Dec 2009: This weekend saw not one but two dramatic failures.

 

The first, in Denmark, saw world leaders spectacularly fail to reach a binding resolution at the climate change conference in Copenhagen. The second, in England, saw the X-Factor's annual assault on the Christmas number 1 slot lose out, comprehensively, to a middle-aged couple from suburban England.

 

The French philosopher Sartre had a real problem with the idea of politicians. The thought of putting our trust in elected leaders to make decisions for us was what he termed, 'mauvaise foi' or bad faith. This was passing the buck, he argued, rejecting the responsibility incumbent upon us all to ensure that decisions that matter are taken by us, the populus.

 

In my university essays I argued passionately against this opinion, instead suggesting that far from being a lazy way of engaging with life, having leaders is a very positive mechanism for governing society: the people collectively decide what needs doing, and (in theory) get the right person to do each job.

 

The Torah suggest this too: Moses is instructed, in no uncertain terms, by his father-in-law Jethro to re-think his leadership strategy. Moses is unable to delegate. Jethro therefore warns him that if he insists on doing everything himself with no outside help, he will burn himself out and make incorrect decisions, with disastrous concequences for both leader and people. Moses heeded Jethro's advice, appointed leaders for different matters and was able to be more effective with his time. Leadership works.

 

What happened in Copenhagen, however, was a real kick-in-the teeth to this model. Our leaders let us down spectacularly over the weekend.

 

Firstly, the good news. By all accounts, the British lot weren't too bad. Gordon Brown, arriving at the conference three days ahead of schedule, (no doubt to avoid watching the UK grind to a halt with the arrival of winter), thrives in these conditions. Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, worked night and day proposing and countering offers and compromises in an attempt to thrash out a deal before the deadline. I heard Mr Miliband speak last month before the Jewish Social Action Forum's screening of Age of Stupid and found him an engaging and passionate speaker.

 

But that's where the good news ends. Even if our elected officials weren't as bad as the rest, there is no hiding from the terrible truth coming out of Copenhagen: the conference failed. Spectacularly and utterly.

 

Our leaders might have performed OK, but they were sent to Copenhagen with the clearest of messages following the largest public demonstration ever seen on climate change in the UK. Over 50,000 people, young and old, took to the streets of London at the start of the month to tell our government to go to Copenhagen and not to come back until a deal was hammered out.

 

It failed.

 

No deal was reached, no fixed time-line was agreed for changes and no country offered cast-iron pledges with monitoring mechanisms. The closest we got was the delegates agreeing on 'noting' the scientific evidence that says we need to reduce our carbon emissions to ensure that average world temperatures do not rise by 2'C.

 

The goal was to get consensus on a 40% reduction in carbon emissions from everybody by 2020 (and even that might not be enough), followed by an 80% reduction by 2050. The blame for what happened lies squarely on the shoulders of two countries: China and the USA.

 

The Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, after encouraging and unprecedented signs of hope before the conference, effectively scuppered the whole affair by vetoing the 80% target and refusing to allow monitoring in his country, even of the smaller cuts his country had already agreed before Copenhagen!

 

It is easy, however, to point the fnger at China without taking account of their needs. The Chinese are by far responsible for the highest carbon emissions of any country, but then they have by far the largest population. China's goal is, like the African continent's, a noble one: it wants to continue guzzling fossil fuels in order to bring its population out of poverty by industrialisation.

 

This is after all a luxury we have enjoyed in the West for 150 years now. But what China must realise is that its continued reliance on fossil fuels will be ultimately to the detriment of the population it wishes to help. The more industrialised China becomes, the more it will become reliant on another natural but fragile resource: water. Meltwater from the Himalayas feeds the rivers on which both China's subsistence farmers and industrial plants rely. The more global warming, the more meltwater. The more meltwater, the more flooding and unusable water. Then eventually the water is used up.

 

The United States, like Britain and fellow countries in the West, has no such noble intentions when it comes to its continued reliance on fossil fuels. I like President Obama and that is why I am disappointed by his actions. I loved the wave of optimism that flowed through the US after his victory, rippling across the Earth and even gently lapping onto the shores of nations hitherto considered enemies but now being handed an olive branch. I am, truth be told, slightly jealous of his good looks, his beautiful wife and effortless charm, perhaps a real-life Josiah Bartlet.

