captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> lehre good evening, i'm jim lehrer. the glal climate talks ended with what u.s. officls called a "meaningfuand historic" agement. >> brown: and i'm ffrey brown. on the newshour toght, we'll have fl analysis of what world leaders did and did noagree to. >> what we havachieved in copenhagen wl not be the end, but rather the begiing. e beginning of a new era ofnternational action. >> lehrer: and tn judy woodruff lds a discussion out the climate deal. >> brown: an update on d testing, as an iocent man who's ent the longest time behind bars is set free.

lehrer: paul solman has a convertion about the coection between human health anbiodiversity. >> the only -- anywherin the world at raise their young -- are nowxtinct and the mpounds that these make to keep themselves -- that information igone rever. >> brown: and the weekly analysis of mark shids and david broo. >> lehrer: thas all ahead on night's pbs newshour. major funding for thpbs newshour is provided by:

>> chevron this is the poweof human energy. d by toyota. and monsanto. grant thornton.

>> and by the bi and melinda gatefoundation. dedited to the idea that all people deserve the chae to live a healthy productivlife. and with the ongoi support of thesinstitutions and foundations. and... this program was made ssible by the corration for public broadcasting. and by contributions tyour pbs station om viewers like you. thank you. >> lehrer: the clima change summit wnd down today, and president obama claimed "an unprecedented breakthrou". it did not inclu legally nding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissio. instd, the president said nations will set out goalsith a way to verify their tions. he spoke ts evening, in copenhagen, denmark. >> what i ink is that some peop are going to legimately ask is well, if it's not legally binding

wh prevents us ten years fromow looking and saying everybody fell sho of these goals. and there's noonsequences to it . my responsis that a, that's why i tnk we should still drive towards something that is mo binding than it is. t that was not achievable at this nference.;a > lehrerray suarez reports from cenhagen. >> it was e best that could beoped for out of is process. if the delates and heads of states had wanted a brand-new sition from president oba they knew they weren't goingo get it when he told the cference that a deal thatas imperfect but could be fixed later was better than no deal at all . >> we can embre this accord, ta a substantial step forward, and continue to rene it and build upon its fouation. we can do that, and evyone who

is in this room wille a part of an hioric endeavor - one that makes life better forur children and grandchildren >> suarez: t president had arrived in the danish capita hours earlier, amid stifwinds, and driving snow, and headed toward the convention cent, where degates had worked rough the night trying to drt a climate document the world could agree to as the conferen shook itself awake iday morning, representative henry waxman anddward markey, sponsors of a massivemissions control bill that's already passed the house, said they lt the had been movement toward angreement though such optimism w in short supply. the maineeting hall began to fill with world leaders,ho sought out a smiling chinese premier wen jiaobao for a hashake or a photo. was a reminder of chinas ne clout on the world stage, d as spker after speaker has noted during days of debat the fact that any globacompact on

imate change depends on two countries: thewo that account fosomething approaching half of allhe worlds emissions, the united stas and china. fohis part, the premier stuck firm to chinas posion throughout the copenhagen nference that his country ha laid out ambitious goalswas sticking to em, and didn't want the interference that ces with verificatn of reduced greenhouse gas emissions >> ( translated ):ith sense of responsibility to chinese ople and all mankind,he voluntary acti china has taken, no condition to the target, n have we linked ito the target of any other country. whatever this nference accomplish, we remain commitd to reaching and even exceeding the taet,

>> these measureneed not be intrive, or infringe upon sovereignty. they must, however, sure that an accord is cdible, and that are living up to our obligations. fowithout such accntability, any agement would be empty wordon a page. >> as thpresident spoke the conferenceame to a compte stop. e public corridors and pladzas packed with delegates and acvists from arou the world hung on his every word. monito took the speech to every cornerf the complex. after deliveng their speeches, premier weand presidenobama held their first meeting the day. itasted for 55 minutes. anaccording to a white house official, twmade progress. mupola ausetalia titimaea is a delegate to the tas from samoa.

>> most the smaller island countries, if wdo not cut back on the emissions we will certaiy be under thocean, the pacific ocean, a certainly these two superpers need to commit to reducing emissions. >> suarez: jocelyn dow of yana said she wanted, and expecd more from the american psident >> but wwould have wanted something path breaking, and frankly climate changing ithis process and to steup to the issue a little more, unpredictably. to be number two emier next to china all well and good but you've been emitting a l longer >>uarez: luis inacio lula dasilva of brazil is o of the rising lders of the developing world.

delivered a blunt mesge to his fellow leaders, >> whawe don't agree is that e most important figures sig a piece of paper just say we signed it, but if weidn't manage to draft such a dument until now, not sure there's angel or wise man whwill come down and give us intellince that we lackedp until now. >> thrghout this long day, public and pvate meetings, therwere few indications of the real state of play. secretary oftate hillary clinn swept out of the convention center this afteron with no commenon progress or thlack of it.

