After returning with frozen fingers from a twilight run on snow covered moorland I turned on the computer. Jim Hansen at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies provides data each month on global temperatures. These are his latest conclusions:
"This has been the the warmest January-November in the GISS analysis, which covers 131 years. However, it is only a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, so it is possible that the final GISS results for the full year will find 2010 and 2005 to have the same temperature within the margin of error.
"The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record."
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
DON'T PLAY GAMES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE
I thought the opening of my climate change speech was rather good. "I have no interest in football," I said, "but I have seen pictures of the manager of a team playing its last game of the season, 2-1 down, and facing relegation, and in considering the outcome of the Cancun conference I thought of our Climate Action Commissioner.
The manager is saved by the scoring of a goal. The result is a draw. A vital point is secured and relegation avoided.
"It's not a triumph. But it's not a defeat. The manager lives to fight another day."
Guaranteed to maintain attention I thought.
Commissioner Connie Hedegaard responded: "Let me first respond to Mr Davies. I'm very sorry but I follow football even less than he does, and I did not quite understand the analogy."
Oh well. Back to the writing desk.
The manager is saved by the scoring of a goal. The result is a draw. A vital point is secured and relegation avoided.
"It's not a triumph. But it's not a defeat. The manager lives to fight another day."
Guaranteed to maintain attention I thought.
Commissioner Connie Hedegaard responded: "Let me first respond to Mr Davies. I'm very sorry but I follow football even less than he does, and I did not quite understand the analogy."
Oh well. Back to the writing desk.
Sunday, 12 December 2010
CLIMATE CHANGE – THE BALL IS STILL ROLLING
Even if every country does what it says it will do, world temperatures will rise by 4 degrees centigrade over the next century. That’s the best-guess scientific prediction.
A temperature rise of this magnitude would force hundreds of millions of people to move or risk death, so it’s extreme in itself. (Where do these people move to without giving rise to enormous political unrest?). But it also gives rise to the prospect of run-away climate change, leading, for example, to the release of methane from frozen tundra that will accelerate the process of global warming.
All this sounds fanciful when it’s cold outside. It’s hard to appreciate that across the world 2010 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, and that average global temperatures just keep going up and up. The climate change sceptics have an easy time arguing their case to a shivering public.
So one of the most important things to have come out of the UN’s climate change conference at Cancun is a reminder that every government in the world is expressing concern about climate change and saying that we must take action to curb it. Only Bolivia registered its reluctance to support the final document – because it didn’t go far enough.
The European Union had a minimum objective for these talks, it was to keep the ball rolling. The result has exceeded its expectations by quite a margin. UK environment secretary Chris Huhne can take a share of the credit for this by hammering out an agreement on the future of the Kyoto Protocol (which places obligations on only a limited number of countries) that kept everyone on board. I didn’t have the impression that my former MEP colleague took much interest in the global warming debate when he was in the European Parliament, but he’s proved himself a quick learner and an effective practitioner.
It’s been a miserable year for all those involved in trying to persuade governments across the world to recognise the need for action. The failure at Copenhagen sucked momentum from a negotiating process that requires the consent of every nation on the planet. It strengthened the resistance of those who would argue, not unreasonably, that the EU cannot take measures of its own in isolation without the risk of losing more jobs.
But now the process has new life. The USA is still failing to provide leadership but it has joined with other developed countries in agreeing to start helping poorer countries meet the costs of climate change, and to curb the destruction of forests. Both India and China have shown a willingness to take the agenda forward, and they have agreed to international monitoring of emissions; this represents a major retreat for the notion of national sovereignty and acceptance that we are all in this together and must be able to trust one another. Who knows, maybe my meeting in China with key environmental legislators a month ago contributed a little bit to the change in mood.
The agreed target is to stop temperatures rising above 2 degrees centigrade. It’s a target that is probably already too late to achieve, and the measures announced so far are nothing like sufficient, but the agreement means that we can return to this year after year with new proposals for taking the agenda forward. We can ratchet up the requirements and obligations.
Next step for European politicians will be to consider raising our CO2 emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20% to 30%, setting an example and helping to promote low carbon investments. A month ago I would have said that prospects for securing agreement for this from EU governments were minimal. Now they are better – I go no further than that.
A temperature rise of this magnitude would force hundreds of millions of people to move or risk death, so it’s extreme in itself. (Where do these people move to without giving rise to enormous political unrest?). But it also gives rise to the prospect of run-away climate change, leading, for example, to the release of methane from frozen tundra that will accelerate the process of global warming.
