We pose a question to our readers: How seriously do you take climate change?

For nearly the last two weeks, we have posted daily on the Copenhagen climate summit. Videos. Commentary. Highlights, lowlights. It seemed like the antiquated notion of progress was making a comeback and then we would fall two steps back with every leaked document or another visit from a U.S. senator on a mission to sabotage the proceedings. Politics as usual.

Then came the surprising news Obama would appear on the last day. There was a fleeting optimism his visit would be a game-changing Hail Mary. A moment of truth for how America handles climate change. But coming off the schizophrenia of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize while escalating forces in Afghanistan we asked ourselves how seriously would he take climate change?

This much we do know: On Friday, Obama negotiated a three-page accord with the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa that didn’t meet expectations of reduction. Now, the idea is to bring the big emitters into a political agreement that will hopefully become a legally binding treaty at next year’s COP16 in Mexico City. "[Copenhagen] will not be legally binding, but what it will do is allow for each country to show to the world what they are doing," Obama told reporters. "...[A] sense on the part of each country that we're in this together and we'll know who is meeting and who's not meeting the mutual obligations that have been set forth.” Gone were specific commitments to measurements as discussed prior with China, replaced by abstractions like “national communications.”

You can argue lip service is better than no service but not at DTE. “Strictly speaking, it is a disappointment. We expected more,” French climate scientist Herve Le Treut said of the new accord. “What we have seen is the diverging interests of nation states and the planet."

The biggest eye-opener of Copenhagen was the deliberate distinctions between “developed” and “developing nations.” Robert Kennedy, quoting Dante, said “the hottest place in hell is reserved for those who, in a moral crisis, maintain neutrality.” We make efforts toward humanitarian aide because of a moral crisis yet can’t understand the connection of climate change in the Sudan and African island states; powerful protests from the Pan-African Climate Justice Alliance in Copenhagen made other demonstrators seem like a wolf cry. Unfortunately, the new Copenhagen accord camouflages the benefit for “clean coal” lobbyists under the ruse of egalitarianism, giving industrialized nations a pass while these countries continue to bare the brunt of emissions. Climate change shouldn’t be so morally complicated.

All that said, another eye-opener was how Obama can be vilified for the wrong reasons. We know: We’re playing Devil’s Advocate (and we’re not referring to the vast right-wing conspiracy). It’s that he is never progressive enough. It’s the way he is deified amongst European nations who now feel betrayed by his actions in Copenhagen. Many countries project their hopes on to him--- he is their leader too and, as usual with politics, there’s a misconception that once elected, the rest will be taken care of. No support required. So far, his administration has done more than any previous office to promote climate change solutions. Even he admitted the climate agreement fell short and getting 192 countries to agree would not be serious in itself because of the lowest common denominator factor.

However, we’re at the tipping point when merely good is not good enough. We believe a radical departure is necessary to adapt to a post-carbon world. That’s our approach to international talks of this sort--- we'll just continue to emerge from the rubble even more determined. Today our thoughts are with everybody who fought hard to make something real out of Copenhagen. Stay tuned. We’re not slowing down.

---

---