NEWS

The White House

Remarks by the President during press availability in Copenhagen

The President speaks and takes questions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhage, Denmark.
December 18, 2009.
Bella Center
Copenhagen, Denmark
10:30 P.M. CET (4:30 P.M. EST)

THE PRESIDENT:  Let me start with a statement and then I’ll take a couple of questions.

Today we’ve made meaningful and unprecedented — made a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough here in Copenhagen.  For the first time in history all major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.

Let me first recount what our approach was throughout the year and coming into this conference.  To begin with, we’ve reaffirmed America’s commitment to transform our energy economy at home.  We’ve made historic investments in renewable energy that have already put people back to work.  We’ve raised our fuel efficiency standards.  And we have renewed American leadership in international climate negotiations.

Most importantly, we remain committed to comprehensive legislation that will create millions of new American jobs, power new industry, and enhance our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

That effort at home serves as a foundation for our leadership around the world.  Because of the actions we’re taking we came here to Copenhagen with an ambitious target to reduce our emissions.  We agreed to join an international effort to provide financing to help developing countries, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable, adapt to climate change.  And we reaffirmed the necessity of listing our national actions and commitments in a transparent way.

These three components — transparency, mitigation and finance — form the basis of the common approach that the United States and our partners embraced here in Copenhagen.  Throughout the day we worked with many countries to establish a new consensus around these three points, a consensus that will serve as a foundation for global action to confront the threat of climate change for years to come.

This success would have not been possible without the hard work of many countries and many leaders — and I have to add that because of weather constraints in Washington I am leaving before the final vote, but we feel confident that we are moving in the direction of a significant accord.

In addition to our close allies who did so much to advance this effort, I worked throughout the day with Prime Minister Meles of Ethiopia, who was representing Africa, as well as Premier Wen of China, Prime Minister Singh of India, President Lula of Brazil, and President Zuma of South Africa, to achieve what I believe will be an important milestone.

Earlier this evening I had a meeting with the last four leaders I mentioned — from China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.  And that’s where we agreed to list our national actions and commitments, to provide information on the implementation of these actions through national communications, with international consultations and analysis under clearly defined guidelines.  We agreed to set a mitigation target to limit warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, and importantly, to take action to meet this objective consistent with science.

Taken together these actions will help us begin to meet our responsibilities to leave our children and our grandchildren a cleaner and safer planet.

Now, this progress did not come easily, and we know that this progress alone is not enough.  Going forward, we’re going to have to build on the momentum that we’ve established here in Copenhagen to ensure that international action to significantly reduce emissions is sustained and sufficient over time.  We’ve come a long way, but we have much further to go.

To continue moving forward we must draw on the effort that allowed us to succeed here today — engagement among nations that represent a baseline of mutual interest and mutual respect.  Climate change threatens us all; therefore, we must bridge old divides and build new partnerships to meet this great challenge of our time.  That’s what we’ve begun to do here today.

For energy holds out not just the perils of a warming climate, but also the promise of a more peaceful and prosperous tomorrow.  If America leads in developing clean energy, we will lead in growing our economy, in putting our people back to work, and in leaving a stronger and more secure country to our children.

And around the world, energy is an issue that demands our leadership.  The time has come for us to get off the sidelines and to shape the future that we seek.  That’s why I came to Copenhagen today, and that’s why I’m committed to working in common effort with countries from around the globe.  That’s also why I believe what we have achieved in Copenhagen will not be the end but rather the beginning, the beginning of a new era of international action.

So with that, let me just take a couple of questions, and I’m going to start with Jeff Mason.

Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Can you give a little bit more detail about how the transparency issue will work, how countries will show or prove that they’re doing what they say they’ll do on emissions curbs?  And can you speak also more specifically about cutting emissions?  There’s no mention of that in your statement or in what we’ve heard so far, specifically about the agreement.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, on the second question first, the way this agreement is structured, each nation will be putting concrete commitments into an appendix to the document, and so will lay out very specifically what each country’s intentions are.

Those commitments will then be subject to a international consultation and analysis, similar to, for example, what takes place when the WTO is examining progress or lack of progress that countries are making on various commitments.  It will not be legally binding, but what it will do is allow for each country to show to the world what they’re doing, and there will be a sense on the part of each country that we’re in this together, and we’ll know who is meeting and who’s not meeting the mutual obligations that have been set forth.

With respect to the emissions targets that are going to be set, we know that they will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050.  So that’s why I say that this is going to be a first step.  And there are going to be those who are going to — who are going to look at the national commitments, tally them up and say, you know, the science dictates that even more needs to be done.  The challenge here was that for a lot of countries, particularly those emerging countries that are still in different stages of development, this is going to be the first time in which even voluntarily they offered up mitigation targets.  And I think that it was important to essentially get that shift in orientation moving, that’s what I think will end up being most significant about this accord.

From the perspective of the United States, I’ve set forth goals that are reflected in legislation that came out of the House that are being discussed on a bipartisan basis in the Senate.  And although we will not be legally bound by anything that took place here today, we will I think have reaffirmed our commitment to meet those targets.  And we’re going to meet those targets, as I said before, not simply because the science demands it, but also because I think it offers us enormous economic opportunity down the road.

Q    And the first part of the question, about the transparency issue?

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, as I said, there is a specific –

Q    (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Exactly.  There is the annexing combined with a process where essentially they are presenting to the world — subject to international consultation and then analysis — exactly what are these steps.  So if I make a claim that I’m reducing greenhouse gases because I’ve changed mileage standards on cars, there will be a process whereby people will be able to take a look and say, is that in fact in effect?

Jennifer Loven.

Q    Thank you, sir.  You’ve talked to, in your remarks earlier today, about other nations needing to accept less than perfect in their view.  Can you talk about what you gave up and where you might have shifted the U.S. position to get to this point?  And also, if this was so hard to get to, just what you have today, how do you feel confident about getting to a legally binding agreement in a year?

THE PRESIDENT:  I think it is going to be very hard and it’s going to take some time.  Let me sort of provide the context for what I saw when I arrived.

And I think it’s important to be able to stand in the shoes of all the different parties involved here.  In some ways the United States was coming with a somewhat clean slate, because we had been on the sidelines in many of these negotiations over several years.

Essentially you have a situation where the Kyoto Protocol and some of the subsequent accords called on the developed countries who were signatories to engage in some significant mitigation actions and also to help developing countries.  And there were very few, if any, obligations on the part of the developing countries.

Now, in some cases, for countries that are extremely poor, still agrarian and so forth, they’re just not significant contributors to greenhouse gases.  But what’s happened obviously since 1992 is that you’ve got emerging countries like China and India and Brazil that have seen enormous economic growth and industrialization.  So we know that moving forward it’s going to be necessary if we’re going to meet those targets for some changes to take place among those countries.  It’s not enough just for the developed countries to make changes.  Those countries are going to have to make some changes, as well — not of the same pace, not in the same way, but they’re going to have to do something to assure that whatever carbon we’re taking out of the environment is not just simply dumped in by other parties.

On the other hand, from the perspective of the developing countries like China and India, they’re saying to themselves, per capita our carbon footprint remains very small, and we have hundreds of millions of people who don’t even have electricity yet, so for us to get bound by a set of legal obligations could potentially curtail our ability to develop, and that’s not fair.

So I think that you have a fundamental deadlock in perspectives that were brought to the discussions during the course of this week.  And both sides have legitimate points.

My view was that if we could begin to acknowledge that the emerging countries are going to have some responsibilities, but that those responsibilities are not exactly the same as the developed countries, and if we could set up a financing mechanism to help those countries that are most vulnerable, like Bangladesh, then we would be at least starting to reorient ourselves in a way that allows us to be effective in the future.

But it is still going to require more work and more confidence-building and greater trust between emerging countries, the least developed countries, and the developed countries before I think you are going to see another legally binding treaty signed.

I actually think that it’s necessary for us ultimately to get to such a treaty, and I am supportive of such efforts.  But this is a classic example of a situation where if we just waited for that, then we would not make any progress.  And in fact I think there might be such frustration and cynicism that rather than taking one step forward, we ended up taking two steps back.

But I want to be very clear that ultimately this issue is going to be dictated by the science, and the science indicates that we’re going to have to take more aggressive steps in the future.  Our hope is that by investing in clean energy, in research, in development, in innovation, that in the same way that the Clean Air Act ended up spurring all kinds of innovations that solved the acid rain problem at a much cheaper and much more rapid pace than we expected, that by beginning to make progress and getting the wheels of innovation moving, that we are in fact going to be in a position to solve this problem.