All this sounds fanciful when it’s cold outside. It’s hard to appreciate that across the world 2010 will go down as one of the warmest years on record, and that average global temperatures just keep going up and up. The climate change sceptics have an easy time arguing their case to a shivering public.
So one of the most important things to have come out of the UN’s climate change conference at Cancun is a reminder that every government in the world is expressing concern about climate change and saying that we must take action to curb it. Only Bolivia registered its reluctance to support the final document – because it didn’t go far enough.
The European Union had a minimum objective for these talks, it was to keep the ball rolling. The result has exceeded its expectations by quite a margin. UK environment secretary Chris Huhne can take a share of the credit for this by hammering out an agreement on the future of the Kyoto Protocol (which places obligations on only a limited number of countries) that kept everyone on board. I didn’t have the impression that my former MEP colleague took much interest in the global warming debate when he was in the European Parliament, but he’s proved himself a quick learner and an effective practitioner.
It’s been a miserable year for all those involved in trying to persuade governments across the world to recognise the need for action. The failure at Copenhagen sucked momentum from a negotiating process that requires the consent of every nation on the planet. It strengthened the resistance of those who would argue, not unreasonably, that the EU cannot take measures of its own in isolation without the risk of losing more jobs.
But now the process has new life. The USA is still failing to provide leadership but it has joined with other developed countries in agreeing to start helping poorer countries meet the costs of climate change, and to curb the destruction of forests. Both India and China have shown a willingness to take the agenda forward, and they have agreed to international monitoring of emissions; this represents a major retreat for the notion of national sovereignty and acceptance that we are all in this together and must be able to trust one another. Who knows, maybe my meeting in China with key environmental legislators a month ago contributed a little bit to the change in mood.
The agreed target is to stop temperatures rising above 2 degrees centigrade. It’s a target that is probably already too late to achieve, and the measures announced so far are nothing like sufficient, but the agreement means that we can return to this year after year with new proposals for taking the agenda forward. We can ratchet up the requirements and obligations.
Next step for European politicians will be to consider raising our CO2 emissions reduction target for 2020 from 20% to 30%, setting an example and helping to promote low carbon investments. A month ago I would have said that prospects for securing agreement for this from EU governments were minimal. Now they are better – I go no further than that.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
CHINA FOR THE WEEKEND
I don't like long flights (can't sleep, keep wriggling), and the thought of flying to China for a 2-day conference held no attractions, but I was talked into it by Lord Deben (who I know as John Gummer, the former Conservative Environment Secretary) who is now President of Globe International. Actually, I spoke to him on my mobile phone while I was walking in horizontal rain on a Scottish island. The phone died before the end of the conversation and hasn't worked since.
"It's really important. You CAN make a difference. We CAN help shape China's agenda on climate change before it finalises its next 5-year plan and sends delegates to the climate change conference at Cancun." That was the gist of it, I think.
I had booked an economy ticket for the flight to Bejing for the Joint Legislators' Forum to be held in Tianjin before the agenda arrived:
HIGH LEVEL OPENING SESSION
1. Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National Peoples' Congress (said to be the second most powerful man in China).
2. President of Mexico, host to the next UN climate change conference.
3. Prime Minister David Cameron (by video!)
4. Chris Davies MEP
Now I just have to think of something worthwhile to say.
"It's really important. You CAN make a difference. We CAN help shape China's agenda on climate change before it finalises its next 5-year plan and sends delegates to the climate change conference at Cancun." That was the gist of it, I think.
I had booked an economy ticket for the flight to Bejing for the Joint Legislators' Forum to be held in Tianjin before the agenda arrived:
HIGH LEVEL OPENING SESSION
1. Wu Bangguo, Chairman of the National Peoples' Congress (said to be the second most powerful man in China).
2. President of Mexico, host to the next UN climate change conference.
3. Prime Minister David Cameron (by video!)
4. Chris Davies MEP
Now I just have to think of something worthwhile to say.
Monday, 4 October 2010
THE CLIMATE CHANGE GAME
Europe’s climate action Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, has been dealt a poor hand.
She has the thankless task of leading the EU’s efforts to secure an international agreement on measures to fight global warming, and to encourage our own Member States to sign up to initiatives that will demonstrate Europe’s continuing leadership on the issue while meeting other goals, such as strengthening energy sufficiency and reducing our use of scarce resources.
