As COP17 concludes....

Well, I have skimmed some of the documents that came out of the final marathon negotiations sessions and while there is still a lot of kicking the can down the road, there are some encouraging provisions.

1. A legally binding agreement for emission reductions to be finalized by 2015 and go into effect no later than 2020.  (The U.S. timeframe was accepted here, but the U.S. didn't want the legally binding part.)  Such is the give-and-take world of negotiations.
2. The commitments will include 194 countries - developed and developing.  So unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the provisions won't apply only to the Annex I countries.  This is a recognition of the major development that has occurred in countries like China, India, and Brazil since the original development of the Kyoto Protocol and is a pretty significant change.
3. The Green Climate Fund (a concept that came from Cancun/COP16) was formally launched.  The agreement sets up the bodies that will collect, govern and distribute tens of billions of dollars a year for poor countries.  It will be an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention (the UNFCCC) -- not the World Bank, so this is a "win" for the developing nations that opposed the World Bank involvement.
4. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention will be extended for one year in order for it to continue its work and reach the agreed outcome pursuant to decision 1/CP.13 (Bali Action Plan).
5. An agreement was made to launch a new process to develop a protocol, "...another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change applicable to all Parties, through a subsidiary body under the Convention hereby established and to be known as the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action to complete its work no later thatn 2015. This group will plan its work in the first half of 2012, including, inter alia, on mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, transparency of action, and support and capacity-building, drawing upon submissions from Parties and relevant technical, social and economic information and expertise."  It is expected to deal with the emissions (gigaton) gap of greenhouse gases to try to limit global warming to 2 or 1.5 degrees C.  [Good luck to this group!]
6. Countries are to develop national adaptation plans.  "...Enhanced action on adaptation should be undertaken in accordance with the Convention, should follow a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional and indigenous knowledge, and by gender-sensitive approaches, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate."  Assistance to developing countries in creating such plans will be needed.  Members of the constituency group RINGOs (Research and Independent NGOs) should take an active role here in helping to develop this capacity in developing countries.
7. It appears that REDD+ is to be continued, but with a greater transparency in the processes and a greater respect for local and national policies and practices.  In other words, I believe this is an attempt to address the fear from many, especially indigenous groups, of a new form of colonialism by the global north.

There are many documents posted on the UNFCCC page that I won't have a chance to review in more detail until finals and grading are done (see: http://unfccc.int/2860.php).

The agreement is being criticized by environmental groups and developing countries as it really delays the tough task of significantly reducing emissions *now* to prevent continuing warming and extreme weather events.

Reactions from others?

A cost issue?

A major focus of the U.S. at COP17 has been the economic interests of our country (and more specifically, on the interests of large corporations).  As if often the case, the environment vs. economy dichotomy arises.  But what is the cost of inaction?

See this article from CNN about the extreme weather events of 2011:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/09/world/americas/impact-year-in-review/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

$50 billion for this year for the U.S. alone.  And just during the 2 weeks of COP17 in Durban, there were 8 extreme weather events:

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/09/385819/top-eight-climate-disasters-during-the-durban-climate-talks/

The dollar estimates, of course, totally neglect the plight of millions who are currently suffering from extreme droughts and floods.  Delaying any real action on greenhouse mitigation and climate change adaptation until at least 2020 will likely be a death sentence for millions more -- most of whom will initially be from impoverished parts of the world.

Do we call this fiscal responsibility?  How about genocide? Or crimes against humanity?

COP17 Week 2 from afar

It is a bit difficult to follow the events at COP17 from across the Atlantic, especially while grading and writing finals and still feeling the effects of jet lag.   I feel a bit like a junkie, having to get my fix of the latest updates, which frankly were not too impressive most days.

The protests and frustration seemed to magnify this week.  On Wednesday, Canadian youth were permanently ejected from COP 17 due to a silent protest in which they turned their backs to their Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kent) in return for his turning his back on the youth of that country.

On Thursday, as U.S. climate negotiator Todd Stern was about to speak at the summit, an American youth (Ms. Abigail Borah from Middlebury College) interrupted him to express her views that the U.S. delegation doesn't represent the youth of America.  She was promptly removed and stripped of her credentials. There are official guidelines from the U.N. as to what is and isn't allowed at the COP meetings, but how do we get the delegations from supposedly democratic nations to listen to *all* people that they represent?

 

"I am scared for my future," Borah told Stern. "2020 is too late to wait. We need an urgent path to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding treaty. You must take responsibility to act now."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/im_scared_for_my_future_student

 

Today, Inside Higher Ed posted this on Facebook and asked the question “What do you think about what Borah did?”

My response:  I would be fascinated to know how many campuses are discussing the nitty gritty details of the UNFCCC processes, agreements and proposals and what the implications are for our students. I have attended the last 3 COP meetings, and there are a number of U.S. colleges and universities represented, but by far, the youth (meaning college-aged students) from other countries are more deeply engaged and have a fuller understanding of the issues. I salute this student for representing the voice that hasn't been heard enough by the U.S. delegation. Delegations (parties) from other nations, many of which are not democracies by our definition, function in a much more collaborative and interactive (dare I say democratic fashion) than ours in terms of their composition and interaction with civil society.

 

Hours later, there were no other comments.  Sigh.

If anyone reading this has followed our postings on this blog over the past few years, you will know that I greatly admire the late Wangari Maathai.  Yesterday, Amy Goodman interviewed her daughter Wanjira (who sounds a lot like her mother).  Her message to the U.S.:  “Shape up or get out!”

