SELECT YOUR VOTE

John Kerry: This can be a catalyzing moment. President Obama’s hands-on engagement broke through the bickering and sets the stage for a final deal and for Senate passage this spring of major legislation at home. It’s a powerful signal to see President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma agree on a meeting of the minds. These are the four horsemen of a climate change solution. With this in hand, we can work to pass domestic legislation early next year to bring us across the finish line.

This Just In: From the President’s briefing:

President Obama begins his remarks to the press in Copenhagen by recognizing the leaders of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, with whom he’s been talking all day.

"We have come a long way but have much further to go," Obama says, but an agreement reached Friday - founded in transparency, mitigation and financing of anti-climate change efforts - can "serve as a foundation for global action."

"Because of weather constraints in Washington, I am leaving before the final vote," he says, "but we feel confident we are moving in the direction of a significant accord."

"What we achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but the beginning," says the president. "We’re in this together and we’ll know who’s meeting and not meeting the mutual obligations that have been set forth."

Each nation party to the agreement makes concrete commitments in the appendix of the document, Obama says. Commitments will be subject to international consultation and analysis by bodies such as the WTO. But: It’s not legally binding.

"The challenge here was that for a lot of countries, particularly emerging countries in different stages of development, this is going to be the first time they’ve voluntarily offered up mitigation targets," he continues. "If I make a claim I’m reducing greenhouse gases because I’ve changed mileage standards on cars, there will be a process for people to see if that in fact is in effect."

Obama is asked how he’ll get a legally binding agreement within a year. "It’s going to be very hard and take some time," he replies.

He gives some context: "The united states came with a clean slate because we’ve been on the sidelines of these negotiations for so many years."

Since 1992, he says, emerging countries like China, India, Brazil have experienced "enormous economic growth and industrialization.""It’s not enough for developed countries to make changes; those countries will have to make changes as well," Obama argues, so that the carbon the U.S. takes out is not just "dumped back in."

TECHIE-IN-CHIEF: "Ultimately, this issue is going to be dictated by the science. The science indicates we have to make more aggressive steps in the future," Obama says, talking up clean-energy investments:
"Beginning to make progress in getting wheels innovation moving we’ll be in the position to solve this problem."

Asked about the appendix to the agreement, in which countries list mitigation efforts, Obama replies: "With respect to the appendix, these countries have set forth for the first time some very significant mitigation efforts. And I want to give them credit for that."

HE’S WATCHING: "The problem is not going to be verification," Obama says. "We can monitor a lot … through satellite imagery … We’ll have a sense what countries are doing."

Acknowledging that he’d still like to push for a legally binding agreement, Obama points out that Kyoto was legally binding and didn’t get the job done because countries fell short of their goals.

"So I think that it’s important for us, instead of setting up a bunch of rules that end up just being words on a page and are not met, that we get moving, everyone taking as aggressive a set of actions as they can," he says.

Daniel M. Kammen: The key operative term here is "meaningful agreement with INDIA AND CHINA", which means that the major developed and developing nations that did not "meaningfully" participate in the Kyoto process have worked to an agreement here.
While the hard work is actually to come, this signals to industry in developed and developing nation a fundamental shift: away from the old ‘developed’/developing’ to ‘major/minor’ emitters.
Carbon prices will come, regional trading regimes will come, and with the US having already committed to lead a push for $100 billion/year for less industrialized nations to a fund to address BOTH mitigation and adaptation. The most essential pieces can now be said to either be in place, or on the agenda to be developed over the next months, ideally by the G20 summit, and if not, by COP16 in Mexico.