so ray whahappened there at the end of the day? >> suaz: you know, president obama extended h visit. he was meant to leave copenhen hours before he did. but while there was still a chance that somethg could be worked out, he stayede. he invited premier w to two subsequent meetings which the chin ease premr skped sending the deputy foreign nister and his chief instigator instead. itas a snub? was it a gambit to move e talk as long? later in the eveninghere was a meeting around 70 denmartime with some of e big emitters, some of the big industrial economy brazil lula, onfrom india along wi wen and president oba. those meetings kept on through the evening. and finally resultedn an agreement just befor midnight denmarkime. >>eporter: all week, ray, we'vtalked about the big issues, targets, financing

verification. so whas in this this agreement agreement? >> suaz: the most generous thing you casay about it is that it puts off some of the hardesnegotiating down into the future. the most near-end taet are left bnk, left undefined whe further outdates, 2050, for instance, when the b industri economies commit to an 80% reduction their greenhousemissions is specifical defined. there is no chitecture set up tugh there are general principless laid outor the cash transfer to t least deloped economies. this is a deal that doest meet a lot of the targets that many ofhe countries that came here to negotiate said we their bottom line so there bound to be umbling after what's to you beincalled the copenhagen accord starts to -- starts to dissemine into t world community and already g international vironmental organizations are caing it a sham, calling it an empty de.

>> a right, ray suarez in penhagen all week for us, thanks a lot. >> lehrer: judy woruff takes it from there. >> woodruff:or more about the summit's outcome and for reaction back here. niel becker, director of saf climate campaignan advocacy group. was formerly director of th sierra club's glal warming program. and samuel thernstrom, a residentellow at the american enterprise institute heerved on the white house council on environment quality for president george w. bush here. dan quelbecker to you fit. the presidensaid this is meaningful and unprecedeed breakthrough. how do you see it in. >> it's a jor disappoiment. to paraphrase a playbout a ince from denmark, a toughly binding treaty on climate is not to be. what we wereooking for was a tough treaty that was going to commit countries recing their emissions to levelshat would keep the clime at

$2° cellsuous qarm warmer than it is tod, basically wherthe scientists have said iis a safe. we we looking for accountability, for certainty that the pdges would be kt. we were oking for some funding fothe least -- the most vulnerable people on earth whwill face real consequences due tthe pollution thate've emited from our cars antrucks and factories and power ants. inhe end though what happened was that the countries weren't willing do theirair share. they wen't willing to sign on to enough emissions reductions, ev president obama said this isn't up to the ta. and they weren't willi to age to the accountability measures that are rely necessary. >>oodruff: i want to get some of that points. but let me ce to you, major disappointment, doou see it that way or not? >> by and rge, yes. although i think i cld say at lst one good thing about is agreement which is that it does ve forward in terms of -- it moves ou of the framework of one size

fitsll agreement, that the whole world shld all sign on to whicwas the keogh model and which was what w expected to come out o copenhagen. and i ink is a little more realistito think that we can get meaningfulomestic action through multilatel and bilaral agreement. so i would actually y that e element of this reement is a step forward. aside from that, though, i uld agree that a lot of aspects of this agreent are ry disappointing and that the fundamental iues of disagreement tween these counies have been papered over through vaguens and pledges rather than actually being rted out. and copenhag was supposed to be an oppornity to resolve those ises. woodruff: ban yell becker let me read something th presidensaid in that news conference. said this agreement is stctured in a way that each natiois going to put concte commitments in to an appendix. ey're going to lay out each country's inttions. and those commitments e going to bsubject to international nsultation. you are sayi no, we couldn get binding agreement but we d get

this, this is something. >> it's somethg. it's the gd news side. but coming intthis meeting it there were a nch of countries that made commitmes to cut their pollution who had nevemade those commitments fore at those levels. soa, india, brazilmade substantial commitmentto redu their emissions. not as much as we ed. and e u.s. --. >> woouff: you think that was alrey happening. >> wl, it was happening on the way in. a lot of these commitments we made a few weeks ago. and the presidenmade his announment of the 17% cut which you know fits that category of a prome but noyet a road map to do it. the next thing that the presidencan do is use power he's already gotrom the clean air t and other existing laws to dramatically cut our emisons. and he staed doing that in may when hannounced that there wille a 30% cut from cars. >> woodruff: samuel wh abouthe facts that these chges were being made by a number of cotries, the

ry fact that this conference was held anwas comi caused some of these changes to be made. does that present progress >> i think that represents ve modest progress. i would disagreeith dan, for instance, when he characterizes e chinese commitment leading up to copenhagen significant. it's little hard to know what the chineseommitment was, theay they made it warather vague but i think most analystthink that 's not much more than businesss usual fora. anso i do believe that busiss as usual fora today is bettethan its with a few years o. china is me engaged with th problem. but have we had a breakthrough on the ndamental issues that have divida and the world? no, we have not. >> woodruff: how do yosee at, on china? >> i agree thata nee to do more. but 40 to 45% cut from the rate of growth that they haveoday is a substantial step forward. it's not where we need to be. but we're nowhere we need toe either. and e fact that industry has stymied progre in this

