Climate Change

Here is a bootleg clip of Al Gore speaking today at the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland. Early in the speech, he blasts "sclerotic" political systems in the developed world and says "we have to overcome the paralysis that has prevented us from acting and focus clearly and unblinkingly on this crisis, rather than spending so much time on Paris Hilton and O.J. Simpson and Anna Nicole Smith." As always, he fires up the crowd. Check it out.

by John Anthony, Energy and Climate Communications Director, UN Foundation, writing from the UN climate summit in Poznan, Poland One thing that is not talked about enough at the UN climate negotiations is just how fundamentally complex a transition the world is attempting to make with regard to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. There's plenty of finger pointing: China and India this, and Brazil that. And too often, the United States this and that. China and India rightly point to the industrialized world's "historical" or sheer volume of emissions since the early 20th century. They are both in periods of rapid industrialization which, though greatly polluting their air and water, and recently, in China's case, surpassing the level of the U.S. emissions, are also achieving vast improvements in quality of life for millions upon millions of their people. Another point of great contention is "per capita emissions." China is now emitting more than the U.S., but they also have more than four times the population. So the two nations are comparable when it comes to how much carbon they put in the atmosphere, but not even close when it comes to "carbon intensity." And that is one new area which holds promise as a component to a potential deal - agreeing to commit to energy efficiency gains, which are largely attainable with existing technologies.

by John Anthony, Energy and Climate Communications Director, UN Foundation, writing from the UN climate summit in Poznan, Poland The annual United Nations-led climate change negotiations are quickly coming to a close here in coal-rich southern Poland. In fact, Poland produces more than 90% of its electricity from coal, suggesting a challenging transition towards cleaner burning fuels in its near term future, if these talks do in fact lead to a successor agreement to 1997's Kyoto Protocol. Stepping back, the annual gathering is a two-week marathon of behind the scenes bargaining between official delegates, daily press briefings from the UN secretariat, the UNFCCC, and its erstwhile head - Yvo de Boer. Talk about someone in need of a vacation. Imagine the stress and strain of herding more than 180 countries toward a decision and commitment the likes of which mankind has never before made on a collective basis. And all of this through innumerable language barriers, and a looming deadline, next December in Copenhagen, Denmark. There are also a phalanx of "side events," at which non-profits, industry, trade and labor groups get to make their case about everything from how bioenergy is both a source of clean energy and a poverty alleviator, to what the US election results portend for the negotiations, to how labor standards will be treated under an agreement. Mixed together with the media covering the event (possibly the next industry in need of a bailout), security, and volunteers, it's a bit like an ant colony, but one that isn't building anything - just moving to and fro with ideas, positions, opinions and perhaps the latest piece of intel about who is imperiling consensus on adaptation finance. The process is mind-numbingly complex to even the most seasoned COP-follower. After all, in Bali last year, hailed as a landmark point of progress, the target of a range of hope for emissions reductions (driven by IPCC research) ended up buried in a footnote of the Action Plan. While the delegates would prefer that Barack Obama were here, they will later today hear from former Vice President and reigning Climate Champ Al Gore.

The Financial Times' foreign affairs correspondent, Gideon Rachman, is no wacky conspiracy theorist.

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

If these sinister UN choppers (why aren't they being deployed to Darfur?) aren't hovering over the future world capital of Butte, Montana, then why does Rachman see potential for a "world government" in the near future next two centuries.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a "global war on terror". [snip] But - the third point - a change in the political atmosphere suggests that "global governance" could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

He goes on to discuss how the phrase "global government" -- ostensibly euphemized as "global governance" or "responsible sovereignty" -- is a bogeyman even for some Europeans. But what Rachman really is talking about here is not some cabal of global rulers; his very valid point is that the world's problems these days cannot be taken on by a single sovereign government, or even a clump of them each hacking away individually at something like climate change or nuclear proliferation. The "governance" aspect of the term is less important than the "global;" the name we give to such international cooperation will matter much less than the melting icecaps that will flood our cities and the rogue nukes that will proliferate without a coherent global strategy to address them. UPDATE: Responding to his readers' mini-furor over his column, Rachman defends his impartiality by quoting his sister's analysis of the piece as a "slightly dull discussion of a school-boy debating topic that went - on the one hand, on the other hand, probably not." (image from flickr user noticelj under a Creative Commons license)

