All posts by COA Students

Posted:
December 9, 2011
Author:
COA Students

BASIC makes Room for an Elephant

by Joe Perullo

BASIC (the group of Brazil, South African, India, and China) gave a rather uncomfortable press conference the other day.  China, the leader of the group, started the talk on the defensive, denying the major “rumor” floating around that BASIC is splitting up. The other countries complied and also denied the allegations. An elephant walked into the room.

The EU and the US have successfully divided and conquered developing countries with their proposal on the table (see “A New Adaptation Framework: Don’t hold your breath for this empty shell” by Graham Reeder).  China is against the new treaty, but took a heroic leap of faith by saying they were willing to take on legally binding emissions reductions (unfortunately not until 2020); the EU recently exposed Brazil’s willingness to sign on to their proposal; India is vehemently against any new treaty that rejects the core principles of the convention, and will unlikely sign on to LCA pledges like China; and South Africa, while coming to the COP with some of the most strict and realistic demands, is willing to sign on to a new sell out deal that keeps Durban and South Africa from appearing as a failure to deliver “results.”

There’s no denying that BASIC is split over these issues, but the moment of truth is only getting closer.  The big question is where India will stand at the final hour. The country has been under severe heat for opposing the EU road map. If it courageously blocks the tabled mandate, it risks ruining its reputation in the international political economy. India’s colleagues have abandoned their partner, leaving the country with the weight of the world and the contempt of other parties on its shoulders. India’s negotiators have not been informed of the back room informal meetings, and thus lose their voice in the real negotiating arena.

Almost as depressing as the mandate itself is when heroes are seen as villains, and villains as heroes. Too much of civil society and too many NGOs have been tricked into believing that the only hope to keep the mandates from Kyoto and Bali alive is with some new treaty. This of course leads them to the conclusion that India is is the bad guy.  India will lose everything if this mandate passes. Having a country who has one of the smallest per capita emissions take on even more responsibility is NOT climate justice. India is not the enemy of progress. The EU is not delivering a just “solution.” The division of BASIC is a great loss for the climate justice movement. Without BASIC, India will fall, as will the rest of them in due time.

Posted:
December 9, 2011
Author:
COA Students

The Last Night in Durban

by Samuli Sinisalo

A lot has happened today, I hope. Everything that is going on takes place behind closed doors, so we have no way of accurately reporting it the play by play.

The ministerial Inbada started just few minutes ago, and that will hopefully bring some clarity to the situation.

So far there are two draft texts presented by the COP presidency, to conclude the work in Durban. Text from the presidency at the last minute sounds all too familiar from Copenhagen.

There are two drafts, one about the Kyoto Protocol, another about the LCA text.

As the text stood last night at 5 am, the Kyoto text would be dead as we used to know it. It would lock countries into the pledge and review system until 2020. The pledges at the moment are effectively those presented in Copenhagen. There is no aggregate overall emissions reduction target. Hopefully the consultations still improve the text, legally binding second commitment period and increased ambition would be welcome.

The LCA track on the other hand would conclude next year in Qatar by a series of decisions. It would end the Bali Action Plan without a legally binding outcome. A new negotiating mandate would be launched, which should be completed by 2015 in COP-21. This is what has been in the works since Bali 2007, and has failed in Copenhagen and ever since. It will be hard to get a deal mandate that is as balanced as BAP, but hopefully the new mandate can deliver.

In any case, a long delay before emissions are actually cut seems to be inevitable.

The text on the bigger picture can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/75225916

The text on the Kyoto Protocol is pasted below:

Version of 9 December 2011 @ 05:00
Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its sixteenth session

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol,
Recalling Article 3, paragraph 9, of the Kyoto Protocol, Also recalling Article 20, paragraph 2, and Article 21, paragraph 7, of the Kyoto Protocol,

Further recalling decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6,

Noting with appreciation the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol,

Noting also the importance of developing a comprehensive global response to the problem of climate change,

Recognizing the importance of ensuring the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol,

Cognizant of decision -/CP.17 {    },

Emphasizing the role of the Kyoto Protocol in the mitigation effort by Parties included in Annex I, the importance of ensuring continuity in mitigation action by those Parties and the need to start the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol without delay,

1. Welcomes the agreement achieved by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol on its work pursuant to decisions 1/CMP.1, 1/CMP.5 and 1/CMP.6 in the areas of land use, land-use change and forestry (decision -/CMP.7), emissions trading and the project-based mechanisms (decision -/CMP.7), greenhouse gases, sectors and source categories, common metrics to calculate the carbon dioxide equivalence of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks, and other methodological issues (decision -/CMP.7) and the consideration of information on potential environmental, economic and social consequences, including spillover effects, of tools, policies, measures and methodologies available to Annex I Parties (decision -/CMP.7);

2. Takes note of the draft amendments to the Kyoto Protocol developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol as contained in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to this decision;