But despite the scientific evidence of climate change having been wholly vindicated, continuing scepticism about the need for action prevails and saps political will, both here and elsewhere. The world needs the USA – the largest per capita emitter of CO2 – to sign up to far-reaching reforms, but there is not the slightest indication that they are likely to do so in the near future.
If the largest emitters of global warming gases will not make a commitment to reduce them it is hard for Europe’s politicians to argue that the EU, releasing just 13% of the total, must incur the costs of action alone.
COP16, the next conference of the parties (governments) who have signed the UN’s framework convention on climate change, meets in a few weeks’ time in Cancun, Mexico. After the disappointment of Copenhagen the expectations are low. Hedegaard set out to the European Parliament’s environment committee on Monday (4 October) a very limited set of criteria by which to measure its ‘success’.
“Cancun MUST keep the momentum,” she told MEPs. “If Cancun does not deliver substantial progress it is difficult to see where such progress will be made.”
Gamblers may recognise the need to play even a bad hand with confidence.
She has the thankless task of leading the EU’s efforts to secure an international agreement on measures to fight global warming, and to encourage our own Member States to sign up to initiatives that will demonstrate Europe’s continuing leadership on the issue while meeting other goals, such as strengthening energy sufficiency and reducing our use of scarce resources.
But despite the scientific evidence of climate change having been wholly vindicated, continuing scepticism about the need for action prevails and saps political will, both here and elsewhere. The world needs the USA – the largest per capita emitter of CO2 – to sign up to far-reaching reforms, but there is not the slightest indication that they are likely to do so in the near future.
If the largest emitters of global warming gases will not make a commitment to reduce them it is hard for Europe’s politicians to argue that the EU, releasing just 13% of the total, must incur the costs of action alone.
COP16, the next conference of the parties (governments) who have signed the UN’s framework convention on climate change, meets in a few weeks’ time in Cancun, Mexico. After the disappointment of Copenhagen the expectations are low. Hedegaard set out to the European Parliament’s environment committee on Monday (4 October) a very limited set of criteria by which to measure its ‘success’.
“Cancun MUST keep the momentum,” she told MEPs. “If Cancun does not deliver substantial progress it is difficult to see where such progress will be made.”
Gamblers may recognise the need to play even a bad hand with confidence.
Tuesday, 16 February 2010
BOYS' TOYS
Average emissions from new cars on the European market fell to 153gCO2/km for 2008, the steepest drop since records began to be collected a decade ago. It means that cars are becoming more fuel efficient, and shows the value of the EU legislation that has set CO2 reduction targets for manufacturers.
MEPs helped shape the new law so how well are we putting our words into practice?
In 2009 the European Parliament bought 4 cars for the use of its president, secretary general and political group leaders, with emissions ranging from 193 to 224 gCO2/km (mind you, this was quite a reduction on 2008). Two BMW cars (192) and four Mercedes (154) were also bought for the 'pool.'
We are getting better but still not practising what we preach. The powers that be are still wedded to the idea that high status is demonstrated by a high emitting vehicle, and are failing to take proper regard of some of the impressive low emission cars now on the market.
I feel an amendment to the Parliament's budget coming on....
MEPs helped shape the new law so how well are we putting our words into practice?
In 2009 the European Parliament bought 4 cars for the use of its president, secretary general and political group leaders, with emissions ranging from 193 to 224 gCO2/km (mind you, this was quite a reduction on 2008). Two BMW cars (192) and four Mercedes (154) were also bought for the 'pool.'
We are getting better but still not practising what we preach. The powers that be are still wedded to the idea that high status is demonstrated by a high emitting vehicle, and are failing to take proper regard of some of the impressive low emission cars now on the market.
I feel an amendment to the Parliament's budget coming on....
Monday, 14 December 2009
REFLECTIONS
My Copenhagen blog has been quite positive and cheerful I think. I’ve spent a week in the company of many thousands of people who want to see an ambitious deal realised, and many thousands more – researchers, industry representatives, and environmentalists – who are confident that the answers exist to curb dangerous climate change and would like the politicians to put in place the instruments to realise them.
The lower tier negotiators I have talked to have been making progress on their various briefs, and consensus is being secured about huge chunks of text of a final agreement. I would be astonished if the prime ministers arriving this week didn’t leave proclaiming success.
But the question remains whether whatever agreement they make will be of real significance, and I don’t think it will be. There are too many governments that have self-interest in avoiding making the commitments that are needed. You only have to consider the weak outcome of last week’s European Council meeting to appreciate this, and yet the EU likes to think of itself as the leader of the pack.