country by politicizinthe issue, mrepresenting the facts out the issue, and forcing the coress to a stemate on a very weak bill is really something that h -- you're seeing the ripp effects in could enhan. >> woodruff: industry the culprit here? >> i don't think so. i think, you kw, national and internationapolitics ich are basic realitys are the culprit here. you know,a, for instance, again has refuse consistely to commit to a treaty that involvesroper verificaon of their emissions reductions. only a fewours ago president obama told thaws any treaty that didn't hav that verificatn would be empty rds on a page and yet the agreement th was struck in the final hos today apparent has noverr noverrfication component to it. so ion't think we can blamamerican industry or any instries for that. what we're dealing wh here ardifferent nationalist interests and the ilure to overcole those intests. >> woodruff: dyou want to commt on that? >> the rlity is that the

oil companies, the ao companies, the utility industry, the coal industr have brought tremendous pressure to be on congress, and on the administratn. do nothing. they have funded phoney scientists who f the issues and on fis ka for the person people. and the reality is that many in congress are raid to t and because they are afraid to act e administration is felt constrained on wt they could bring toopenhagen. and everyone elsis looking to us and the chese for action. thchinese communist party saidhen something happens, it happens. when the president othe united stas says it happs, there is a big argument over it. >> woouff: two different systems. if somethi can be -- it is theranything in here that you could say, one can salvage d say this is what we -- this iwhat we can pin our hopes, our work on going rward? >> not car to me. i mean apparently partf e agreement today was that there would be no ndsing treaty wk towards in 2010 whh had been the goal until few hours ago.

so i thi i see incremental progress on these issuess each nation tries come to grips with what can do, realistilly. at is domestic, political constituency will support. but it's harto say how much pgress is being made. it seems more symbolic tha substante at this point. >> woodruff: where do you see all this going from here? >> well, the wld came tother. and a 192 natis decided we need to take action. they -- it is imrtant that th recognize that they didn't take ough action. d that they are going to keep tryg. they need tory a hell of a lot harder than they've en trying. and the uned states is going to be oked to as the world the leader. and if we n't take the stepwe need to take we'll buying the advanced technogy from the chinese. we should do it r economic reasons as well enviroental reasons. because our kids are countingn us to do it. >> how do u see what happennext? >> well, i mean i ink the itical question is did today's deal in conhagen make it more liky that either ainding international treaty would

be signed or that a bi would make it through congress. and i think thanswer is no on botthose fronts. so i think its he ha to say what the o administration will beble to say they try accomplished. >> the good newss the prident can act administratively and ty can t emissions from power plan as hean cutting them from cars. and can use energy me efficiently th appliance efficiency standards a lighti standards. at stuff that cahappen without congress havg to do a more. we're going to leave it there, daniebecker, samuel thmstrom, thank you both. >> thank you for having . brown: now, for the other news of the day, hers hari sreenivasain our newsroom. ha. >> sreivasan: the u.s. and russia moved closer today a new treaty on clear arms contro prident obama met with russian president dmitryedvedev along thsidelines of the climate chge summit. . obama said they're "quite clos to replacing a cold war- era treaty that exped this month. the two leaders have already agre generally to make deep cuts in their clear arsenals within sevenears.

democrats in t u.s. senate presd today to force action on health care reform. republicans essed to stop it. majority leader harry reid w expected to offer the fil version of theill this weekend. otherwise, the will not be timeo finish it by a christmas deadline. but republans said they would insistn having the full bill the hundreds of pages read out loud. it is our intention not to pass this bill ealy. i think wee made it pretty clear. i have had a practice of not telegraphingrocedural moves th may be available to us. d i'm going to continue that practice. but i don'think anybody in the room is -- tt we don't thinthis bill ought to pa and we're not in a hurry to cplete it. sreenivasan: democrats charged the republicanhave nothing bett to offer, so they are simply otructing progress. >> the they have faid to produce any legislatn that has gone through the scrutinyhis legislation has faced in termst of its

il pact on america, its impact on our budget, ey are empty-handed. at they bring to us on the floor of the senate ar speechespress releases, charts and graph and an occaonal criticism. >> sreenivas: a critical seri of votes to cut off dete could come on monday. but that will take 60 votes and nebraa democrat ben lson was still holding out for tighter restriions on abortionunding. he said day there's been some progress in talks with pty leaders. wall street finishedhe week on an upbt note after a 3-day slide e dow jones industrial avera gained more than0 points to cle above 10328. the nasdaq rose mo than 31 ints to close at 2211. for the week theow lost 1%. e nasdaq rose 1%. there was rd today that afghan president hamid karzai wl retain most ohis top ministers in a new cabinet wire servis say they include the ministers of defense, interior and finance. veral other ministers accuse of corruption arbeing smissed.

the reports saidarzai plans to ke former warlord ismail khan in the cabinet. human rights groups ve accused him of war crimes. the cabinet is due to be announced on saturday. the infamous sign athe entrance to thnazi death camp at auschwitz has been stol. police in pond said today it sappeared sometime in the we hours this mning. thiron sign was erected soon after the nazi's bui their largest exrmination camp in 1940. thgerman words mean "work sets you free". morehan 1 million people, most of them, jews died aauschwitz duringorld war ii. those are some of the day's in stories. i'll bback at the end of the program with a preview owhat you'll find night on the nehour's website. but r now, back to jim. >> lehrer: and still to co on thnewshour. why biodiversity mters, and shlds and brooks. that folws an update on dna exonerions. >> brown: mes bain is a free man night. sterday, he was released fro a florida prison wheree'd spent 35 years f a crime he

didn'tommit. a urt-mandated dna test proved bain was wrongly cvicted of sexual asslt in 1974. >> i am going to see my mo the one i st got off the phone to. that's theost important thing in my life at is moment besides god. one thing i ve to say about this dna, dies and gentleman, it'sonna do one of the two... free you or lock you. >> brown: bain's release w in fact the third of its kind jt is week, all the result of work by the "innocence pject" based at t benjamin cardozo school of law at yeshiva university. according to the project, since 1989, there ha been 248 post-cviction exonerations based on dna evidence. seventeen those exonerated served time on death row. 27 states, the fedal government and the disict of columbia compensate indivials who were wrofully incarcerated. joining me for an update i barrsheck, co-founder and co-director of the "innonce

project". mr. sheck, james bain waheld longer than yone now exonerated by dna testing. but is hisase unusual in any otheway? >> no, as a matter ofact, what remarkable about his case is that it's a ngle perpetrator, sexual asult case with a mistaken identification. and e single greatest cause of the conction of the innocent has been ey witness misidentificatning. >> reporte eye witness, in most of the cases you ill find that that's wt lead to the wrongful convtion. >> y, i mean we know the causes of what wngful conviction eye witness misidentication, false confessions, invalid or improper forenc science, prosecutial police miscduct or inadequate lawyering. jailhoe snitchs, those are the causes but the one tha has caused more miscarriages ofustice, eye witness

identication, we now know afr 30 years of really sod social science research how to minimize that witbest practices that can rede the number of misidentification without reducing the numbe of correctnes. >> reporter:ell us a ttle bit more about the dna evidence. what is it and how oen is it viae many years later? >> well, the trick, frankl is finding the evidence. and here this case was 1974 and the problem mrbarn was asking for testingor quite a long time buthe problem always is finding e evidence. dallas, texas, where there have bn more dna exonerations than ancity in the country, e main reason for is ithat they can find the evidence. it's also ad to the creation of a wonderful convicon integrity unit in the dallas distrt torney's office at really assts the innocence projecin trying to get people out. but it's finding the evidence thas the biggest prlem.

>> reporter: now you sai mr. bain was tryinto get people to look at and that leads to anbvious question. w easy or difficult is it to g a court to take a new look at dna evidce? >> well, when mr. bain started doing this, it was very difficult. we had a l of trouble in florida getting courts t allow dna testing. we had onease that went up and down through the syste will ton dedge. finally florida has create a post conviction a state and now 48 states have such statutes othe books. and the federal governme has one as wl. t when we started this work, there were no stes that had post nviction dna states. and in fact, are trying to t into court was se diicult because there were statutes of limitations where courts wouldn't even lo at newly liss covered evidence, even edence as powerful as dn identification. >> reporter: i wonr how f sent true perpetrator found through dntesting.

how often does that cur? >> a lot. right now the are 105 individuals who ha been identified as the real assailants in these cas. out of t 200 -- 248 post conviction dna exoneration what's rlly important to emphasizhere is that dna is only present in about 10% of cases. in oth words, biology that can be tested, that n be determinative of w really committethe crime. so what about the otr 90% of theases where there is eye witness misidentification d false coessions and bad lawyerinand misconduct and valid or improper forensic sciee, that is the chlenge. we really need to len from this incredie set of cases lessons which can he enhance e capability of law enrcement to catch the real perpetrator at thsame time that we prote the innocent. and that'she real meaning these cases. >> well, there was congressional hearing th week

