Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Emma's KlimaForum Wednesday part 2

the continuation of my earlier post entitled "Klima Forum":


Following the talk and discussion on the topic of transportation systems, I attended a larger presentation entitled "Growth is Good" -- a phrase generally taken with a grain of salt when applied to the global climate condition. The speaker was Dr. Michael Braungart, advocate of the cradle to cradle design. His first key point was that the problem we find ourselves faced with is not an energy problem, but a materials management problem, and that the only way to have zero emissions is to not exist. He continued to explain cradle to cradle, as a design practice that, in the production and design of consumer products, considers how integrated recyclables are rendered disposable (from being individually recyclable) when meshed for production, so rather than send what could be recycled to the land fill, cradle-to-cradle keeps plastics segregated from metals and papers enough so that when the product begins to fall apart, the individual components can be extracted and recycled through other products longer than if the materials were integrated. Dr Braungart stressed the idea of cradle-to-cradle as buying the use of the product, because pieces of the (for example) chair that was purchased would b e returned to the producer and reused in another product. He also was careful to point out that through what is widely considered the ecologically responsible habit of buying recycled paper products, for example, if environmental toxins were used to produce the initial product then all the consumer is doing is "up-cycling" -- re-using the toxins. Here I would stop to think critically. I am a student and find it hard to get away from using paper; I'm being told that the 90% post-consumer printer paper I use for class essays is bad -- what's the most ecologically friendly thing I could do? (of course it's always nice when professors allow for Internet submissions, but...). I didn't raise my hand to ask, but an answer I would expect to hear would be-- what? use guilt free paper... does that exist? At this point, where we depend on paper and other materials that are not produced in this cradle-to-cradle manner, I put forth we should just try to reduce our demand for the products (by double siding printing etc), but when possible try to utilize so called "up-cycled" products (over virgin-products) since although they may be re-using toxins and consuming energy to produce, they at least reduce demand for the not recycled version of the product.

Following the talk on cradle-to-cradle, I attended a briefing of the day's activities at the Bella Center. We were initially told that the Danish environmental minister (Connie Hedegaard) had resigned, although at the time that was all we were told. According to news since then, she has hopes for taking on a bigger role in the climate change solution process. Also, since the day was Wednesday, we were briefed on the protest that happened at the Bella Center -- particular groups were banned because of past trouble, police kept people inside the Center from joining those on the outside as planned. However the protest was largely considered a success by those at Klimaforum: it demonstrated how the average citizens felt at the prospect of no results (angry!) and it encouraged repression by the Danish police (it was a big enough action to merit arrest). The briefing then transformed into a time where people who were at or near the protest came up to speak about what they experienced. (I paraphrase what was reported): "The demonstration was labeled as illegal, although it was largely non-violent on the part of the protesters." "It was beautifully organized and executed, we really made a statement." "It was crazy, people getting tear gassed...!". I was hoping that the briefing would be more of an objective summary of the happenings of the day, but I found it to be severely slanted to what the protesters wanted to hear -- only really talking about the protest, not at all the discussions that ensued or even the topics of conversation in the Center. The session ended with an announcement of actions to come.

What's a little troubling to me is that the people of KlimaForum never really seemed to be presenting solutions. There was a lot of anger at the system the U.N. was using, but aside from the actions against that, Klimaforum (to me) didn't seem to be constructively addressing the global issue either. I agree that a "solution" to the climate change problem is in bringing things back to local scales, but now that corporations have gone transnational and pollution etc will always be transboundary, international cooperation is necessary. I'm aware of how idealist it seems, 192 countries working together realizing that they are each a part of the closed system called Earth, but if it were plausible climate change would be less of a problem. I say "solution" in quotes because there have been too many years of exploitation and pollution to ever be able to pretend that climate change is not a constant issue. What Klimaforum did do was to promote awareness about issues related to climate change -- the effects of sea level rise on small island nations, how food waste is associated with green house gasses etc.

