Day of Climate Action - my last day.

Saturday 6th December

I could only stay for the first week at the UN Climate Conference, so Saturday 6th December was my last day - and the Day of Climate Action. We dressed in clown costumes in the town square, to demonstrate how politicians need to "stop clowning around". It was a fun day with a serious message - if we do not take climate change seriously, millions will suffer.

Although it was sad that I couldn't stay longer at the Conference, I was so glad to have been able to go, to speak to delegates and come away with so much information. In particular, the experience of talking to delegates will be useful in the run-up to Copenhagen. Interesting points included meeting the Russian delegate who denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change. I was inspired by the enthusiasm of the international youth at the conference, but it was unfortunate the meetings couldn't be more inclusive. I was also shocked that even within the UN Climate Conference, which is supposed to represent the world, the EU and US had a huge 'designated area' for delegates, whereas the whole of Africa did not! Money, it seems, still buys a place at the table. How do some national delegations cope with only one delegate when there are so many meetings going on at the same time? Unfortunately some of the countries most affected by climate change are those less represented at the COP. Could funding be used to promote more representation? The issue of climate justice extends to the inequality at the conferences that are supposed to deal with the problem itself. I was also disappointed that when I got home, the UK media did not cover the conference in much depth. It was difficult to work out what was going on, but they should at least have made an effort. The experience did not fill me with optimism, but there is still hope for next year.

The UN Climate Conference concludes - everyone is "waiting for Obama"

Friday 5th December 2008

In the morning, I briefly wrote up my ideas for a successful EU Climate and Energy package. It included the need to auction emission permits, and for a target of 40% cut in EU emissions by 2020 in line with the EU's historical responsibility.

Following this, me and Florent managed to gain access to a closed EU meeting. Of course, we were not supposted to be there, but I noted all information down for the sake of democratic openness and will publish it here. In the LCA debate, the EU were postponing the issue of auctioning. The decision on the Adaptation Fund Board had been described by a UK delegate as a "train smash". The World Bank were apparently acting as a trustee as an "interim measure"! LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) discussions were described by Malta as an "abomination". Malta pointed out we must prevent REDD (Reduction Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries) from "following the lousy rules of LULUCF" and "prevent REDD from becoming like LULUCF". We need clarity on the rules because we cannot say to developing countries "we've got bad rules, you need to do better". Australia argued that we "do need action in REDD".

The spokesperson from Australia, who had been invited to the EU meeting, said that Australia was still making the decision on their target, which would be an emissions cut of at least 25% by 2020, and within the 25 - 40% range. The representative from Civil Society, from the US Climate Action Network, expressed concern that France and the US were co-hosting a reception on Thursday to "say goodbye to the outgoing administration" and that this "looked like a parallel process". He was concerned about undue influence of Bush from "beyond the grave". The 'MEN process' was run primarily by the US but France insisted it was still valuable. They appeared to be "waiting" for the new US Administration. However, they expressed relief that members won't be negotiating with the negotiator Jim Connaughton "unless he gets a job in the Obama Adminstration". The EU meeting ended with a mention that Italy would hold the G8 Presidency next year.

I then attended a side event on the 'Post 2012 technology and finance framework' hosted by the Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, as I had aimed to understand finance at the conference. The speaker said that "international politics is by nature a conservative process". He argued the issue of intellectual property rights needs to be understood. For example, the flexibility of TRIPS could be used to address climate change. The rest of the seminar was not very engaging.

The last side event that I managed to attend was on adaptation. The speaker argued Hurricana Katrina should not have been a surprise, but we discount the future (and the past). He argued that "all societies are in unstable equilbrium... and rest on the strength of early warning systems". For example, who was watching the banks? We seem to spend more time looking at small projects in Africa in order to save a few dollars, than regulating the banks. "Creeping" hazards are especially dangerous, because no government knows how to deal with creeping problems, until they become a crisis. For example, the drying out of the Aral Sea in Central Asia, which could have been prevented.