But we’re going to need technological breakthroughs to get to the goals that we’re looking for.  In the meantime, we’ve got to be able to take the steps that are in our grasp right now, like for example energy efficiency, something I emphasized last week.

All right.  Helene Cooper.  I’m sorry.

Q    What about the compromise shift question?

THE PRESIDENT:  I have to say that, quietly, we did some pretty good ground work during the course of this year, so that our position was relatively clear.  I think that the one principle that I brought to this is that whatever commitments we make, I want to be able to be sure that they’re actually commitments that we can keep.  So we tried to be modest in what we thought we could accomplish.  I think there was interest on the part of some to, for example, increase our mitigation targets.  Although when you look out in the years 2025 or 2030, our goals are actually entirely comparable with Europe’s.  On the front end they appear to be less, because frankly, they’ve had a head start over the last several years in doing things like energy efficiency that we care about.

What I said to the other people in the room is, is that I want to make sure that whatever it is that we promise we can actually deliver on, and that it would be unrealistic for us to think that we can turn on a dime and that suddenly a clean-energy economy is going to emerge overnight, given the fact that it’s going to require significant effort.  And companies and industries are going to be wanting to make changes — we’re already seeing those changes, but they haven’t all borne fruit yet.  And we want to make sure that we’re not getting too far ahead of ourselves in terms of targets, even as I understand that the science compels us to move as rapidly as we can.

All right.  Helene Cooper.

Q    Thank you.  I wanted to ask you about this listing of the — in the appendix.  Going forward do you think that’s going to continue to be sufficient, or do you think verification is going to remain a source of friction between the U.S. and China?  And also on cap and trade, are you able to — were you able to assure the leaders here that you’ll make that a legislative priority next year?

THE PRESIDENT:  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.  I mean, if you look at a country like India, as I said, they’ve got hundreds of millions of people who don’t have electricity, hundreds of millions of people who, by any standard, are still living in dire poverty.  For them, even voluntarily to say, we are going to reduce carbon emissions relative to our current ways of doing business by X percent is an important step.  And we applaud them for that.

The problem actually is not going to be verification in the sense that this international consultation and analysis mechanism will actually tell us a lot of what we need to know.  And the truth is that we can actually monitor a lot of what takes place through satellite imagery and so forth.  So I think we’re going to have a pretty good sense of what countries are doing.

What I think that some people are going to legitimately ask is, well, if it’s not legally binding what prevents us from, 10 years from now, looking and saying, you know, everybody fell short of these goals and there’s no consequences to it?  My response is that, A, that’s why I think we should still drive towards something that is more binding than it is.  But that was not achievable at this conference.

And the second point that I’d make is that Kyoto was legally binding and everybody still fell short anyway.  And so I think that it’s important for us, instead of setting up a bunch of goals that end up just being words on a page and are not met, that we get moving — everybody is taking as aggressive a set of actions as they can; that there is a sense of mutual obligation and information sharing so that people can see who’s serious and who’s not; that we strive for more binding agreements over time; and that we just keep moving forward.  That’s been the main goal that I tried to pursue today.

And I think that as people step back, I guarantee you there are going to be a lot of people who immediately say, the science says you got to do X, Y, Z; in the absence of some sort of legal enforcement, it’s not going to happen.  Well, we don’t have international government, and even treaties, as we saw in Kyoto, are only as strong as the countries’ commitments to participate.

Because of the differing views between developing countries and developed countries, in terms of future obligations, the most important thing I think we can do at this point — and that we began to accomplish but are not finished with — is to build some trust between the developing and the developed countries to break down some of the logjams that have to do with people looking backwards and saying, well, Kyoto said this, or Bali said that, or you guys need to do something but we don’t need to do something; getting out of that mindset and moving towards a position where everybody recognizes we all have to move together.  If we start from that position, then I think we’re going to be able to make progress in the future.

But this is going to be hard.  This is hard within countries; it’s going to be even harder between countries.  And one of the things that I’ve felt very strongly about during the course of this year is that hard stuff requires not paralysis, but it requires going ahead and making the best of the situation that you’re in at this point, and then continually trying to improve and make progress from there.

Okay, thank you very much everybody.  We’ll see some of you on the plane.

Q    Mr. President, who will sign the agreement — since you’re leaving, who here has the power to sign it?

THE PRESIDENT:  We’ve got our negotiators who are here.  I’m not going to be the only leader who I think leaves before it’s finally presented, but they are empowered to sign off — given at this point that most of the text has been completely worked out.

Q    Does it require signing, is it that kind of agreement?

THE PRESIDENT:  You know, it raises an interesting question as to whether technically there’s actually a signature — since, as I said, it’s not a legally binding agreement, I don’t know what the protocols are.  But I do think that this is a commitment that we, as the United States, are making and that we think is very important.

All right.  Thanks, guys.

The White House .

NEWS

UNITED NATIONS

FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE – Secretariat

PRESS RELEASE

Copenhagen United Nations Climate Change Conference ends with political agreement to cap temperature rise, reduce emissions and raise finance

(Copenhagen, 19 December 2009) The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen ended today with an agreement by countries to cap the global temperature rise by committing to significant emission reductions, and to raise finance to kickstart action in the developing world to deal with climate change.

At the meeting, world leaders agreed the ‘Copenhagen Accord’, which was supported by a majority of countries, including amongst them the biggest and the richest, and the smallest and most vulnerable.
“

We have sealed the deal,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said. “This accord cannot be everything that everyone hoped for, but it is an essential beginning,” he said.

The Copenhagen Accord recognizes the scientific view that an increase in global temperature below 2 degrees is required to stave off the worst effects of climate change.

In order to achieve this goal, the accord specifies that industrialised countries will commit to implement, individually or jointly, quantified economy-wide emissions targets from 2020, to be listed in the accord before 31 January 2010.

A number of developing countries, including major emerging economies, agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years, also listing their voluntary pledges before the 31 January 2010.

Nationally appropriate mitigation actions seeking international support are to be recorded in a registry along with relevant technology, finance and capacity building support from industrialised nations.

“We must be honest about what we have got,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “The world walks away from Copenhagen with a deal. But clearly ambitions to reduce emissions must be raised significantly if we are to hold the world to 2 degrees,” he added.

Because the pledges listed by developed and developing countries may, according to science, be found insufficient to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees or less, leaders called for a review of the accord, to be completed by 2015.

The review would include a consideration of the long-term goal to limit the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.

Heads of state and government also intend to unleash prompt action on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and capacity-building.

To this effect, they intend to establish the “Copenhagen Green Climate Fund” to support immediate action on climate change. The collective commitment towards the fund by developed countries over the next three years will approach 30 billion US dollars.

For long-term finance, developed countries agreed to support a goal of jointly mobilizing 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

In order to step up action on the development and transfer of technology, governments intend to establish a new technology mechanism to accelerate development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation.
119 world leaders attended the meeting, the largest gathering of heads of state and government in the history of the UN. “Climate change is the permanent leadership challenge of our time,” said UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. “I therefore urge world leaders to remain engaged,” he said.

“We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action,” said UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer. “However, we need to be clear that it is a letter of intent and is not precise about what needs to be done in legal terms. So the challenge is now to turn what we have agreed politically in Copenhagen into something real, measurable and verifiable,” he added.

The next annual UN Climate Change Conference will take place towards the end of 2010 in Mexico City, preceded by a major two week negotiating session in Bonn, Germany, scheduled 31 May to 11 June.

About the UNFCCC
With 194 Parties, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has near universal membership and is the parent treaty of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by 190 of the UNFCCC Parties. Under the Protocol, 37 States, consisting of highly industrialized countries and countries undergoing the process of transition to a market economy, have legally binding emission limitation and reduction commitments. The ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.

Note to journalists
For further information, please contact:
Mr. Eric Hall, Spokesperson/Manager of Communications and Media
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1398; mobile: (+49-172) 259-0443; e-mail: ehall@unfccc.int
Mr. John Hay, Media Information Officer
Tel.: (+49-228) 815-1404; mobile: (+49-172) 258-6944; e-mail: jhay@unfccc.int

Mailing Address: CLIMATE CHANGE SECRETARIAT (UNFCCC), P.O. Box 260 124,  D-53153 Bonn, Germany
Office Location: Haus Carstanjen, Martin-Luther-King-Strasse 8,  D-53175 Bonn, Germany
Media Information Office: (+49-228) 815-1005  Fax: (+49-228) 815-1999
Email: press@unfccc.int  Web: http://unfccc.int

NEWS

COP 15  Closing press briefing  December 19, 2009

Briefing the press at the end of the two-week conference, Yvo de Boer said an accord has been reached that has significant elements, but that is not legally binding.

