December 10
Knowing what to do during the last days was a challenge. The meetings where decisions were being made were all closed to observers. So I spent most of my morning waiting for plenaries to begin, they were repeatedly delayed for a few hours at a time, because negotiations were not yet complete.
In my desperation to act, I printed out some more papers from the Climate Action Network about the gigatonne gap and gave them all away to delegates.
At one point, while waiting in a plenary, I helped Lauren from the Sierra Student Coalition with rapid response. I began frantically contacting every US citizen I know, asking them to call the US State Department and demand the US to follow-up on their financial commitments and to put 1.5 degrees as the upper limit for temperature rise. I'm still not sure whether these were achieved, but I will let you know when I find out.
I then headed with Lauren to the other building at moon palace to catch a plenary (that did actually happen). On our way, we came across the YOUNGO (youth) action which was finally happening. I had been hanging around with the intention to participate at 3:00 when it should have started, but because they were waiting to have approval from the secretariat it didn't start until around 4:30. The action was counting to 21,000 (the number of deaths attributable to climate change in the first 9 months of this year according to Oxfam) and holding a banner that said "Climate Justice Delayed is Justice Denied." When I showed up, they were above 3,000 but had passed the one-hour time limit. I watched as UN security shoved them onto a bus, which was met by screams of "Shame on You."
You can read more about here: http://mobilebroadcastnews.com/MBN/blog/Final-Day-COP16-Youth-Delegates-Ejected-COP16-Counting-Victims-Inaction
After the bus had driven away, I went inside to the plenary. Nothing significant was announced beyond their intention to reconvene at 8pm and work into the night until they reached an agreement. When Espinosa finished speaking, she was given a standing ovation (for about 3 minutes) in honor of how well she has conducted this process. I then went to a press conference being put on by youth downstairs. An eight-year-old boy who had led a tree-planting project (of I think 300,000 trees recently here in Mexico) stood up to talk about the tree-planting. But he had been moved by the action and had to step down from the microphone in tears.
After finding some of my delegation, I got on the shuttle back to our apartment. We went to the beach to celebrate Valida's birthday. I think we are all glad to be out of the conference center and beginning our next journeys.
-Laura
Saturday 11 December 2010
Friday 10 December 2010
I got told of by Laura for not updating the blog enough.
So I'm going to do two things.
Firstly he is a repost of a blog I wrote for http://www.unfairplay.info/. It's more serious than what I usually write on this blog but if you're interested give it a read.
Then I will later post a number of blogs about the last few days.
For days now I’ve been following the discussions on the Kyoto Protocol. I sat writing down often repetitive and technical discussions on, among other things, the gases that should and shouldn’t be included in the protocol; on what mathematical concept should be used in the transfer of excess from one commitment period to the other and on what version of science should be used to measure the ‘Global Warming Potential’ of different gases.
At first this raised a large question for me; what was the political reasoning behind the niggling over the use of science? Yet as time went on, and this niggling only got worse, I started to appreciate that what was happening in that room got right to the heart of the flaws with international negotiations on climate change; in fact on every level of action on climate change.
Climate change is at its core a scientific issue. The evidence of its existence is found is science and the possibilities for its combating are found in science. Yet the people who take the final decisions, be it in national governments or here in Conference of the Parties, are politicians not scientists. As we were given presentations on the affect of using different scientific reports (a more recent one and a less recent one) I could tell that I was not the only one in the room struggling to understand. The negotiators sent here, are undoubtedly, very intelligent and well rounded in their knowledge but they cannot be expected to have a detailed understanding of the complicated scientific concepts put forth in IPCC reports.
Furthermore their ability to understand this scientific knowledge depends heavily on the number of scientific advisors they can bring with them; so while Brazil with their 591 delegates can happily dedicate teams of people to decoding the best way to manipulate the science for their ends, others are left floundering. It appears that complicated science is yet another barrier against some of the most needy delegations here in Cancun.