They don’t get it. Governments are thinking short term and not about the scale of the problems that the world will face if the 90% concerns of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are realised. They seem to think that we’re dealing with some aspect of trade policy: important but not vital.
We need to scale up, put efforts to combat global warming in the same bracket as fighting a war on an immense scale, realise that if we make a commitment of this order then technological progress will be stimulated and industry will meet the challenges.
It could be exciting. It could create a better world. But it won’t happen yet.
The lower tier negotiators I have talked to have been making progress on their various briefs, and consensus is being secured about huge chunks of text of a final agreement. I would be astonished if the prime ministers arriving this week didn’t leave proclaiming success.
But the question remains whether whatever agreement they make will be of real significance, and I don’t think it will be. There are too many governments that have self-interest in avoiding making the commitments that are needed. You only have to consider the weak outcome of last week’s European Council meeting to appreciate this, and yet the EU likes to think of itself as the leader of the pack.
They don’t get it. Governments are thinking short term and not about the scale of the problems that the world will face if the 90% concerns of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are realised. They seem to think that we’re dealing with some aspect of trade policy: important but not vital.
We need to scale up, put efforts to combat global warming in the same bracket as fighting a war on an immense scale, realise that if we make a commitment of this order then technological progress will be stimulated and industry will meet the challenges.
It could be exciting. It could create a better world. But it won’t happen yet.
COP or MOP or CPM
Jargon may be useful shorthand but it also obscures understanding. It’s hard to keep track of all the acronyms used in climate change negotiations, and even harder when they get changed.
COP is easy to understand. COP15 at Copenhagen is the 15th Conference of the Parties (signatories) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Early COPs drew up the Kyoto Protocol, a legal commitment to take various actions to curb global warming. But not all parties ratified it – notably the USA – so at COPs there are parallel sessions of the MOPs, the Members of the Parties that have ratified Kyoto. For a while the events were billed as COP/MOPs.
Then, for reasons I cannot recall, the MOP got changed to the CMP: the Conference of the Parties acting as the Meeting of the Parties (a terrible acronym). Even so, many people still refer to COP/MOP because it flows off the tongue more easily.
These things can matter. On the first day of the conference China objected to the fact that the conference logo only included COP and not CMP: did this not imply that the intended outcome would be the sweeping aside of the Kyoto Protocol with the legally binding commitments it makes upon its members? The logo got hastily adjusted.
A key negotiating issue is whether a new protocol should be created that will displace Kyoto, or whether a twin track approach will be followed with a new agreement existing in parallel to the old. Negotiators who want a serious outcome insist that it be legally binding, and Kyoto does that, but the very word ‘Kyoto’ is political anathema to the Americans and any reference to it will make it difficult for Obama to sell a deal to the Senate.
One reason why the letters CMP are said to stand in reality for ‘Conference Missing a Party!’
COP is easy to understand. COP15 at Copenhagen is the 15th Conference of the Parties (signatories) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Early COPs drew up the Kyoto Protocol, a legal commitment to take various actions to curb global warming. But not all parties ratified it – notably the USA – so at COPs there are parallel sessions of the MOPs, the Members of the Parties that have ratified Kyoto. For a while the events were billed as COP/MOPs.
Then, for reasons I cannot recall, the MOP got changed to the CMP: the Conference of the Parties acting as the Meeting of the Parties (a terrible acronym). Even so, many people still refer to COP/MOP because it flows off the tongue more easily.
These things can matter. On the first day of the conference China objected to the fact that the conference logo only included COP and not CMP: did this not imply that the intended outcome would be the sweeping aside of the Kyoto Protocol with the legally binding commitments it makes upon its members? The logo got hastily adjusted.
A key negotiating issue is whether a new protocol should be created that will displace Kyoto, or whether a twin track approach will be followed with a new agreement existing in parallel to the old. Negotiators who want a serious outcome insist that it be legally binding, and Kyoto does that, but the very word ‘Kyoto’ is political anathema to the Americans and any reference to it will make it difficult for Obama to sell a deal to the Senate.
One reason why the letters CMP are said to stand in reality for ‘Conference Missing a Party!’
REST DAY
The climate change conference is not in session today. In any case it’s the day when I have to head for home, regretting not being able to follow the negotiations through to their conclusion but not sorry at avoiding the frustrations of all those second-week closed doors.
