Who puts what's on the table?

The protests outside the Bella Center seem to be on the minds of many people, but I generally notice a disconnect between the protests and the criticisms of COP15 we've been exposed to. Why are they protesting? This seems to be a question that few seem to be discusssing. The general slogans are out there: "System Change, not Climate Change," "Climate Justice Now," "There is no Planet B," "Politicians Talk, Leaders Act." Do these strike a tone in the leaders that are trying to save the planet? I tend to think not...

Yesterday we had the pleasure of speaking with a number of individuals from the California Delegation, including members of Cal EPA and a nonprofit called the Climate Registry. I had a conversation with Rachel Tornek, the Senior Policy Manager for the Climate Registry. She spoke about her recent project developing a US methodology consistent with the UNFCCC methodology for coal mine methane reductions.

The basic idea with coal methane reductions is to take methane that normally seeps from coal mines and either capture and burn it for energy, or at least flare it on site in order to turn the methane (a powerful GHG) into CO2, a less powerful greenhouse gas. Essentially, the heating effect of a standard release of the methane is much greater than the flaring/capture, so this practice may count as a "Clean Development Mechanism." That is, the coal industry could "offset" some of its emissions by enacting this practice.

The immediate problem here is that this still releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In response, it's less than what would have been released, so we count the savings as an "offset." Of course, we may easily ask, why not simply require this practice as a regulation on coal mining, rather than rewarding companies to (partially) clean up the mess they're making?

But there's a much more subtle question that needs to be asked: what role is coal supposed to play in a clean energy economy? It's not a big secret that coal itself is ridiculously dirty. Nor has there been a massive cover up of the fact that clean coal will take upwards of 20 years to become viable, and that the technology itself will be expensive once it is viable.

So, while the UNFCCC and COP15 discuss the details of keeping coal on the table and reducing the carbon footprint associated with the dirtiest of dirty technologies, people who challenge the need for coal and argue that we can ween ourselves off of coal are off the agenda.

It seems quite clear that the average American or Westerner would say that "clean coal" is dubious public relations term, and that the average American believes we should invest heavily in (clean) alternative energy. Why is this not reflected in the UN negotiations, in offsets, or in the American political discussion?

It's here that Ms. Tornek offered a realistic and fairly obvious analysis. She suggested that "certain interests" have more of an influence on public policy and international negotiations than public opinion. It's quite clear that she means the coal lobby. Is anyone surprised by this fact?

Certainly not, but people are surprised when protesters challenge these assumptions, parading down the street with bullhorns, cloth signs, and dreadlocks. These people are quite often viewed as "rabble-rousers," or "counterproductive."

If you ask me, the more counterproductive elements during these talks are the presumed legitimacy of coal and its offsets, as well as the moneyed interests that flood the branches of governments and international institutions. To take a line from the protestors, we may face the following dilemma: system change or climate change. What did Americans vote for when they voted for "Change"?

Perhaps more importantly, how will our present youths judge our choice when they're older?