ere about the balog -- backlog of cases where there is edence still awaing testing. this was specifically mostly about rapeases. how big a problem ishat, just not only to finds the evidence buthen that it's sitting around waiting for somebodyo get to it. >> well, that's a very rious problem. and it's cfounding because take sexual assaulcases. and here in new york cit had to work with the osecutors of the police department to get em to look at althese unsolved rape cases thawere just pilingp. so it's absotely essential as you wait too dna testing on aunsolved case, the al assailant can go out therand commit a lot rapes and murders. because very often these a serial offenders. and when theases are in backloyou can find that the sameerson committed mo than one crime if you gin to test them. so so much coulde done to improvthe criminal justice

system if within 7o 10 days aer the commission of a serious ime you had dna testing. th've had that in the united kinom for a long i am and it significantl improved the cleance rate in cas. >> reporter: just in our last minute i want to k you about the compensati system. i undersnd that florida just last ye passed a law that someone in is situation would be pd i think ,000 dollars a year per year. that will lp in the case of mr. bain. but i gaer it's a rather phazard system around the country. >>es, and there are laws in some jurisdictions,ot in oths. there are rerictions that shouldn't be there. and frkly, it's not enough money. you ow, just think about it. when the cases get to trial and feral civil rits actions, when the small needle can be thaded by climb ants, -- aimant its, jurors roinely give them a million dollars a year as well they shld given what really sobody

is entitd to who has been incarcerat in a maximum secuty prison as an innocent person, forven a year. >>eporter: already, thank you very much. >> thank y. >> lehrer: now a closing conversation aboutlimate change to p this week's stories. newshourorrespondent paul solman talks to a nobel prize winnerbout his perspecte on the links between climate change and bdiversity. >> there are natural- way fore humans show should up. but is clear the extition rate now is a hundreto a thousand and even mortimes what it was before. >> medical doctor eric schiveian who shared the 1985 nobel peace prize f spotlightinghe effects of a new are war on global health. >> so this is precedented. >> he's now spking out about the threat of climat change as directorf

harvard medical school center for health ofhe global environnt. harvard's muse of natural history was his setingor the currenwarning which has received conderable attentio that global rming presents a clear and present daer to bioversity. the broad but ev-narrowing range of plants and animals on earth. >> so there is global warming. let's say it is exerbate bid humans and it threatens biodiversity. but at's biodiversity ever done for me, iean why should i care if global warming wis out a whole lot of species. because species have evolved. ique physiologys and ochemistries over millions of years at have an enormous amount to teach us out how our bodies work. in health and in disea. let me ge you an example. twspecies of what are called gastric brooding frogs were discovered in northeaste australia.

the female swall the rtilized eggs. the eggs hatch iher stomach, back tadpoles. and whenhey reach a ceain level of development they vomits them out to continue the development to adulthood. >> a rather quirky versi of the maternal instinct that raises a questi for the curious. how dithe kitty keep fm beg digested from mom's stomach acid. >> these tadpoles creted sutances that prevent ed theibeing digested. so scientists we very interested in finding t what these substances re because theyay have provided treatment andaybe ev prevention for peptic you ll crer disease which affects -- ulc disease which affe -- million americans. >> just a few exhibitsway, howeve what fate soon befell these unfortunate amphibians. >> this is t exploring extinctions exhibit. the dodo bird extinct. thgray hawk extinct, and

re is the gastric brooding fr, in that jar. thonly frogs anywhere in the world that raiseheir young in their stoch are now extinct. and e compounds that these tadpoles madto keep themselves from bein digested, what they we, and how they worked, that informion is gone forever. >> reporter: and with it, rhaps, something a tad betterhan prilos. because of very recent exnction contributed in part to climate change. which reminded m given the setting, of a more fams threatenedleasure which happens be another of his favorite example >> i have beenacking kids and my grandkids to this place for decades i lamb to know the lar bear is right overere. >> fantastic >> so what's the deal with the polar bear. well, polar bears have become the iconisymbol of what we are gointo lose with climate change. but their medical vae is almost never mention. let meell you about that. for fiveo to -- for five

to seven months theyo into hibernatio if we were bedidenor five mons we would lose a third of o bone mass. they have substances i their blood that prent them from sing bone even though they e not moving arou. if wunderstood what those substances were, which we don't, wmight be able to treat and maybeven prevent osteoporis which kills 70,0 americans every year. sts the u.s. economy $17 billion. >> reporter: well, mbe, ybe not. but he says, the's more. they also don't urinate for five to sevemonths or longer if we don't urinatfor a few ys, we're dead. if we derstood how they complish this miraculous feat we might be ab to treaend stage renal disease that kills0,000 americans year. again though an assumpti. okay, so try this. >> polar bears also become massively obe prior to hiberning and yet they don't develotype ii abetes.