I managed to meet up with the Liverpool and Manchester students in the Oxfam contingent of Saturday’s protest march. I missed the start, and didn’t know the route, but it was easy enough to track it, catch up and overtake by keeping an eye on the helicopters hovering in the sky. Marches march slowly. The newspapers report various arrests being made but the vast majority of demonstrators passed me twice as I searched for ‘my’ contingent and I saw no trouble as all.
The students had all succeeded in hitchhiking their way to Copenhagen in 3 days, even though only one, Nicola, was wearing a polar bear suit (I for one would certainly stop if a polar bear held out its thumb). Some wondered if the effort had been worth it and asked me, ”do demonstrations like this make a difference?” “Without doubt,” was my response. “The march generates media coverage, and that raises the profile of the issue and increases political pressure on decision-makers. We all want to do more but by being here you show how much this matters to you. What more can be asked?”
I managed to meet up with the Liverpool and Manchester students in the Oxfam contingent of Saturday’s protest march. I missed the start, and didn’t know the route, but it was easy enough to track it, catch up and overtake by keeping an eye on the helicopters hovering in the sky. Marches march slowly. The newspapers report various arrests being made but the vast majority of demonstrators passed me twice as I searched for ‘my’ contingent and I saw no trouble as all.
The students had all succeeded in hitchhiking their way to Copenhagen in 3 days, even though only one, Nicola, was wearing a polar bear suit (I for one would certainly stop if a polar bear held out its thumb). Some wondered if the effort had been worth it and asked me, ”do demonstrations like this make a difference?” “Without doubt,” was my response. “The march generates media coverage, and that raises the profile of the issue and increases political pressure on decision-makers. We all want to do more but by being here you show how much this matters to you. What more can be asked?”
Saturday, 12 December 2009
OUTSIDE
It’s the Global Day of Climate Action, and demonstrators are marching from the city centre out to the conference centre. I know there will be students from Liverpool and Manchester with them, though whether we will get the chance to meet up I am not sure.
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - INSIDE
The programme announces: “A group of elves will sing a Christmas song to remind negotiators that plantations are not forests and that intact natural forests must be protected.”
I hope it works. But maybe the threat of torture would be more effective.
I hope it works. But maybe the threat of torture would be more effective.
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - BACK TO BUSINESS
The agenda says that the plenary meeting of the Conference of Parties will resume at 10.00. Conference president Connie Hedegaard takes her seat at 10.10 and shuffles papers. Five minutes later she is called into a huddle of advisors to the side of the platform. She resumes her seat. A new huddle starts around her. By 10.35 she seems to be ready to start, but nothing happens. Is it time to scream “get on with it?” In the European Parliament members would have started a slow handclap half an hour ago. At 10.39 she gets business under way.
She reminds the negotiators that we are half way through the fortnight’s proceedings, that the COP was formally suspended 3 days ago, although detailed business has continued in side meetings. On the issue of Article 17, which is whether whatever is agreed by the conference will be worth the paper it is written on, she claims that progress is being made but more time is needed.
Tuvalu takes the floor, with a speech clearly intended to emphasise its position and communicate with a greater audience. “The entire population of Tuvalu lives just 2 metres above sea level. We need to conclude with legally binding agreements. Our proposals have been on the table for 6 months.” He becomes emotional: “I woke this morning and I was crying. The fate of my country lies in your hands.”
Business moves on to discuss the draft conclusions paper submitted yesterday. Almost all say that it provides the basis for negotiations. The USA makes clear that it causes them severe problems. Sweden, on the other hand, speaking on behalf of the EU, slams it as inadequate: it will not do the job of preventing temperatures from rising by more than 2 deg centigrade, it makes provision for controls on only one third of global emissions, it does not properly reflect the Bali action plan, and it does not provide for an agreement that will be truly binding. Good stuff! I just wish I had confidence that Europe’s prime ministers shared the convictions of our negotiators.
You would not guess from the scores of other comments made that the document was so unsatisfactory. Platitude after platitude pours forth about the need to work together and build on the basis of this text, with recurring themes being the issue of legal certainty and the need for stronger financial commitments to help with climate change mitigation.
The daily information sheet includes a notice than an ADDITIONAL meditation and prayer room has been made available in Hall B3. I guess the first one just became too crowded.
The session concludes at noon.
She reminds the negotiators that we are half way through the fortnight’s proceedings, that the COP was formally suspended 3 days ago, although detailed business has continued in side meetings. On the issue of Article 17, which is whether whatever is agreed by the conference will be worth the paper it is written on, she claims that progress is being made but more time is needed.