Today one of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was simply not scheduled, and another was cancelled. Both of these relate strongly to intricate scientific principles; or lack of the aforementioned. It would appear that talks have ground to a halt, because the honorable delegates cannot agree on matters of science; perhaps most ridiculously on whether to use the latest science, or older science which better fits political aims.
If I ever asked someone to design a house for me, I would not ask a lawyer or a doctor. Not because they are not skilled, intelligent people but because I would know that an architect could do it better; after all it is what they are trained to do. In this vein it makes little sense to me to give the politicians the right to cherry pick science. Especially when some are much more able than others to pick the best cherries. That being said; I do appreciate how difficult it is to orchestrate the kind of international negogiations we are looking for. And I am sure that the UNFCCC is a, if not the, key component of tackling climate change. I also, however, strongly believe in the necessesity to leave science to the scientists.
Only now am I starting to recognize the contrast in these two beliefs.
Firstly he is a repost of a blog I wrote for http://www.unfairplay.info/. It's more serious than what I usually write on this blog but if you're interested give it a read.
Then I will later post a number of blogs about the last few days.
For days now I’ve been following the discussions on the Kyoto Protocol. I sat writing down often repetitive and technical discussions on, among other things, the gases that should and shouldn’t be included in the protocol; on what mathematical concept should be used in the transfer of excess from one commitment period to the other and on what version of science should be used to measure the ‘Global Warming Potential’ of different gases.
At first this raised a large question for me; what was the political reasoning behind the niggling over the use of science? Yet as time went on, and this niggling only got worse, I started to appreciate that what was happening in that room got right to the heart of the flaws with international negotiations on climate change; in fact on every level of action on climate change.
Climate change is at its core a scientific issue. The evidence of its existence is found is science and the possibilities for its combating are found in science. Yet the people who take the final decisions, be it in national governments or here in Conference of the Parties, are politicians not scientists. As we were given presentations on the affect of using different scientific reports (a more recent one and a less recent one) I could tell that I was not the only one in the room struggling to understand. The negotiators sent here, are undoubtedly, very intelligent and well rounded in their knowledge but they cannot be expected to have a detailed understanding of the complicated scientific concepts put forth in IPCC reports.
Furthermore their ability to understand this scientific knowledge depends heavily on the number of scientific advisors they can bring with them; so while Brazil with their 591 delegates can happily dedicate teams of people to decoding the best way to manipulate the science for their ends, others are left floundering. It appears that complicated science is yet another barrier against some of the most needy delegations here in Cancun.
Today one of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations was simply not scheduled, and another was cancelled. Both of these relate strongly to intricate scientific principles; or lack of the aforementioned. It would appear that talks have ground to a halt, because the honorable delegates cannot agree on matters of science; perhaps most ridiculously on whether to use the latest science, or older science which better fits political aims.
If I ever asked someone to design a house for me, I would not ask a lawyer or a doctor. Not because they are not skilled, intelligent people but because I would know that an architect could do it better; after all it is what they are trained to do. In this vein it makes little sense to me to give the politicians the right to cherry pick science. Especially when some are much more able than others to pick the best cherries. That being said; I do appreciate how difficult it is to orchestrate the kind of international negogiations we are looking for. And I am sure that the UNFCCC is a, if not the, key component of tackling climate change. I also, however, strongly believe in the necessesity to leave science to the scientists.
Only now am I starting to recognize the contrast in these two beliefs.
Thursday 9 December 2010
Thursday December 9
The second to last day of the COP has been long and probably much more eventful than I'm aware of. I am currently waiting for a stock-taking plenary to start (it was meant to begin an hour ago). I was just told that they will probably convene for just a few minutes, say that not enough progress has been made, and then split up to continue work intermittently throughout the night.
I started my day in a plenary also, in which heads of state were making speeches about their country's position. But that was rather repetitive and I was getting frustrated from sitting still for so long so I went with Syd (another SustainUS delegate) to a table outside where we had wireless and fresh air.