Peace&Trees,

~Emma Fujii

Monday, December 28, 2009

Hannah's initial impressions

On Saturday December 19th after 14 hours of post finals traveling, deprived of adequate sleep or food I was remarkably full of energy flying into the Denmark airport. I was going to witness one of the most historic conferences of our generation. For the past several weeks the majority of my thoughts were consumed with visions of COP15—a global delegation with 119 heads of state discussing various solutions to the current climate crisis. Finally I was here—extremely energetic and a tad overly optimistic. As an accredited observer I had the privilege to sit in plenary, debriefing, and side events all concerning climate change policies. After finding our bags in the airport three other peers and I went to get accredited at the Bella center where the conference was being held. With windmills as the backdrop, illuminated with climate activists and environmental delegates, to me, the Bella center represented a Mecca for change in the current systems disturbing our climate. We bustled through vegetarian advocates and security personal to find our place in the line to get accredited. Standing in line, there was a distinct fervor in the air; people from all over the world were brought together because of this global crisis. The energy inside me accelerated with the energy vibrating from the Bella center.

Embarking on this trip, I was specifically interested in the policies being formed in the food and agriculture sector. My interest in this field was fueled Professor David Cleveland’s World Agriculture class. This class taught me the skills to critically analyze differing viewpoints on any issue. This method allowed me to think critically about my own values and especially the assumptions I make about the world on a day-to-day basis. It was gratifying to be able to apply these skills to how I viewed the climate conference. While sitting in on debriefings and panel discussions I attempted to understand the assumptions, methods, and speculations of various parties in order to unravel the validity of an argument. For example the first day I attended a debriefing session about the role agriculture and the forestry sector plays in the climate crisis. In this session, delegates stated that food security, a growing global concern, must be taken into consideration when forming policies for the climate crisis. The panelists continually referred to the world food crisis as a problem of food insecurity rather than food sovereignty and inequiaty over the power distribution of food systems. This distinction is extremely important to people who feel that they have no power or voice in how or where their food is grown. In class we referred to these differing perspectives as mainstream versus alternative. When one talks about the “mainstream” viewpoint of the World Food crisis it is largely the stance that we must increase food security by producing more food—a top-down approach. The alternative viewpoint, on the other hand, describes the solution to the World Food Crisis by granting food sovereignty to those countries that deserve to control their own food system and have equal power to resources to produce more food.

This divide, between mainstream and alternative approaches, was more evident to me as the conference continued. Probably the most extreme distinction between these two perspectives was between the two venues for COP15; the Bella Center, the official conference center where 119 heads of states (consisting of the G8 and G77) met in order to draft up a climate change agreement versus the KlimaForum which was more of an alternative viewpoint recognizing the importance of bottom up approach to this crisis. After attending conferences and lectures at many different venues I ended up frustrated by this evident divide that inhibited any real policies to be formed. In my opinion, these divisions are the roots of our failure to form a binding agreement at Copenhagen. Definition of the climate problem differs greatly between these different perspectives. It is imperative that these differing perspectives find some common ground in defining the problem. Without attempting to see eye-to-eye—these different perspectives are unable to work together to define the problem and thus it is impossible to implement a solution for this present climate crisis. Although my optimism for a binding agreement quickly dwindled after the first few days of the conference, my hope for some (perhaps minor) change in how we approached climate change as a global community did not. The discourse both within the Bella center and around Copenhagen during the conference between people from all over the world is what provided me with hope that change is possible.

For me the conference encapsulated many different feelings. At times I was so thrilled to be sitting in a room with leaders from Uganda, Canada, India, and Australia. Other times I was frustrated at the inefficiencies of the system where I felt like little was being accomplished due to the clear disagreements between various groups. As a student, I have little voice in the global policies being drafted but I do have the ability to act sustainably on an individual level and encourage others around me to do the same. The Copenhagen Accord, while not a binding agreement, is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will cause a snowball affect in mitigation and adaptation policies being implemented to reduce the effects of climate change, globally. I feel so lucky to have been able to witness this worldwide delegation and remain hopeful that if we are environmentally conscious individually and locally, our efforts will have some effect globally.