He described the accord as “politically important,” demonstrating a willingness to move forward. It brings together a diversity of countries that have put in place a letter of intent with the ingredients of an architecture for a response to climate change.

The key points of the accord include the objective to keep the maximum temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius; the commitment to list developed country emission reduction targets and mitigation action by developing countries for 2020; USD 30 billion short-term funding for immediate action till 2012 and USD 100 billion annually by 2020 in long-term financing, as well as mechanisms to support technology transfer and forestry.

The challenge now is to turn what is agreed into something that is legally binding in Mexico one year from now.

The Center for a New American Security released a very interesting working paper this week on America’s reliance on contractors in wartime and its implications for successful military operations.  Contractors in American Conflicts: Adapting to a New Reality moves beyond the typical discussion of private security contractors (such as Blackwater) and focuses on the bigger picture: the use of contractors has increased across the spectrum of government activities and within the business community, and that third country nations make up a significant portion of DOD contractor personnel.

Included in the report is the following chart that shows the multinational dynamic of US contractors.  The report explains that “American soldiers, diplomats and aid works have become accustomed to being greeted in battlefield dining facilities by Indian servers, dispensing food prepared by Filipinos, on a base guarded by Ugandans and partially constructed by Iraqis. In this sense, then, the US has achieved with its contractors precisely the kind of multinational coalition effort that has at times eluded it when it comes to actual combat operations.  In Iraq today, third country nationals comprise the largest share of US contractor personnel.”

NEWS

Highlights of COP 15 press briefing 17 December

Briefing the media on the second last day of the conference, Yvo de Boer welcomed the statement of support by the United States for a USD 100 billion global annual climate protection fund by the year 2020, to come from a variety of sources.

Parties will now discuss whether this amount is adequate. Mr. Yvo de Boer said he looks forward to seeing what the contribution of the United States to that sum will be

The two groups under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol have resumed their work to address outstanding political issues and will report back to the plenary with everyone present.

Mr. Yvo de Boer highlighted the clarity and transparency in the negotiating process, as well as clarity over the documents being used as a basis for  negotiation; namely, the two texts that have been forwarded by both working groups.

NEWS

Highlights of COP 15 press briefing
December 16, 2009

With the high-level segment now underway, Yvo de Boer told the press that “the next 24 hours are absolutely crucial and need to be used productively.” He referred to the passionate statements from world leaders for an ambitious result from Copenhagen and said he believes it’s possible to reach real success.

In terms of concrete progress so far, he spoke of a number of important pledges that have been made, including financial pledges, with a significant amount of money offered. Emission reduction targets have been tabled and some targets increased. There have also been real advances in areas of substance such as technology, capacity-building and reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries.

A number of issues have still to be resolved at ministerial level, and informal ministerial consultations are continuing.

Yvo de Boer: “Unexpected stop” in negotiations
“A number of unsolved issues” are left for world leaders to resolve during the next two days, said the UNFCCC Executive Secretary, after observers of the UN climate conference had spent Wednesday afternoon waiting for breaking news on the climate talks.

By Marianne Bom

The negotiating process at the UN climate conference in Copenhagen was subject to an “unexpected stop” on Wednesday, according to Yvo de Boer, the UN’s top climate official.

“The cable car has made an unexpected stop,” he said at a press briefing Wednesday evening, referring to a statement he made on Monday. By then the conference was about half way up the mountain, everybody was queuing up for the cable car, and “the rest of the ride is going to be fast, smooth and relaxing”.

The unexpected stop happened – according to several news media – as delegates needed time to discuss the basis of the further talks.

It was expected all Wednesday that the Danish conference presidency would present a text designed to establish consensus. However, on Wednesday evening Yvo de Boer said he did not know if the Danish text had actually been tabled.

“I don’t know if the Danish text is out,” he said, mentioning that to judge from what had been said in the plenary session more than one text was going to form the basis of negotiations.

The Danish Prime Minister and President of the conference, Lars Løkke Rasmussen was on Wednesday consulting all groups of countries on the process, de Boer said. He expected the cable car “to continue within a few hours”.

“It is still possible to reach a real success,” Yvo de Boer said, but there are “a number of unsolved issues” left for world leaders to resolve at their summit on Thursday and Friday.

“The next 24 hours are absolutely crucial,” Yvo de Boer said. (Photo: Scanpix/EPA)

NEWS

Highlights of COP 15 press briefing

In a joint press briefing, COP 15 President Connie Hedegaard and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer stressed that we have reached an important phase, with the High Level Segment of the conference about to begin.

Hello all. Hope you all are doing fine. Today we had this opportunity to attend a high level youth Briefing with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri who is the chair of IPCC. I think most of you are already aware that IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, the leading body for the assessment of climate change, established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences.

Dr. Pachauri has been phenomenal in his role at IPCC and the fourth assessment report of IPCC is the basis for all scientific information on climate change. I am now going to share with you all what I experienced at the briefing session.

Dr. Rajendra pachuri, Chair IPCC. Photo Credit: Nazzina

Dr. Pachauri shared his views on different issues of climate change. He expressed his views on the participation of youth in the movement of climate change. No matter what happens in the future the burnt will be felt by the youth. So, youth participation is must for the world to spread the concerns on climate change. And it is evident that climate change is happening and it is happening faster than the predicted time frame. Fourth assessment report has all the evidence of climate change science and this report has been agreed by all parties. So, no one can do the act of denial of the fourth assessment report. He expressed his firmness on the robustness of the process and reliability of science in this crucial matter.

Nazzina asked him a question on his views on politically binding agreement not legally binding and his views were: our world leaders must act fast on the agreement, even if it is politically binding. But everybody has to agree on the GHG emission target by 2020 not 2050. We have to prepare ourselves to fight climate change issue at the earliest and politically binding agreement is fine for the time being if it clearly narrates finance, technology transfer and GHG emission cut by developed nations. The world leaders should also focus on the security and stability in the agricultural production to ensure food security. That way the security issue can be better handled.

Nabin asked him about ‘Hope’ in every negotiation and how long we are going to survive only with hope. Dr. Pachauri’s views are that we should not only survive rather we must thrive with hope. He said, “we may lose a lot of things but we must not lose hope because that is what matters to reach to a consensus. What keeps us going is hope. If we have hope we will have what we want to have and enjoy at what we do”. He shared his views on unified actions which needs to start from the grass root level. All should raise voice collectively to change the views and objectives of the politicians. It is true that all countries are not capable by their own to fight climate change and politicians must not focus only towards the next election. they should focus on the bigger picture and what is going to happen in the future and at he same time they should believe in the profoundly. Youths need to take actions to change the mind of the politicians to work collectively on this burning issue.

Someone asked him about the outcome in the COP15. Dr. Pachuri believes that COP15 is not the end of the world. Knowledge on climate change is wide spread and it should spread more and more. in his words: “We might not be getting a legally binding agreement at COP15 but cop is not the end of the world. Will see more controls within next 6 months or year at most”.

He answered the question on Climate change and water. We have to work on the management of water. Everywhere in the world we have to take decision on waters more sensibly. The last thing the world would want is a crisis. The world needs to take actions on the anticipation of any crisis. Look beyond the next election and look for more distant future challenges. He also said that not everybody is in favor of climate change. Denial has been always there when there is any new knowledge. It is very natural that not everybody will be the advocates of climate change and there will be skeptics who are right now managing huge profit out of their business and climate change is going to affect them as well. He also expressed his concern that some delegation parties have brought scientists in the team. But the negotiations are becoming fully political which is not right.

From tomorrow entry al Bella Center is going to be very restricted and 2/3 of the youth will not be allowed to enter at the venue. How the youths are going to be a part of the whole process then? He suggested us to use the media to spread the word of us around the globe. And after getting back to everyone’s country, youths must jump into action to work on climate change at the same time spread the knowledge to the rest.

Someone from the audience asked him if Nuclear energy is an option for the world. His view is that we are going to see a lot of Nuclear energy in coming days. But it is not an option for all the countries because it is a serious option which requires comprehensive assessment of all issues like safety, security and disposal.

Me at the session taking notes. Photo Credit:

The last question was from Sumaiya and she asked when are we going to see the next (fifth assessment) report. He believes the next report will come out on 2013.