Then I began a struggle to find the drafting session about the "Shared Vision" text. It was not in the program but I had a feeling that they would meet again today and finally received an email from the Climate Action Network with the room where it was being held. So I rushed to that room, not really knowing why since I knew it would be closed. I was SO grateful to be able to hand out leaflets with suggested edits to the text regarding the gigatonne gap and the importance of ambitious commitments. I approached delegates as they rushed into the meeting. This was my first experience lobbying and the closest I have come to personally making a difference (though the text did not contain elements from our document). At least I tried. Perhaps a few of them will read the information and they will be aware of the stance of civil society.
(An ongoing question for me and many other youth delegates is how to be most effective here at a COP. I am sometimes jealous of Lindsay's predetermined responsibility which is so admirable and influential. As a policy-focused SustainUS delegate, I have generally been working independently trying to follow the policy, but it has been more of a learning experience than one with impact.)
I then headed to a press conference with the Mexican environmental minister and a member of the secretariat about the success of youth with Article 6. I don't know if I mentioned this last week, but at one of the first contact groups (small working groups on a specific text) delegates passed a text, including passages drafted by youth, about the importance of informal education and raising public awareness. This text reached consensus in one 90 minute session- apparently a record for the Subsidary Body on Implementation. Now the text will be brought to a plenary and will hopefully be approved and become a COP decision.
I'm still waiting for this plenary to start....
I started my day in a plenary also, in which heads of state were making speeches about their country's position. But that was rather repetitive and I was getting frustrated from sitting still for so long so I went with Syd (another SustainUS delegate) to a table outside where we had wireless and fresh air.
Then I began a struggle to find the drafting session about the "Shared Vision" text. It was not in the program but I had a feeling that they would meet again today and finally received an email from the Climate Action Network with the room where it was being held. So I rushed to that room, not really knowing why since I knew it would be closed. I was SO grateful to be able to hand out leaflets with suggested edits to the text regarding the gigatonne gap and the importance of ambitious commitments. I approached delegates as they rushed into the meeting. This was my first experience lobbying and the closest I have come to personally making a difference (though the text did not contain elements from our document). At least I tried. Perhaps a few of them will read the information and they will be aware of the stance of civil society.
(An ongoing question for me and many other youth delegates is how to be most effective here at a COP. I am sometimes jealous of Lindsay's predetermined responsibility which is so admirable and influential. As a policy-focused SustainUS delegate, I have generally been working independently trying to follow the policy, but it has been more of a learning experience than one with impact.)
I then headed to a press conference with the Mexican environmental minister and a member of the secretariat about the success of youth with Article 6. I don't know if I mentioned this last week, but at one of the first contact groups (small working groups on a specific text) delegates passed a text, including passages drafted by youth, about the importance of informal education and raising public awareness. This text reached consensus in one 90 minute session- apparently a record for the Subsidary Body on Implementation. Now the text will be brought to a plenary and will hopefully be approved and become a COP decision.
I'm still waiting for this plenary to start....
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Wednesday December 8th
Another packed day at COP16 leaves me exhausted. I went to a few open sessions (yes there were some open meetings today!) this morning. Then I attended a briefing by South African ministers about the next COP which will be held in Durban, South Africa. They indicated that they will support youth involvement in those negotiations to the best of their abilities, though were vague about specific logistics (someone asked how the buildings would be arranged, given the inconvenience of two separate locations here in Cancun).
I had earlier heard about an event being held at a hotel off-site titled "Advancing REDD+: New Pathways and Partnerships," (REDD+ is a text on forest conservation in developing countries) which had an exciting list of speakers including Ban Ki-Moon, Jonathan Pershing, and Jane Goodall; so I headed over to the Messe and then caught a bus with some other SustainUS delegates to the Marriot Hotel where it was happening. The event was long (3 hours) and it turned out that Jane Goodall only gave a video message and Jonathan Pershing was replaced by another US negotiator, but there were still very interesting segments.
