Participants lamented Canada’s new status as a “laggard country” when that nation’s conservative government announced its plan to quit the Kyoto Protocol, which it called a thing of the past. And, to almost no one’s surprise, people inside the conference halls and out on the streets joined together in labeling the United States “enemy number one” for the way it is wielding its vast global influence in the service of intransigence, backpedaling and obfuscation. A top South African religious leader Tuesday called the high-profile climate-change skepticism of many U.S. leaders “immoral.”

At a well-attended briefing Tuesday morning held by NGO umbrella organization Climate Action Network, Bishop Geoff Davies, executive director of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, highlighted what he saw as the contradiction inherent in the fact that the people of the United States are deeply religious but also alienated from the responsibility faith demands to address suffering tied to climate-altering pollution.

“The US is a nation of great faith, of Christian commitment. We find it extraordinary that they are behaving like this. We find it immoral,” he said when a Turkish journalist asked what additional pressure could be brought to bear on the world’s lone superpower. “Environmental destruction is a sin against God. We say to faith groups in the U.S.: You’ve got to recognize your responsibilities to combat climate change.”

Watch live video from OneClimate on www.justin.tv

At a press conference on Monday, Greenpeace Executive Director Kumi Naidoo said the U.S. government was criminally confusing the interests of corporate polluters with the interests of its people.

“The US delegation is not only betraying the people of the world but they are betraying the American People,” he said, calling on President Obama to “Get here and get with the program or move aside.”

The future of the Kyoto Protocol is the main question of the negotiations because major developing nations are demanding the treaty continue if they are to participate in any future climate-change agreements.

The protocol, signed in 1997 and meant to take effect in 2005, set up tiers of countries that were supposed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by specifically tailored rates. The plan was supposed to cut annual emissions to a rate 5.2 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2012. The treaty failed spectacularly to meet that goal, with CO2 emissions alone now up to a reported 30 billion metric tons, or a third more than were emitted in 1990.

The United States is leading efforts to delay any new legally binding agreement until 2020. So far, the countries of Europe as represented by the European Union, are the only developed nations willing to sign on to extend the Kyoto Protocol, but they’ll do so only if the United States and other big polluters like China and India agree to a new pact that would take effect by 2020.

Jim Leape, director general of World Wildlife Fund, called the negotiations “a huge failure of ambition on the part of governments.” He said that a delay in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would be “binding ourselves to a 4-degree world.”

Scientists say that, at today’s warming-emissions rate, the global planet temperature is on course to rise by 4 degrees Celsius and they say that temperature would bring dramatic challenges to the way we presently live, causing the desertification of much farmland, widespread crop failure and major glacier loss.

Leape felt the need to point out to North Americans that climate change is not just some exotic problem for faraway lands but a domestic problem as well, whether or not politicians and corporate leaders care to admit it. He reminded reporters that 47 of the 50 U.S. states declared weather-related emergencies last year. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists warn that extreme weather conditions will only increase in frequency and intensity as the planet warms.

Some analysts say that, given the political and business realities of the contemporary world, the annual meetings– known as the COP conferences (the meeting in Durban is COP17)– with their focus on emissions reduction, detract from other more realizable goals. Paul Danish, writing in the Boulder Weekly, offered a typical example this week, arguing that, at this point, focusing so much attention on cutting emissions is a fool’s errand. “Global warming is a done deal,” he wrote. “[T]he conference should really be focused on learning to live with global warming and finding ways to adapt to it.”

Photos of the Global Day of Action in Durban by Adrienne Russell and Matt Tegelberg.

Reporters often ride along on police vehicles outside the conference.

South Durban is the toxic hub of South Africa and citizens there are demanding industry clean up the region and make efforts to limit waste.

Protesters here are strongly tying the right to secure freedom of information to the issue of climate change. Without access to data, corporate and industry interests can avoid accountability, they say. In South Africa, freedom of information has been threatened recently by a bill that attaches stiff prison sentences to unauthorized possession of classified information.

Reporting from Durban by Adrienne Russell, associate professor of communication at the University of Denver. Her most recent book, Networked: A Contemporary History of News in Transition was published by Polity Press this year.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

STEVE KING: Herman, there are 50 million people in line in foreign countries waiting to come into the United States legally. So how many would be too many?