In his concluding remarks he reemphasized the participation of youth in the movement. Youths will have to be the major change event worldwide to fight climate change problems.

That is all from me for the moment. Have a nice day.

Zia, Bangladesh

NEWS

At a joint press briefing at the halfway stage in the conference, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer and COP 15 President Connie Hedegaard stressed that while there is strong political will for an agreed outcome in Copenhagen, there is now a need for good intentions to be replaced by solutions.

Ms. Hedegaard praised the work of the Chairs of the working groups under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol in preparing the latest draft texts that allow consultations to be more specific

Regarding the nature of the outcome, Yvo de Boer said that if Copenhagen can deliver a set of political decisions that launch immediate action and that formulate ambitious industrialized country targets as well as broad engagement by developing countries with financial support, this is something we can be proud of.

NEWS

Addressing the media at the end of the first week of the conference, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer spoke of an important step-change in the negotiating process. This follows the tabling of new texts this morning by the Chairs of the negotiating tracks under Kyoto Protocol and the Convention that provide the framework for an agreed outcome.

He said it is now time to focus on the big picture – namely, a shared vision on long-term cooperative action and what the long-term goal will be.

This shared vision includes how to capture important issues such as emissions targets and the mobilization of short- and long-term finance in an agreed outcome.

The news of a commitment by Europe to provide 2.4 billion euros a year over three years in short-term finance will be a huge encouragement to the process, he said, adding that it remains to be seen what other developed countries will put on the table.

NEWS

Briefing the press on day four of the conference, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer highlighted progress made in the area of technology, where there is agreement on a strong new structure to deliver on technology once the finance is in place.

This new technology mechanism includes an Executive Body responsible for accelerating action on technology development and transfer, and a new Consultative Network for Climate Technologies.

Mr. de Boer announced that negotiators have two days left before Ministers begin to arrive on Saturday, when the COP President will take stock of progress so far.

On the question of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, Mr. de Boer said that the Kyoto Protocol will and must survive, emphasizing that the Kyoto Protocol is the only legally binding instrument we have to act on climate change. He pointed out the time needed for a new instrument to be ratified and enter into force, and stressed the importance for the market mechanisms of avoiding any gap.

http://solapanel.org/article/dos_and_donts_when_dealing_with_the_downcast/

10 December 2009 | 11 comments | 2017 words | ShareThis

Dos and don’ts when dealing with the downcast            Mark Baddeley

I have been talking with a long-term friend of mine in recent weeks. He’s a believer, who has had a harder-than-average road to walk. That, combined with some bad Christian teaching and an inherent susceptibility, has finally created a perfect storm of mental ill health.

The thing that surprised me when talking to him recently is that as he begins the process of recovering from a depressive/anxiety breakdown, he has had to avoid his Christian friends and family. The reason? They care. And in their care, they inevitably call on him to trust God, to look to God, to place himself in God’s hands or the like. They can’t avoid exhorting him to stir up his faith, however “softly, softly” they venture it.

The problem? His world is little more than darkness without any reasonable possibility of improvement. He is overwhelmed with burdens that seem silly to anyone not him, but to him, they are the fixed compass of his universe. He is barely standing up under the weight of just being himself.

But add an exhortation to do something to that load—especially one like “trust God”—and you have far more than a single straw to break the camel’s back. You have essentially made brick from that straw and hurled it onto the load. You have given him one more thing—and it’s a critical thing at that—to whip himself with as he judges himself to not be trusting God.

Don’t
When someone is really downcast, exhortations are a waste of time. There’s nothing in the tank, there’s no willpower to exert, there’s no courage to screw up so that they can just ‘get over it’. What looks to you like defeatism is, in fact, simply weakness. All that the person has is currently being used just to keep breathing.

Exhortations make the problem worse. The person can’t do it, but already think they should. So your exhortation adds to the litany of failures that is usually part of the ‘self-talk’ of someone who is overcome by anxiety or depression.

Exhortations hide the solution. The very act of trying to get them to do what is good for them (i.e. strengthen their faith) obscures the very thing that could strengthen their faith. In a case like this (and this isn’t true for all situations), exhortations do nothing more than throw people back on themselves and their own resources. Usually that’s not fatal; a person looks in, realizes they can stir up their faith and then looks out to God’s gracious glory shining in the face of his Son. It is a semi-Pelagian (or Arminian) way of going about things, but God’s grace is sufficient to cover it. But when a person is weak, there are no resources there to call on. So they never turn outward to God; they get stuck at the ‘look for faith inside myself to stir up’ part.

Up to a point, people can simply shake themselves out of a funk or mood just by force of will. Or, if it’s got a stronger grip on them than that, they can soldier on within it by force of will—grit their teeth and bear it. But there comes a point where willpower—even faith-inspired willpower—can’t move the mountain. Despite what Disney wants you to believe, you can’t always do it if you just believe you can. Sometimes Mohammed really does have to go to the mountain.

That’s the ‘don’t’ part. The ‘do’ part is more encouraging, and comes in two parts.

Do: carry others’ burdens
Firstly, the church is made up of ‘strong’ people and ‘weak’ people—not in faith, maturity, desire to serve or anything of that nature. Some people have ‘got it together’ at this point in time, and others are ‘doing it tough’. Some people are coping with all their responsibilities, and still have room left over to take on more: they volunteer for things, they lead Bible studies, they look for people to help, they lead churches and the like. They are strong.

Others are weak. Their burdens are more or less equal to their capacity . There’s nothing ‘left over’ to serve others with. Many of them even have burdens a bit greater than they can carry. They are a net ‘hole’ to the church’s ministry, needing ministry done to them, but not being able to contribute anything back.

So here’s the thing: the weak aren’t a problem—a drag on all the strong who could get some real ministry done if they didn’t have needy people gumming up the works. The strong exist for the weak. They do not exist for themselves, nor do they exist just to hook up with and hang out with all the other strong potential leaders out there. We are to carry one another’s burdens. It is not all we are to do, but it definitely is something we are to do. The strong are called to do more than just sit with the sufferers, but sitting with them is part of the job description. That means that the strong take on the burdens of the weak, not the burdens of other strong people who can take up their burdens in return. The wealthy throw parties for the destitute, not for other well-heeled neighbours who can host slumber parties for their kids in return. The strong serve the weak; the weak are, in that sense, worthy of greater honour than the strong. That’s a feature of the body of Christ; it’s not a bug.

So if you’re strong and you’re faced with someone weak, your job is to bend down, get down where they are, and lift some of the burden and carry it for a bit. It isn’t to say, “Cheer up mate! Things aren’t as bad as you think. Be strong and trust God.” That is the perennially instinctive thing to say, and it is so because it is cheap.

It is the same kind of love that says “Be warm and well fed, and, by the way, God loves you” when faced with a homeless person. It costs nothing, but just tries to fix the problem quickly in order to remove its challenge to love that person in their concrete situation. It is like the person who intervenes in a supermarket to give the upset child that lolly they’ve just been denied. That person doesn’t care about the child’s welfare; they just want to stop feeling bad because the kid’s upset. The person who really loves the child did something costly and told them ‘no’ when an easier path was clearly open. In biblical terms, such cheap ‘love’ is ‘hate’ that has simply learned to ape its betters. It is faith that is dead, but dead before rigor mortis sets in.

Carrying the burden will look different for different people, but usually it means letting the weak person talk frankly about their life at the moment—listening rather than offering solutions, allowing them to suck some of your emotional energy away, and giving them some of your excess, even if it puts you in the red for a bit.

Do: be a priest to those in need
The other part is far more important, and so much bigger. It is taking hold of the priesthood of all believers and being a priest to that person in their need. Often when we explain the priesthood of all believers, it is discussed in purely negative and individualistic terms. We say that it means that we have no need of someone standing between us and God. Christ is the one true mediator, and each of us can be our own priest and approach God’s throne and deal with him directly. This is all true and all foundational.

But wait, there’s more, and these steak knives are worth having. The priesthood of all believers means that I am your priest and that you are mine at the same time. I can be an instrument of the grace of God to you, and you can be one for me. I can pray for you and you can pray for me.

There are times when I can stand before God on your behalf when your faith fails you and you need someone to do for you what you cannot do for yourself, but what you so desperately need to have done. Like the four friends of the paralytic, we can carry the crippled, rip open the roof and present our friend right in the presence of the throne of grace (Mark 2:1-12). And like in that account, it might not always be entirely clear whose faith was the instrument for the grace of God to operate.

