Recently, friends of mine broke up after twelve years of marriage. The three of us met during college and became fast pals. By graduation the two of them started dating and few years after that they tied the knot. From the moment the two of them got married, I spoke to the wife more often, but only because she was in charge of their social calendar. Truth be told, I preferred the husband to the wife. There was always a natural, quick-witted banter between the two of us, something the wife couldn't keep up with, no matter how hard she tried. And she did. This happens sometimes with couples, you end up gravitating towards one partner over the other. I'm not saying I didn't like the wife, I did, I just had a richer connection with the husband, which is why I was so devastated to find out last week over lunch with the wife, that they were not only calling it quits, but that it had already been decided who would get me in the divorce. Her.

The news was casually delivered to me while the wife intensely studied a Chinese menu, vacillating between ordering the soup dumplings or the sesame chicken. "So the good news is that I got you in the divorce. Dumplings it is!" and she excitedly handed the menu to the waiter. "It just all sounds so yummy!" Unable to speak, I stared at her with a look of shock. She gets me? How did that happen? What does that even mean? He gets the house in the Hamptons and she gets to keep my friendship? Don't I have a say in this? Apparently the answer was no.

More...

by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger

The most recent round of United Nations-led climate change negotiations began this week in Cancun, and although international expectations are muted this year, the stakes are still high. As Mother Jones' Kate Sheppard explains,"The 2010 meeting could make or break the future of global negotiations."

This is the sixteenth Conference of the Parties, convened by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). After the tepid results of last year's conference in Copenhagen, when a last-minute, backroom deal produced a non-binding accord, participants and observers of the negotiations are beginning to question whether it is the best forum for these sorts of conversations. Central to the progress, or lack thereof, on international climate change policy is the United States' intransigence. As one of the world most proliferate carbon spewers, it's essential for the United States to commit to dramatic reductions in its carbon emissions.

But if American negotiators have always been reluctant to make those promises, even if they did this year, their promises would ring empty. The results of the 2010 midterms mean there's little chance Congress would ratify a treaty. Republicans just eliminated a special House committee on global warming. They certainly aren't interested in making the sorts of concessions that international negotiators want and need to convince their own governments to move forward.

Signing off

It's unclear, at this point, if the UNFCCC framework will ever produce a worthwhile results. Inter Press Service's Kanya D'Almeida reports that "the meeting in Cancún is foreshadowed by a deep pessimism." D'Almedia offers, for instance, this take from Nigel Purvis, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States:

"Global climate talks have begun to resemble a bad soap opera," Purvis wrote in an essay entitled 'Cancún and the End of Climate Diplomacy. "They seem to never end, yet seldom change and at times bear little resemblance to reality. This is why climate diplomacy as we know it has lost its relevance."

The last landmark climate treaty--the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States never signed onto--will expire in 2012. The Copenhagen Accord, the agreement that came out of last year's negotiations, does not bind countries to their commitments, as Kyoto did.

The next major step in tackling climate change could be for countries across the world to re-up their commitments to reducing carbon emissions through a Kyoto-like (i.e. legally enforceable) pact. The alternative is to base global action on an agreement along the lines of the one produced at Copenhagen, with less stringent standards for accountability.

Kyoto v. Copenhagen

Tina Gephardt writes at The Nation that "Serious tensions threaten to derail the UNFCCC process entirely. At the heart of these skirmishes are two camps: those nations who want to extend the Kyoto Protocol and those nations, including the United States, who want to ram through the Copenhagen Accord."

The Accord's mechanism for oversight and enforcement relies on countries monitoring each others' progress on carbon reductions, but as Mother Jones' Sheppard reports, an early point of disagreement in this year's session centers on how important it is to agree how that monitoring will happen.

Stubborn Americans

What does seem certain is that if, at the end of this session, international climate negotiations have become so messy and tangled the world abandons them, and starts over, much of the blame will lie with the United States. Tom Athanasiou lays out the case in Earth Island Journal:

It's the US, after all, that reduced the Kyoto Protocol to a non-starter, and the US that led the Copenhagen charge to abandon top-down emissions targets in favor of bottom-up "pledge and review." It's the US that, in the words of chief negotiator Todd Stern, is looking for a "new paradigm for climate diplomacy" that asserts a world in which the developed countries are no longer presumed to bear the overarching, if inconvenient, obligations of the rich and the responsible.

