I learned that if you stacked one trillion dollar bills on top of each other, they would go a third of the way to the moon.  That’s insane. Do you realize how thin a dollar bill is?

I read something about how the system we use for writing numbers is both incredible and challenging because of how easily you can represent incredibly huge numbers. It’s true — 1,000,000,000 looks not all that much less than 1,000,000,000,000 if you just glance at them.  And even if you look at them more closely, the billion vs. the trillion don’t look allllll that much different, right?

Well, turns out they are. 1 trillion dollars is really really big. No, it’s really really really really really really big. When you think about it as an amount of money it’s truly mind-boggling.  You think one billion is big, per chance?  Well one trillion is a THOUSAND of those!  Maybe you’re more modest and think a million dollars is a pretty large sum of money. Well, a trillion dollars is one million million dollars. Or, a million squared. Confusing? It should be. It’s nearly incomprehensibly huge.

So that’s why the new fact sheet just released by Oil Change International is so scary and infuriating at the same time. It shows that on an annual basis, the fossil fuel industry now receives something on the order of $1 trillion globally from government subsidies (aka handouts).

That’s right…that mind-boggling amount of money? It’s going to the industry that is both raking in record profits and also destroying our planet with dirty extraction, oil spills and toxic air, and of course global warming-causing greenhouse gases.

Generally, subsidies are on either the production side (making the cost of production cheaper), or the consumption side (making the price of fuel cheaper to the consumer). In the US and the rest of the industrialized world, we generally have production subsidies, which also serve as corporate welfare to the oil, gas and coal industries, who return the favor with lavish campaign contributions.  But in the developing world, consumption subsidies, which in theory should make access to energy and fuel affordable to the poor, are far more common.

The problem is…the theory is wrong.  Those consumption subsidies don’t generally end up helping the poor.  So we need to eliminate them, replace them with real policies to ensure energy access for all, and of course we need to stop giving the world’s richest companies more incentives to make even more money.

The public is starting to wake up to the absurdity of these wasteful subsidies.  In just the few days since its recent launch, over 600,000 people (and growing) have signed an Avaaz petition calling on leaders to make progress on this important issue.  Key figures are speaking out on the need to eliminate these subsidies.

In 2009, G20 leaders committed to phase out these subsidies. But unfortunately, their commitment hasn’t turned into action, so it’s time to help light the way. Over 75 NGOs have recently come together outlining a few key steps that should be taken in the coming months at the next G20 and also at the upcoming Rio+20 summit to move forward in eliminating fossil fuel subsidies.

1. First, governments should set themselves a deadline for getting rid of these subsidies. Seeing as it’s been 3 years since the G20 committed to phasing them out, 2015 seems to be a good date — that’d be a good 6 years after these 20 leaders committed their governments to doing so.
2. Second, folks like Oil Change International and other NGOs shouldn’t have to spend lots of time and investigative skills to discover this trillion dollars sitting out there being spent in bad ways. It’s a huge amount of money and governments should be willing to admit they are sending it in support to fossil fuel industries around the world.  So, it’s time for governments to be more transparent and consistent in their reporting of fossil fuel subsidies.
3. Thirdly, support needs to be provided to developing countries and protections established to ensure the poor and vulnerable are safeguarded from unintended consequences to removing these subsidies.  While some suggest that fossil fuel subsidies are aimed at providing energy access to the poor, studies have shown that less than 10% of these subsidies actually benefit the poor. Nevertheless, it’s important that poor countries and communities are supported while these subsidies are phased out.
4. Finally, governments should work together to shift these subsidies from fossil fuels to more useful endeavors. We and other NGOs are calling on governments to create a way to encourage this cooperation — a center of excellence for fossil fuel subsidy removal, if you will.  This center would help governments be honest in their reporting of these massive subsidies and coordinate global efforts to get rid of them.

Luckily, there are a number of opportunities on the horizon for government leaders to commit to these three simple steps.  One opportunity was just passed by this weekend, as the G8 leaders released only a reiteration of existing pledges on this issue.  But in June, the G20 will meet as they do each year, this time in Mexico, where a climate law was just passed that commits the Mexicans to removing their subsidies.  Just days later, the whole world will be convening in Rio for the Rio+20 global sustainability conference.  These two opportunities are prime opportunities to launch a global effort to live up to the commitments already made by the G20 and get rid of these inefficient and massive subsidies once and for all.