--Hannah Wright

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Who puts what's on the table?

The protests outside the Bella Center seem to be on the minds of many people, but I generally notice a disconnect between the protests and the criticisms of COP15 we've been exposed to. Why are they protesting? This seems to be a question that few seem to be discusssing. The general slogans are out there: "System Change, not Climate Change," "Climate Justice Now," "There is no Planet B," "Politicians Talk, Leaders Act." Do these strike a tone in the leaders that are trying to save the planet? I tend to think not...

Yesterday we had the pleasure of speaking with a number of individuals from the California Delegation, including members of Cal EPA and a nonprofit called the Climate Registry. I had a conversation with Rachel Tornek, the Senior Policy Manager for the Climate Registry. She spoke about her recent project developing a US methodology consistent with the UNFCCC methodology for coal mine methane reductions.

The basic idea with coal methane reductions is to take methane that normally seeps from coal mines and either capture and burn it for energy, or at least flare it on site in order to turn the methane (a powerful GHG) into CO2, a less powerful greenhouse gas. Essentially, the heating effect of a standard release of the methane is much greater than the flaring/capture, so this practice may count as a "Clean Development Mechanism." That is, the coal industry could "offset" some of its emissions by enacting this practice.

The immediate problem here is that this still releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In response, it's less than what would have been released, so we count the savings as an "offset." Of course, we may easily ask, why not simply require this practice as a regulation on coal mining, rather than rewarding companies to (partially) clean up the mess they're making?

But there's a much more subtle question that needs to be asked: what role is coal supposed to play in a clean energy economy? It's not a big secret that coal itself is ridiculously dirty. Nor has there been a massive cover up of the fact that clean coal will take upwards of 20 years to become viable, and that the technology itself will be expensive once it is viable.

So, while the UNFCCC and COP15 discuss the details of keeping coal on the table and reducing the carbon footprint associated with the dirtiest of dirty technologies, people who challenge the need for coal and argue that we can ween ourselves off of coal are off the agenda.

It seems quite clear that the average American or Westerner would say that "clean coal" is dubious public relations term, and that the average American believes we should invest heavily in (clean) alternative energy. Why is this not reflected in the UN negotiations, in offsets, or in the American political discussion?

It's here that Ms. Tornek offered a realistic and fairly obvious analysis. She suggested that "certain interests" have more of an influence on public policy and international negotiations than public opinion. It's quite clear that she means the coal lobby. Is anyone surprised by this fact?

Certainly not, but people are surprised when protesters challenge these assumptions, parading down the street with bullhorns, cloth signs, and dreadlocks. These people are quite often viewed as "rabble-rousers," or "counterproductive."

If you ask me, the more counterproductive elements during these talks are the presumed legitimacy of coal and its offsets, as well as the moneyed interests that flood the branches of governments and international institutions. To take a line from the protestors, we may face the following dilemma: system change or climate change. What did Americans vote for when they voted for "Change"?

Perhaps more importantly, how will our present youths judge our choice when they're older?

Monday, December 21, 2009

Common Sense -- Indigenous Wisdom

Hello, this is Natasha Joyce Weidner, back from an illuminating week at COP15. The highlight of my week was a lecture I attended at Klimaforum called "The Future of Climate Policy for Indigenous Peoples of North America," given by two Native American women from the Indigenous Environmental Network and the Black Mesa Water Coalition.

From a very young age, I've been enchanted by Native American culture. I idolize and almost envy the Miwok people who used to live in my home region, for their ability to live in harmony on a tiny strip of peninsula for more than 8,000 years. And I often ask myself: "What is the secret to such a sustainable society? What sort of ancient wisdom can our 'modern, Western' society learn from the Miwok and other indigenous people?"