 

But Obama failed his country at Copenhagen and in doing so failed us. We expected better of a man who challenged us to believe in change. The pledge of a 4% reduction in carbon emissions is pitifully small and if that wasn't depressing enough, looking at the extra demands and provisos that go in to the 4%, what we actually got was a commitment to raising American emissions. Yes, you can point to the gas and oil lobbies who control the Senate through their funding but unless the American people made their voices forcefully heard, blaming the lobbyists won't help the climate.

 

Sartre was right that our duty to engage in the world we live in cannot be done through getting other people to do things instead of us. Social action demands concrete actions from all in society. And here's where the X-Factor comes in.

 

Joe McElderry is, by all accounts, a lovely boy. He comes across as immensely likeable on TV, he can sing a bit and his debut single has sold nearly half a million copies. But even his cheeky smile and pearly white teeth couldn't prevent a rival song - Rage Against the Machine's Killing in the Name - from claiming the coveted Christmas number 1 spot. But here's the thing that will annoy Simon Cowell, the music mogul behind the X-Factor brand: Rage Against the Machine weren't even trying to compete.

 

No, the X-Factor, despite commanding £250,000 per thirty-second slot of advertising during the final, despite generating over £100 million in revenue for ITV over the series and dominating the tabloids for the past four months, was beaten by the most powerful and effective advertising machine of them all: people power. And what power. In a bid to ensure there wouldn't be yet another Christmas number 1 from the X-Factor brand - having already notched up five since the show started in 2004 - a couple from Essex, both in their thirties, decided enough was enough.

 

Using the only propaganda machine open to them on a limited budget, Jon and Tracy Morter created a (free) Facebook group to encourage people to buy or download the Rage Against the Machine single, Killing in the Name. Chosen for its anti-capitalist, don't follow the herd message, the campaign worked. At the time of writing the Facebook group has over a million members and has taken a more positive tone than simply 'we hate Simon Cowell': the group has raised almost £70,000 for Shelter, the UK homeless charity, with Rage Against the Machine promising to donate royalties from the song to the charity and to play a free concert next year as a thank you for choosing their song.

 

The campaign worked because it was a cause people believed in (stop another manufactured single reaching top spot on hype alone rather than musical talent) and because it provided a cheap and easy way for people to get involved (join a free Facebook group or for even more direct action, go on to i-Tunes, spend 99p and join the revolution). The result was comprehensive, Rage selling over 50,000 more copies than Joe. Far from being a Scrooge-like attempt to prevent the X-Factor single reaching the top spot, as Simon Cowell has suggested, the result showed what can be achieved when a grassroots movement swings into action.

 

Sure, it required the media to provide the spotlight. My favourite moment was the row that ensued on BBC Radio 5 Live who were forced to apologise after Rage used the f-word during a live performance on the breakfast show, apparently breaking a promise they'd made not to swear on air (was the irony of having Rage on only to ask them to behave entirely lost on the production team?!). But it was real people, not the media, who came up with the idea and real people who went out to buy Rage's song.

 

I found the whole thing quite inspiring. I can appreciate the X-Factor for its superb production values, its pantomime booing and applauding of the judges and its ability to create human dramas every week on screen. But when push came to shove, the public said they fancied something just a little bit different fro Christmas this year, and in the expletive-ridden Killing in the Name got about as far away from Joe's squeaky-clean image as was possible.

 

Anyone in need of a bit of cheer after the performance in Copenhagen need look no further than our very own X-Factor. If we tell our leaders and officials that we're serious about climate change as clearly as the British public told Simon Cowell 'Enough!' this weekend, a resolution won't be long in coming. After the disappointment of Copenhagen, and in advance of part two in Bonn in six weeks' time, the time to speak up is now.

 

To get involved, join the UJS One Campaign

 

Richard Verber is the Development and Education Director for Union of Jewish Students UK. 

 

Get in touch: richard@ujs.org.uk