It's not that American leaders aren't aware of the problems the world could face (although some on the right continue to deny they exist). As Nancy Roberts points out at Care2, "Up to one billion people could be displaced by rising sea levels this century." To a certain extent, the United States is insulated from the impact of climate change. As this map, which ColorLines highlighted a few weeks ago, illustrates, America is not particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. But it'd be foolish for American leaders to ignore the security and economic implications wrought by the migration of one-sixth of the world's population.

Reaction

But Washington has shown time after time that it is willing to look past problems until they become unavoidable. The consequences of that attitude have been devastating in recent years. The BP oil spill is only the most recent example. This week the Obama administration announced it would not open up new coastline areas in the southeastern U.S. for offshore oil drilling--a decision that came only after it became clear just how much havoc a drilling disaster could cause (and would likely cause again).

With climate change, however, the tons of carbon already in the atmosphere can't be mopped up or "dispersed," or forgotten, within months. The consequences will linger on, and by the time they become clear, it will be too late to act, and international negotiators won't be talking about emission levels, but food, water, and refugee crises.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

More...

I decided to take a break from blogging over the last few days. I hadn't really taken any time off since the elections were over, and between the Thanksgiving weekend and being generally irritated by many of the events of the last month, it just seemed like a good time to mellow out for a few days- and hopefully I didn't also, to steal a line from Woody Allen, ripen and rot. Plus, I was getting tired of writing about a bad economy, bankers ripping off everyone else and no one holding them accountable, and dumb insider DC political debates. But the life and death battle over issues that really do matter to regular Americans doesn't ever stop, and this is a huge couple of political weeks.

The next couple of news cycles will be dominated by the deficit commission report, the attempts by Bowles and Simpson to round up votes on the commission for it, and the Obama administration's reaction to it. The way Obama reacts to this, in particular, will be one of the most consequential and politically significant early signs over which path the administration wants to take going forward. If they decide to embrace this report, as many people are predicting, it means they have decided to choose the DC centrist path toward political rehabilitation: get the Washington Post, the Third Way, and DC establishment all excited, and hope all that excitement trickles down to real voters someday. Given how unpopular the specifics of this plan are, and given that it takes away the fervent defense of Social Security and Medicare (Democrats' strongest political selling point right now), that would be a terrible political decision, making Obama's re-election hopes very dark.

More...

I hear there's an election next week. How do I know? Every media outlet this side of the Vladivostok Daily Bugle (VladBugle.com) can't shut up about it. The Tea Party. Yammer yammer yammer. Feckless Democrats. Yammer yammer yammer. Odd behavior. Yammer. Odder ideas. Yammer yammer. Palin. Driscoll. Angle. Paladino. Yowza! As far as I can tell, there hasn't been a new thought on this affair for months. Obama's paying for the recession, for stubborn unemployment, for bailouts, for his brains, slim physique and anti-colonialist forebears. Bailouts were payoffs. The crisis was not a crisis, but a fantasy conjured up by Wall Street. Obama is a socialist dictator to the right and Clintonian triangulater to the left. And Obama's not even technically running.

In some ways it's been a relief to dip into the pink pages of the Financial Times, which has spent the week cogitating on the election in its op-ed pages. It's a relief for two reasons: First, the FT takes a welcome break from its endless discussion of the grim British austerity budget. Second, the view from abroad lacks the tendentiousness of American commentators, who have long ago dug into their partisan bunkers (The New York Times is bad, but The Wall Street Journal is so unrelievedly dogmatic that it makes you cry for the old days of kindly Robert Bartley). The high point was Wednesday, when Simon Schama and Martin Wolf weighed in. You could feel the cool breezes of reason stirring again. Historian Schama offered the overview, making the argument that historians (like, well, Schama) judge presidents differently from grubby politicians or voters, which is no great scholarly conclusion, though he did get off a few good lines.

More...