The two Native American women at Klimaforum clarified for me: "Indigenous Wisdom" is simply common sense. Caring for the land you depend on is common sense. Living within the closed-loop cycles of nature, without wastes, is common sense. Working with a community, not every man for himself - that's common sense.

The first speaker was Wahleah Johns, a Navajo woman who lives on the Navajo-Hopi reservation in Black Mesa, Arizona. Since 1965 Peabody Western Coal Company has been operating two strip mines on Black Mesa, which together constitute one of the most extensive strip mining operations in the United States, and which provide power for the entire Southwest. Each year Peabody Coal Company pumps more than 4,500 acre-feet of pristine Navajo and Hopi drinking water from the Black Mesa aquifer, and also dumps chemicals and other byproducts from coal production into the air and groundwater on the reservation. Cancer rates in the region are well above average.

Wahleah and other Navajo and Hopi activists are fighting the coal company in court, but their fight is made difficult by the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has no jurisdiction over tribal lands. Did you know that? Because I didn't, and I was shocked. Under US law, the coal company may pollute tribal lands, but the EPA does not have the power to protect or regulate tribal lands. You always hear about Native American oppression like it's history, but it's obviously happening today. The indigenous people of Black Mesa are unjustly bearing the devastating effects of coal mining, and few of the benefits - many residents on the reservation do not have power or running water in their homes.

Both Wahleah and the second speaker, a Hidatsa /Arikara / Mandan indian named Kandi Mossett, spoke about the painful reality of carbon offsets and market-based solutions. In Black Mesa, Wahleah said, the coal company has offered to appease the native people by shipping in desalinated ocean water to make up for the depleted aquifer. But of course, that is not a real solution, because shipping and desalinating water takes an enormous amount of energy, and the byproducts of desalinization are environmentally destructive. Not to mention the fact that the Hopi and Navajo people consider the Black Mesa aquifer a sacred entity. Furthermore, to offset its emissions, Peabody has invested millions of dollars to experiment with carbon sequestration on Black Mesa - yet it has refused to invest in renewable energy. This roundabout approach to reducing emissions simply doesn't make sense.

Kandi Mossett spoke about another roundabout approach - REDD, the program to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing countries. The basic scheme of REDD is this: developed nations offset their emissions by paying developing nations not to deforest. Besides the fact that offsetting is a short-term solution, this sounds okay, right? I thought so, before I read into the details of the plan. First of all, REDD does not provide money to developing countries - it provides money to the logging companies within those developing countries. In many cases, the logging companies might not even be based in the developing countries in which they operate. Secondly, in order to "preserve" forests, logging companies kick indigenous people off of their lands - indigenous people who have been living sustainably in the forests for thousands of years. Logging companies also get money for planting monocultures in former forests, because these qualify as carbon sinks. Meanwhile, developed countries feel they can continue to emit disproportionally high amounts of greenhouse gases, because they are "offsetting" emissions. Indigenous communities across the globe are calling REDD a false solution.

REDD is part of the new, growing "carbon market" - basically, a system that applies economic value to carbon emissions, and allows such emissions to be bought, sold, and traded. Wahleah said that when her 80-year old Navajo grandmother learned that essentially the air is being bought and sold, she just couldn't understand it. The Navajo believe that nothing in nature can be owned, because every human being is intricately connected to everything in nature. Sounds like common sense to me.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

COP15: Week 2 in Review

With Saturday's arrival of the remaining 21 student delegates from UCSB, our climate team reached full force. Ready to deploy our expertise, represent the voice of American students on the international level, and soak up all that we could from an historic convergence of world leading politicians, business people, scientists, advisors, and activists, we descended upon the conference center. While the line outside was daunting, especially given the heavy snow that blanketed the scene, our fortitude was unwavering.