Just think, with a little effort we could have US$1 trillion to help fund a transition to a safer future. Seems like it’d be a great head start, if you ask me.

Getting arrested: par for the course at Keystone XL protests.Photo: chesapeakeclimate

While I’ve been active in the climate fight for several years now, this will be the first time I’ve joined in this sort of an action. Over the past five years, I have dedicated my life to facilitating NGOs in the U.S. and internationally to collaborate on advocating for ambitious climate policies in Congress and at the United Nations. My work consists of countless conference calls, emails, fights over commas and word choices, and quiet meetings with government officials. I’ve gotten to travel to some amazing places, only to find myself spending most of my time in hotels, conference rooms, and negotiating halls.

Despite it not being terribly glamorous, I’m convinced that this work is a necessary part of the global climate struggle — we must ensure that there is a legal infrastructure in place that can lock in ambitious action on climate change and hold governments accountable. And building that infrastructure takes time, a lot of wonky people, and perhaps boring work.

But what I’ve also learned in these past five years is that those of us in suits roaming the halls of “power” will never be enough to enact the change we need — an absolutely essential part, but not enough. In order for those laws and global agreements to be worthwhile, we need to fill them with the kind of substance to which we can hold governments accountable. 

We need our governments to hear from their people that they can no longer get away with finding reasons to delay action, or loopholes to make their pledges weaker than they appear. We need citizens all over the world to be heard when they say that climate change is affecting them now, and their lives will be further torn apart if action isn’t taken soon. 

The tar-sands action is focused on an issue with a clear story to be told. The groups I work with share many of the same goals, but often take very different strategies to pursue those goals. But it’s clear that we all agree with the substance behind the tar-sands action — the decision on the Keystone XL pipeline is a critical moment on climate for the Obama administration and for the climate movement here in the U.S. The tar-sands are a ticking time bomb for the climate — if fully exploited, it’s “essentially game over,” as James Hansen has said.

I’m heartened to say that when I look up from the negotiating documents and put the phone down from my conference calls, I can see and hear an amazing grassroots movement growing stronger by the day. It’s one that I’m proud to say many of my friends are helping to create. For awhile I’ve applauded it from the sidelines, and admired the work of friends all over the world who are on the front lines of this fight. Now I’ve finally decided it’s time, at least for a day, to personally join them in the streets.

So, this week, I’ll be headed to the White House to let my president know that on those days when I’m not talking to his representatives at the U.N. in my suit, I’m willing to sacrifice in other ways to ensure that he hears us and does what’s right for this country, and for the planet. It’s time for my president to reject this pipeline and show that he was serious when he said that his nomination marked “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

And if all goes well, after a day in jail with some friends, I’ll go back to my conference calls … at least for a while.

These 8,000+ amazing young people gathered this weekend in Washington, DC for Powershift to organize, train, and working to ignite a movement and reaching that tipping point here in the United States.

The weekend’s experience marks an incredible contrast to where I was one week ago – in Bangkok for the first of several United Nations climate negotiations for the year.  That meeting devolved into haggling over agendas, bitter discussions between developed and developing countries, malaise, and frustration.  It was such a contrast to the defiance, inspiration, creativity and excitement that I felt today in Lafayette Park and this weekend all over nation’s capital.

When I go to these international meetings, I’m an international advocate working with friends from all over the world, but I’m still an American.  And I’ve grown accustomed to my colleagues from abroad asking me what the hell is going on in my country and why, with all the hope that Obama represented such a short time ago, we’re not leading the way towards a brighter future.  

I’ll be honest, after two years I’ve gotten lazy in my response. I tell them that our system is corrupted by money and our legislators are handcuffed by those corporations that are buying power.  I tell them that the President is stuck in a tough place with the Tea Partiers, funded by the Koch brothers and other dirty polluters, on the right and the handcuffed members of Congress struggling to stay in office, on his left.  

It’s an easy story to tell when I’m tired and fed up with a process that’s moving too slow and sick of reading about a city back home that’s deadlocked and refusing to take action on the challenge of our time.  

But it’s not the whole story and this weekend at Powershift, I was reminded of that in spades.  There’s another story out there that the world needs to hear.  