CAIN: I don’t have an answer for that, congressman, because I would have to look at one, what type of qualifications do these 50 million people have, secondly, what type of skills and education do they bring with them. If they’re bringing us more problems than opportunities, then 50 million might be too many.

STEVE KING: Would you though, be favorable towards establishing illegal immigration policy that rewarded merits of applicants –

CAIN: Yes.

STEVE KING: I very much appreciate that response.

King also asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Is there such a thing as too many legal immigrants? And how would you define that? And how would you — and would you support a merit system to identify their ability to contribute to this economy, rather than familial and any other means that we have?”

The questions suggest that King, who is a prominent member of the U.S. House Tea Party Caucus and has considerable influence among the social conservatives that dominate the GOP Iowa caucuses, wants the presidential candidates to endorse an end, or at least a significant reduction, to family-based immigration.

Sixty-five percent of green cards are granted for family connections: 46 percent of green cards go to immediate family members and 19 percent go to extended family of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Fourteen percent of green cards are granted for reasons of  employment, 15 percent for refugees and 4 percent are selected through the “diversity visa” lottery. The U.S. employment visa system is structured around an employer-based system, wherein U.S. firms sponsor potential employees that meet the specific criteria needed to fill a certain job.

A merit-based immigration system, such as a Canadian-style “points system,” places greater emphasis on employment by ranking immigrant applicants on the basis of labor market-relevant skills such as language proficiency or graduate degrees. A points system was the centerpiece of the failed comprehensive reform efforts in 2007, spearheaded by the Bush White House and a Democratically-controlled Senate and ultimately foiled through determined efforts by DeMint and other Senate conservatives because of the provisions related to undocumented immigrants. Yet many Republicans maintain that they want a points-based system: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has said in congressional hearings that he “would take Canada’s system in a heartbeat.”

Because points-based immigration systems require immigrants apply directly to government agencies for visas, the power of employers within the system decreases, which, according to a Migration Policy Institute report (PDF), has both pros and cons. Point systems have greater legitimacy because they, “enable the government to set clear and transparent standards for the human-capital level of incoming immigrants, while conveying to the public that they are in control of economic-stream immigration.” But the report also reveals that in recent years, nations with exclusively points-based employment visa systems have made steps towards hybridizing their systems so as to incorporate the needs of employers, for example, by requiring that immigrants already have a job offer within the receiving country when they apply for a visa. It’s certainly true, however, that the United States is an outlier when it comes to the prevalence of family as a basis for permanent residence.

King has become a fierce and public opponent of many of the family-based components of the U.S. immigration system, which has led to some controversy and was most likely why he was ultimately skipped over for the job of immigration subcommittee chair when Republicans took over the House this year. He has referred to children born of undocumented parents as “anchor babies” because they qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and can technically sponsor their parents for visas when they turn 18. And although such remarks are considered controversial they nevertheless coincide with an overall shift towards making an end to birthright citizenship a part of the conservative orthodoxy. Of the leading presidential contenders, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was a cosponsor, along with King, of a bill that would end birthright citizenship that garnered significant support from House Republicans, and candidate Mitt Romney suggested ending birthright citizenship during his 2008 campaign (although he hasn’t commented on the issue since then).

Attempts to shrink family-based immigration would certainly draw opposition from the Hispanic Caucus and other lawmakers representing recent immigrants and their families. Indeed, many are frustrated with the already extremely long waiting lists for family sponsorship of green card applicants: Because no single country can surpass 7 percent as a country of origin for legal immigrants, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from Mexico or the Philippines can expect to wait 15 years or more before their petition for family sponsorship is granted.

Nevertheless, King, Sessions, DeMint and other conservative would-be immigration reformers have significant sway in the current primary season, so it’s quite possible that candidates other than Herman Cain will be forced to make public their views on whether the family-based system needs changing.

The move comes as Upton has been touting his conservative credentials in an effort to win the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Republicans have criticized Upton for being too moderate on environmental issues, with one of his opponents, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), leading the “not-conservative-enough” charge.

Environmentalists and a number of lawmakers have mounted a massive campaign to oppose the pipeline project, known as Keystone XL. And they have set their sights on recent remarks by Clinton that suggest the State Department will approve the project. But it’s not just Democrats who oppose the project; at least one Republican, Sen. Mike Johanns (Neb.), opposes it because it would go through his state.