Those of us able to beat the crowds Monday had the chance to watch Steven Chu, Nobel laureate in physics and Secretary of the US Department of Energy, unveil a plan in conjunction with Japan, Sweden, Australia, Italy, Korea, Germany, and Norway to finance the development and deployment of renewable energy and efficiency technologies across the globe. This endeavor, termed Climate REDI (Renewable Energy Deployment Initiative), seems to be a step in the right direction for reshaping our collective energy future. Chu's speech, while somewhat thick with rhetoric, nonetheless inspired in me a confidence that though the US has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we are still engaging leaders from all over the world to work together for innovative and cost-effective solutions. Only time will tell the extent of this commitment.

After Monday's delays, a quota system was enforced on NGO delegates to limit capacity overflow. While somewhat discouraging at first, this proved to be an opportunity in disguise for our group, as our limited access motivated us to find alternative ways to engage the climate movement. Klima Forum, the people's response to the bureaucratic impasse between governments of the developed global north and those in the developing and least developed south that impedes the acceptance of an ambitious treaty, was an excellent avenue for such engagement. This conference explored alternatives to reform within the capitalist system, instead suggesting the need for deeper, paradigmatic and behavioral change to effectively address global climate change. The stark contrast of opinion, worldview, and approach between the COP and the Klima Forum provided a unique opportunity for personal value assessment, and will be an integral focus during UCSB's Climate Conference this spring.

I find myself more aligned with the systematic procedures defined by parties to the United Nations in the Framework Convention on Climate Change introduced at Earth Summit in 1992. While I realize that the task of developing an effective solution by utilizing market forces within existing political frameworks is daunting, especially given that it is these very models and frameworks that are largely responsible for the crisis at hand, I too understand how deeply these norms are ingrained within the human psyche. I am deeply intrigued by the arguments for an overhaul of global society and a reversion to egalitarianism and localized ways of life, but at the same time have trouble foreseeing a revolutionary break from the current systems and institutions that govern civilization. Call me cynical, but I truly believe widespread systemic change must start at the top, through government policy and business innovation.

This is not to discount the power of the grassroots. On the contrary, I believe organized activism will play an integral role in motivating the systemic shift discussed above, for it is the voice of the public, the global constituency, that shapes the political dialogue. In a functioning democratic society, it is the aggregated voice of the masses that appoints decision-makers and directs the discourse. The key is establishing the public political will to further mainstream the climate issue and effectively drive solution-based thinking from our leaders. This is where we, the youth, are empowered to effect change.

Thus, it will be the convergence of interests from the institutions at the top and the mobilized public, a product of grass root organization, at the bottom, that will generate an effective and- importantly- politically and economically realistic solution to the climate crisis. Unilateral action by any single group or societal rung simply won't do.

While the outcome of the negotiations was not the binding outcome many hoped for, the resolve demonstrated by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the final days of negotiation to engage major developing countries like China, India, and Brazil in order to at last begin to bridge the North-South chasm that has until now precluded an effective international agreement was very promising. While I would have liked to see more substance from the Copenhagen Accord, I cautiously see the outcome of COP15 as a success, and believe we as a global community have taken at least a small step toward an ambitious solution. Post-Copenhagen negotiations in preparation for COP16 in Mexico City next year will make or break the outcome. Time is truly running out.


-Nick Allen

Klima Forum

The city of Copenhagen was truly alive with the spirit of resolutions to global climate change and related issues and solutions. Within walking distance of downtown Copenhagen, a "People's Climate Summit" known as KlimaForum was taking place. (Their website: http://www.klimaforum09.org). The conference featured speakers from around the world, from Green politicians like Marina Silva (former Environment Minister of Brazil) and Elizabeth May (Canadian Green Party leader and former Director of the Canadian Sierra Club) to Cradle to Cradle entrepreneur Michael Braungart to community leaders who have started organizations to combat particular aspects of climate change. In addition to the speakers, Klimaforum also hosted exhibits, film screenings, and briefings from the COP.

