no need to get the Senates approval for a Copenhagen agreement.
This is, to say the least, a most curious interpretation of our Constitution. What’s next? Secretary Sebelius deciding that the Senate debate on health care reform has become tiresome, so she claims power for the HHS to reorder the healthcare economy on her own authority?
The unilateral assertion of power by the Executive Branch in advance of the Copenhagen Conference caused at least one U.S. Senator from the president’s own party, Jim Webb of Virginia, to write a fairly pointed letter to the President reminding him of the provisions of the Constitution that apply to the powers of the Legislative Branch:
Dear Mr. President:
I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase politically binding has been used.
Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.
I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.Sincerely,Jim WebbUnited States Senator
Report This
By: tell the truth on 12/18/2009 5:30PM
Webb’s letter to the president is cordial Senate-speak for ? Are you kidding me??
Considering that the president’s February 2009 budget allocated $645 billion for a cap-and-trade system to accomplish its emissions reduction goals, it suggests that the president believes his executive branch has the power to bypass the legislative branch and impose taxes of at least $645 billion on its own authority.
That’s called "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" and the LAST person who imposed such a system on Americans was named KING GEORGE III. The first hint King George III got that American colonists weren’t quite happy with his program to impose taxes on tea without their consent was that a small band of our forefathers dressed up like Indians and dumped a bunch of the King’s tea into Boston Harbor in 1773. Two years later we were at war with the British tyrant and didn?t stop fighting for seven years until we defeated his armies on the battlefield.
Now the president wants to assert his newly CLAIMED power to TAXATION without RESPRESENTATION in Copenhagen to make a climate deal with the mostly undemocratic regimes that the United Nations typically brings together.
Who does President Obama think we are? Citizens or subjects?
Vince Haley is vice president for policy at American Solutions for Winning the Future.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: tell the truth on 12/18/2009 5:35PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
TIME TO RESIST THE OPPRESSION
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: SESALMONY on 12/19/2009 9:03AM
Do you believe the human family will come to see soon enough that many leaders and followers must care about and struggle for the integrity of Earth's body and its ecology the way the greedy fats cats and fossil fools among us fight to protect their conspicuous, ill-gotten, billion dollar gains? While millions of people accumulate and consolidate billions of dollars for themselves, billions of people are left with millions of dollars to share among themselves. Is the struggle to provide a fit place for habitation by the children not worth at least as much as what the reckless, arrogant and avaricious among us value most?
Without Earth's resources and ecosystem services, the "Economic Colossus" that benefits "the few" and neglects "the many too many" (ie, the global political economy that now casts a giant shadow over the planet's surface in our time) would be immediately unsustainable, would it not?
Perhaps necessary changes toward sustainability are in the offing.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: sunnycooler on 12/19/2009 10:14PM
this is an online shopping store operated for many years.have lots of new and old customers from United States and Europe now.
you can find many of cheap price,high quality,fashion brand products here .
in order to meet christmas ,if you order more .we will give gift be free.
1)if you purchase of more then two pairs of shoes or more than100 dollar once ,you can have a pair of socks worth 5 dollar be free.
2)if you purchase of more than 200 dollar once,you can have a pair of sunglasses or a cap be free.
more info of product .please link this site
------------- http://www.overstockes.com
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Michael Lofton on 12/20/2009 4:25PM
"It seems that our president, a Harvard law graduate and former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, has discovered an interpretation of our Constitution that had escaped the notice of two centuries of American citizens and lawyers and judges before him." by tell the truth
Indeed tell the truth.....
"do you normal people notice when they have no defense its all of a sudden(american born black men) insted of african americans?there not from africa now.you peoples free ride is about over around america we are making sure of it where i live." by bajolips, excerpt taken from comments to the thread.....
"Attorney General Eric Holder Gets on Black Fathers: Why he is Wrong" by Dr. Boyce Watkins
Can't say I'm African, because be it yours truly, or multiple generations of my family and relatives, we are all U.S. born citizens....
....although I'm also a distant descendant of "slavery", I'm Black and not African.