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/8/wanjira_maathai_us_should_shape_up

Yesterday, I posted this on Facebook: One day left to get an agreement in Durban that will have real impact. The U.S. should be leaders in addressing this challenge, not a nation that appears to deny the science and seems reckless to many in the world.

It appeared that the UN climate talks and perhaps the entire UNFCCC process was once again in serious trouble.  This had been the chatter during week 1—something the media back here in the states would love to jump on.  The proposal of the United States negotiating team to delay global climate action until 2020 has resulted in our country further alienating itself since many believe that this is likely to be a “death sentence for the people at the front lines of the climate crisis.”

The Fossil-of-the-Day awards for Thursday, December 8^th  pretty much summed up the status of things: 

http://climatenetwork.org/fossil-of-the-day/busy-fossil-awards-target-us-new-zealand-japan-canada-russia-africa-group-earns-ra

 

From afar, it appeared that tensions rose further today.  http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/12/09-10#.TuKRFi4HkLU.facebook

Protests outside the venue grew louder on Friday, and according to several reports, delegates from the worlds most vulnerable countries joined Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace International, a high level official from the Maldives (reports are conflicting as to whether this was the Environmental Minister or the President), and more than 150 youth climate activists in occupying the main plenary.  For twelve days, security had been tight and any “actions” were limited to less than 15 people, so I don’t know how they pulled this off!  Of course, U.N. security forces quickly moved in and the protesters were removed from the premises.  I wonder what happened to the Party from the Maldives?!

On the last morning, it is tradition to allow 2 minute comments from a various of constituencies that normally don’t get a chance to address the Parties.  Anjali Appadurai, a student at the College of the Atlantic in Maine, addressed the United Nations Climate Change Conference on behalf of youth delegates. Her message was simple:  "Deep cuts now. Get it done”  She went on to say “What's radical is to completely alter the planet's climate, to betray the future of my generation, and to condemn millions to death by climate change."

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/12/9/get_it_done_urging_climate_justice

The talks went into extra time Friday with yet another Indaba being held at midnight South African time!  According to the UNFCCC website, a document will be posted on Saturday morning and the meeting will resume sometime after the Parties have had an opportunity to review this.  This extension into Saturday occurred in Copenhagen as well. I remember being in the airport trying to catch tidbits of the news reports even though they were in Danish.

So now we wait again…

An Indaba

Over the last two days, the COP17 President convened an Indaba – an isiZulu word that refers to a gathering of people, infused with wisdom and Ubuntu. I have heard the term Ubuntu several times while in South Africa and vaguely understand it as a philosophy that focuses on community rather than the individual. Desmond Tutu has said that you can't exist as a human being in isolation. Others, perhaps most notably Tim Jackson, former Economics Commissioner on the Sustainable Development Commission of the U.K. and author of Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet have used this concept as a means that will enable economic and environmental sustainability.


Apparently, Indabas are an important part of South African participatory democracy. It reminds me of the mingas that were held in Ecuador when I was there – community gatherings to make collective decisions based on discussion and consensus and aimed at problem solving or how to move forward in new directions. Given the complex challenges faced by negotiators at COP17, this is an interesting concept to try. A description of the Indaba process and goals here in Durban can be found at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/durban_nov_2011/application/pdf/cop17_cmp7_indaba_explanatory_note.pdf .

The questions asked of the participants included:

1. In working towards the strengthening of the multi-lateral rules-based response to climate change that builds on the existing regime and with the view to keeping the average rise in global temperature below 2° C, what immediate actions should Parties agree to in Durban under the AWG-KP track and the AWG-LCA track?
2. What are Parties prepared to commit to now on the elements of future climate action? In particular, are Parties prepared to consider:

• Objectives of a future multilateral rules-based regime; and
• A process and timelines?

I did not attend the event yesterday, but today heard responses from Switzerland, Indonesia, Kenya, Columbia, Bangladesh, the Bahamas, Cape Verde (an African island country), Botswana, Ecuador, Norway, New Zealand, Jamaica, Tuvalu, Pakistan, India, the U.S., and Zambia. Aside from the U.S. (which was late to the venue and not ready when called upon), there was strong support expressed for a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol and retaining the legally-binding framework of this agreement. The U.S. indicated that it would not speak to the Kyoto Protocol. In the spirit of caring for others of our global community (namely, the countries experiencing the impact of climate change now), much was said about the need to align goals of agreements in terms of GHG emission reductions with the science, not the politics. The need for solidarity, the need for having a successful outcome from Durban that finishes the work from the Bali Roadmap and from Cancun (previous COP meetings), and appreciation for this format and space for open and honest dialog were expressed by many of the delegates. In contrast, the U.S. statement seemed to be vague and full of conditions that must be met before this country would “play”. Nelson Mandela has stated that “Ubuntu does not mean that people should not enrich themselves. The question therefore is: Are you going to do so in order to enable the community around you to be able to improve?” If there is a scale for how much an individual (or country) abides by this philosophy, the U.S. would be on the very low end. 

My favorite testimony was from the delegate of Cape Verde. As typical in many cultures, elders or chiefs gather to tell stories so that the younger generations learn. He told of a story that is used in Cape Verde to explain what is happening with climate change and the politics to younger generations. He told of the trip of the Titanic sailing from Europe to the United States that came upon a small boat with many people calling for help. The captain of the Titanic said that the engines were working too hard to stop. Of course, the small boat and its passengers disappeared. But alas, not much later, we all know that the Titanic struck and iceberg; the boat sank and most passengers perished. I will leave you to think about this parable.