What does such faith operating on behalf of someone else look like? It is faith that is active, doing what that person would do if they could do it, and doing it in such a way that it overflows and feeds them.

So rather than encouraging them to pray, you pray for them, and as best as possible, try and express their feelings and perspective to God, and hand the problem to God. Do that with them present. Acknowledge and give dignity to their downcast experience by articulating it in prayer. By doing that, you implicitly show that it is not the final word.

So rather than calling on them to trust God, give them a reason to trust God. Just talk about how great and good God is; how his mercies are ever renewed; how we don’t have to muster up faith to get access to his grace; how he holds us up even as we trip and fall; how the Father who gave up his eternally loved Son for us when he and us were at each other’s throats is a Father who is really there for us now that we are his children. Just talk about God to them—as though that is life itself. And don’t finish by saying, “So buck up and trust him, okay?”; finish by saying, “He’s on your side; he’s going to carry you through this, however bad it gets”. Sometimes it’s okay to just declare the promises of God and not ask for any response in the short-term. Re-read Ephesians 1 if you find that hard to imagine—and look for every place where Paul explicitly calls on his readers to respond to the great sustained declaration of the sheer blessedness of God that flows from his pen. If it’s good enough for Paul, we can do it too.

We cannot genuinely promise people that things are going to get better; God offers no such guarantees. We can’t even tell them that it’s not as bad as they think it is; they might see it better than we can. God will not always protect us from everything that harms or even kills us; nor will he always strengthen us so that we bound through life from one victory to the next, overcoming the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune with even more outrageous success. Sometimes the only victory he offers us is that given to Job—that no matter how low we are brought, we are given the grace to not absolutely and utterly deny our Lord, but in weakness, trust him though he slay us.

Those of us ‘strong’ who are given the great task of strengthening hands that grow faint cannot offer people what God does not underwrite. He will not always stand between them and harm or death. But he will be there for them in it, and will carry them through it. Their life may seem like death, but even death has been forced to bow the knee to the Prince of Life who will carry his own brothers and sisters through the dark gate that he trod, who will hold them as his and their Father completes the great job of putting everything under Christ’s feet, and who will then raise them up and present them to that same Father who loved them in the eternal ages before they ever existed.

Sometimes people need to be told, “Trust God!”; sometimes people need to hear “God can be trusted!” The downcast are in the latter camp. Serve them by sensitively exalting the God of life in the face of death.

11 Comments » ShareThisHamish Blair10/12/2009 10:09 AMA few years ago the daughter of a family at our church was diagnosed with leukemia (praise – she has now recovered).

When diagnosed, her parents asked our minister to remind them of God’s promises.

Great article Mark – platitudes are unhelpful and counterproductive in these situations.

Karen Beilharz10/12/2009 10:41 AMI’m so glad this post went up today; I’ve been thinking about it every since I worked on it (which was only yesterday, but still …) It’s exactly what I have wanted to say to so many Christians for a very long time but lacked the articulation (and probably the grace) to do so. You have done it very well, Mark!

I suppose a related question (which is also linked to your self-knowledge for godliness and ministry series) is how to assess your own situation rightly. How do you know if you’re someone who is carrying a heavy burden (or a burden a bit greater than you can carry), or if you’re someone who really does just needs a kick in the pants? If you’re someone like your friend who is not in the right sort of mental state to make that sort of assessment, you start to rely on others’ perceptions. The downside is that they may not be right. Or you may receive conflicting reports: one person may tell you, “You really need to go easier on yourself! You’re carrying a lot at the moment” while another says to you, “Others have it worse! Look at John and Jane Christian: they’re always willing to serve, they pitch in and they’re keen to do more. Try to be like them!” You start wondering who to believe.

A further downside is if others fail to see the true nature of the situation, you feel like you need to keep on justifying to them why you think your circumstances are the way they are. Worse, you start to doubt your own perceptions of the situation (even if your perceptions are accurate). Then it becomes so much easier just to withdraw and not talk to anyone …

I guess this is a hard question to answer because it’s so subjective. Nevertheless, I’m still putting it out there!

ZZZZZ 10/12/2009 11:19 AMWow! Very helpful. I especially liked the paragraphs on the weak being part of our calling, not a hindrance to it and on how to bear their burdens.

Maybe there’s a distinction you can draw, but some of the downcast I have known seem to exacerbate their state with excessive self-focus, resulting in a downward spiral of apathy, lethargy, and withdrawal. Some have suggested that part of the healing is found in both service and distraction.

An approx.-to-life example (not my wife and I!): A woman with 3 young children miscarries. 3 mos. later, she is still emotionally/ psychologically “paralyzed”. She is basically shut off to life. Her husband, who works full time, is trying but failing to keep up with the housework, etc. and their oldest (9 yrs.?) is carrying the care of his siblings. She distrusts mainstream medicine. Granted, coping with the death of a family member IS serious and a checkup w/an MD is probably a good beginning, is their any legitimacy to trying to coax her into embracing more responsibilities – for her own health? More generally, if a person’s depression is being fed by harmful habits (i.e. vegging to non-stop T.V.), is there a place for coaching them out of those habits? How do we balance that with the huge importance of simply listening and supporting the weak?

BBBBBBBBB 10/12/2009 01:36 PMHi Mark,

This is so important – thank-you!

When I had these experiences myself in my late-teens / early 20’s, Christian help came from those who sat and held my hand – literally – and looked after things that I couldn’t do for the moment, including see the love of God for me. Needless to say, being told I was a sinner for lacking joy, or that I had an evil spirit of depression, didn’t really help …

Pastorally, I’ve recently being trying to approach those with depression in a similar fashion: letting our corporate nature be a reality in the person’s life: praying for them, being their conscience to tell them of who God is when they can’t see it, avoiding any hint of the imperative in it – but telling the stories of God’s triumphant grace.

The wall that I encounter, though, is one that I’m sure I’ve been a part of making: our excessive Christian individualism, and our obession with personal giftedness (even if we phrase it selflessly as ministry potential). I’ve found that because we imbibe secular individualism and ‘my job is my status’ mentality, when it comes to telling someone that it’s okay to take a break from Sunday school, or okay for your family and friends to pray for you for now, they simply don’t believe me.

I can’t help but think of Carson’s advice in his book on suffering and evil: that we need to work hard to prepare people theologically beforehand so that when hard times come, we have the right ways of thinking already in place.

Thanks again Mark,
Scott.

ps – Ephesians is so important with this, isn’t it? From distant cloudy memory, there is only one imperative in Eph 1-3 (2:11, to remember), but in Eph 1-2, Christ is referred to by name or pronoun 40+ times.

AAAAAAA /12/2009 01:36 PMAmen and Amen to this, Mark. I could not agree more. SO often, those Christian platitudes are a way of refusing to acknowledge the grief and darkness of this life and of someone else’s experience, because it is too uncomfortable/challenging. SO quickly, our own anxieties make us move from encouraging people to blaming them – if someone remains miserable for a long time, we start to think they must lack faith (though we reject prosperity doctrine!). To carry another person’s burdens is not to bring a casserole one week, send a card the next and then wonder why that person hasn’t cheered up. It is to stick with people for the long haul.

yyyyyy/12/2009 09:12 PMI’ll echo the thanks – well said, and always worth saying.

And I’ll throw in the third ‘do’ that’s implicit in the article: do be a church that can speak the truth to each other. It should never be incumbent on the downtrodden to muster up the energy they don’t have to call for help. If the psalms tell us anything, it’s that this kind of suffering is an inevitable feature of life in a broken world; we don’t outgrow it as the myth of progress would have it.

And so, we must always be on the lookout to spot those who are weak, or on their way there – not to preempt it, but to be serving before they even realise their need.

Mark Baddeley11/12/2009 08:55 AMGreat comments guys, I think they’ve all filled out the original post in solid ways. I’ll take a comment or three to interact with them in different ways in the hope that might extend the conversation further down the directions you’ve flagged for us.

Jo and Hamish,

I wholeheartedly agree. I almost never use the word ‘platitude,’ but I agree with you that it is a big part of the problem. I don’t use it because it’s one of those Yes Minister irregular verbs:

I say something simple yet profound.
You make motherhood statements.
He speaks in platitudes.

No-one ever admits to speaking in platitudes – it’s like clubbing cute baby seals to death; the problem is Somewhere Else (usually the Artic).