The first speakers were the Prime Minister of Norway, the President of Guyana, the head of Indonesian President's Delivery Unit for REDD, and George Soros (a private investor in mitigation against climate change). The dialogue included the President of Guyana stating that they have not yet received the promised aid from Norway.
Another interesting section was about "Sustainable Supply Chains for Reducing Emissions" in which the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, the Chairman and CEO of Conservation International, and Rob Walton the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Walmart discussed the power held by corporations to choose where they source their products. Rob Walton told about Walmart's recent efforts to sell only products that come from sustainable sources- including a plan to only buy sustainable beef from Brazil to prevent tropical deforestation.
A video introduction by Jane Goodall about "Enhancing the Biodiversity Benefits of Forest Carbon" contained her traditional message of hope and humility; she reminded us that humans are not the only species on the planet and that forests should be conserved simply for the sake of their inhabitants, though emissions cuts are a definite benefit. This was followed by a speech by Robert Zoellick- the president of the World Bank. He insisted also that we do not want a silent forest and mentioned a Wildlife Premium Program which would provide funding aimed at specific attractive species' habitats.
We headed back to the Messe for a delegation meeting before calling it a night.
Tuesday 7 December 2010
Tuesday in Week 2
Today felt like a productive day, though I'm not sure if it actually was.
I made it to spokescouncil as usual this morning, which was dominated by a solemn atmosphere because the proposed action on 1.5 degrees today was turned down by the secretariat. It was going to involve youth counting the number of climate-related deaths that have happened this year and, after they reached a certain number, falling over. We were told that if we removed the theme of death we might be able to do it later in the week in cancun messe.
Later I headed to Moon Palace to lurk outside of a closed meeting, alongside some other youth delegates. We waited for delegates to come out and then asked them about the status of 1.5 degrees in the Long-term Cooperative Action text. I had a couple of successful interactions, one woman showed me the draft text (which included 1.5 and 2 degrees both in brackets and 350 ppm also in brackets). A woman from the Pakistan negotiating team informed me that the G77 (developing countries) does not have a unified position on the inclusion of 1.5, but that some countries were even pushing for 1 degree to be included as the upper limit for temperature rise.
I then found out that I had been selected as one of the few youth to attend the opening plenary of the high-level segment which happened this afternoon. So I headed back to the Messe to pick up my snazzy green pass which got me into the plenary session.
The plenary started with a cultural performance provided by Mexico (dancers dressed in as strange creatures. Then they showed a short video about how amazing Mexico is. The next couple of hours were taken up by speeches by the honorary guests and representatives of the major groupings of country. Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general of the UN, spoke, emphasizing the urgency of these negotiations. The Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala spoke as well as the president of Nauru (a small Pacific island) and the prime minister of Palau. All of them stressed the importance of the unfccc discussions and the need for some decisions to be made here in Cancun. I was glad to witness this plenary, though it was so long.
Then I rushed to a meeting about 1.5 during which we planned our strategy for tomorrow before heading to a briefing by Jonathan Pershing (a representative on the US negotiating team). The briefing was informative and realistic, like the last one we attended by him.
After the briefing I caught a US negotiator asking about the US stance on 1.5 degrees. Apparently, they are supporting the 1.5 degree review (which is currently mentioned in the appendix of the long-term text) but are not in favor of it appearing in the Shared Vision introduction to the text. There they think that 2 degrees is a more realistic target that they would be able to commit to.
Hoping for another full day of involvement tomorrow!
I made it to spokescouncil as usual this morning, which was dominated by a solemn atmosphere because the proposed action on 1.5 degrees today was turned down by the secretariat. It was going to involve youth counting the number of climate-related deaths that have happened this year and, after they reached a certain number, falling over. We were told that if we removed the theme of death we might be able to do it later in the week in cancun messe.
Later I headed to Moon Palace to lurk outside of a closed meeting, alongside some other youth delegates. We waited for delegates to come out and then asked them about the status of 1.5 degrees in the Long-term Cooperative Action text. I had a couple of successful interactions, one woman showed me the draft text (which included 1.5 and 2 degrees both in brackets and 350 ppm also in brackets). A woman from the Pakistan negotiating team informed me that the G77 (developing countries) does not have a unified position on the inclusion of 1.5, but that some countries were even pushing for 1 degree to be included as the upper limit for temperature rise.