Finally, we were able to arrange a meeting with the UK's EU Chief negotiator, Ms Droogsba on Friday after an EU meeting had finished. We asked about how the negotiations were going for the EU Climate and Energy package, and she said "not good". They were not moving at all, as nobody wants to proceed now or show their position, before the US policy comes out. The EU package will be decided in January. Everyone seems to be waiting for Obama, and in the interim there was no hope for G20 influence. I asked whether industry lobbying had prevented the auctioning of credits. However, she said there were some positive signs from industry and that the Climate Group and CBI were now supportive of action.

We asked whether there would be an opportunity to move towards concrete policies and measures (such as a carbon tax) rather than 'flexible mechanisms'. However, she said it would be difficult to agree on a tax; the EU had tried it in the 1970's. She admitted the ETS was only half the solution, and would not work on it's own. She praised the new Climate Minister Ed Miliband, and we expressed our enthusiasm about the Climate Bill. Finally we asked whether the "2 degrees of warming" target could be reached. She said it was not sensible to focus on the 2 degree target, it makes people give up. In particular, it won't be achieved so there is not point focusing on it. I came away with the impression she was on-side. However, although she said we need more "positive messages" it was worrying that she believes ultimately the 2 degree target will not be reached. It seems difficult to focus on being "positive" if there will be 2 degrees of warming, and therefore we may hit the climatic tipping point...

UN Climate Conference continues - delegates from Russia to Cyprus...

Thursday 4th December 2008


The first event I went to was a side event on 'innovative financial mechanisms' presented by Poland. It was a 'debt-for-environment' mechanism whereby Poland undertook afforestation and land management in return for debt cancellation. The figures seemed a bit optimistic; the cost of the the programme was £75M and had apparently reduced 12,000M tonnes of CO2 (thus a cost of 0.03Zl per tonne or less than 1p). I was dubious about whether that much had really been acheived for that cost.

Today, I spoke to an interesting Russian delegate for about half an hour. We originally stopped him in the corridor to interview him but he did not wish to be videotaped. Instead, he provided his "off-the-record" views that; 1) He did not believe the IPCC Reports that humans have any role in climate change. 2) We "need to keep the lights on". 3) No technology is safe, even wind energy could be harmful.


I was shocked to hear these views from an official Russian delegate, and quickly wrote them all down. Among his gems of wisdom, he tried to persuade me that the IPCC is "political and can't be trusted". The climate had begun warming in the "middle ages" and then got colder until the 1970's, when the recent warming began. I mentioned Russian's oil and gas economy, and he argued that we "need to keep the lights on". When I mentioned renewable energy, he said with conviction the wind energy caused a dangerous "ultrasound" of 7dB and apparently I should look it up. It shocked me that a Russian delegate at a climate conference was denying the IPCC Reports... Is this their official position or just the personal views of their representative? Either way, very worrying.


I attended a meeting at which Yvo de Boer (chair of the UNFCCC) spoke to civil society. He hoped there will be a draft text by June 2009. He said we are "not entirely operating in a vacuum" and we are "pretty close to having a floor for action in Annex I countries". He argued that the "Kyoto Protocol can be a time saver for Copenhagen". However this implies that an agreement will take longer if we want to fundamentally change the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM would need to be "streamlined and improved". De Boer was cautiously optimistic, but his words did imply that the agreement at Copenhagen would be based on the Kyoto Protocol. Based on the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, I only hope that this does not mean a continuation of the status quo.


De Boer joked he himself had been labelled a 'watermelon'; (green on the outside, red on the inside!) He pointed out that the 2 reasons the US rejected the Kyoto Protocol were just as important today. The financial crisis was mentioned, including the need for a green recovery, and the need to make the Copenhagen agreement "self-financing" via auctioning emission rights etc. If there is no auctioning, how do we get money? He made the frank comment that "business wants predictability, as long as it doesn't apply to me". Responding to a question on risk of a speculative binge in deregulated carbon markets, De Boer said we must "use a binge to sober up". He also said the "sectoral approaches" were another way for business to say "I do what I feel I can do and you guys leave me alone". De Boer's honest answers reminded me that he is not a politician, restrained by the party line. Yet he did say at the beginning that he didn't wish to be re-quoted; since sometimes his honest comments come back to bite him!