And when someone of Barth’s calibre (not an endorsement of his theology overall, but a recognition of his ability) can say that the most profound truth is “Jesus loves me, this I know, because the Bible tells me so” then a platitude seems to be less to do with what is said, and more about how it is offered – whether it is ‘cheap grace’ or, as Os Guinness described Francis Schaeffer, ‘bloody truth.’ So I find I’m not even all that able to explain concretely what ‘platitudes’ look like – although arguably that may be just an occupational hazard that comes with hanging out in academia for *cough cough* number of years.

But I firmly agree, otherwise profound truths offered cheaply generally aren’t that edifying to people who need a lifeline.

Anthony and Scott,

I definitely agree that the real resource we have here is a well functioning Christian community (i.e. the local church) – and that is probably the next place to go to from where the original post leaves us. Moving the game from ‘me’ or even ‘you and me’ to ‘us’ opens up a lot of possibilities beyond pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps, or trying to be the sole minister to someone who is downcast. By and large, people in genuine relationships (they don’t have to be amazing, just something with some substance) are less likely to experience the worst kinds of depression. As you have observed, that is going to involve both people being on the look out to offer words of grace and a sharing of the load without being asked (Anthony) and a decent view of life in the last days being taught and owned before problems arise (Scott).

I particularly liked this comment by Scott:

The wall that I encounter, though, is one that I’m sure I’ve been a part of making: our excessive Christian individualism, and our obession with personal giftedness (even if we phrase it selflessly as ministry potential). I’ve found that because we imbibe secular individualism and ‘my job is my status’ mentality, when it comes to telling someone that it’s okay to take a break from Sunday school, or okay for your family and friends to pray for you for now, they simply don’t believe me.

because it reinforces something of which I’m becoming increasingly convinced. Bad ideas invariably do the greatest harm to those most in need of help, and most vulnerable to circumstances. The true cruelty of trying to find one’s identity and worth in achievement can’t be seen until one is no longer able to play the game. That’s when we find that the way it cuts us of from one another – always ‘ministering’ but never being ministered to – really is bad for us.

I think all four comments helped ground the post concretely really well, so thanks for being prepared to comment publicly.

Mark Baddeley11/12/2009 11:14 AMZeke,

I’m glad you found the tome valuable, Zeke. I love your questions, because I think you’ve flagged one of the areas where the post could do with some supplementing. I think you’ve put your finger on the other side of the coin, that bearing someone’s burden is not an end in itself but meant to be a stage in the path to health:

Maybe there’s a distinction you can draw, but some of the downcast I have known seem to exacerbate their state with excessive self-focus, resulting in a downward spiral of apathy, lethargy, and withdrawal. Some have suggested that part of the healing is found in both service and distraction.

I would make a distinction, but not quite at the point you make it. I’m no expert – merely someone who has been downcast, and has hung out with people who have been, and who has tried to keep their eyes and Bible open about the phenomena. – but I think I’d say that an ‘excessive self-focus, resulting in a downward spiral of apathy, lethargy, and withdrawal’ is one of the signs that someone is really, really downcast and not just in a funk.

However, someone can have those qualities without being really downcast and at that point they need an intervention – either a good kick in the pants, integration into a group of friends/family who are focused outward on serving others and positive in outlook and won’t take no for answer to that person being involved in what they‘re doing, or whatever other hard or soft technique is appropriate. Those traits will tend to push someone towards being depressed and isolated.

But someone who is depressed and isolated (even if only subjectively – feeling as though no one understands them) will have these traits, even if they aren’t the major cause. It’s a feedback loop, not a case of a single cause leading to a single effect, so challenging the ‘excessive self-focus, resulting in a downward spiral of apathy, lethargy, and withdrawal’ isn’t always the way forward – hence my post. Sometimes we challenge the behaviour, sometimes we bypass it and offer grace. Sometimes the behaviour is the problem, sometimes it’s primarily a symptom. Sometimes the dog wags the tail, and sometimes the tail wags the dog. Wisdom comes in working out which is right in a specific situation.

I think that’s where you take us in your second sentence:

Some have suggested that part of the healing is found in both service and distraction.

Being ‘weak’ in the way I defined it in the post is not something we should be content with. We should all strive to be ‘strong’. To be an adult is to be someone who carries their load and is able to step up as needed. To be a Christian adult is to be someone who sees that as their calling and to want to do it. Being ‘weak’ is a result of a fallen world, it’s not something to aim for.

That means that the person who gets to the point where they basically collapse under the weight of their ‘load’ needs to be helped back up on their feet, have their hands strengthened and helped to start carrying loads again. That is actually what it looks like to be a healthy adult human being and that is good for them. So sitting with them, listening to them, speaking grace to them, are not ends in themselves. That path locks them into a perpetual position of being ‘weak’ and locks us into being their perpetual enabler – a fate we’ll embrace or resent depending on how co-dependent we are. Our care has as its goal their eventual returning to strength, not simply supporting them in their downcast stage.

So we need to be inviting and encouraging downcast people to exercise their faith – the very thing I railed against at the start of the post. The wisdom thing is working out what kind of ‘faith exercises’ to set before someone. Get them to say ‘amen’ after you pray? Get them to repeat each line of the prayer after you pray it? Get them to pray while we’re there? Set the target too low and it can communicate the kind of lack of confidence in their ‘strength’ that runs the risk of locking them into making being weak part of their self-identity. Set it too high and you can have the kind of problems I flag in the post.

My analogy is with someone who is seriously ill or badly injured. There is a period of time when they have to remain in bed, possibly on life support. Getting them up and around during that time is A Bad Thing. After a while they need to start to moving as part of the recovery process – need to start claiming the life of an adult again, one step at a time (sitting up to eat normal food, going to the toilet, going to the toilet by themselves, going for short walks etc). Eventually they need to move on with life and not see themselves as sick or injured anymore.

I’ll cut here, and conclude in the next comment.

Mark Baddeley11/12/2009 11:23 AMContinuing…

That recovery time will vary from person to person – and this was Jo’s great point.

our own anxieties make us move from encouraging people to blaming them – if someone remains miserable for a long time, we start to think they must lack faith (though we reject prosperity doctrine!). To carry another person’s burdens is not to bring a casserole one week, send a card the next and then wonder why that person hasn’t cheered up. It is to stick with people for the long haul.

We have to watch out for malingering. The longer someone is ill or injured the more likely they are to start to hold onto that condition – to define themselves in terms of it. That’s true for mental issues as much as physical ones. But it’s still the case that some problems take a long, long, oh so very long time to recover from. So we need to be aware of the danger for the person, but not have artificial ideas of length of time to recover.

Whatever the length, usually we make a full recovery if we don‘t become a malingerer. But sometimes we permanently lose some ability to function – are less physically able, more prone to illness, less fit or whatever. Sometimes we are left crippled, permanently bedridden or the like. We end up less ‘strong’ than we were before.
But even here, there is genuine recovery. We can resist defining ourselves in terms of our new limits – of submitting to being turned into a permanent victim. We can look to see what we can do, recognise our new limits and make the most of the possibilities left open to us. We refuse to take up loads that are normal loads for adults under normal conditions (like feeding ourselves if we’re a quadriplegic) but still find genuine loads that we can bear in our new circumstances.

That’s just life as far as the physical analogy goes, but I think it applies both to the realm of faith and the realm of mental health as well.

We aim for their recovery and to strengthen them. If they malinger we have to challenge and put a bit a pressure on to encourage them to move again. But we also have to recognise that there are seasons in the recovery process, steps are often small, and sometimes the recovery end point is lower than the start point.

That’ll do for the ‘theory’, let’s turn to your two examples as I think they make things concrete really well.

An approx.-to-life example (not my wife and I!): A woman with 3 young children miscarries. 3 mos. later, she is still emotionally/ psychologically “paralyzed”. She is basically shut off to life. Her husband, who works full time, is trying but failing to keep up with the housework, etc. and their oldest (9 yrs.?) is carrying the care of his siblings. She distrusts mainstream medicine. Granted, coping with the death of a family member IS serious and a checkup w/an MD is probably a good beginning, is their any legitimacy to trying to coax her into embracing more responsibilities – for her own health?

It depends a lot on the individual. If they’re ‘paralysed’ when there’s three young children and an overwhelmed husband at stake then either there’s a nasty bit of malingering going on or they’re in real trouble. The only way to have any chance of working that out is to spend time in the house and with her. Not even Solomon could work that one out from a distance – even he needed both parties and a sword to hand.