I then found out that I had been selected as one of the few youth to attend the opening plenary of the high-level segment which happened this afternoon. So I headed back to the Messe to pick up my snazzy green pass which got me into the plenary session.
The plenary started with a cultural performance provided by Mexico (dancers dressed in as strange creatures. Then they showed a short video about how amazing Mexico is. The next couple of hours were taken up by speeches by the honorary guests and representatives of the major groupings of country. Ban Ki-Moon, the secretary general of the UN, spoke, emphasizing the urgency of these negotiations. The Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala spoke as well as the president of Nauru (a small Pacific island) and the prime minister of Palau. All of them stressed the importance of the unfccc discussions and the need for some decisions to be made here in Cancun. I was glad to witness this plenary, though it was so long.
Then I rushed to a meeting about 1.5 during which we planned our strategy for tomorrow before heading to a briefing by Jonathan Pershing (a representative on the US negotiating team). The briefing was informative and realistic, like the last one we attended by him.
After the briefing I caught a US negotiator asking about the US stance on 1.5 degrees. Apparently, they are supporting the 1.5 degree review (which is currently mentioned in the appendix of the long-term text) but are not in favor of it appearing in the Shared Vision introduction to the text. There they think that 2 degrees is a more realistic target that they would be able to commit to.
Hoping for another full day of involvement tomorrow!
Monday 6 December 2010
Beginning of Week 2
So, after an uneventful weekend for me and an eventful weekend for the UN, the second week of COP16 has begun.
I am finally recovering from the terrible cold that I had all of last week (the reason I was particularly unengaged this weekend). I did go into the conference center Saturday morning, to attend spokescouncil as usual. I also went to a SBSTA (Subsidary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice) meeting. It basically contained very simple discussion of issues that had been decided in break-out sessions with time for random comments at the end, when Ecuador suggested that the issue of water should be brought into the negotiations. That afternoon I made it to a pharmacy to get some prescription drugs and went to bed early.
Sunday I spent the day resting; I even went for a short walk on the beach with Reed, Ethan, and Christine. In the meantime, the UN released the new LCA (Long-term Cooperative Action) text. It is unsurprisingly not a very strong piece, but was created by a much more open process than that at COP15 in Copenhagen (there, a few powerful countries had a closed meeting in which they composed the text).
Today, most youth seem unsure of what to expect from the upcoming week. YOUNGO decided today in spokescouncil that its campaign focus for the remaining week will be 1.5 degrees Celsius-what I have been looking into for my entire time here. The 1.5 degree review is mentioned at the end of the LCA text, but 2 degrees is used in the body (in an infamous section called "Shared Vision").
No UN meetings were open today; I was jealous of Lindsay and her official status.
I ended up attending an interesting side event held in the dazzling "US Center" about regional and state action. Lauren Faber of the California Environmental Protection Agency spoke about the progressive action in California; more people voted against the suspension of their climate bill (AB 32, which commits the state to bringing their emissions to 1990 levels by 2020) than had ever before participated in CA referendum. Apparently, many states have declared their intention to follow California's example.
There are already regions committing to emissions reductions- the northeast, midwest, and west. Through these commitments, the US might meet its current target of decreasing 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. If more states join the movement, perhaps similar legislation will be passed at the federal level.
I attended another side event this evening about the relationship between quality of life and solving climate change. A representative from the World Health Organization (WHO) spoke about the relevance of climate change to health problems. A woman from Ghana and man from Switzerland also spoke about how climate change will damage their countries' well being.
I enjoyed another evening chat with Lindsay before catching the bus back to the apartment.