3. Takes note also of the quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets communicated by Parties included in Annex I and presented in Annex 1 to this decision and of the intention of these Parties to convert them to quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol;

4. Invites Parties included in Annex I and listed in Annex 1 to this decision to submit information on their quantified emission limitation or reduction objectives for the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol by 1 May 2012 for consideration by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation at its thirty-sixth session and requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to deliver the results of its work to the Conference of the Parties title of decision on AWG-LCA serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol with a view to the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol adopting them as amendments to Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session, while ensuring coherence with the implementation of decision {    };

5. Decides to adopt the amendments contained in Annexes 2 and 3 to this decision in conjunction with the adoption of the amendments referred to in paragraph 4 above;

6. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to assess the implications of the carry-over of assigned amount units to the second commitment period on the scale of emission reductions to be achieved by Annex I Parties in aggregate for the second commitment period, with a view to preparing a draft decision for adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session;

7. Decides, on the basis of the outcomes and results described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 above, that the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol has completed its work in accordance with decision 1/CMP.1;

8. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice to assess and address the implications of the implementation of decisions -CMP.7 referred to in paragraph 1 above on the previous decisions on methodological issues related to the Kyoto Protocol adopted by Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol including those relating to Articles 5, 7 and 8 of the Kyoto Protocol, with a view to preparing relevant draft decisions for consideration and adoption by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol at its eighth session, and noting that some issues may need to be addressed at subsequent sessions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Annexes:
Annex 1. Draft amendments to Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol
Annex 2. Draft amendments to Annex A to the Kyoto Protocol
Annex 3. Draft amendments to the Kyoto Protocol

Separate -/CMP.7 decisions:
Decision -/CMP.7: LULUCF
Decision -/CMP.7: mechanisms
Decision -/CMP.7: methodological issues
Decision -/CMP.7: potential consequences

Posted:
December 9, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Mic check. Mic check. Youth intervention (English and Spanish version of the speech)

This morning Anjali gave the intervention to the high-level segment COP plenary on behalf of youth. Standing on the podium, and looming large on the screen, she launched right in.

I speak for more than half the world's population.

We are the silent majority. You've given us a seat in this hall, but our interests are not on the table.

What does it take to get a stake in this game? Lobbyists? Corporate influence? Money?

You have been negotiating all of my life. In that time, you’ve failed to meet pledges, you've missed targets, and you've broken promises.

But you’ve heard this all before.

We’re in Africa, home to communities on the frontline of climate change. The world’s poorest countries need funding for adaptation NOW. The Horn of Africa, and those nearby in KwaMashu needed it yesterday.

But as 2012 dawns, our Green Climate Fund remains empty.

The IEA tells us that we have 5 years until the window to avoid irreversible climate change closes.

The science tells us that we have 5 years, MAXIMUM. You’re saying: give us 10.

The most stark betrayal of your generation's responsibility to ours is that you call this AMBITION.

Where is the courage in this room? Now is not the time for incremental action. In the long-run, these will be seen as the defining moments of an era in which narrow self-interest prevailed over science, reason, and common compassion.

There is real ambition in this room but it's been dismissed as radical, deemed not “politically possible”.

Long-term thinking is not radical. 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.

What's radical is to write off the fact that change is within our reach.

Stand with Africa.

2011 was the year in which the silent majority found their voice, the year when the bottom shook the top, 2011 was the year when the radical became reality.

Common but differentiated and historical responsibility are NOT up for debate. Respect the foundational principles of this Convention. Respect the integral values of humanity. Respect the future of your descendants.

Mandela said "it always seems impossible, until it's done".

So, distinguished delegates and governments of the developed world – deep cuts now. Get it done.

To wild applause from the audience, Anjali then stepped away from the podium. As delegates took their seats, the youth remained standing. 

Anjali screamed: mic check. 50 or so young people echoed back: mic check.

Equity now. Equity now!

You've run out of excuses. You've run out of excuses.

And we're running out of time. And we're running out of time.

Get it done. Get it done.

Get it done. Get it done.

Get it done! Get it done!

Once the applause and cheering had faded, the chair thanked the youth. "Why is it, I wonder, that we make half the world's population speak at the end and not at the start?"

We concur, Mr Chair.

Traducción al español

Hablo en nombre de más de la mitad de la población mundial. Somos la mayoría silenciosa. Nos han dado un asiento en esta sala pero nuestros intereses no están sobre la mesa. ¿Qué es lo que se necesita para tener un lugar adecuado en este juego? ¿Poder de presión, influencia empresarial, dinero?
Llevan negociando durante toda mi vida. Durante este tiempo han incumplido sus compromisos, han errado objetivos y han roto promesas. Pero todo esto ya lo han escuchado antes.

Estamos en África, el hogar de las comunidades que se encuentran en la primera línea del cambio climático. Los países más pobres de la tierra necesitan financiamiento para adaptarse al cambio climático AHORA. El cuerno de África y sus vecinos de KwaMashu la necesitaban AYER. Pero el 2012 está amaneciendo y el fondo verde climático sigue vacío.