Grief hits different people differently, and three months is a fairly short space of time to process the death of a loved one. If one of the three children or the husband had died would that change what would be a ‘reasonable’ length of time? It is not unheard of for mothers to suffer post-natal depression and be rendered almost paralysed for long periods – it can start months after the birth of the child, and I know of cases that went for a full year (and I wouldn’t be surprised if some go longer). If a good thing (new life successfully arrived) can cause that, I’m not sure that we can say absolutely that grief must not.

I’ll cut here, and conclude (this time for real!) in the following comment.

Mark Baddeley11/12/2009 11:28 AMConcluding…
What I would suggest is that the question has to be: does she need to be carried, or does she need to be coaxed to start taking steps (or does she need a full blown intervention – that’s not off the cards either). The issue of the children, the husband is a red herring. Sometimes your spouse is there for you, sometimes they ain’t. There were vows to cover that: ‘in sickness and in health.’ Sometimes children receive great parenting – other times death takes their parent, their parent walks out on the family, or their parent is in a coma, or is seriously injured, or is emotionally paralysed. That’s tough, it is not good for the children, but God can be trusted, he really is in control, and if those children are his it will be worked to the good.

I think that when dealing with a situation like you describe you have to put the children’s welfare to one side, for the sake of the children’s welfare. If the wife/mother can’t function then she can’t function. But getting worried about the effect that has on the kids could encourage counterproductive help from others. She is a wife and mother and has to be strong for the sake of her family. But, unless she can either shrug it off or grit her teeth and soldier through it by force of will, the fact she has responsibilities may not help her discharge those responsibilities (if she can, then it might).

So, in the hypothetical you offer, I think almost anything might be going on, and almost anything might be needed to address the emotional paralysis. It sounds like a professional is called for (if that is at all possible, given her aversion to mainstream treatment).

But the thing that does jump out at me from your great description, is that there is a big space there for one very strong family or individual or a couple of middling strong families or individuals to do some very practical stuff. Do all the chores. Cook all the meals. Take the children over to their house to sleep, or sleep in that family’s house some nights so the two parents can have some time by themselves or together without serious responsibilities.

Picking up the concrete load might create space for the emotional problems to correct themselves as the couple comfort each other – and would certainly mitigate the effect on the kids. And by getting in there and getting one’s hands dirty people will be in a much better place to have some idea what can be done to address the emotional paralysis.

More generally, if a person’s depression is being fed by harmful habits (i.e. vegging to non-stop T.V.), is there a place for coaching them out of those habits? How do we balance that with the huge importance of simply listening and supporting the weak?

Absolutely. I’d go back to symptom and underlying problem. Sometimes the harmful habits are the cause (or at least a big contributing factor to a pre-existing susceptibility) sometimes they are a bad response to a more fundamental problem. Either way they’re better off without the habits, but it can matter whether the behaviour is more cause or more symptom. If the behaviour is the problem, then addressing it will have far more positive effect than if it is not.

So in such situations, I’m open to either possibility, and the need to be either ‘nice’ or ‘hard nosed’ with the person. And I recognise that I’ll probably be stumbling around in the dark as I try things out, back off, try something else, and just keep plugging away until I see improvement. Sometimes I can’t even be sure that anything I did helped – but people are generally better off with someone in there with them, even if they make mistakes, than on their own. God’s grace covers an awful lot of sins, even well intentioned and incompetent ones. I find that remembering that is a great way to persevere and not put it in the too hard basket.

Thanks for such great prodding xxxx- hope you found that ‘thinking aloud’ exercise helpful in response.

xxxxxx/12/2009 09:23 PMThank you for an excellent article, Mark! I know I will be rereading this one. Your exhortations for practical help are great. I have a few comments for the commenters.
Karen, why is it that you are second-guessing yourself? Pray, make your decision about what ministries to be involved in, and assess how your life is functioning after a year. And don’t add more than one new activity in a year!
Zeke, I’m betting it’s depression. Three months is a very short time in the grieving process, and possibly there is still some physical healing going on, depending on how late the miscarriage was. Mothers are often particularly depressed around the time that their baby would have been born, so keep that in the back of your mind. My guess is that the mistrust of mainstream medicine and the obsessive TV-watching are symptoms of depression—I know I veg out with the computer when I’m tired, and fatigue can be a big part of depression. Perhaps you can contact the father and ask what would be helpful—meals? Cleaning? Consider taking Dad off for a blokes’ day to unwind, with other friends looking after the family.
Anthony—for those of us who aren’t very perceptive as to who is weak, what do you suggest? Perhaps it’s part of the perceptive people’s job to tell the unperceptive what to do? Lack of perception is just another kind of weakness…

Underreported in the news yesterday, the US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry and General Stanley McChrystal presented their testimony before the House and Senate Armed Services committee.  This hearing came just one week after President Obama presented the Administration’s strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.  This testimony is significant because as Ambassador, Mr. Eikenberry is the Chief of Mission or country team leader in Afghanistan and all US government agencies are under the leadership and direction of the ambassador while in country.  Moreover, General McChrystal, the current commander of US forces in Afghanistan, received some but not all that he asked for in last month’s leaked report.  Below is a summary of their testimony.

Ambassador Eikenberry

The ambassador presented a direct but overall cautiously optimistic assessment of the situation in Afghanistan, detailing the civilian side of the President’s strategy for the region.  On the down side, Ambassador Eikenberry explicitly stated that despite US efforts, Afghanistan may struggle to take over the essential tasks of government, will remain dependent on international aid for years to come, and that ‘success’ in Afghanistan is linked to the US partnership with Pakistan.  The ambassador also concedes that “Afghanistan remains a disconnected society, divided by factionalism, plagued by corruption and illegal narcotics and challenged by insecurity.”

The ambassador’s optimism, if you want to call it that, stems from the fact that a mission that was once poorly defined and under resourced is now clearer and better provided for. According to the Ambassador, by early 2010 there will be almost 1,000 civilians from various department and agencies on the ground in Afghanistan, tripling the total from the beginning of 2009.  The Ambassador described the civilian component of the three main pillars of the US effort in Afghanistan: security, governance, and development.

Security
The Ambassador described the civilian role in improving security in Afghanistan as one of support to military efforts.  The Afghan government is in the process of building law enforcement institutions to fight corruption, organized crime and drug trafficking.  Many US federal departments are involved in such efforts, such as the Justice Department’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) which provide special training to the Afghan Counternarcotics Police and help to improve law enforcement capabilities.  DOD’s US Central Command and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also assist the Afghan Border Police and the Customs Department.

Governance
The civilian role in improving Afghan governance, on the national level, seeks to improve key ministries, increase the number of civilian technical advisers and provide additional development assistance.  On the local level, increased numbers of civilians (nearly 400) will be working with the military on Provincial Reconstruction teams, District Development Working Groups and District Support Teams.  Other efforts include training Afghan government employees in public administration and supporting efforts to create provincial and district councils and build citizen involvement.

Development
US development efforts focus on building Afghanistan’s private sector economy, improving the agriculture industry and rebuilding the farm sector, long-term investment in water management, large-scale irrigation, mining and light industry, among numerous other projects.

General McChrystal

General McChrsytal’s testimony reiterated the President’s strategy and also bolstered many of the statements made by Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mullen during last week’s hearings.

McChrystal emphasized how the Afghan government and people are a strong determinant in US success in Afghanistan, and listed the following factors that have increased his confidence in the US’s success in Afghanistan:

• The strong resolve of the Afghans, which is the major factor in determining their actions in ending the war
• The unpopularity of the insurgency with the Afghan population, and the insurgency’s lacking widespread support
• Success in helping the Afghan government and population achieve increased security and government credibility that is beginning to show in areas where such strategy has been applied
• The US not being viewed as occupier by the Afghan population, and general understanding that US support is necessary in order to “reach future security and stability”

McChrystal expects that by this time next year it will be clear to US policymakers that security gains will have been made in Afghanistan, and that the insurgency will have lost its momentum. Furthermore, he believes that by the summer of 2011 the Afghan people will clearly see that the insurgency will not win, thus providing the Afghan government more public support.

General McChrystal stressed that the commitment of the US will face constant scrutiny by both allies and enemies. Furthermore, all the complex factors involved in US successes in Afghanistan have created a situation where “there are no silver bullets.”  However, the quality and commitment of US and NATO forces as well as a sound strategy increases his certainty that the US will succeed.