It’s a story of high school students in the Gulf Coast waking up and seeing tar on the beaches in their backyards and deciding to take a stand by shutting down BP stations.  It’s a story of young people in Appalachia fighting for their communities, standing up against the coal industry that’s trying to tear them down.  It’s a story of students in Alaska and California and Georgia and Montana and Vermont and Minnesota and Colorado coming together and finding a way to rise up and make a difference.

It’s a story of those same students creating a movement that is built on love and respect, camaraderie and friendship, shown by the many hugs and laughter and singing and smiles seen in the halls of the DC convention center this weekend.  But it’s also a story of those same students creating a movement that is sophisticated and smart, strategic, educated and passionate…and ready to take control.  It’s a movement that’s also upset, angry, and fed up.  It’s a movement that’s dangerous in all the right ways.

That’s the story that I’ve taken away from this weekend, and one the world needs to hear.  It’s all too easy for the leaders of countries all around the world to look at the surface of the United States and hide behind the climate inaction that they see in the U.S. Congress.  What’s more, it’s all too easy for our friends and colleagues in the movement abroad to get discouraged, thinking the US may never move, or at least not until it’s too late.  

But if they all look a little closer, they’ll see this movement of amazing young people, and they’ll know it is all about to change. They’ll know it’s inevitable and they might as well get started on the path to a clean energy future now or else, all too soon, these “kids” are going to bring our country sling-shotting past them and they won’t know what him ‘em.

Its weekend’s like this that give me the hope to go back to the UN and continue the slog and tell the story and convince countries like Japan and Germany and Australia and Brazil and China to get on with it already and rest assured we’ll bring the US along in no time.  

The next time I am asked by a friend from abroad what’s going on in the US, I’m going to tell them the story of Powershift. Because this is the story that matters and this is the movement that’s going to win.  

One year ago, the world’s leaders couldn’t stop talking about solving climate change. The media was in a frenzy, tallying up commitments from presidents and prime ministers to attend the Copenhagen negotiations, which would eventually lead toward perhaps the largest-ever gathering of heads of state.

With all the attention, expectations were high. Leaders from Obama to Jintao to Chavez to Zenawi to Merkel had committed to reaching an agreement in Copenhagen that would put us on a path toward solving the climate crisis.

So it was with some irony that I awoke one morning last week to an article in The Onion, the satirical newspaper, with the headline “Report: Global Warming Issue From 2 Or 3 Years Ago May Still Be Problem.”  The article details, with considerable irony, the ways in which climate change — an issue that even just a year ago was at the top of so many important minds — has somehow been lost in the fray of so many other issues, especially here in the U.S.  

Today, as I work with my colleagues in the Climate Action Network to prepare for the Cancun climate talks, we are admittedly struggling to find a balance between learning the lessons from Copenhagen while at the same time pushing for what we know is so urgently needed.

Truth is, we needed a fair, ambitious, and binding international climate agreement yesterday. Just because we didn’t achieve it in Copenhagen doesn’t mean the physics has changed (in fact, it only looks worse).

But unfortunately, there’s another truth we are all grappling with: We’re not going to get a comprehensive agreement in Cancun. Try as we might, it doesn’t appear we’re going to change this reality any more in the next month than we’ll change the reality that the climate is warming rapidly.

So, what to do? What can we achieve in Cancun? How can we move forward effectively in spite of the politics, overcoming the mistrust in the U.N. process resulting from the failures of Copenhagen and recognizing the extreme urgency of the problem?

I contend there’s some hope amidst the dire predictions, if we focus on three things: 

1)    We need to recognize it’s not the process that’s the problem, it’s the politics.  

After Copenhagen, many reporters, politicians, and “thought leaders” quickly rushed to the conclusion that the U.N. process was dying. Better start looking to other forums for achieving an international climate agreement, they said, because the UNFCCC is broken. Even recently, The New York Times published a preemptive obituary for the UNFCCC talks.

But before we bury the U.N. process, let’s have a look at what these other forums have achieved. The G20 in 2009 said it would phase out fossil-fuel subsidies. Have they? Not according to all the reports I’ve seen. The Major Economies Forum helped to put forward a series of technology roadmaps, which are great in theory but in practice have meant little. The G8? It has been rapidly overshadowed by other forums, like the G20 (see above).

So, what forum truly carries with it the voices of everyone affected by this problem? What forum addresses the myriad interlinked issues needing to be addressed in order to solve the climate crisis? The answer is that there just isn’t anything better than the UNFCCC. And after a few months of griping earlier this year, many parties (including the U.S., mind you) have come back to recognizing this.  Meanwhile, the politics in many countries either haven’t changed or have gotten worse with respect to generating action on climate change. To paraphrase an early ‘90s campaign phrase, “It’s the politics (not the process), stupid.”

2)    We need to not be afraid of successes, even if they are small.  

In Copenhagen, we were all looking for THE Agreement. I’ll admit it, even in the few weeks before the talks, when things appeared to be going poorly, I was holding out hope that there would be some quasi-miraculous moment that would turn the talks around and generate enough momentum to achieve something truly world changing. How could so many heads of state be gathered in the same place and not achieve something? Well, we were wrong — the negotiations weren’t ready and what we got was a face-saving political document that no one was happy with.  

Today, as we start the sprint toward Cancun, no one is expecting the outcome to be what Copenhagen should have achieved. We in the Climate Action Network are looking to achieve a set of building blocks in Cancun on a number of important issues that can move us substantially down the road toward a full agreement at a later (hopefully not too late) date. We’ve outlined these building blocks in this publication.

While these building blocks may not be the final agreements we want, they could be quite substantial. For instance, we’re calling for the establishment of a global fund on climate change. This fund could serve as an incredibly important vehicle to channel money and resources to ensure the most vulnerable countries in the world can adapt to the terrible effects of climate change. Not a small achievement if we get it right. We’re also hoping for a number of technical agreements regarding reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD). If we get these agreements, we’ll be well on our way toward cutting deforestation all over the world. Considering its effects on global warming, biodiversity, and so many other factors, agreement on appropriate REDD programs would be a huge achievement. What else? Agreement on how to funnel the right technologies to those who need them through regional centers of technology excellence. Getting clean energy to the poor? I’ll take it.

Of course, this isn’t to say that our work will be done after Cancun. Far from it. But let’s be willing to look at the potential outcomes in Cancun, with our integrities fully intact, and celebrate success where we find it. Surely we’ll need to point out the shortcomings that we see, but let’s not be blind to achievements that we might be able to trumpet as well.

3)    We need to get to work.  

Given the delay in getting a full international agreement to address climate change, it’s as clear as ever that we need to begin implementing whatever we can, wherever we can, to address this issue. Luckily, a lot is already happening at the local and state levels (just look to California voters rejecting Prop 23!).  

But even at the international level, we need to get to work despite slow progress. In the much-debated Copenhagen Accord, developed countries associated with it agreed to mobilize $10 billion a year over the following three years (2010 through 2012) to support climate activities. Depending on what reports you read, that commitment has been barely reached, stolen from other coffers such as development aid, or not achieved at all. That’s not good enough. Further, the parties agreed to mobilize $100 billion annually starting in 2020. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s high-level panel on climate finance recently National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) and are ready to implement them if they only have the resources to do so. Let’s get these NAPAs funded already! The list of seemingly small but vital tasks goes on.

However, governments aren’t the only ones that need to get to work. We in  civil society need to as well. We need to be sure that any momentum generated in Cancun is seized and built upon in 2011 as we move toward the next round in South Africa. We need to build political alliances in key countries to generate more will for change and action. We need to fight the business interests that are so invested in the dirty status quo.  

Some are already getting to work, as our friends at 350.org showed us with their Global Work Party on Oct. 10. Millions of citizens around the world picked up shovels and hammers and joined hands to get to work. If they can do it, why can’t we?

One of the biggest lessons from Copenhagen was that this issue will not be solved in one conference.  The work has already started, and isn’t stopping anytime soon.  As we make our way towards Cancun, let’s keep in mind that action is needed urgently.  However, let’s also make progress and agree where we can, change the politics where agreements aren’t possible yet, and make those agreements that have already been made a reality on the ground.

Over the past few days, official and leaked documents have been hitting the press that paint a sorry picutre, considering the pledges and promises of G8 and G20 leaders over the past few years. It’s a startling fact that climate change is basically sidelined at the summits here in Canada, after 2009 saw world leaders grabbing every opportunity they could to talk climate.

On Sunday, the G8′s “Muskoka Accountability Report” was released ahead of tomorrow’s summit. It contains a review of “recent G-8 commitments related to development, assesses the results of G-8 actions and identifies lessons for future reporting.” It indeed has an annex on Environment and Energy, but ufnortunately it’s lacking in detail.