Special to dispatch from Mark Hopkins, Director of International Energy Efficiency at the United Nations Foundation Poznan, Poland -- As an American at the [international conference on global climate change in] Poznan, whenever I talk with someone from somewhere else in the world, the first question asked is, "What is Barack Obama going to do on climate?" There is so much anticipation of greater US engagement on the issue and hope it will lead to an effective international agreement. I am hopeful too, but I keep reminding everyone, the Obama folks will be much focused on crafting not only an effective global agreement, but one that can also pass muster in the US Senate. There is much discussion here about the role of energy efficiency. The International Energy Agency is highlighting recommendations in their recent global energy report on the importance of significantly enhancing deployment of energy efficiency if we are to successfully address the climate problem. Given its importance, there is emerging discussion on the need to somehow more directly incorporate it in a post 2012 agreement. Some are seeing it as a potential "building block" essential to the success of a comprehensive agreement. I don't know how other people feel, but I have to compliment the Polish government and the city of Poznan on their hosting this conference. Other than being spread widely in hotel sleeping arrangements (which is almost inevitable given 10,000 plus attendees) the conference facility itself and its management has been really great. I am now sitting in the computer room, which is big, very big - there must be 500 computer terminals in use, with a good internet connection. And the awaiting lines are being well managed by conference staff. Hats of to the Poles.

by Mark Hopkins, Director of International Energy Efficiency, UN Foundation
From the UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland I am lodging at a hotel about 11 km from the conference center, so I've spent a good bit of my time in taxis going back and forth. My hotel location is a bit unusual though -- it's in back of a gas station along a four lane highway and you have to drive through the station to get to the front door of my hotel. Given this COP is the final one for the Bush Administration and everyone is anticipating a U.S. policy change after President-Elect Obama takes office, many are jokingly referring to Poznan as "the lame-duck COP." Others are commenting that when these climate conferences began many years ago the negotiations were the main event, and side events were, well, just side events, something to occupy the time of all those at the conference who weren't at the negotiating table. But at "the lame-duck COP" the situation is now reversed -- the side events are where the real action is -- by action I mean the innovative thinking and ideas that might lead to an agreement some day. And finally, everyone got quite excited today, at least for a few minutes - the sun actually broke out of what seems to be the ever present dark gray Polish sky.

One year ago representatives of most of the nations of the world met in Bali to set out a road-map for negotiations for a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocals, which expire in 2012. The resulting Bali Action Plan stipulated that a treaty should be completed by the end of 2009--at a meeting in Copenhagen--so as to give countries enough time to ratify it before Kyoto expires three years later. This week, at the half-way point between Bali and Copenhagen, delegates are meeting in Poznan, Poland to take stock of their progress over the past year. The position of the United States, which signed but did not ratify the Kyoto Protocols, is critical to the success or failure of this process. When negotiators met in Bali, they rightly judged that any future American administration is likely to be more open to an international climate change treaty than the current occupant of the White House. Thus, the Bali road map left most of the negotiating to sometime after the next administration takes office. This strategy certainly has its merits and makes perfect sense. But it also means that the new Obama administration will join the debate with less than a year to go before the December 2009 deadline. In Poznan this week, there are simmering doubts as to whether or not the deadline can be met. From the Pew Center on Climate Change

Copenhagen is unlikely to produce a full and final agreement that could be submitted to governments for ratification. A more realistic outcome may be an agreement on the basic architecture of the post-2012 climate framework -- for instance, binding economy-wide targets for developed countries, policy commitments for the major emerging economies, and support mechanisms for technology, finance, and adaptation in developing countries. This intermediary agreement could then serve as the basis for further negotiations in 2010 on specific commitments in a full and final agreement.

Even with a fully engaged Obama administration, these negotiations on these specific commitments are not going to be easy. From the Washington Post:

One of the biggest obstacles facing negotiators has been the gulf between the United States and the European Union on the extent to which industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to avert dangerous warming, and Obama's arrival goes only partway toward closing that divide. The European Union backs a goal of cutting emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; Obama has called for the United States simply to get back to 1990 levels

In the same Washinton Post article, UN Foundation President Tim Wirth sums up the prospect for agreement at Copenhagen and says it is "'probably asking too much' to expect a binding agreement by the end of 2009, but delegates may leave Copenhagen with the 'building blocks' in place for a pact, along with 'an overall agreement in principle' on how to address climate change. 'That's all doable.'" I agree.