NMHDU New Horizons Special Briefing Published   New Horizons

Click on the title above to access the full=text of the briefing

Abstract:

We should all welcome today’s publication of the New Horizons strategy with its shared vision for mental health, together with the publications on employment and mental health. New Horizons is an immensely important step forward that recognises the need to address the mental well-being of the whole population, as well as ensure the continued improvement of service delivery and support for recovery for those with mental health problems. For mental health policy and practice what is also encouraging is the emphasis on cross-government action, in recognition that the responsibility for mental health and well-being goes far wider than the NHS and social care. New Horizons has received support from across the mental health community, including leaders in the NHS, local authorities and the third sector. You can read just some of these voices in this briefing. Our role at the NMHDU will be to work with these different stakeholders to ensure we take a joined up approach to putting policy into practice and practice into policy.

• El hospital Sant Pau inicia su proceso de reforma y reconversión en centro del Mediterráneo, La Vanguardia 31/02/2009

Ir al articulo

• De hospital a campus social, El País 02/07/2009

Ir a articulo

• Rehabilitar los pabellones de Sant Pau costará 190 millones y 8 años, El País 10/05/2008

Ir al articulo

PLAN DE GESTIÓN DE RECURSOS PESQUEROS

EN LA RÍA DEL BURGO.

La Cofradía de Coruña, que marisquea en la Ría del Burgo, acudió a nosotros al detectar las siguientes irregularidades.

1. Una reducción de tallas de los individuos, con la posible implicación en un menor número de capturas.
2. Una peor calidad de los individuos.

La percepción de la Cofradía es que existe una relación directa entre la contaminación de la ría y los descensos de tamaño y calidad en los individuos.

 [A mayores, sufren un problema de furtivismo que podría afectar al stock de recursos.]

 Nuestros  objetivos son:

• Determinar que tipo de relación existe entre estos problemas y la contaminación.
• Realizar un plan de gestión cuya finalidad será mejorar la calidad y las tallas de los individuos.
• Conseguir un mejor rendimiento económico para la cofradía.

 Plan de trabajo.

1. Identificación de las relaciones entre actores/usuarios.
2. Analizar:
   1. En que medida la disminución de tallas afecta al nº de capturas.
   2. Si realmente hay una disminución de calidad y de qué tipo.
   3. Las fuentes de contaminación que hay en la ría, el tipo de contaminación y sus niveles.
   4. Establecer el tipo de relación existente entre la contaminación y el descenso de tallas y calidades.
   5. Realizar un plan de gestión para recuperar las tallas y aumentar la calidad de los individuos.

Calendario.

Noviembre: Análisis e investigación.

Diciembre: Creación del plan de gestión

Enero: Entrega y Exposición.

Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs trekked to the hill yesterday to defend the President’s new Afghan policy testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC).  All three are speaking this morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen will speak this afternoon before the House Armed Services Committee.  Below is a summary of their prepared statements before the SASC, which are identical in content to that presented this morning to the SFRC.

Secretary Clinton

Secretary Clinton expanded on the civilian component of the new Afghan strategy, which was only briefly mentioned in President Obama’s speech. The number of US civilians in Afghanistan is expected to triple to 974 by early next year. According to Clinton, each civilian worker engages with an average of ten partners, covering a wide spectrum from locally employed Afghans to specialists from US-funded NGO’s.  The role of the US civilians will be to enhance the abilities of the Afghan government’s ministries through initiatives such as aiding in the drafting of policy, and in development efforts out in the field.

The agricultural sector in Afghanistan will also be a major component of civilian efforts and economic assistance. By increasing agricultural viability in Afghanistan, Secretary Clinton stated that new jobs will be created, and poppy cultivation will decrease thus limiting the Taliban’s source of funding. Furthermore, individuals involved with the Taliban for purely financial reasons will have more of an incentive to come “off the battlefield.”

Clinton stressed that the new Afghan strategy is the best option to ensure that the US is protected now and in the future, reaffirming President Obama’s stated objectives.

Secretary Gates

Secretary Gates reaffirmed the Obama Doctrine, which is to “disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda.” He stressed that the defeat of al-Qaeda and the strengthening of Afghan Security Forces go hand-in-hand in determining US success. Secretary Gates emphasized that the new approach is not open-ended, nor can it be considered “nation building.”  Rather, the approach is tied to the defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda to secure US security interests.

Gates provided six objectives of the military and civilian forces in Afghanistan:

1. Reverse the momentum of the Taliban
2. Ensure that the Taliban will not gain access and control of the population, production centers, and “lines of communications”
3. Eliminate the threat of Afghanistan outside of the secured areas and removing Afghan safe havens
4. Defeat the Taliban to levels that are “manageable by the Afghan National Security Forces”
5. Strengthen the size and capabilities of the Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) so transition over security control can begin within 18 months
6. Build the abilities of the Afghan national government

It is worth mentioning that Gates differentiated Afghanistan and Pakistan from the other terrorist hotbeds around the world. Gates stated that there is a symbolic meaning of Afghanistan and that the country “represent(s) the epicenter of extremists Jihadism: the historic place where native and foreign Muslims defeated one superpower [the Soviet Union].”

Gates also expanded upon what exactly is at stake if the US fails in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In his view, the failure of the US and its alliances would lead to a strengthened Taliban and a stronger international Al Qaeda foothold and base of support.

Admiral Mullen

Admiral Mullen stressed that the months of deliberating over a new strategy have led to a more narrowly defined goal in Afghanistan, one that will “deny al Qaeda safe haven and the Afghan-Taliban ability to overthrow the duly elected Afghan government.” Mullen reiterated the objectives laid out in President Obama’s speech as means for how the goal will be achieved. Admiral Mullen also gave a more succinct, two-pronged description of the new US role of filling “the security gap for a short time,” while strengthening the Afghan government’s ability to “self-secure.”

Additionally, Mullen provided a response to many who have questioned the role the newly deployed troops will play in Afghanistan. According to Mullen, most of the additional troops deployed will conduct COIN operations in the Taliban strongholds in south and east Afghanistan in order to provide protection to the population in these areas, and increase the capacity of Afghan Security Forces.

Though Mullen admits that higher alliance casualties will most likely occur over the next few months, he stated that he has strong confidence that the mission will be successful; and over the next 18-24 months Afghanistan will be capable of taking over components of its own security.

There’s been a lot of debate recently about the future recruitment landscape, and how current events and technological advances will transform the way companies recruit. I took part in at least 2 separate discussions about this at London Unconference.

Certainly we 3^rd party recruiters have many challenges ahead, and one the biggest, I believe, will come from the generational shift in decision makers from Baby Boomers to Generation X.

Over the last 20 years or so agencies have mainly been briefed by Baby Boomers. They’re the generation that have been the key decision makers, and in the main they like external recruiters. We have been their friends; helped them to build careers, kept them in mind for the big jobs, also helped them to build their teams. They have trusted us with exclusives and retainers, and we have entertained them…lunches, networking drinks, sporting events. We have been their eyes and ears in the market and they have valued this, putting little pressure on the traditional recruitment sales model and fee structure.

Inevitably, the decision-making baton is being passed on and nowadays we are more likely to be briefed by Gen X. They are stepping in to key roles as hirers and decision makers. And there’s a difference…I’m not sure they see 3^rd parties the same way.

Whilst I do subscribe to the view that Generational classifications can often be no more than a state of mind, I do think that with Gen X there are certain effects of cultural, social and economic changes that define their experiences. In career terms they certainly seem to have things a bit tougher…largely entering the job market in (or at the end of) a major recession they now find that at just the time they should be making the big career step up the ladder…there’s another recession.

They have also built their careers during the rise of a different recruitment ethos. Whereas the Baby Boomers were comfortable in the knowledge that they had a trusting business relationship with recruiters, Gen X have rarely had the same luxury. During the growth years they have found a lot of recruiters to be focusing on the deal not the detail, instead of building deep relationships they have been  more concerned with speed, CV, size of fee, and swiftly moving on to the next deal. There has been no continuity, no engagement, little post-placement care, and when Gen X have started briefing 3^rd parties, they have too often received just a CV shifting service, with no proper matching, value add or consulting.

Any wonder they’ve gone for multiple briefings, with reduced fees and a winner takes all approach?

And any wonder that if you ask them about their resourcing plans for the future they talk about direct resourcing and reducing agency spend?

They usually ‘get’ social media, are big users of LinkedIn and Facebook (with a growing awareness of Twitter) and can see the business benefit of going down this route.

It will be a long haul to win them back, and I’m not sure that they will ever see us the way that Baby Boomers did…the challenge won’t be to turn the clock back, but to work with them collaboratively to map out the future.

On Talent Street the 3^rd parties used to lay the paving stones, and often also  had a hand in filling the cracks too…moving forward, could we just be filling in the cracks?