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...

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'!!

Bali Summit ends in Deal

A momentous event appears to have happened today as the UN Climate Change Convention at Bali ended as the draft know as the 'Road Map' was finally accepted by the United States. This is a great surprise for many who thought a deal would not be reached. However, the talks were still marked by the opposition of the US to the position of many other countries as they have not ratified Kyoto. The atmosphere became heated with particular resentment shown towards the US, and it seemed as though the US was actually embarrassed by the deep unpopularity of their position into changing their stance.

An interesting a damning comment was made by South Africa, who argued that the commitment and flexibility shown by developing countries was not being recognised. The South African delegate also said that the G77's new commitments were not being included or represented fully in the draft. The subtext of this was that the US was not recognising the flexibility they were showing. Prior to this the US delegation said that they would still not accept the draft because the commitments of developing countries were not included.

When the US said that the draft was still not acceptable to them, there was a chorus of booing. This was a show of an unprecendented level of resentment against the US, in the context of an international negotiation, and shows how isolated the US had become. Only the Saudi Arabian delegation appeared to show support for the US when they expressed caution about the document.

Ugauda made an begging appeal to the US "to agree with us" because they had listened to their strongest views in consultation, and "we feel that their interests have also been taken into consideration". Tanzania made an impassioned plea to their neighbour sitting to their right, the US, because they had the power to block progress and in their hands lies the "power to wreck the progress that has been made thus far".

The media hero of the Bali conference was Papua New Guinea, with the crucial comment; "There is an old saying, if you're not willing to lead, then get out of the way". He asked the US, "We asked for your leadership, we seek your leadership, but if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way." There was exuberant applause.

Minutes later, the US was back on the speakers list to say that they were "heartened" by the comments by developing countries, and "we believe we have a shared vision and we want a road map forward, we want a success here in Bali.. we want to be part of a road map, to do our part." They went on. They were "committed to giving the views of others very serious consideration, especially that of Japan, Canada, the European Union, to lead to a halving of global emissions by 2050, as well as those of our developing country partners as we enter this discussion."

On mitigation, "measurable, reportable, verifiable, nationally appropriate" are the new catch-phrases. The US reassured South Africa they were "very committed to this effort" and "just wants to really ensure that we all will act together". Finally they US delegate ended with their decision to the Chairman that "we will go forward and join consensus in this today". The applause was vigorous.

It appears that the US was finally convinced by the developing countries that there would be engagement. Or was it that in the heat of the negotiation, the US delegation went further than the Bush Administration would have liked? Perhaps the US delegates were thinking of the impact of their decisions and wanted to place a footprint in history, in the effort to address climate change. The negotiations reached a direct and dramatic conclusion.

I recommend you to look at the video footage of Bali on the news or the web, because even though it is slow-paced it is pleasing to see the international delegates finally agree and speaking with such blunt honesty, for example the comment by Papua New Guinea. Perhaps the problems of our planet can be solved if we all sit down together and talk. Of course, though, it does depend on the resulting action.