WWF put out a press release expressing some fundamental concerns. Most importantly, the report doesn’t even mention progress towards the G8′s stated goal of limiting warming below 2 degrees C. 

“If anything should be in the Accountability Report, even one focused on development, it should be climate change. The G8 — and now G20 — should be sending clear messages to the rest of the world that they are working to cut emissions to reduce impacts on the most vulnerable, and stimulate a low carbon economy for all,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative.

As for the G20, Greenpeace released a leaked copy of the draft G20 declaration on Wednesday. Unfortunately, it shows a move backwards from last year’s goal of eliminating fossil fuel subsidies. The draft statement sites the need for “voluntary, member-specific approaches,” to ending fossil fuel subsidies, a major dilution of last year’s commitment “to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest.”

At a time when oil continues to gush at immense rates in the Gulf, it’s a terrible irony that only a few thousand miles away, leaders might backtrack on eliminating unfair, inefficient, and unnecessary subsidies to a dirty industry.

Here’s what Greenpeace’s Dave Martin had to say:

This is a major climb-down from the G20′s position last year to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Greenpeace welcomed the G20 commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies last year. Now it seems that their promise was as well thought out as a deepwater drilling plan. The G20 needs to stop the gusher of public money that is spewing into the coffers of Big Oil and coal.

What’s more, Canada announced yesterday its share of the fast start financing pledged in the Copenhagen Accord. As Climate Action Network Canada’s Graham Saul said, “The government has taken a step in the right direction today with the announcement of 400 million dollars this fiscal year to support action on climate change in developing countries, but we need to make sure that they are not getting this money by raiding the aid budget. Where is this money is coming from and where it is going?”

That is, are these pledges just “climate-washed” money that had already been allocated to development or health programs, or is it legitimate, new resources flowing as they should to this ever growing problem? The G8 countries would be well-served to clarify the sources and additionality of their pledges, ideally with an aim towards ensuring climate funds are new and additional to existing development funding.

Will things turn around in the coming days? Well, we can always hope. If leaders come to Toronto and push climate onto the agenda (despite PM Harper’s best wishes), clarify their intentions to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, and make good on their pledges to reduce emissions and support developing country climate needs, we might have another earthshaking event. But unfortunately, everyone’s been telling me earthquakes appear to be quite rare in Ontario.

Over the past few days, official and leaked documents have been hitting the press that paint a sorry picture, considering the pledges and promises of G8 and G20 leaders over the past few years.  It’s a startling fact that climate change is basically sidelined at the summits here in Canada, after 2009 saw world leaders grabbing every opportunity they could to talk climate.

On Sunday, the G8′s “Muskoka Accountability Report” was released ahead of tomorrow’s summit.  It contains a review of “recent G8 commitments related to development, assesses the results of G8 actions and identifies lessons for future reporting.”  It indeed has an annex on Environment and Energy, but ufnortunately it’s lacking in detail.

WWF put out a press release expressing some fundamental concerns.  Most importantly, the report doesn’t even mention progress towards the G8′s stated goal of limiting warming to below 2 degrees Celsius. 

“If anything should be in the Accountability Report, even one focused on development, it should be climate change. The G8 — and now G20 — should be sending clear messages to the rest of the world that they are working to cut emissions to reduce impacts on the most vulnerable, and stimulate a low carbon economy for all,” said Kim Carstensen, leader of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative.

As for the G20, Greenpeace released a leaked copy of the draft G20 declaration on Wednesday.  Unfortunately, it shows a move backward from last year’s goal of eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies.  The draft statement sites the need for “voluntary, member-specific approaches,” to ending fossil-fuel subsidies, a major dilution of last year’s commitment “to phase out and rationalize over the medium term inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies while providing targeted support for the poorest.”

At a time when oil continues to gush at immense rates in the Gulf, it’s a terrible irony that only a few thousand miles away, leaders might backtrack on eliminating unfair, inefficient, and unnecessary subsidies to a dirty industry.

Here’s what Greenpeace’s Dave Martin had to say:

This is a major climb-down from the G20′s position last year to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. Greenpeace welcomed the G20 commitment to end fossil fuel subsidies last year. Now it seems that their promise was as well thought out as a deepwater drilling plan. The G20 needs to stop the gusher of public money that is spewing into the coffers of Big Oil and coal.