Pejman Yousefzadeh: Well, a climate deal apparently has been reached in Copenhagen, but it contains "less ambitious climate targets than the United States and European governments had initially sought." The draft proposal "also lacked the kind of independent verification of emission reductions by developing countries that the United States and others demand," which means that countries like China and India can continue emitting, without any type of meaningful mechanism in place to monitor those emissions, and perhaps work to lessen them. We are apparently supposed to take China’s word that it will reduce its carbon emissions by 40-45%, which means that the United States will help facilitate a massive round of wealth redistribution, without much in return from developing countries.
So, I would say that the President’s speech achieved very little. I continue to believe that the best way to deal with carbon emissions is through a carbon tax that has its dollar amount pegged either to the three year moving average change in global tropical temperatures, or to a futures market in the temperature indicator where the futures price would determine the tax. Unfortunately, it appears that no such plan will be seriously considered at home by the Obama Administration and/or Congress, just as it received no consideration in Copenhagen.

Tom Korologos: Obama didn’t do so hot last time he ventured to Copenhagen (ask the Chicago Olympic Committee.) Why would this jaunt be any different.

Michael A. Levi: The President delivered a solid if unexciting speech that explained and reiterated the basic U.S. bottom lines. He saved his strongest language for making his case on transparency — probably the most vexing issue at this point in the talks. The United States has taken big steps by offering its emissions reduction targets before the Senate has acted, and by offering to help direct a massive amount of money to the developing world. What Obama is asking for in return — agreement to transparency from China in particular — it reasonable and necessary.

There is mounting anger, particularly amongst U.S. participants (including from environmental NGOs) here, toward China. Wen Jiabao’s strident speech this morning, in which he appeared to give little if any ground on transparency, will not help. His decision not to attend a major heads-of-state meeting earlier this morning — part of a pattern of snubs from Chinese negotiators that has unfolded this week — is not winning him any more friends.

The UN has asked negotiators to plan on staying until Sunday. But the basics of any agreement, no matter how thin, will need to be worked out before the heads of state leave today.

Dana Perino: At this point, is Obama’s goal to get a deal, or to shift blame for no deal to China? If the latter, he may be making headway.

However, the Chinese are smarter than the average bear. Do not at all be surprised with a last minute "Fine, we agree - you can measure our emissions," from the Chinese so they are positioned as having saved the day–(the heroes of the conference, hooray!) –and without having had to really do anything of substance: no agreement to legally binding outcomes, and no commitment to their fair share of long-term reductions.

Christine Pelosi: President Obama made a powerful pitch for getting our global act together, investing in jobs, and cleaning up global warming pollution. The President’s speech was classic Obama: here is the vision of a better future, here are the delays and debates that block progress, and here is what we can do together to overcome. President Obama’s model of mitigation, finance, and transparency was a clear strategy for tackling problems abroad and here at home. We heard jobs, health, and accountability - themes much on the minds of Americans. We also heard that America must do our part to fight global warming pollution - a clear call to action by the Senate to take up the House-passed American Clean Energy & Security Act.

Achieving President Obama’s vision will require what Speaker Pelosi calls the "kaleidoscope of politics" - the unique and sometimes unlikely alliances built around each issue. Building alliances means working with friends and foes alike; sometimes, the more unlikely the alliance, the stronger it holds. We shall soon see: the Senate climate bill is cosponsored by stalwart Democrat John Kerry, conservative Republican Lindsay Graham and … independently Independent Joe Lieberman. Like it or not, we still need each other; as the President said in Copenhagen, "our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance."

Roger Pilon: In Copenhagen this morning, President Obama convinced only those who want to believe — of which, regrettably, there is no shortage. Notice how he began, utterly without doubt: "You would not be here unless you, like me, were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science." The implicit certitude is no part of real science, of course. But then the president, like the environmental zealots cheering him in Copenhagen, are not really interested in real science. Theirs, ultimately, is a political agenda. How else to explain the corruption of science that the East Anglia Climate Research email scandal has brought to light, and the efforts, presently, to dismiss the scandal as having no bearing on the evidence of climate change? If that were so, then why these efforts, or the earlier suppression of contrary or mitigating evidence that is the heart of the scandal?

We find such an effort in this morning’s Washington Post, by one of those at the center of the scandal, Penn State’s Professor Michael E. Mann. Set aside his opening gambit — "I cannot condone some things that colleagues of mine wrote or requested" — this author of the famous, now infamous, "hockey stick" article seems not to recognize himself in Climategate. That he then goes after Sarah Palin as his critic suggests only that on a witness stand, confronted by his real critics, he’d be reduced to tears by even a mediocre lawyer. One such real critic is my colleague, climatologist Patrick E. Michaels, who documents the scandal and its implications for science in exquisite detail in this morning’s Wall Street Journal.But to return to the president and his speech, having uncritically subscribed to the science of global warming, Mr. Obama then lays out an ambitious policy agenda for the nation. We will meet our responsibility, he says, by phasing out fossil fuel subsidies (which pale in comparison to the renewable energy subsidies that alone make them economically feasible), we will put our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings, and we will pursue "comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy."

Mark that word "legislation," because at the end of his speech the president said: "America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say." But we haven’t made "our choice" — cap and trade, to take just one example, has gone nowhere in the Senate — even if Obama has made "our commitments." And that brings us to a fundamental question: Can the president, with no input from a recalcitrant Congress, commit the nation to the radical economic conversion he promises? Environmental zealots say he can. Look at the report released last week by the Climate Law Institute’s Center for Biological Diversity, "Yes He Can: President Obama’s Power to Make an International Climate Commitment Without Waiting for Congress," which argues that in Copenhagen Obama has all the power he needs under current law, quite apart from the will of Congress or the American people, to make a legally binding international commitment. Unfortunately, under current law, the report is right. I discuss that report and the larger constitutional implications of the modern "executive state" in this morning’s National Review Online. There is enough ambiguity in the president’s remarks this morning to suggest that he may not be prepared to exercise the full measure of his powers. But there is also enough in play to suggest that it is not only the corruption of science but the corruption of our Constitution that is at stake.

Peter Goldmark: He said it all. And he built a big tent, with lots of room for various points of view.
In effect, he said to them: let’s go do it. Now we’ll see if they will go do it.

Rory Cooper: It’s been at least a week since America judged an empty Obama speech that was followed by little or destructive action. As usual, it was peppered with some of his universally favorite lines like: “the time to talk is over” and “no time to waste” and “we are running out of time.” If delivered by a conservative, President Obama may refer to this rhetoric as a “scare tactic” but when delivered by him, there is no such problem. Thankfully, America knows different. Overwhelmingly, America knows the only agreement that could be reached in Copenhagen is one that would destroy our economy and enter the U.S. into a global redistribution of wealth scheme. Thank God Copenhagen has so far been a complete failure.In his speech, the President unilaterally touted U.S. commitments to lower greenhouse gas emissions that have not yet been agreed to by the Congress. Secretary Clinton unilaterally pledged billions of U.S. dollars (that we don’t have) to a global fund that has no outcomes, goals or benchmarks but merely cuts checks to poorer nations, many run by despotic and even kleptocratic leaders. America would be providing a full 20-30% of the funds for this plan because we are a “rich nation” yet China who hold much of our debt would have no such issue.

Sooner or later, this joke is going to end, and I don’t simply mean the farce in Copenhagen. Sooner or later, the U.S. will stop giving credence to a debate that is designed solely to steal American jobs and American income, with absolutely zero, zippy, nada environmental outcome. To be clear, not the Waxman-Markey bill, not the Kerry-Boxer bill and not any agreement out of Copenhagen will improve our environment in any significant way, and even Obama’s EPA Administrator admits as much. So if we want to start talking about ways to be better conservationists, to be stewards of the Earth and improve the land we occupy in the U.S., then let’s start that debate. But if the mere idea of eco-consciousness means handing over American’s wealth to the likes of Hugo Chavez, then the debate should end today for the sake of our nation’s future.

There is a reason Hugo Chavez received thunderous applause in Copenhagen when he declared: “…a ghost is haunting Copenhagen, to paraphrase Karl Marx, the great Karl Marx, a ghost is haunting the streets of Copenhagen, and I think that ghost walks silently through this room, walking around among us, through the halls, out below, it rises, this ghost is a terrible ghost almost nobody wants to mention it: Capitalism is the ghost, almost nobody wants to mention it. It’s capitalism, the people roar, out there, hear them. …Socialism, the other ghost Karl Marx spoke about, which walks here too, rather it is like a counter-ghost. Socialism, this is the direction, this is the path to save the planet, I don’t have the least doubt.”

Bradley A. Smith: This is a pretty typical Obama speech.

He starts with the appeal to expertise - "This is not fiction, this is science." Of course, what is increasingly clear, especially since the release of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit emails, is that there is a great deal that is unknown or uncertain in the science of climate change. One needn’t be a "denier" to recognize that. But President Obama wants to quickly marginalize his opponents, so they are people of "fiction," and he is the man of "science."

But this bit of rhetoric is intended to go further than merely suggesting that we know all we need to know about the science. Without saying so, it is also intended to create the suggestion that science dictates the response. In other words, even if we accept (as I do) that the earth is warming and that human activity is playing a role in that warming, there are many potential ways to try to address the problem. Obama suggests that there is only one - massive government restrictions placed on the people, enormous transfers of wealth out of the United States and other developing countries, and a sharp decline in our standard of living. This is "science." But in fact, many, if not most, economists disagree that this is the best use of resources, that is to say, the best policy, to deal with the problem and other problems facing people, such as lack of clean drinking water in much of the world, the return of malaria as a threat, or feeding the poor, or even the best way to martial economic resources to deal with climate change.

After some obligatory apologetics for the United States, another boilerplate feature of any Obama speech given outside the borders of the United States, the President then plays his favorite game: the false choice.On the one hand, "[t]here are those" - as always, the unnamed, evil "those" - who think things nobody much really thinks; and on the other hand, "there are those" - again, unnamed - who also are accused of thinking things pretty much no one really thinks. Obama then stakes out a position firmly between these two ridiculous positions that no one else - except some unnamed group of "those" - actually believes or advocates. This is supposed to further reinforce his preferred solution as the only realistic solution, and his image as that of the reasonable man of the center.
From this, the President argues for the miracle cure. Just as we can expand health coverage and lower costs with no rationing of care, we can dramatically reduce our use of energy and our economic activity and have it create "millions of jobs."

Next comes the call for immediate action - there is no time to think about the speech or whether the policy he proposes really makes sense, or to listen to other views or to consider other solutions - the people must act now, and must follow Obama’s preferred course of action. "There is no time to waste." "We can embrace this accord… or… fall[] back." There is nothing in between.

And finally, there is the predictable messianic complex, the grandiose blather about the "people of the world" coming together for "the future of our planet."

Meanwhile, outside, the limos purr, the privates jets are get warmed up to take the delegates home, and the gadflys walk about in panda and polar costumes or parade around as CO2 molecules, while simultaneously recycling most every old anti-capitalism sign left from their 1970s protests for Marxism that they could find in their garage. A serious issue that we ought to discuss seriously - climate change - is being steadily turned into a joke by its own advocates.

I still think the best that come out of this is that Obama brings home the Olympics.

Diane Ravitch: Very nice speech. A reminder of the Obama eloquence to which we are now accustomed and for which we should be grateful. But other eloquent Obama speeches (e.g., the one to "the Muslim world") produced no change. At some point, the president will realize that actions speak louder than words.

Cesar Conda: On another topic: Yesterday, the House of Representatives, on a narrow 218-214 vote, approved a measure to increase the federal debt limit by $290 billion, allowing the Federal government to continue borrowing until late March, and bringing the total outstanding debt to a whopping $12.4 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the government will need to borrow $3 trillion for the two years 2009 and 2010. By contrast, it took America 219 years from 1789 to 2008 to amass $5.8 trillion in Federal debt.

Before the Congress agrees to raise the national debt ceiling, it ought to impose some fiscal discipline on itself. I’d recommend bringing back and updating the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings emergency deficit-cutting law. Championed by former Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX), Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and Ernest Frederick "Fritz" Hollings (D-S.C.), the bipartisan Gramm-Rudman law was enacted in 1985, when Congress was under intense public pressure to reduce what was then considered an unheard-of budget deficit of $200 billion. Specifically, Gramm-Rudman required Congress to meet year-by-year deficit-reduction targets, ending with a balanced budget by the end of 1991. If Congress missed those targets, the law triggered automatic across-the-board spending cuts - a process called "sequestration" - to reduce deficit spending to the mandated level.Here’s what a new and improved Gramm-Rudman would look like: It would set annual deficit-reduction targets beginning in 2010 and ending with a balanced budget by 2016. Instead of annual dollar-amount deficit targets, the new Gramm-Rudman should have percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) deficit targets, starting at 10 percent of GDP in fiscal 2010 and declining in proportionate steps all the way down to zero in 2016. By setting annual deficit ceilings as a share of the economy, Congress would have more incentive to reduce deficit spending and avoid anti-growth policies such as increasing tax rates on work effort and investment.

And controlling deficit spending and reversing the accumulation of debt is essential to getting the economy back on track, according to 222 prominent economists who released this statement yesterday.

Bradley A. Blakeman: Our President does not get what it means to be "presidential". He is not the Secretary of State or the head of the EPA, he is the head of state and head of government of one of the worlds greatest powers. He lowers his ability to do great things domestically and internationally when he lowers himself to that of a subordinate. He has failed to lead at home by ceding his leadership to Congress and he fails to lead internationally when he panders, apologizes, and personally participates in failed meetings. He has flip flopped on his role with regard to "global warming".First he said he would not personally participate in a meeting that did not generate results. Then he said he would participate in the jump start of the new attempts to get an agreement. Then yet again, he changed his mind and said he would appear at the end of the new negotiations regardless of whether there was a deliverable he could agree with at the conclusion of the meeting. This is the second time the President has appeared in Copenhagen only to come home empty handed. What good can come if the President settles for a agreement that is not even worth the paper it is written on? A bad deal is still a bad deal if they are able to get any deal at all. President’s need to initiate great opportunities then step back and leave it to others to work out the details and then re-emerge to close the final deal with all the pomp and circumstance that it warrants. How many defeats and embarrassments must our president endure before he gets what it means to be the President of the United States of America?

Grover Norquist: I thought it was painful to watch the Bush administration spend 8 years like a Seinfeld episode with no learning taking place.
Now only weeks after it was exposed to the world that the "data" proving "global warming" was faked and "missing" and the "consensus" manufactured by pressuring today’s Gallileo’s from being published we have Barack Obama repeating over and over that there is no need for real science or real transparency of the underlying data or an end to the gag rule on science funded by tax dollars.
He was like someone repeating a non-truth over and over hoping this would convince at least himself of the lie. Oh, yes. The globe has not been warming for the past decade. All the models were lies. And the keepers of the data sent each other e-mails about how they plotted to fight freedom of information requests and to fake the data they wanted.
If the "warming" cult members really were interested in science the exposure of the fraud would have created a revolt and loud debate. But they "know" the world is flat and Obama and company are sure the photos of a round and non-heating globe are faked and the Moon landing was somewhere in Arizona. Socialists? No. Just Luddites. Religious fanatics immune to science and learning. The last time this gang insisted on acting on their religion rather than science they banned DDT and millions of Africans died of malaria. But the party of "compassion" rides past that body count in their Lear jets and waves.

David Biespiel: By calling the climate change crises a "grave and growing" threat, President Obama elevated the issue to Cold War-like urgency. And yet, realistically, we’ll measure how great the speech is by how successful
the negotiation is resolved. Most important, it’ll be judged by how successfully nations reduce emissions over the next 100 years–and how that global effort influences global climate changes. But on this day
the President of the United States sought to rally all nations to a common cause.