type idie feet toot -- diabetes rated to obesity in the unitestates is virtually epidemic n. 16 million americans, of thpopulation have it, killa quarter of a million people in this country every year. if we understood h polar bears became ose but yet didn't become diabetic, mite be able to treat the people. but the skeptic me says you have pol bears in zoos, we stu them there, we learn what are you talking about. we don't neethem out in the ld. >> yes, weo. weave to study polar bears in the wild. polar bears don't go io hypernation in zs. we have to study t physiology that allows tm to not get osteoporos, not become siceven though they are not urinating, andot develop buy diabetesven thgh they become obese. >> besides, it turns outur record for keepingpecies alivin captiveity isn't all at impressive. even with e medical interest in the gastri brooding frog, for insnce, the captive population oy

surviv for three years aftebecoming extinct in 9 wild. but it's n just the spies here or therthat the ctor can point to. get a load of the guys. cone snails. coral reef dwellers being wiped out as their habat succumb to ring ocean temperatures >> each of these consnails makes rpoons that it fes at itsrey. they coat the harpoons with a cocktail of psons to paralyze their prey. and then they ing the paralyzefish into their enrged stomach to digest it. what's fcinating about thessnails is that each one is tught to make a hundred to 200ifferent poisons. there are as many as 500 t 700 species. and so there may be many as 100,000, maybeven 140,000 different ne snail poison s.

>> you will have to paon me for asking but why shld i want cone ail poison. it kills ltle creatures and i assume if therwas enough of it, it wouldill me too. >> that'true. but a toxin is so potent that it kills every anim that it is injected into that means i he a effectg a very fundamental pect of thway cells function. soe had better look in to how those toxins work because theyay be medicines for pain. they may be medicine for making our heartbeat stronger or stoping it arrhythmias. >> in fact, seral painkillers derid from cone snail poisons are currently in cnical trials. and within prialt was approved for use by the fda in 2004. it is the most effective painkill since discovery

of the opiates in the early 1800s. it's a thousd time its more pott than morphine but doesn'lead to tolerae. it's huge breakthrough. >> and it y not be the on venom of value. >> oths are in clinical trls to protect cells in the brain from dying when they don't get eugh circulation like aft a stke or after a head inry or during open-heart surgery. and we haven even begun to idtify the thousands and tens of thousands compounds at these cone snails make. >> here we have some emples of con i ferrs. >> finally he ys there's the story of taxal. thousand it comes from free, the pas civic ewe threated by logging, not climate chge t is an object lessoin the value of seemingly dissable ecies. >> this tree w routinely burnednd discarded in old growth forests bause its wi small, irregularly shaped. it had no commcial value.

t the national cancer institute -- instute did this massive screeni of plants in the ited states in the '60to find medicines that would be usul in treating cancer. anin the bark of this runted, useless tree they found a wonderful molecule cled taxal. which early trials was shown to be the most effeive agent in treat og varian cancer. one of the hardest canrs to treat. >> tal and its follow-ons are now stdard treatments r cancer. >> so here a drug from a tree thawe know that with deforestion we might lose. and how many oth wonder drs like taxal are there in theorest both in the opics and in tempered areas that we may also be losi. >> and this where dr. eric schifan and collgues have written sustaining life, a book that the end makes a selfishly human case f saving other species.

>> every orgism has to fight infection, has to ght cancers, has to depend themselve -- defend themsees by firing off toxins thathat paralyze other organisms. so it up to us to look at the clues that nate has prided for us. and in those clues we n find medicines to eat many, manyuman diseases. we he no choice but to eserve the living world becae our health and our lives dend on it. >>poken like the advocate ic schivian has long been anis now once again. tryingo facilitate the ascentive man withhe help the age old world around us which has bn perimenting with the moculing of life for a lo longer than we have. >> lehrer:nd finally tonight the analysis of shields and brooks. syndicated columni mark shields annew york times columnist david brooks.

david,ow do you read the politics of the penhagen climate change summit. >> first thing, i was ruck by how tough obamaas, he gothere, there was an insument from e chinese. he gavan 8 minute speech calling out the chinese r reallyot having integrity, not being trtworthy. not wantg to verify. so i was truck by the ugh continues. which he has not shown, now at the endf the day as we hearalready i guess they didn't get too mh. i'm a long-term pessimm about this iss. i think it is very unlikel that any count is going to make, or at least e u.s. and ina will make real economic sacfices for this so of long-term problem. so i remain and ha been fernd kated today in this pessimism. >> lehrer: are you a pessimist too? >> i am a sht term pessimist. i mean until the csis and pele start choking and suffocating inhe streets. >> lehrer: people don't feel there a crisis. >> i think there is lessnd less oa sense in this

country of urgency and crisis. and secondly, i think it's be like so many other issu, crowded out by the domestic, police call nsiderations andocial consideratio of joblessness. and economic downturn. >> how do you feel presint obama ndled this, today and before. >> i think theresident, well obvioly he reschedud himself. they wand him there late in hopes thahe was going to go early. that he would play --. >> lehrer: he was originally going to go right after lo. >> that's rit. but theyanted him to postpone tt trip to get there at the most meaninul time. you ow, he had two deadline events. he has gotthf care at me , and copenhag in the climb at change. and you can put a in, i guess, it s a victory of sorts t they didn't get at they had hoped for. there is no questi about it. and i think that's -you

know, it's not atinging rebuke bany means. but it is not the triump that he eds. >> i'm sorof struck by the facthat following what happed with howard dean and healthare this week, another dippointment for thleft, and i guess you could y most of the environmental grou are on the le who had expected more i think of the oba presidency andertainly expectedore of the cap and ade that it would be more agessive that it would actually get passed d that is pretty much deadlocke stagnat in the u.s. sena. so on a couple majorssues the peop that elected the president and i gues you could throw in afgnistan are, areound to be disappoint. lehrer: let's use that as a segue to hlth-care reform stagnad, you use the same word, the sete is stnated on this. >> the senate is. but i'm still confident that they will t a bill . one of the shrewdest democrats on the hilsaid toe --. >> lehrer: sate or house. >> sate democrat senator said to me tay, a week ago

he was nine, 9.5 o of 10 ceain that there would be a bill. today it's, betwee7 and 7.5. but still confent. and --. >> lehrer: did he say why, y he lost two points in s confidence. >> sure. you've got obviously the republics have dug in. it's become, when you get a deadli, jim, and imposed deadne and this one of the things the administratn faces. >> lehrer: christmas, had to be done by cistmas. >> theslow walked this bill there is no dou about it. there was no push from the white house. june when there was presre to come out with a scific push, pushhe congress, there was alwayset the congress work itut. and through the aust recess. soow there's the end of the rope. and they triedo -- they went with senator baucus and the senate fince committee, seemingly endlessly to win nator grassley and senator enzie over tsupport, make it bipartisa none of that came so, wheyou get to the crunch, the 2ked line, ristmas being the deadline they imposed, they reall

don't want to go into ne year on this evethough they m end up doing that. >> lehrer: they want to ge it over with. >> wl, one senator has an enormousmount of power a influence. we s it with senator eberman. we see it nowith senator nels. >> lehrer: yh. now david you wrotin your column today that u, if yowere one of these 100 in the united stes senate you would te against it, why. >> it waa very tough call. >> lehrer: tn i will ask ma why he would vote for it, just for the recd. >> h time to prepare. >> i think fir of all it does cov 30 million peop. it does -- >>ehrer: 30 million new people. it does essentially balance the budget andhere argoing to be tax increases, they will pay for it with medire cuts there is a lot of good enoh stuff inhere, and a lot of reform for the current stem. my fundamental problem iit is a sw, gradual building on the current system. but the currt system is so fundamentally messed up,he incentive structuris such that providers are penalized for being efficient. everybody's got an incenti

to get more and mo care. we're all serated from the consequencesf our choices. and thatou can't build rerms on top of what is really a rotten set of incentives it. and so at the end the day, the question is can yopass this andet toward real reform down the road. and fundamentally don't ink so one of the medicare act you areereported i think st week or within two weeks at health care spendings just shooting wards. was 15% of thedp, now i thin17.7% of gdp, it will be up to 22, 2 this bill will make it increase slightly fast, not slower. and ifou care about things like prehool education, state spendingn any other project, that's algoing to be swallowed up by health care. d if we don't address that prlem we've missed the central prlem. >> lehr: now you would vote for it, right, ma. >> i wld, jim. ani think david began by acknowledgin31 million peopleill be covered who don't have health insurance right now. i mean it is a national

disgracehat 45 milon americans are without alth care. i mean that an internationa--. >> lrer: that is about -- it really is, plus health surance companies are gog to be required to accept people with preexisting conditions, e sameate force women as for men. that there will not be a lifetime cap in what peopl are paidn the way of premiu.a- - in the way of coverage rath, in reimbursement. and i just think that's i think those are all importt, i really do. the reason you go for it n, think president bill clinton remied democrats thatt would be a colossal blunder not. he turned down a good de in 1993. d kennedy in his autobiography said thaone of the great regretsf his life was turning dowthe chanceo pass the health insurance. >> lehrer:hat -- >> i will say th because of the pressure that david

hatalked about, the fiscal pressure, you've got to ss it nowecause the cuts are gointo come in the future. the fiscal presse is going to be onutting health-care costs. and cuing public heal-care costs, not in expanding it. so anybody who sayi'm to the going to ve for it because i'm going to get something better dowthe roads. therisn't going to be the blic money to pay for it down the roads i say you get what you c right now d pass it. >> lrer: a political qution. , i will ask you the same question slightlrephrased. if you we, had the opportity to vote whether or not to alw it to be voted on on the flr of the united states senate, would you go -- with the filister. >> i am a pundit, not a senator so i jt care about the substance but i guess would low it. but just litically, by the way i'm not sure it is great thing for democrats to pass this, and i will ll you wh i assumehey are going to pass it. the next several yea, really no benefits will ck in. but everyo -- but