What’s more, Canada announced yesterday its share of the fast-start financing pledged in the Copenhagen Accord.  As Climate Action Network Canada’s Graham Saul said, “The government has taken a step in the right direction today with the announcement of $400 million this fiscal year to support action on climate change in developing countries, but we need to make sure that they are not getting this money by raiding the aid budget. Where is this money is coming from and where it is going?”

That is, are these pledges just “climate-washed” money that had already been allocated to development or health programs, or is it legitimate, new resources flowing as they should to this ever growing problem?  The G8 countries would be well-served to clarify the sources and additionality of their pledges, ideally with an aim towards ensuring climate funds are new and additional to existing development funding.

Will things turn around in the coming days?  Well, we can always hope.  If leaders come to Toronto and push climate onto the agenda (despite Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s best wishes), clarify their intentions to eliminate fossil-fuel subsidies, and make good on their pledges to reduce emissions and support developing country climate needs, we might have another earthshaking event.  But unfortunately, everyone’s been telling me earthquakes appear to be quite rare in Ontario.

I’ll never forget the next morning, having coffee with a close friend from Trinidad who has spent her adult life in Europe.  She and I sat and beamed, uncontrollably giddy and excited, having stayed up all night watching the returns.  After eight long years, the nightmare was over.  And I’ll always remember what she said to me as we sat in her kitchen that morning:

“I forgot how great America can be.”

It was an amazing experience being in Europe for the historic election last year.  Sure, it would have been fun to roam the streets of D.C. or join the thousands celebrating in Chicago, but being in Europe was special in its own way.  Walking the streets of Brussels on the 5th, it might as well have been any city in America considering how much people were talking about the election.  And I was proud.  Really proud.  I wore my Obama button for days, no longer envious of the Canadian flags Americans had been sewing on their backpacks for years.  Obama was MY President and I was perfectly fine with all these Europeans being jealous.

But that one statement from my friend hit me more than any other experience during the election last year, and has stuck with me ever since.  American can be great.  It has been great.  And on Nov. 4, 2008, so many of us around the world knew America could be great again.

Now, after a long year of challenges ranging from efforts to save the economy, reform health care, and deal with troubled wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, people all over the world are beginning to take stock of the President’s first year in office and consider what he’s achieved in light of the great expectations held on his first day in office.

Well, at least in one policy area, when he comes to Copenhagen for the climate talks next week, the President has an incredible opportunity to show the world how great America can be.

Speculation has begun in earnest as to what he might say, and of course a lot seems obvious. But what should he say?  Well, to start, I’d offer a few points that might personally make me proud:

1. Recognizing that climate action can create jobs and stimulate the economy, President Obama should lay out a plan to make deeper cuts in U.S. emissions;
2. Understanding that the U.S. has caused a disproportionate amount of the climate change we are seeing today, and that climate stabilization is in the national security interest of the U.S., President Obama should pledge real, substantial, and additional funds to support developing country adaptation and mitigation efforts both in short and long term;
3. Recognizing that the U.S. can’t go as far as it should without domestic legislation, President Obama should commit to putting the full weight of the White House behind ensuring the Congress passes ambitious domestic climate legislation this Spring;
4. Understanding that the world needs the U.S. to be a part of the solution, President Obama should commit to come back to Copenhagen on Dec. 18 to sign a fair, ambitious and binding deal. If such a deal is not achieved this month, he should personally commit to coming back to the negotiations in the first half of 2010 to sign the full agreement.

He could surely say a lot more, and I hope he does, but these four elements might help make this trip to Copenhagen a successful one, in my view.

A plea to my President: Please, President Obama, when you come to Copenhagen, help us remember once again how great America can be.

Well, I’m happy to say that at least as far as the Climate Action Network – International (CAN) is concerned, we’ve done our job and it’s in the form of CAN’s “Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal.” In this document just released today ahead of the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen, we, as the world’s largest network of organizations fighting for solutions to the climate crisis, share our collective views on the key elements of a successful climate agreement. Now it’s up to the leaders around the world to do their part in Copenhagen.

This vision has not come easily, but in the effort it has taken comes its strength. We have brought together within CAN some of the most dedicated and expert analysts and advocates in world to come together around the key essentials for a successful outcome from the United Nations climate negotiations. While some specifics may still be debated by even our own members in CAN, this document serves as the collective voice of what is needed from our leaders in Copenhagen and beyond. And it’s a powerful vision coming from hundreds of experts around the globe.