Following the mention of 'sectoral approaches', which I knew little about, I caught the end of an EU Side Event on Sectoral Approaches, presented by the European Commission. The South Korean representative made several interesting comments. There is a gap between perception and reality. Annex I (developed countries) have the perception that non Annex-I have a lower efficiency; that is not true with regards to South Korea, which is highly efficient. Annex I also have the perception that increasing energy efficiency will be uncompetitive; that is not true either.


Later that evening, along with Savvas, we spoke to a Cypriot delegate after a meeting on emissions from shipping. However the delegate did not wish to answer any questions on the climate change negotiations, and would only answer questions on shipping. Again, a politician with their hands apparently tied. The civil servant from Cyprus was more open with us, briefly answering our questions about how the EU negotiations were going (not well, she said). Altogether, it was a packed day. I was excited about the possibility of arranging a meeting with the EU Chief Negotiator tomorrow.

The UN Climate Conference Continues...

Wednesday 3rd December

Had a packed day, spending more than 12 hours in the conference centre. The International Youth meeting at the start was exciting as the youth were well organised and cooperative (perhaps even more than the adult delegations). However, the similarity also extends to the amount of bureaucracy in the meetings, and the lack of presence of youth delegates from developing countries.

We printed out our proposal documents after discussion and translation. There was controversy over our proposal that 'per capita' emissions should be included as an additional measure. This issue is very problematic for developing countries since it implies emission cuts at a future date. To be honest, I did not realise that the idea of per capita emission measurements would be so contentious.

The three main demands by Young Friends of the Earth are now as follows:

1. Achieve a binding commitment by Annex I countries for a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions of 40% by 2020 and 100% by 2050.

2. Address Climate Justice. Climate change solutions should not jeopardise developing countries growth.

3. Promote genuine renewable energy solutions . Our definition of renewable energy does not include nuclear, agro-fuels or large hydro.

I attended an interesting Side Event by Greenpeace on their proposal for an Energy Revolution. Their concrete proposal calculated that the target of 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can be acheived through deployment of renewable energy. However the speaker recognised that to acheive the target of 350ppm (to have a good chance of avoiding the climate tipping point) there would need to be 40% less transport. The information was not comforting to say the least. However it was promising to hear that renewables are already cheaper than new coal in the long run. This shows how important it is that infrastructure development takes the right path. The Greenpeace speaker also criticised the top-down planning of the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and suggested something like a feed-in law for developing countries could be more effective.

Later, the Global Environmental Facility side event (with great refreshments and t-shirts) gave information about technology transfer. The speaker from India said there were some issues about licensing and intellectual property, but these were avoided by having a subsidiary company in India and conducting R & D there. Patenting issues may be more difficult for other countries. Another issue is that tech transfer may require knowledge about maintenance otherwise projects will fail in the long term.

Phew... it was a long day. However I did manage to speak to 2 UK delegates. In the corridor, I briefly spoke to a DEFRA member who informed me most of the UK policies for the negotiations were set a few weeks ago. The UK Youth delegation had already spoken to the Chief of Negotiations and heard that UK Policy often comes under that of the EU. However, the EU policy is not set in stone. Infact the 'Fossil of the Day' Award (given by the NGO CAN every day to the most obstructive country) was received by the European Union on Tuesday for 'coming to Poznan without a credible position on financing mitigation and adaption in the global South'!!

UN Climate Conference in Poznan

Tuesday 2nd December
After a 25-hour coach journey through Berlin, I arrived in Poznan, Poland on Monday 1st. Tuesday was exhausting; after registering, gathering materials, and finding the NGO and delegation offices, we finally attended a reception in the EU Pavilion.
I attended one interesting Side Event on ''Carbon Capture and Storage''' organised by the European Commission. A representative from Shell promoted the benefits of CCS Technology, but another speaker admitted that the technology would not be able to contribute to emission cuts before 2020. Members of the audience were dubious, questioning whether there are enough geological sites to store captured CO2. Shell urged for EU funding to be available for demonstrations. I asked a question to the panel: whether limited resources and EU funding would not be better spent on renewable energy technologies that are already tried and tested? Unfortunately the representative from Shell misrepresented my question, and started talking about the economic climate. Another member of the audience questioned whether investing in CCS would tie us into fossil fuel consumption in building new coal plants, before the technology is even ready. The problem is that permission may be given for a new generation of coal plants that are ''capture ready'' with no guarantee that the technology will be fitted. This seems to be contentious subject. I noticed the EU Pavilion is hosting several events this week promoting CCS.
It was an interesting start to the week and fantastic to be in the atmosphere of the United Nations Conference. It was also interesting to see the delegation offices. Most developing countries do not have any designated office space, which contrasts with the large space for Europe and North America.