In a letter to Clinton, Upton said:

Government is currently standing in the way of this $7 billion privately funded project, which is expected to stimulate $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy and spur the creation of 118,000 jobs. Our number one priority must be job creation, and this is a prime example of the over-burdensome regulatory system that is killing the private sector.  Government must stand back and allow the U.S. economy to rebound. If not we will continue to see our jobs go overseas.

The petition — signed by a slew of environmental groups in the U.S. and Canada like the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace — appears to target a massive proposed pipeline project that would run from Alberta, Canada to Texas. Environmental groups have mounted a campaign to stop the project, known as Keystone XL.

The petition reads:

We are calling, with one voice, for the Alberta and the Federal government to address the growing and at times deadly impacts tar sands tailing lakes have by immediately denying all proposals that would require the creation of new tailings lakes and by legislating the complete phase out of existing tailings lakes because of the on-going and potential danger they pose to bird, animal, plant, aquatic and human populations.

More than 350 birds that landed on a Canadian tar sands pond were found dead last week. In a blog post on the issue, NRDC’s Susan Casey-Lefkowitz wrote:

The tar sands tailings ponds are one of the most dangerous and absurd facets of this industry. Dangerous because tailings ponds are some of the largest dams in the world, constructed for the toxic waste that remains after strip-mining the tarry bitumen from the sand that lies deep under Alberta’s Boreal forests and wetlands. Absurd because the tar sands oil industry is wasting precious natural resources and migratory bird habitat for waste storage.

The State Department is currently in the midst of a review of the Keystone XL proposal. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in San Fransisco last week, suggested that the State Department would eventually approve the project, though her comments were a bit unclear.

Environmental leaders and lawmakers from the states through which the pipeline would run have pounced on the comments. Eleven Senate Democrats sent a letter to Clinton last week calling on her not to “prejudge” the outcome of the State Department review. And just yesterday, the heads of seven major environmental groups called on Clinton to “recuse” herself from the pipeline review, citing her comments on the project.

Although the bill may not go anywhere, it contains some measures that could be aimed at finding bipartisan support, including its first section on border enforcement. Republicans have made a call for border security a central part of their message on immigration reform. From the summary:

• Expands Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) staffing, in line with this review.
• Improves training and accountability for DHS border and immigration officers.
• Enhances cooperation with Canada and Mexico, as well as local law enforcement agencies, to improve border security and coordinate crime fighting.

The bill specifically places immigration in the hands of federal authorities, clarifying the legality of state immigration enforcement efforts such as Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law.

The next section focuses on interior enforcement, attempting to make the system less exploitable and more humane toward legal and illegal immigrants:

• Requires DHS to track the departure of noncitizens to ensure that individuals do not overstay their visas.
• Denies “visa waiver” privileges to countries whose citizens attempt to overstay visas.
• Refines existing law on illegal entry, illegal reentry and voluntary departure of noncitizens to ensure enforcement of those provisions and heighten penalties for those who commit serious offenses. [...]
• Improves detention conditions to meet basic standards; expands secure alternatives to detention.
• Ends the waiting period for refugees and asylees to obtain green cards.

Third is a section on workplace enforcement. Like the blueprint created by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) this spring, the Menendez-Leahy bill calls for a fraud-resistant, tamper resistant Social Security card:

• Mandates the use of an employment verification system for all employers within five years. [...]
• Requires the Social Security Administration to create a reliable and secure way of verifying Social Security numbers and work authorization.
• Adds criminal penalties for fraud and misuse of Social Security numbers.

The remainder of the bill focuses on reforming the legal immigration system, which both sides agree is badly in need of improvement. The fourth section focuses on how visas will be determined and distributed, including the AgJOBS and Uniting American Families Act to improve the process for farm workers and foreign partners of gay and lesbian citizens:

• Creates a Standing Commission on Immigration, Labor Markets, and the National interest to evaluate labor market and economic conditions and recommend quotas for employment? based visa programs that Congress and the President would act on. [...]
• Creates the structure for a new nonimmigrant visa program (H?2C) to address gaps in existing worker programs that have lead to undocumented migration. [...]
• Significantly expands labor protections in current H?2A, H?2B, H?1B, and L?1 visa programs.
• Ensures that the number of family and employment green cards authorized by Congress do not expire because of processing delays; expands the share of visas that each country can access within existing quotas that limit overall immigration.
• Incorporates the AgJOBS bill, which provides a path to permanent residency for farm workers and revises agricultural employer sponsorship requirements.
• Incorporates the Uniting American Families Act, which allows permanent partners to access the family?based immigration system.

