now it gets serious

We're finally in the meat of things and getting to meet some very interesting people. If it's Monday, it must be NATO, if it's Tuesday it must be the EU. I have been told that all interviews are Chatham House Rules, or that we can talk about what we hear but not attribute the source. So don't look at the itineraries and you won't know who told me any of this stuff.
So no cameras inside the NATO compound, which is a shame because it's full of super cool ulta-large graphics and pictures of military personnel and the things they're doing. In fact if it was private sector, I'd even say that it would be a GREAT place to come to work each day --that is if you don't mind a significant amount armed guards and guard dogs eyeing you when you came to work. Did I mention the barricades and barbed wire?

And not surprisingly where there are bureaucrats, there are bureaucratic processes seemingly devoid of creativity and any hint of emotion. But this is a place of idealism and some very bright and engaging people. We met no military personnel, in fact I saw only a handful of people wearing uniforms.

They were all quite candid that 9/11 was a game changer and they were unprepared for the threat as an alliance. And they've announced a new set of strategic priorities to deal with their growth, their military operations, partnerships and as they prepare for new challenges, including NATO's admission of the threat of climate change.

One of the most interesting discussions was if NATO should even expand. Quite frankly Article V of its charter ensuring if one member state is attacked that all consider it attack make you wonder the wisdom of including Georgia (fresh out of a 'war' with Russia and currently half-occupied by them) or any number of the smaller countries seeking admission. NATO will say that as democracies they have right to choose this, but I wonder how much choice they have with Russia looming. Does the US really want to be part of a conflict in Eastern Europe some time in the future because of this? NATO is 60 years old this year, I hope they have as peaceful next 60 as the previous. On to the EU as typing NATO on a Blackberry is a PITA.

If you understand how Washington DC sometimes is out of touch with their constituents and caught up in the minutae of policy, then you can begin to get a sense of Brussels. And if you add a couple of layers to our Congress, then you also can get a sense of the EU Parliament.

You can also imagine the complexities of providing binding legislation for 27 countries. Not to mention the Eurozone which just covers those countries that use the Euro (not all of the EU), but everyone that we met was proud to talk about their jobs and all have an amazing grasp of American policy.

One thing that is constantly being brought up is climate change legislation. Seriously, Europeans are *gripped* by this. And the vast majority want the price of carbon to be borne by the user: taxes or cap and trade. They point to the per capita use of carbon and that the US has the highest, "there must be a price paid for carbon" said one *very* high ranking adviser.

I'm dubious. Surely if we're going to be spending money as a country to solve this problem, there must be a more practical way. More on this later when I get to Copenhagen. They're preparing for an Int'l Climate Change conference in a few weeks.