It would be of no benefit to any U.S. citizen born on U.S. soil, to claim that he or she is an African citizen.....
......because believe it or not U.S. citizenship means a great deal. This is why so many immigrants will face death, the forces of nature, and beyond, just to set foot on U.S. soil, in hope of becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Indeed "tell the truth" typically our elected Black leaders, such as no good Pompous President Barack "the Magic Negro" Obama, do not place value in U.S. citizenship and U.S. citizenship Constitutional protections which is the primary cause of the demise of U.S. born Black men, women, and/or their siblings.
...and "Black Code" Law Enforcement continues to exist in the 21st Century
"Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C., The L.A. Times, they called him that ‘Cause he’s not authentic like me. Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper Said he makes guilty whites (The treasonous Black middleclass, liberal Caucasians, the Democratic Party of Slavery, Terrorists, Illegal and Undocumented immigrants, subversive anti-U.S. organizations and individuals, a misguided Black electorate and/or others) feel good. They’ll vote for him, and not for me ‘Cause he’s not from the hood."
http://miikimike.blogtownhall.com/2009/11/13/constitutional_protections_for_terrorists,_known_enemies_of_the_us,_illegal_immigrants.thtml
Constitutional Protections for Terrorists, Known Enemies of the U.S., Illegal Immigrants???????????
The height of perversion and blatantly illegal/unethical policy, that is truly un-American is to promote or mandate Constitutional Protections, Expanded Right to Work/Gainful Employment Opportunity, Supportive Family Services, U.S. Taxpayer Financed Government Benefits, for known foreign terrorists, enemies of the United States, and illegal or undocumented immigrants......
....... and practice No mandate or Regard for Constitutional Protections of Law Abiding U.S. Citizens, specifically law abiding U.S. born Black men, women, many of who have served this nation honorably as honorably discharged combat war Veterans of foreign wars, as truly law abiding productive U.S. citizens, and/or the law abiding U.S. born siblings.
http://www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/is-there-a-basis-for-global-warming-alarm-climate-catastrophe.html
...and the American public is being duped again, in that "The Fluid Envelope: A Case Against Climate Alarmism", Is there a Basis for Global Warming Alarm & Climate Catastrophe? and other scientific journals from Professor Richard Lindzen, MIT Professor of Atmospheric Science disproves "dooms day" global warming B.S.
......for U.S. taxpayers to be indebted for this future 100 billion dollar debt....., on top of the trillions now owed due to President Obama's and the Obama Administration's out of control tax and spending policies, is beyond reason.
"US press cool over Obama-backed climate deal"
"The much-ballyhooed treaty promises next to nothing, other than a 100-billion-dollar slush fund for Third World dictators to 'adapt to climate change,' which probably involves buying mansions in southern France."
......for U.S. taxpayers to be indebted for 100 billion dollar debt....., on top of the trillions now owed due to President Obama's and the Obama Administration's out of control tax and spending policies
....is a huge expense that U.S. citizens do not need, which would be especially the case as it relates to money that will be squandered by corrupt African leaders, and/or others, at U.S. taxpayer expense.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: gerald on 12/20/2009 8:51PM
Sound like the white Neocons are disagreeing with Our President. As usual. All white people be racist, haven't we prove that?
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: Michael Lofton on 12/21/2009 2:52PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States
The Republican Party and the founding Fathers are not the problem
http://miikimike.blogtownhall.com/
http://againstallodds.blogtownhall.com/
President Barack Obama and/or other no good Democratic Party leaders are kicking the can in Afghanistan, Healthcare, the Economy, and last but not least upholding his, her, and/or their mandated oath of office to serve, protect, and defend the Constitutional rights of all law abiding U.S. citizens, U.S. born Black men, women, and/or their siblings being inclusive.
Reply to this Comment | Report This
By: polki66 on 12/22/2009 10:53PM
http://www.vipshops.org
fr ee sh i pp ing
(jordan shoes) $32
(air max) $34
+++
wow
@@@@@@################
Reply to this Comment | Report This