insurance ratewill go up. everyone wilbe blaming the democrats. and thenhen the benefit do kick in we will see this surge in demand for health care, no surgin supply of heal care becae of the same number of doctors will be theame. when youet higher demand, me supply you get a price increase so that is anotr fourr five years of people seeing their cos go up. and the politil pressure as a rult of these two periods think will be such that they will gutll the good pts of the bill which the costontrol and keep -- entrench the expensi parts opinions you see the polics same way, this could backfi on the decrats? >> i don't i will say this. david llowed the great rule of legisling and this is . no pitician ever got in trouble by votinagainst a bill that passes. voting for a bill that fails. and the arment is you can always makthe case, i was trng to improve it. >> oy. >> so you know, that's it and rold reagan, medicare, he was allut against

medicare. he becamits greatest cham pine. he was jt trying to imove medicare is what he was ying to do. so it is very safe politil move. itounds like -- i'm not runing for office, i don't ca. >>t really is. >> he'runing for pundit. >> it's a craven pitical position. >> how do you feel abouthe filibuster and using it fo an issue le this, is that -- the democrat ds it, everyby does it. is it getting -- is it jt my imaginaon or is the divide between repubcans and democrats downhe line more rigid now thait has been. i think the divide is and i think is is -- this bill has been out tre too long. i mean it really has this is like a couple -- married couple arguing aut weather, about the same thing for 12 months. >> . >> lehrer: and we' been talkinabout right here. >> that's right. it isn'ts ug leas it was in the past. i mean 1995 because the people who are sayinthis

is going to be the watero for barack oma, a chance bring him down, are basically backbenchers >> lehr: the leadership is to the -- >> not t leadership saying that, the same w as it was when newt gingch was the leader of the republican party, when he sd we're out to destroy the oth party. we're going to -- they're ugs, they're corrupt, i don't think it is the same way that it wa but there is nquestion, the polarizaon between two parties is as intee asif's ever seen it. >> and why do we not hav systemic reform. it's becse we didn't have reblicans doing anything constrtive on this bill. we didn't have demrats geing together with republicans on the stu they all agree with about the terrle incentive. the entire political cla decided the american peoe would not -- were no lling to tolerate any sacrifice. therefore it could not be asked of them. and so we have terrible, which think -- not a teible bill but an insufficient bill becae you had nooverning. and that is a symptom of the culture. >> lehrer: okay, on that

wonderful note we ll leave it, thank you all very mh. >> brown: ain, the major developmentsf the day: the global climate summit wod down in denma. the u.s. and mor developing countrs agreed to lay out als for cutting greenhouse g emissions, but ty could not agreon a legally binding treaty. and senateemocrats pressed to force action on health car reform, while. republicans pressed totop it. the newshour is alwa online. ha sreenivasan in our newsroom priews what's there. hari. >> sreenivasan: on o web site tonight, health care correspondent tty ann bowser stopped by the rundowno explain what hpened on capitol hill this week. there a roundup of reports from ray suarez and his am at the climatsummit in copenhen. on jeff's art beat blo insight into theaking of the movie avatar. first from the authoof a new biographof director, james cameron, and also om the u.s.c. linistic professor who developed the nguage spoken by the blue na'vi extra terrestrials. and finally, plee check back after the progm to watch an informal conversation with mk

ields and david brooks taped here at the rundowafter their regular friday nig debate. all at and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.o. jeff. >> brown: and at's the newshouror tonight. i'm jeffrey brown. >> lehre and i'm jim lehrer. "washington week" can be sn later this eveng on most pbs stations. we'll see you on-line and again here monday evenin have a nice weekd. thank you, and good nit. major funding for the pbs newshour is provided by: >> wt the world needs now is energy. the ener to get the economy humming again. the energy to tackle challens like climate change. what is that eney came from an energy cpany? everyday, evron invests $62 milln in people, in eas-- eking, teaching, building. fueling growth arounthe world to move us all ahead. this ithe power of human energy.

evron. monsanto. producing more. conserving more. imoving farmers' lives. that's sustainable agricture. more at producemoreconservemore.com. >> this is the enge that connects andant grain from the american heartland to haras best selling whole wheat, whe keeping 60 billionounds of carbon o of the atmosphere every year. bnsfthe engine that connects us. intel. supportingath and science ucation for tomorrow's innovators. and by toyot grant thnton.

and by the alfred p. san foundation. supporting science, chnology, and imoved economic peormance and financial literacy in the 21st cenry. d with the ongoing support o these institutio and foundations. and... this proam was made possible by the cporation for public brocasting. and by contributns to your pbs station fr viewers like you. thank yo captioning sponsor by macneilehrer productio captioned by media acce group at wgbh access.wh.org