Tuvalu takes the floor, with a speech clearly intended to emphasise its position and communicate with a greater audience. “The entire population of Tuvalu lives just 2 metres above sea level. We need to conclude with legally binding agreements. Our proposals have been on the table for 6 months.” He becomes emotional: “I woke this morning and I was crying. The fate of my country lies in your hands.”
Business moves on to discuss the draft conclusions paper submitted yesterday. Almost all say that it provides the basis for negotiations. The USA makes clear that it causes them severe problems. Sweden, on the other hand, speaking on behalf of the EU, slams it as inadequate: it will not do the job of preventing temperatures from rising by more than 2 deg centigrade, it makes provision for controls on only one third of global emissions, it does not properly reflect the Bali action plan, and it does not provide for an agreement that will be truly binding. Good stuff! I just wish I had confidence that Europe’s prime ministers shared the convictions of our negotiators.
You would not guess from the scores of other comments made that the document was so unsatisfactory. Platitude after platitude pours forth about the need to work together and build on the basis of this text, with recurring themes being the issue of legal certainty and the need for stronger financial commitments to help with climate change mitigation.
The daily information sheet includes a notice than an ADDITIONAL meditation and prayer room has been made available in Hall B3. I guess the first one just became too crowded.
The session concludes at noon.
Friday, 11 December 2009
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - DOWN TO DETAIL
There are said to be some 30 ‘contact’ groups and informal working groups considering various parts of the text; it’s impossible from the conference floor to keep track of them all. Many are closed to NGO representatives but I’ve got a pass that lets me in. I step into one where the proposed text for the section on the clean development mechanism is being considered.
The chairman is of Chinese origin I think, and jollies the negotiators along with a few quips and humour; he starts with a tale about the price of his lunch and the paucity of its substance. Most of the people in the room are lower tier or specialist negotiators and will have met each other many times over the past few years. The meeting is in English, without interpretation.
The draft document is displayed on a screen and the chairman proposes that he takes the meeting through it paragraph by paragraph. If no one has an objection then it gets coloured green on the screen. If changes are sought then it is coloured yellow and the objector is asked to submit alternative text within the hour. If any country cannot accept a paragraph then they should call out red.’ “But let’s call it pink,” says the chairman.
The first couple of lines get a green, then it’s a flow of yellows with the occasion pink, followed by a few greens. Saudi Arabia demands that a paragraph on forest protection gets coloured pink, but they are probably just planning a trade-off because the next paragraph is about the inclusion of carbon capture and storage, which Saudi wants and Brazil does not. Brazil duly demands that it be coloured pink.
We move on through the document. Someone says “yellow”, another negotiator says “pink”. The chairman asks: “can someone give me the colour if we mix yellow and pink?” “GREEN!” someone shouts, and everyone laughs.
There’s a bit of time left after the first trawl so the chairman goes through the document again. As we come to each pink paragraph he asks the objectors if they really want to maintain implacable opposition, and if so why. “I’ll have to consult,” is a frequent response. Presumably they are voicing pre-agreed national mandates.
“Now get your inputs in if you want modifications,” says the chairman. “We meet again tomorrow.”
The chairman is of Chinese origin I think, and jollies the negotiators along with a few quips and humour; he starts with a tale about the price of his lunch and the paucity of its substance. Most of the people in the room are lower tier or specialist negotiators and will have met each other many times over the past few years. The meeting is in English, without interpretation.
The draft document is displayed on a screen and the chairman proposes that he takes the meeting through it paragraph by paragraph. If no one has an objection then it gets coloured green on the screen. If changes are sought then it is coloured yellow and the objector is asked to submit alternative text within the hour. If any country cannot accept a paragraph then they should call out red.’ “But let’s call it pink,” says the chairman.
The first couple of lines get a green, then it’s a flow of yellows with the occasion pink, followed by a few greens. Saudi Arabia demands that a paragraph on forest protection gets coloured pink, but they are probably just planning a trade-off because the next paragraph is about the inclusion of carbon capture and storage, which Saudi wants and Brazil does not. Brazil duly demands that it be coloured pink.
We move on through the document. Someone says “yellow”, another negotiator says “pink”. The chairman asks: “can someone give me the colour if we mix yellow and pink?” “GREEN!” someone shouts, and everyone laughs.
There’s a bit of time left after the first trawl so the chairman goes through the document again. As we come to each pink paragraph he asks the objectors if they really want to maintain implacable opposition, and if so why. “I’ll have to consult,” is a frequent response. Presumably they are voicing pre-agreed national mandates.