As climate change discussions continue in Poznan, Poland, I'm encouraged by a broader change I've seen in the public's thinking about what a greener economy will mean. I remember only months ago, it seemed that most people took for granted the notion that trying to abate a climate crisis would inherently mean hurting the economy. These days, the conventional wisdom seems to be that creating an economy and an infrastructure more friendly to the planet will do exactly the opposite and result in economic gains. I don't know exactly what caused this change. It could have been the recent set of economic crises, it could have been Barack Obama's frequent messages on "green jobs," it could have been the "Pickens Plan," or it could have been Al Gore's "We" campaign. Likely, it was a combination of all of these things, along with a collective of hard working activists and bloggers who have been absolutely relentless in spreading the idea that clean does not equal poor, and dirty does not equal rich. Thanks to all those who worked to finally turn the old misguided notion on its head, and let's all continue to push forward and make Poznan, and eventually Copenhagen, a great step forward in ensuring an excellent quality of life for future generations on Earth.

Delegates from 190 countries descend on the small university town of Poznan, Poland this week to discuss elements of a successor international climate change treaty to the Kyoto Protocols, which expire in 2012. This meeting is the halfway point in a two year negotiating process that kicked off in Bali, Indonesia last year and will conclude (hopefully!) in Copenhagen in December 2009. It's Getting Hot in Here, a fantastic blog about youth climate activism, runs down the top five issues at the conference.

5. Forests Back in 1992, the Rio summit was originally supposed to develop a forests treaty in addition to the two well-known agreements which came out of the meeting: The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity. The forests issue is now coming back in the climate talks in the form of REDD - reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. The UN does have a way with acronyms, doesn't it? Key challenges under REDD are the definition of a 'managed forest' for the purposes of carbon credits, what to do about reforestation, and whether or not developing countries should be paid not to cut down their forests. If you're interested, Friends of the Earth has just released a major report on REDD ahead of the talks. 4. China Although China is way behind in per capita emissions, the country is now, officially, the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter on an absolute scale. This, not to mention being the world's most populous nation, makes it one of the most important countries in the quest to stop climate chaos. Until recently, the U.S. and China were both at an impasse, with each country refusing to accept binding greenhouse gas emissions targets without the other. Now, with Barack Obama pledging a new chapter in U.S. action on climate change, the ball is in China's court. The actions they take at this year's meeting may influence international climate change policy for many years to come. 3. Money - for adaptation and technology transfer Moving our great big resource-munching world to a low-carbon lifestyle isn't just about political will (although that's a big part of it). It's about money. In this case, the money is specifically needed for two things: adaptation, to help poorer countries cope with the effects of global warming, and technology transfer, to help other countries grow their economies in a clean, green, lean sort of way. The UNFCCC has already established an Adaptation Fund, but it's yet to be seen whether this fund will get the money it needs. The U.S. has tried to block proposals for technology transfer in previous negotiations, but this may change under an Obama administration - remember during the debates when he repeatedly mentioned exporting clean technologies to China? 2. The United States Well, this is a bit obvious, isn't it? But despite the fact that the country is under new management, the current occupant is yet to move out of the White House. Because the U.S. team at the climate talks is run by the state department, it's under executive authority - this is why the U.S. delegation in Bali was politely but firmly told to get out of the way and let the world get on with the job of solving the climate crisis. For the past eight years, the U.S. delegation has been pulling out all the stops to prevent climate progress, and arguably there's even less to keep them from being international nincompoops one last time. However, the balance of power has shifted. The views from the U.S. congressional delegation, as well as from Obama's transition team, may be more influential then the spastic flappings of a lame duck administration. 1. The Youth Caucus This is the youth climate blog, after all. If you're here, it's because you already tentatively agree that the next generation is the one to watch. Youth from around the world have spent the last year preparing to hit the ground in Poland and speak truth to power - and you can read about it all here. We have one climate, one future, and one chance to avert disaster.

But you don't have to take it from them. The UN's top climate change negotiation moderator, Yvo De Boer explains what is at stake in Poznan. On Red Green and Blue, Tim Hurst has more. You can view the conference webcast here.