-Laura
I am finally recovering from the terrible cold that I had all of last week (the reason I was particularly unengaged this weekend). I did go into the conference center Saturday morning, to attend spokescouncil as usual. I also went to a SBSTA (Subsidary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice) meeting. It basically contained very simple discussion of issues that had been decided in break-out sessions with time for random comments at the end, when Ecuador suggested that the issue of water should be brought into the negotiations. That afternoon I made it to a pharmacy to get some prescription drugs and went to bed early.
Sunday I spent the day resting; I even went for a short walk on the beach with Reed, Ethan, and Christine. In the meantime, the UN released the new LCA (Long-term Cooperative Action) text. It is unsurprisingly not a very strong piece, but was created by a much more open process than that at COP15 in Copenhagen (there, a few powerful countries had a closed meeting in which they composed the text).
Today, most youth seem unsure of what to expect from the upcoming week. YOUNGO decided today in spokescouncil that its campaign focus for the remaining week will be 1.5 degrees Celsius-what I have been looking into for my entire time here. The 1.5 degree review is mentioned at the end of the LCA text, but 2 degrees is used in the body (in an infamous section called "Shared Vision").
No UN meetings were open today; I was jealous of Lindsay and her official status.
I ended up attending an interesting side event held in the dazzling "US Center" about regional and state action. Lauren Faber of the California Environmental Protection Agency spoke about the progressive action in California; more people voted against the suspension of their climate bill (AB 32, which commits the state to bringing their emissions to 1990 levels by 2020) than had ever before participated in CA referendum. Apparently, many states have declared their intention to follow California's example.
There are already regions committing to emissions reductions- the northeast, midwest, and west. Through these commitments, the US might meet its current target of decreasing 17% from 2005 levels by 2020. If more states join the movement, perhaps similar legislation will be passed at the federal level.
I attended another side event this evening about the relationship between quality of life and solving climate change. A representative from the World Health Organization (WHO) spoke about the relevance of climate change to health problems. A woman from Ghana and man from Switzerland also spoke about how climate change will damage their countries' well being.
I enjoyed another evening chat with Lindsay before catching the bus back to the apartment.
-Laura
So, since last post a few things have happened,
Firstly I've slept,which is an all together positive thing; and I also went swimming in the sea.
It was blue.
And warm.
And the sand was white.
It was a far cry from the Bristol Channel, that's all I'm saying.
I also attended the NGO party; which was tres enjoyable.
But onto more important matters.
We spoke to the head of YOUNGO (the official youth branch of the UNFCCC) and he reckons that if we work at it by COP17 in South Africa we will be able to propose an actual ammendment to the UNFCCC to get transcripts of every meeting.
In other words, we could actually change a bit of how the UNFCCC works.
MENTAL.
There's some bad news as far as the neogigations are concerned,
with any reference of 350ppm or 1.5 degrees removed from the Long Term co-operative action text.
The ministers are starting to arrive,
the securities stepped up,
the 'mexican text' is waiting in the wings if nothing else comes up,
and Brazil and the UK have been given the task of saving the Kyoto Protocol.
Let's see what happens,
Blue Skies,
Lindsay
Firstly I've slept,which is an all together positive thing; and I also went swimming in the sea.
It was blue.
And warm.
And the sand was white.
It was a far cry from the Bristol Channel, that's all I'm saying.
I also attended the NGO party; which was tres enjoyable.
But onto more important matters.
We spoke to the head of YOUNGO (the official youth branch of the UNFCCC) and he reckons that if we work at it by COP17 in South Africa we will be able to propose an actual ammendment to the UNFCCC to get transcripts of every meeting.
In other words, we could actually change a bit of how the UNFCCC works.
MENTAL.
There's some bad news as far as the neogigations are concerned,
with any reference of 350ppm or 1.5 degrees removed from the Long Term co-operative action text.
The ministers are starting to arrive,
the securities stepped up,
the 'mexican text' is waiting in the wings if nothing else comes up,
and Brazil and the UK have been given the task of saving the Kyoto Protocol.
Let's see what happens,
Blue Skies,
Lindsay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)