“Now get your inputs in if you want modifications,” says the chairman. “We meet again tomorrow.”
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - ON THE FRINGE
The 30 working groups may keep the negotiators busy but what about everyone else at this conference?
The media are hidden away in their own space but have a choice of 24 press briefings every day to attend, scheduled at 30 minute intervals. The President’s slot will be packed, as every journalist tries to find out what is going on. I guess today’s 16.30 slot – ‘Delegation of Finland – Buildings and climate change’ – will be more for the specialists.
For everyone else there are the fringe meetings/side events, most of them held in the conference centre but a few elsewhere. I’ve just looked through the agenda. Today there are 87 individual fringe meetings.
The one organised by the Kingdom of Bhutan looks interesting: “This event introduces how the clean development mechanism can increase gross national happiness.”
The media are hidden away in their own space but have a choice of 24 press briefings every day to attend, scheduled at 30 minute intervals. The President’s slot will be packed, as every journalist tries to find out what is going on. I guess today’s 16.30 slot – ‘Delegation of Finland – Buildings and climate change’ – will be more for the specialists.
For everyone else there are the fringe meetings/side events, most of them held in the conference centre but a few elsewhere. I’ve just looked through the agenda. Today there are 87 individual fringe meetings.
The one organised by the Kingdom of Bhutan looks interesting: “This event introduces how the clean development mechanism can increase gross national happiness.”
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - A STEP FORWARD
The UN secretariat calls an informal meeting of the parties (the national negotiators) to present them with proposed draft text on “long term cooperative action under the Convention.”
In fact it is the outline of the core agreement that may be confirmed next week.
Its 7 pages propose the targets of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2 deg or 1.5 deg, to reduce global emissions by 2050 by 50, 85 or 95 per cent, with developed countries reducing their emissions by 75-85, at least 80-95, or more than 95 per cent.
The issue of financing is covered only by the words “to be elaborated,” although various procedures are suggested as to how a financial mechanism for assistance with mitigation and adaption should be administered.
Various countries express surprise that the document has been produced, and some complain that they hadn’t been properly consulted. The USA declares that some wording is “enormously problematic.” Tuvalu says that the wording is not strong enough and that it wants an agreement that is legally binding, but they are still reading the paper and intervene again to apologise and admit that they have now noticed the words “legally binding” and “adoption of a second commitment period under the (Kyoto) Protocol.”
A second document is also circulated outlining proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol dealing with forest issues, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation.
Everyone is terribly polite of course, and on the whole they are pleased to have the beginnings of a final text in front of them, albeit with the tough decisions still to be taken in a week’s time. The meeting breaks up for negotiators to go away, study the words, and reconvene this evening.
In fact it is the outline of the core agreement that may be confirmed next week.
Its 7 pages propose the targets of limiting the increase in global temperatures to 2 deg or 1.5 deg, to reduce global emissions by 2050 by 50, 85 or 95 per cent, with developed countries reducing their emissions by 75-85, at least 80-95, or more than 95 per cent.
The issue of financing is covered only by the words “to be elaborated,” although various procedures are suggested as to how a financial mechanism for assistance with mitigation and adaption should be administered.
Various countries express surprise that the document has been produced, and some complain that they hadn’t been properly consulted. The USA declares that some wording is “enormously problematic.” Tuvalu says that the wording is not strong enough and that it wants an agreement that is legally binding, but they are still reading the paper and intervene again to apologise and admit that they have now noticed the words “legally binding” and “adoption of a second commitment period under the (Kyoto) Protocol.”
A second document is also circulated outlining proposed amendments to the Kyoto Protocol dealing with forest issues, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation.
Everyone is terribly polite of course, and on the whole they are pleased to have the beginnings of a final text in front of them, albeit with the tough decisions still to be taken in a week’s time. The meeting breaks up for negotiators to go away, study the words, and reconvene this evening.
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - BURSTING AT THE SEAMS
35,000 people are registered to attend the Copenhagen event, but the Bella Centre is only certified for use by 15,000 at any one time.
People come and go (I leave on Sunday), but capacity has already been reached and higher numbers are expected next week.
It is said that 21,000 of the people registered are affiliated to one kind of non-governmental organisation or another, from business groups to environmental lobbyists. A limited number of ‘secondary badges’ are going to be issued to the NGOs and they will then have to decide which of their people get in and which do not. There will be a lot of unhappy people in Copenhagen next week, and some of them may be parliamentarians registered under the banner of GLOBE International.