Dean Baker: There is really nothing new in this story. One can only hope that there is something big going on behind the scenes because what is visible to the public is very far from a serious agreement. The talk of $100 billion to developing countries is nice, but everyone knows that this is almost nothing.
That is money spent out over the course of a decade (i.e. $10 billion a year) and it will take a variety of forms other than pure aid. This is just a small fraction of what is actually needed in terms of the flow of capital to developing countries. Of course if we leave the loon tune land of the Washington media and go to real world economics, it is possible to devise policies whereby developing countries can both grow and reduce in emissions.Before the financial industry became so politically powerful economists used to say that capital should flow from rich countries to poor countries as a normal process. The bubble-driven growth of the last two decades has reversed this policy.
However, if we did go back to traditional economics, we would be setting up structures that would facilitate the flow of capital from the United States to developing countries to finance their adoption of clean technologies. This flow would be a mix of loans and aid (Yes — we do have to pay people for wrecking their environment. For the folks who have problems with this concept, we can turn their lawns into waste dumps.) Anyhow, this process can both generate jobs in the U.S. and foster growth in the developing world. But, we have to be prepared to push for biggest changes than appear to be on the table. If what we get is what is on the table, then the best contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions would be to agree to stop having meetings like those at Copenhagen.

Myron Ebell: For a moment it appeared that President Obama was bringing a dose of reality to Hopenchangen. He noted that the nations of the world have been negotiating on global warming for approaching twenty years and don’t have much to show for it. That is absolutely correct. But I didn’t hear the President draw the correct conclusions from that observation. The "process" keeps rolling along and promise after promise is made. But promises are cheap and actual reductions in emissions are proving much more expensive than forecast by the econometric models. At some point, some major leader is going to have to point that out. President Obama it appears is happy to join the EU fantasy club and be a jolly good fellow rather than spoil the party with some harsh truths.

As for what President Obama’s appearance might do to change the outcome of COP-15, I think it puts pressure on ministers to reach some rough sketch of a deal on Saturday. What he said at the private meeting at a hotel with twenty-some leaders before his speech will have much more effect on the content of the deal agreed to than the vague platitudes in his speech. But what they come up with won’t be much different than earlier COPs, which as I wrote at the beginning of COP-15 always end in total triumph. Weary negotiators emerge after all night negotiations with tears in their eyes to announce that after immense efforts we have managed (barely–you can’t imagine how close we were to giving up) to pull the world back from the brink. They announce the deal: "We have all agreed that in the very near future we will all agree on all outstanding issues." For whatever it’s worth, President Obama should take the credit.

Molly Moore: President Obama came on strong and said exactly what needed to be said. His spontaneous comments were even stronger and more pointed that his prepared remarks. Check out the italicized additions to the prepared text:

And that is why I have come back here today. Not to talk, but to act.

On the issues of accountability and transparency, he stressed: I don’t know how you have an international agreement where we are not sharing information to be sure we are meeting commitments. It doesn’t make sense. That would be a hollow victory.

He has now gone into meetings with world leaders to try to sort out the spaghetti of proposals and see if nations are indeed ready to stop posturing and start acting.

Until those leaders walk out of their meetings, the entire Bella Center is holding its collective breath.

Victor Kamber: Copenhagen can be described as the best of all times or the worst of all times. Since we have pundits and partisans that feel compelled to comment in political terms on every activity of the President, this trip will be no exception. He will be viewed as a failure by those against him and his policies and he will be given praise by those that believe his effort has clearly raised the visibility of the issue. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Andrew Freedman: President Obama’s speech demonstrated both the return of the United States to the negotiating table on climate change, as well as the mounting frustrations nations have with the negotiating process and tactics up until this point.
Mr. Obama’s core message was ‘we’re sick of this stalemate, we must break through this.’
A few things stood out in my mind. One was when Obama bluntly stated that the United States would not commit to an agreement that lacks transparency and verification procedures to ensure that countries are fulfilling their commitments. This was a clear shot at China, which has resisted such measures. It’s not often that you hear a world leader tell another that their solution, if implemented, “wouldn’t make sense,” and would be “a hollow victory,” as President Obama said.

Another interesting dynamic was that Obama was supported by Brazilian president Lula da Silva, who preceded Obama to the lectern and passionately argued for an end to the stalemate, and a recognition that transparency and verification need not infringe on national sovereignty.

I was pleased to see President Obama implicitly address critics of climate science, who are much more active in the United States than they are at this conference, by clearly stating that the overall scientific evidence pertaining to man-made climate change is not in question, but that the debate concerns what to do about the problem. “This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know,” Obama said.

It appeared to me that these lines were aimed in large part at those in the U.S. Senate who are more skeptical of climate science, and may therefore oppose climate legislation next year. A new poll discussed in today’s Washington Post, for example, shows evidence of declining support for the Obama administration’s approach on climate change, and increased skepticism of climate science.

Fred Barbash: Obama’s remarks at the Copenhagen climate talks:
"Good morning. It’s an honor to for me to join this distinguished group of leaders from nations around the world. We come together here in Copenhagen because climate change poses a grave and growing danger to our people. You would not be here unless you – like me – were convinced that this danger is real. This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet. That much we know.

"So the question before us is no longer the nature of the challenge – the question is our capacity to meet it. For while the reality of climate change is not in doubt, our ability to take collective action hangs in the balance.

"I believe that we can act boldly, and decisively, in the face of this common threat. And that is why I have come here today.

"As the world’s largest economy and the world’s second largest emitter, America bears our share of responsibility in addressing climate change, and we intend to meet that responsibility. That is why we have renewed our leadership within international climate negotiations, and worked with other nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. And that is why we have taken bold action at home – by making historic investments in renewable energy; by putting our people to work increasing efficiency in our homes and buildings; and by pursuing comprehensive legislation to transform to a clean energy economy."These actions are ambitious, and we are taking them not simply to meet our global responsibilities. We are convinced that changing the way that we produce and use energy is essential to America’s economic future – that it will create millions of new jobs, power new industry, keep us competitive, and spark new innovation. And we are convinced that changing the way we use energy is essential to America’s national security, because it will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and help us deal with some of the dangers posed by climate change.

"So America is going to continue on this course of action no matter what happens in Copenhagen. But we will all be stronger and safer and more secure if we act together. That is why it is in our mutual interest to achieve a global accord in which we agree to take certain steps, and to hold each other accountable for our commitments.

"After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear.

"First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change. I’m pleased that many of us have already done so, and I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made: cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

"Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and to exchange this information in a transparent manner. These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty. They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we are living up to our obligations. For without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

"Third, we must have financing that helps developing countries adapt, particularly the least-developed and most vulnerable to climate change. America will be a part of fast-start funding that will ramp up to $10 billion in 2012. And, yesterday, Secretary 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.

"Mitigation. Transparency. And financing. It is a clear formula – one that embraces the principle of common but differentiated responses and respective capabilities. And it adds up to a significant accord – one that takes us farther than we have ever gone before as an international community.

"The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. 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.

"We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years. But here is the bottom line: we can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward, and continue to refine it and build upon its foundation. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be a part of an historic endeavor – one that makes life better for our children and grandchildren.

"Or we can again choose delay, falling back into the same divisions that have stood in the way of action for years. And we will be back having the same stale arguments month after month, year after year – all while the danger of climate change grows until it is irreversible.

"There is no time to waste. America has made our choice. We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say. Now, I believe that it’s time for the nations and people of the world to come together behind a common purpose.

"We must choose action over inaction; the future over the past – with courage and faith, let us meet our responsibility to our people, and to the future of our planet. Thank you."