The next step is legalization for some of the 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S., which the Obama administration argues is necessary to maintain the economy, communities and families:

• Creates Lawful Prospective Immigrant (LPI) status for non?criminal undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. since 9/30/10. Requires applicants to submit biometric and biographical data, undergo security and law enforcement checks, and pay a $500 fine plus application fees. LPI status lasts four years and can be extended. It includes work authorization and permission to travel abroad; immediate family members are also eligible for status under the program. [...]
• Incorporates the DREAM Act, which creates a path to legal status for individuals who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children, provided they meet age and other criteria and enroll in college or the U.S. military.

In its final section, the bill establishes several programs to better integrate immigrants into American society and provide humanitarian aid to those who cannot enter:

• Enhances programs and policies to help immigrants learn English and U.S. civics, such as: tax credits for teachers of English language learners and businesses who provide such training for their employees; a revamped DHS Office of Citizenship and New Americans to assist with immigrant integration; and grants for states who work to successfully integrate newcomers. [...]
• Evaluates the factors that drive undocumented migration from key sending countries and requires the State Department to develop a strategy to reduce migration pressures.

In the June lawsuit, the Sierra Club and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy argue that the Pentagon is not complying with a 2007 law that says it should not get its fuel from sources with high greenhouse gas emissions. The process of extracting Canadian oil sands emits significant levels of greenhouse gases and environmentalists have long decried the practice.

API and the Chamber, along with the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, argue that “the fungible nature of crude oil makes it impossible for the Pentagon to determine which fuels are derived from oil sands crude, preventing it from being able to comply with [the law],” according to an API statement.

The groups also say that relying on Canadian oil sands allows the country to rely less on foreign oil. Bob Greco, an API official, said in the statement:

Over the next five years, Canadian oil sands development could lead to an additional 343,000 jobs in the United States. Those are jobs that our struggling economy could certainly use – and as the economy recovers, it could also use the half a billion barrels per year of crude oil that Canadian oil sands could provide.

That’s what Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) told a Canadian newspaper this weekend on a trip to the country to observe tar sands facilities (h/t The Hill).

Hagan’s comments are sure to cause quite a stir in the environmental community, which has for years been crowing about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with tar sands production. In recent months, environmentalists have set their sights on a massive proposed pipeline that will cut across the United States, raising questions about a safety waiver request by TransCanada, the pipeline owner, to pump oil at higher pressures through the line. TransCanada withdrew the application after the issue of pipeline safety gained more attention in light of a July pipeline burst and resulting oil spill in Michigan.

But Hagan’s comments also raise another important issue: national security. Hagan argues that importing more tar sands from Canada would reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil. Environmentalists counter that tar sands production results in too many greenhouse gas emissions and the country should begin weaning itself off oil altogether.

Update: Hagan spokeswoman Stephanie Allen said though Hagan believes the country needs to import more oil from Canada, the senator also supports renewable energy. According to a written statement from Allen: “Canada is our largest trading partner and provides 20 percent of U.S. oil imports, and Senator Hagan believes we need to continue to grow our trading relationship. Senator Hagan strongly supports investments in renewable energy, and helped make North Carolina the first and only state in the Southeast to require utilities to utilize renewable energy.”

The environmental groups specifically targeted a tar sands oil pipeline from Alberta to Texas proposed by TransCanada. According to the letter, “We are opposed to the building of this pipeline, as it would lock us into decades of consumption of one of the most environmentally destructive forms of oil in the world and would undermine the U.S. transition to a new energy economy.”

This goes to show the danger of the housing stock over-build during the property bubble. With so many empty homes, it is far easier for housing prices to fall.

So I asked Barry Coburn, Khadr’s chief attorney. Coburn replied that the government has “told us that this is the only one.” If it turns out that there are any other recorded interrogations, then the government will have risked its case by misrepresenting a salient fact to the defense. (That is, unless a plea deal gets worked out first.)