When the prime ministers turn up for the high-level segment at the end of next week the restrictions will be even tighter. ‘Tertiary badges’ will be issued, with only 250 people from the NGOs allowed access into the plenary session, although it will be broadcast by webcam to screens all around the place.
People come and go (I leave on Sunday), but capacity has already been reached and higher numbers are expected next week.
It is said that 21,000 of the people registered are affiliated to one kind of non-governmental organisation or another, from business groups to environmental lobbyists. A limited number of ‘secondary badges’ are going to be issued to the NGOs and they will then have to decide which of their people get in and which do not. There will be a lot of unhappy people in Copenhagen next week, and some of them may be parliamentarians registered under the banner of GLOBE International.
When the prime ministers turn up for the high-level segment at the end of next week the restrictions will be even tighter. ‘Tertiary badges’ will be issued, with only 250 people from the NGOs allowed access into the plenary session, although it will be broadcast by webcam to screens all around the place.
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - PEACEFUL PROTEST
The calmest demonstration of the day must have been that organised by ‘Wake up to Climate Change!’
Seven young women, in pyjamas and clutching teddy bears, posed for the cameras asleep on the floor.
Seven young women, in pyjamas and clutching teddy bears, posed for the cameras asleep on the floor.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - THE TALKING STOPS
She nearly got away with it. The gavel came down with the words “it is so decided.” Then her aide whispered into her ear, and her heart must have sunk.
Like every meeting chairman, and especially one presiding over representatives of 192 countries at a conference with a lot of controversial business to consider and limited time in which to do it, Connie Hedegaard’s priority is to get through the agenda as efficiently as she can.
She had just announced her recommendation that private consultations should take place about the shape of any changes to the Kyoto Protocol intended to make decisions taken at the Copenhagen conference binding, with proposals to be brought back in two days’ time, and no-one had jumped up to express dissent.
The words came out reluctantly: “I give the floor to Tuvalu.”
Tuvalu’s representative, who has already become an environmentalists’ hero after his performance yesterday, apologised but said he had indicated his wish to speak before the gavel descended. Private consultations were not good enough. He wanted open discussion - here, now, on the floor of the conference.
The floodgates opened. A host of others indicated their support for the idea. Connie suspended the meeting for 10 minutes of talks in the corner about what to do.
She returned 30 minutes later. “Sorry. We have not achieved a consensus. I’m suspending the sitting for more discussions.”
The gavel came down again.
So the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is suspended, and so is the parallel Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. And both on the same issue.
Like every meeting chairman, and especially one presiding over representatives of 192 countries at a conference with a lot of controversial business to consider and limited time in which to do it, Connie Hedegaard’s priority is to get through the agenda as efficiently as she can.
She had just announced her recommendation that private consultations should take place about the shape of any changes to the Kyoto Protocol intended to make decisions taken at the Copenhagen conference binding, with proposals to be brought back in two days’ time, and no-one had jumped up to express dissent.
The words came out reluctantly: “I give the floor to Tuvalu.”
Tuvalu’s representative, who has already become an environmentalists’ hero after his performance yesterday, apologised but said he had indicated his wish to speak before the gavel descended. Private consultations were not good enough. He wanted open discussion - here, now, on the floor of the conference.
The floodgates opened. A host of others indicated their support for the idea. Connie suspended the meeting for 10 minutes of talks in the corner about what to do.
She returned 30 minutes later. “Sorry. We have not achieved a consensus. I’m suspending the sitting for more discussions.”
The gavel came down again.
So the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is suspended, and so is the parallel Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. And both on the same issue.
BLOGGING FROM COPENHAGEN - KEEPING UP TO DATE
Each morning the various groups of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have observer status at the conference organise briefing sessions for their members.
The BINGO meeting is for business and industry; YOUNGO for youth organisations; ENGO for environmental ones; RINGO for research and assorted independent groups; TUNGO for trade unions.
Sadly the well of creativity then dried up. The women and gender non-governmental organisations come together as WOMEN AND GENDER, and the farming ones as FARMERS.
The BINGO meeting is for business and industry; YOUNGO for youth organisations; ENGO for environmental ones; RINGO for research and assorted independent groups; TUNGO for trade unions.
Sadly the well of creativity then dried up. The women and gender non-governmental organisations come together as WOMEN AND GENDER, and the farming ones as FARMERS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