On Wednesday, I began in a talk by Selina Juul who, upon learning about the damage of food waste on a global scale and how it contributes to the climate crisis, began a group called "Stop Wasting Food" (www.stopspildafmad.dk). According to her information, an appreciable amount of green house gasses (GHGs) are emitted by the production of food that gets wasted. She also said that if everyone were to reduce food waste to zero, it would have the CO2 impact of removing one of four cars from the road! Selina suggested that the reasons why people waste food are because of a lack of knowledge around things like left overs and portion size, a normalized "use and throw away" culture, and a lack of planning, responsibility and respect. A couple of thought provoking issues her presentation led me to think about were with regards to food packaging and trips to the grocery store. Selina suggested that food waste could be reduced by reducing food package size -- i.e. single people living alone (buying food for one) would waste less food by purchasing food in a size they can consume before it goes bad. However this begs the question, wouldn't that raise the plastic to food ratio, making it more packaging intensive? It's better for plastic packaging to buy in big bags, but if that leads to food waste because you can't consume all of the product before it goes bad -- what's the solution?! Selina would point towards the food packing industry to develop a more sustainable packaging system. As for transportation, Selina and her Stop Wasting Food group promotes limiting what you purchase per trip to the store based on how much you can eat before it goes bad. This would lead to making more trips to the market, which may not be so bad in societies where walking/biking/busing to the store is normative, but in America where most people drive, wouldn't this lead to more car trips and thereby more pollution related to transportation? Food for thought.

My next event at Klimaforum was a brief talk and film screening by meteorologist, Jesper Theilgaard. He stressed the importance of H2O, specifically as a green house gas and as an ingredient for disaster when crossed with heat. With his background in understanding weather, he was able to explain the energy transfer in calories of water as it changes from a gas to a liquid (approx 600cal/g) and how this, in combination with extra heat leads to hurricanes. When solar heat meets the ocean, the result is water vapor, as more solar heat is added to the equation, the pressure builds. He also spoke to vaporous water leading to drought. Following his talk, Jesper screened a film called "Age of Stupid." The film was set in 2050, an age of drought and devastation. The viewer has the perspective of inside a computer used by the narrator to research "causes of climate change" and "symptoms that climate change was happening." As he picks particular items from the lists, short clips are shown of melting ice caps, flooding islands, etc. I was not able to watch the whole film, but it definitely seems worth looking into.

I left the film early to attend a talk on transportation systems by Initiative Transport Europe. The presentation focused on the relative differences and impacts between different modes of transportation. The talk turned into a discussion as we explored what a minimal impact (transportation-wise) town would be like. First came the issue of reducing need/demand by centralized living and accessibility of non-emitting transportation like bikes and walking. Then how traveling patterns can be adjusted through relative location and how to mitigate or reduce emission impacts.

More on Emma's Wednesday at Klimaforum to follow in a later post.

Peace&Trees,
Emma Fujii

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Solutions Rift

There is a widening divide between what is happening in the United Nations-sponsored talks and what most people believe we need in the new international treaty if we wish to effectively address global warming. After absorbing the agitated atmosphere inside KlimaForum and the perspectives of the activists there, it's becoming increasingly apparent to me that the deal-drafters across town are not only ignoring the science of climate change, but also discussing climate "solutions" that might actually add to inequality and tragedy associated with climate instability.


Last night environmentalist and 350.org founder Bill McKibben made it very clear that in order to ensure the survival of civilization, we must limit carbon in the atmosphere to 350 parts-per-million. There is no negotiating with this figure, because, as he said, physics and nature do not negotiate. The science has shown this is the upper limit for survival, so this is the number that must be written into the text of any serious document. At present, politicians are considering limiting carbon to 450 ppm, which simply will not work for us. And, according to McKibben, if a text were created today given the current emissions reduction pledges on the table, by 2100 our atmosphere would stabilize at around 770 parts-per-million, more than twice the livable limit. If we are to create an agreement that seeks to ensure human survival, must we not base it on the science that will ensure human survival? To do anything else seems to defeat the purpose of the summit in the first place.