The thing that’s amazing is that-while we’ve been as ambitious as we believe is necessary to address this challenge and as true to the science as we possibly can be — we know that what we’ve laid out is achievable.

Some highlights of what we’re calling for include:

• A commitment to keep warming well below 2°C, with emission peaking between 2013 and 2017, and concentrations lowering to 350ppm CO2e.
• Industrialized countries as a group must take a target of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Most of which should be met through domestic emissions reductions.
• Developing countries must be supported in their efforts to limit the growth of their industrial emissions, making substantial reductions below business-as-usual. The support for their efforts to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change must also be scaled-up immediately and substantially, and the fact that certain loss and damage from climate change can not be avoided must be recognized.
• Emissions from deforestation and degradation must be reduced to zero by 2020, funded by at least US$35 billion per year from developed countries.
• Developed countries need to provide at least US$195 billion in public financing per year by 2020, in addition to ODA commitments, for developing country actions.
• Copenhagen outcomes must be legally binding and enforceable: a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol; and a complementary agreement with comparable action and enforcement for the United States, and action from developing countries.

When leaders come to Copenhagen next month, CAN’s “FAB Essentials” will be our yardstick for measuring our leaders’ success in their steps along the path towards climate stabilization and a sustainable world. We know that what we’ve put forward is ambitious, but what’s more important is that the elements found within CAN’s FAB Essentials are both essential and achievable.

For more information on the Climate Action Network and “Fair, Ambitious & Binding: Essentials for a Successful Climate Deal,” please visit our website. An official press release can also be found here. And finally, as the conference in December moves along, be sure to stay tuned at our blog for updates on how the nations of the world are doing in meeting the FAB Essentials.

As Copenhagen prepares for December, a strange combination of Christmas lights, clean energy expos, evergreen wreaths, and security barriers have begun to crop up around the city. It’s an exciting time to be in Copenhagen reflecting on a year of intense pressure, activity, and engagement around the world.

Over the past several months (and years), a growing movement has coalesced around the conference here next month and it’s hard to believe it’s finally almost here. In June, the sleepy German town of Bonn saw hundreds of activists descend in the rain upon the normally quiet Subsidiary Bodies negotiations at the UNFCCC’s home. Thousands around the world participated in the September 21 Global Wakeup Call. Then in Bangkok in October thousands marched outside the UNESCAP building calling for climate action. October 24th saw the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history, spearheaded by 350.org, with over 5,000 events in 181 countries around the world.

And now, rumors of tens of thousands are looming on Copenhagen, including, by my count so far, at least 15 Heads of State who have committed to attending the talks (although Yvo de Boer said in Barcelona that he expects at least 40). [UPDATE: The AP is reporting a Danish official has suggested 65 Heads of State are planning on attending as of Sunday the 22nd of November.]

The last time I wrote, it was a dark and gloomy day in Copenhagen. But today was beautiful — the sun was out, the weather warm, and the bustle on the street was electric.

The last time I wrote, I was convincing myself, and others, that all was not lost for December. Now, on this bright and sunny day, I’m as convinced as ever that world leaders can achieve an ambitious outcome in Copenhagen if they try.

Even in the past week, we’ve seen movement around the world. The Alliance of Small Island states continue to raise its collective voice of conscience against a weak outcome in Copenhagen. We’ve heard that the Chinese would be willing to bring a number to the table in Copenhagen. We’ve seen South Korea confirm a voluntary emissions reduction target of 30 percent below business as usual by 2020. The European Union has said that it would like a binding agreement in Copenhagen. France and Brazil came out with a “climate bible” — an agreement between two nations to work together on climate change. This follows Brazil’s previous announcement of voluntary emissions cuts of 36-39% by 2020 below business as usual in a “political gesture” some weeks ago.

Even the Danish government, which had caused so many hearts to sink with its proposal of a “politically binding” outcome in Copenhagen, seemed to change its tune … if only just a bit. The Danish Minister for Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard (who will chair the negotiations in December), spoke in a press briefing at the close of the preparatory meeting last week, assuring the world that her aim is a legally binding outcome from the negotiations.

Finally, eyes continue to focus on the U.S. In the joint announcement between the U.S. and China, President Obama indicated his team could bring further commitments to the table in Copenhagen. As Copenhagen creeps towards December, the question remains, will Obama come to Copenhagen? And if so, will he come bearing gifts … or a lump of coal?