What lobbying data reveals, for anyone new to gazing at it, is power in action. Like tidal currents we don't see from the land, it nonetheless shapes the coast line and the atmosphere we are subjected to. It shapes the landscape of possibility. Looking at the above figures for 2009 in hindsight, puts much of the political inaction we witnessed over climate change last year into perspective. Although most people are aware of the lobbying that goes on in Washington as elsewhere, but it is still something of a reality check to see the figures side by side like that.

Political sclerosis

In case you have ever experienced, watched or read about catastrophic environmental destruction and wondered, "why is this happening? Why aren't politicians taking action to stop it?" then it is worth looking again at how our political systems function. Of course there are many factors that corrupt, distract or deter politicians from doing what appears to be "common sense" for those of us facing the destruction head on. We often wonder how irreversible damage that will ultimately effect all of us, can be justified for the sake of short term profit. Especially when those who gain are only few in number and those adversely affected make up the masses. After all, aren't governments supposed to be for the people?

That might be the idea, but we know democracy often functions in reality through the economy: as consumers who express their vote by consumption or boycott, and as lobbyists who compete to pay the most in political campaign contributions. And with the entrance fee at the door to mainstream media becoming increasingly pricey over the years, more and more of the decisions people would like to see politicians making, are getting side-lined.

Without the US Congress?

Since the failure of Copenhagen, disillusioned voices have time and again voiced dismay over the inability of the US Congress to pass real climate legislation; the kind that would give the "Yes-We-Can-Obama" the edge over his more recently fallen self. It still seems bizarre that despite stark affirmations of the threat posed by climate change by the US Government's top science advisor John Holdren – that the US has still only committed to cutting 4 percent of its emissions, while scientists are warning we need 30 to 40 percent.

Internationally, commentators have highlighted the fact that so much of what we need, hangs on whether one nation's top political community (i.e. the US Congress) will pass a law to get things moving. The first question is: what are the chances of them doing anything? And the second: can we keep global temperatures below a 2 degree ceiling without them?

Seeing how the “Yes-We-Can-Obama” has come up against a wall of inertia in trying to pass much needed legislation brings to mind a quote by one expert political commentator: "And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new."

Even more appropriate to the issue of climate change, the commentary goes on: "this coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus is happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly...It is necessary, therefore,...to inquire whether these innovators can rely on themselves or have to depend on others."

The quote above is taken from Machiavelli's The Prince, so it doesn't have a lot more advice for innovators seeking peaceful means of social change. For that we have to turn to greater prophets like Gandhi. But the quote raises an important point the climate movement is faced with. And just last month (21 January) the Supreme Court voted to remove restrictions on political campaign contributions – invoking the First Amendment right to free speech! If a system “with restrictions” on lobbying produced the kind of political sclerosis we saw last year in the US, what can we expect for 2010?

Size matters: money versus people

The asymmetry of political lobbying power between those who benefit from the old system and those who would benefit from a new one, is something that requires highly innovative means of getting around. Social media has demonstrated one such method. Because, as Tyson Slocum, director of the Public Citizen's Energy Program, has said, "climate legislation has not moved forward in part because the public never got behind the bill, despite polls showing that a majority of Americans want action on climate change" (New York Times, 02.02.10).

Pete Altman, of the Natural Resources Defence Council, told the New York Times "we absolutely can compete in the quality of the ideas and the thoughtfulness of the policy… But it's a lot harder to get the thoughtful policy across when you've got oil and coal interests spending ten times what environmental interests did to communicate their perspective. It just means they keep showing up in [congressional] offices more, throwing information at lawmakers."

Slocum added, "the lobbying money that's flowing in from these industries is shaping this legislation." Michael Bradley, executive director of the Clean Energy Group, said "obviously we were outspent. It's very difficult to compete on an advertising communications level. I'm not tremendously optimistic. I'm hoping for that breakthrough that's going to be needed."

That break through has got to be spurred by public engagement. The only thing innovators have on their side when the old system (favouring minorities and figured in finance) levies against innovation, is big numbers – measured in people.