La Agencia Internacional de la Energía nos dice que tenemos cinco años antes de que la ventana de oportunidad para evitar el cambio climático irrevocable se cierre. La ciencia nos dice que tenemos cinco años como máximo. Ustedes nos están diciendo: ‘denos diez’: esta es la más cruda traición de responsabilidad de su generación para con la nuestra. A esto le llaman “ambición”. ¿Dónde está el coraje en estas salas?
Ya no es tiempo de acciones incrementales. A largo plazo estos momentos serán vistos como una era en la que el egoísmo predominó sobre la ciencia, la razón y la solidaridad.

En esta sala hay auténtica ambición. Pero está siendo desestimada como radical, y se considera que no es “políticamente posible”.  No abandonen a África. El pensamiento a largo plazo no es radical. Lo radical es alterar completamente el clima de este planeta traicionando el futuro de mi generación y condenando a millones de personas a la muerte por el cambio climático. Lo radical es descartar el hecho de que el cambio está a nuestro alcance.

2011 ha sido el año en que la mayoría silenciosa ha encontrado su voz. El año en que las bases sacudieron la cúspide. 2011 ha sido el año en que lo radical se hizo realidad. Las responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas, y la responsabilidad histórica, no son discutibles.

Respeten los principios de la fundación de esta convención.
Respeten los valores integrales de la Humanidad.
Respeten el futuro de sus descendientes.

Mandela dijo: “Siempre parece imposible, hasta que ocurre”. Así pues, distinguidos delegados y gobiernos de todo el mundo, gobiernos del mundo desarrollado: ¡Reducciones importantes ahora!

¡¡HÁGANLO YA!!

Posted:
December 9, 2011
Author:
COA Students

Getting a movement going

by Graham Reeder

So after two weeks of singing and dancing in designated, coordinated, preapproved, action spaces, the official youth constituency just made their first risky move at this COP. Anjali delivered a powerful high-level plenary intervention about how the youth are being failed and how developed countries are to blame for delay on ambitious climate action, and the youth followed it up by a powerful human microphone with the lines “Mic check! Equity Now! You’ve run out of excuses. We’re running out of time. Get it done! Get it done! Get it done!”  The Human Microphone (or the people’s microphone) has been a tactic used since before the World Trade Organization protest in 1999 but has recently made a comeback with the Occupy Movement.

What was truly incredible about this action was that it received consensus approval by the official youth constituency morning meeting.  Although it wasn’t clear whether or not this is an ‘unsanctioned action’, there is no doubt that it was a risk. The official youth constituency can’t approve unsanctioned action, and is usually very hesitant to push any aggressive messaging. Earth in Brackets is ecstatic to see the youth come together on the things that unite them and take a strong stance. I wonder though, why only now? Why is it that we have to wait until the last day of COP to get a sense of a movement being present in the halls of the ICC? My sense is that there were a lot of fears of people losing their badges and their chances of getting future accreditation. Although I understand this to a certain extent, I’m not sure I understand why it is that people are using such an intense amount of resources to get here and choosing not to speak up. Anjali made a good point in her intervention, ambition and action are not radical, what is radical is changing the climate of the earth, sitting back and letting it happen is radical too.  I’m concerned that I see a huge portion of the youth here itching for more risks but the sense of status quo remains dominant. I strongly commend the actions of the 6 Canadian youth who took a stand (literally) and interrupted the Canadian delegation’s speech to point out who they work for and the Abigail’s action for the American youth by obstructing Todd Stern’s public voice at the convention. Both of these actions have garnered attention from major western press outlets, I haven’t seen any sing-a-longs on the New York Times website recently. Their actions and others like them are what this movement takes, not a pep rally.

This doesn’t just go for the youth though, I’ve watched the largest environmental NGOs that have come to represent the environmental movement in the media continually cut dangerous deals and make compromises on issues that aren’t theirs to compromise on. I’m really concerned that a handful of European and North American non-grassroots NGOs are the ones who decide if Durban is a success or not for the media; it’s not up to them. There are plenty of grassroots organizations that represent a much broader constituency (and a much more vulnerable one) that have the opinions but not the voice, they end up leaving the room rather than taking it over.

My major questions are these: What does it take to develop a sense of ambition? How is it that activists and policy wonks like me can get the message across to civil society that their governments will have no interest in doing anything until something gets shoved down their throat by the people who elect them? In turn, what are the strategies that grassroots civil society groups can use to bring our governments’ attention span away in a real way from powerful dirty corporate lobbyists to a science and human rights based approach to climate change? How do we do the same with the top-down NGOs?

I’m not being naïve here, I understand that the fossil fuels industry is the most profitable industry in history and that, in turn, they have the most powerful lobby the western world has ever seen. I’m not particularly interested in either naïve idealism or lazy defeatism; I’m asking for concrete strategic thoughts and suggestions.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →