The long-awaited Copenhagen climate conference began today. The conference doesn't matter quite as much as was initially anticipated, given the fact that it is now dedicated to producing a politically-binding rather than legally-binding agreement. Nevertheless, it's still an important first step in the long process towards a global reduction in unhealthy greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama's personal attendance next week is one sign of the conference's importance. This post will give a brief recap of the first day's speeches and ceremony, quote columns and speeches from the Pope, James Hansen, and Paul Krugman, and provide some links responding to the CRU e-mail "scandal" that many conservatives are using to try and discredit the conference.

To help readers follow the conference, 11 major news organizations, including the AP, have banded together to form the "Climate Pool" on Facebook. The Columbia Journalism Review, generally a fierce media critic, is fairly enthusiastic about the project. As for the conference itself, from the New York Times's article on day one, things are off to an "impassioned" start:

While the critical action will unfold much later in the process, when higher-level ministers and, ultimately, heads of state arrive, the opening day of the conference was an opportunity for the United Nations to nurture a sense of mission and for delegates to begin staking out their positions.

Among the most difficult hurdles, many participants acknowledged throughout the day, are achieving adequate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions -- particularly from big polluters like the United States and China... Several countries announced new emissions goals in the days leading up to the meeting, including China, Brazil, the United States, India and South Africa -- although many participants have noted that the targets are far too low to keep rising temperatures in check in coming decades...

Still, speakers at the conference's opening plenary session -- which began with a video appeal from children across the world to save them from what looked like an apocalyptic future of deserts and rising seas -- were clearly aiming to spur negotiators forward...

Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, spoke before delegates of the urgent need for action. And, alluding to a recent controversy over e-mail messages between scientists hacked from a university computer server, he had pointed remarks for those who "find it difficult to accept" climate change science.

In preparation for the conference, virtually everyone who matters released some sort of statement over the past few days. The AP says that developments over the past week show that "the possibility of an agreement may be improving". Nobel laureate Paul Krugman seems to agree in today's column, arguing that signs from China and India are encouraging and that the record on acid rain is proof that cap-and-trade will work. He also adds that "an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover." James Hansen, a leading climate scientist and head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, isn't so bullish about cap-and-trade, also writing in today's New York Times that Washington and Copenhagen should abandon cap-and-trade in favor of "fee-and-dividend."

Because cap and trade is enforced through the selling and trading of permits, it actually perpetuates the pollution it is supposed to eliminate. If every polluter's emissions fell below the incrementally lowered cap, then the price of pollution credits would collapse and the economic rationale to keep reducing pollution would disappear....

There is a better alternative, one that would be more efficient and less costly than cap and trade: "fee and dividend." Under this approach, a gradually rising carbon fee would be collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas). The fee would be uniform, a certain number of dollars per ton of carbon dioxide in the fuel. The public would not directly pay any fee, but the price of goods would rise in proportion to how much carbon-emitting fuel is used in their production.

Below the fold, a statement from the Pope and some links responding to the vapid criticism of the East Anglia CRU e-mails and the lie that they discredit climate science.

There's more...

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. -- 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' -- Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
--(Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance)

Which brings us, naturally, to the Pope and his remarks on Islam.

There's more...

Brought to you by Jill Tubman of Jack and Jill Politics

This week, a controversial photo snapped at a blogger lunch in Harlem with Bill Clinton is under much discussion in the progressive blackosphere. You can follow the conversation here, here, here, and here And responses here and here. I know many of the bloggers in the photo -- including Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller of MyDD -- to be tireless workers against racism in America. I agree with Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft that:

There should have been a greater attempt made to include minority bloggers. But I think it was unintentional. I will bet that when there's another such event, and there will be, whether it's by President Clinton or another Democrat, there will be a greater effort to include a more diverse group of bloggers.

There's a problem with this photo and what it implies about how the power structure is changing -- and who might get left behind. Let's not deny that and make excuses. Instead, let's talk about how to fix it. The Republic of T has a great post on Blogging While Brown that offers a thoughtful commentary on the big picture here (pun intended).

What do you think? Jack and Jill Politics asks you to help us think about how to include more diverse voices from the blogs and beyond to the table of progressive politics so that pictures like this look different from now on.

More news in minorities and politics after the jump.

There's more...