Could renewable energy be the answer to terrorism and economic crisis?

The environmental benefits of renewable energy technologies are well represented, but not so much notice has been paid to the fact that renewable energy could improve global peace and security. Western countries continue to court the House of Saud, which lies at the root of Al Qaeda’s acts of terrorism, and the resulting expensive war on terror. Our energy dependency lies at the crux of a dangerous dependence on the finite resources of some of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. Renewable energy could lead us away from this insecure dependence, and simultaneously improve our economy.

The history of the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia goes back to 1945 when Roosevelt sat aboard the naval ship the USS Quincy with King Saud and formed a tacit alliance. The alliance helped to build the economy during the decades when cars and plastics were booming. However, there was a dark side – the “oil curse” which also struck countries such as Nigeria and Venezuela, who failed to grow and develop in an equitable way despite having such abundant natural resources. The alliance between the West and the oil-rich countries can be seen as more of a deathly embrace when we consider its long-term climatic consequences.

The Iraq War has already been extremely expensive and Joseph Stiglitz has documented that it the final costs may be in excess of $2 Trillion, with unforeseen economic repercussions. Moreover, the oil output from Iraq since the War has decreased and oil prices have soared. Rising oil prices have had, and are likely to continue to have, a negative impact upon the global economy in number of ways which include raising the price of transport, industry and the average loaf of bread.

Ultimately, we will have to shift to resources that will last if we want to continue to travel around and use energy-intensive technology. Ironically renewable energy technologies can actually save money, which may be a better long-term investment than putting your money in a bank! For example, Solar heating will save 70% off the hot water bills of most houses and will pay for itself after a few years, saving on household bills from then on. The story is repeated for most forms of renewable technology fittings such as wind and solar electricity which can be sold back to grid. When you make the calculation, the return of investment from renewables is actually more than the interest you would get from putting money into a bank.

Without even mentioning the environment, there are sound economic and security reasons for switching to renewable energy forms. Dealing with slow climate change will only become more expensive the longer we leave it, particularly if the economy is stumbling and people have other priorities. If we are prepared, we can make arrangements. Investing or buying into renewable technology will create a virtuous cycle as demand will bring down prices, but someone needs to start the ball rolling. It could be you.

Did you know....

The state of Texas has a bigger carbon footprint than the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa. Texas has a population of 23 million whereas Africa has a population of 720 million.

Sub-Saharan Africans have an average per capita carbon footprint of 0.83 tons/CO2 whereas in the US this figure is 20 tons/CO2 and rising. This means that the average American is twenty times as responsible for emissions than the average African. And yet, the Bush Administration claimed that there must be binding target for developing countries before they would accept any target. This seems to be a carefully calculated ploy to avoid responsibility, as without looking at the figures you could assume that it is "fair" for all countries to have targets. Yet it is not morally feasible to expect countries who have not caused the problem to have to deal with it.

Moreover, the policy under Clinton, now taken up by the EU, was to encourage the use of "emissions trading" which would apparently reduce the cost of action on climate change. I may reduce the cost, but will also reduce the effectiveness. Especially since there is the prospect of "hot air" credits for Russian 'reduction' of emissions which happened in the early 1990's due to the collapse of Communism.

The institutions to deal with climate change have not resulted in any actual change in policy because despite the 'targets', global emissions have continued to rise. Science has called for rapid action which does not seem to be happening. Deforestation and fossil fuel use continues, driven by economic growth. Yet many 'developed' countries still insist upon 'growth'... Is this necessary? Does GDP really need to rise in countries that are already 'developed'? Is it really an accurate measure of well-being?

Einstein said ''no problem can be solved by the same thinking that created it''. Some have seen climate change as a commercial opportunity which needs technological fixes, and governments are trying to create a 'market' for carbon emissions. But by putting an economic value on a natural substance, are we just continuing the same ideology that got us into this mess?