Nigerian activist Nimmo Bassey and various indigenous peoples talked today about the possible inclusion of REDD, CDM and other financing schemes in the treaty and what would these would mean for their communities. REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, and CDM is the Clean Development Mechanisim, a way for rich countries to offset their harmful emissions by financing projects in developing nations. Both of these projects look great on paper, seemingly ambitious methods for tackling climate change in the regions most vulnerable to and least able to cope with the changing climate. CDM was part of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and both CDM and REDD are being debated in the COP15 plenary as I write.


The activists speaking this afternoon painted a dark picture of these programs, claiming they are merely ways for corporations to profit under the guise of doing good. They claim these projects continue "business as usual," exactly what we need to avoid. To effect real change, they argue, we must think beyond the existing frameworks of capitalism and globalization. We can no longer ground the revolutionary thinking we need in the paradigms that got us into this mess in the first place. In other words, market-based solutions are the last thing we need.


At KlimaForum, Naomi Klein, noted author, journalist, and activist, urged everyone to join the Reclaim Power march that will be held tomorrow. This will be a demonstration surrounding the Bella Center to raise awareness for the people's demands. One group may even attempt to break into the center and turn it into a People's Assembly, though I am doubtful this will succeed. The police are cracking down at every turn. Last night, demonstrators were tear-gassed in the streets.


Hopefully the dawn brings a peaceful, productive protest that will show the decision-makers how much the people really care.


-Andrew Dunn

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Lines and Learning

Greetings all,

In the process of getting accredited at the Bella Center, I have been blown away by how many people are truly interested and passionate about the discussions going on inside. Standing in line outside of the Bella Center I have met NGO observers from Ohio, England, Japan, Vietnam and many more. I have also learned about the processes involved in entering a conference of this magnitude.

Long lines are inevitable– but with the right approach– they, too, can be productive.

Peace&Trees,
Emma Fujii

Adaptation Funds: An Issue of Equity

Hey all,

During my first day at the UN Conference, I was able to sit in on a few discussions and presentations regarding the issue of adaptation funds. These funds represent a transfer of wealth from developed to developing nations to help impoverished people of the world adapt and cope more readily with climate change. Funds are used to provide fresh water when continual droughts caused by climate warming lead to insecurity, or food when these same droughts lead to the desertification of lands once used for agriculture. The issue being addressed throughout was not whether these funds would be provided (which is, of course, still an undetermined issue), but rather to whom funds would be allocated to.

The most vulnerable communities are the hardest hit by climate change. This includes poor communities with marginal access to needed resources and those who live off their land directly, especially indigenous people. Seeing as how the livelihood of these communities is at stake, these projects, funded through organizations such as CARE, the main advocated for financial transfer, focus on ensuring that mechanisms get the funds to the communities that need them most.

Throughout the presentation, CARE argued that the most vulnerable communities need to be prioritized when making funding decisions, and that they also need to have a say in what they spend this funding on. They focus on all needs being taken into account, as well as what can be dealt with and what cannot.

Also featured was the plight of people in the most vulnerable communities, areas where financial assistance is needed now. In Zimbabwe, for example, the capacity of the provincial government to undertake adaptation projects was examined, with a specific look at the needs of the communities in the worst shape. In Nepal, extensive training has been help to help officials act in the best interest of their people. Ghana, through Community Action Planning, has undertaken community empowerment projects to ensure all were able to articulate their needs, and more importantly, t0 translate them into planning measures.

The most effective push for community development and empowerment is seen in Tigray, Ethiopia, where the issue of water insecurity has been addressed by institutional collaboration and investment to improve water harvesting techniques. The vulnerable communities of the area are prone to frequent drought that is only worsened by climate change. Through water harvesting projects, these communities learned to irrigate, use water more efficiently and in a sustainable way, and improve agricultural yield.

These presentations were of vital importance. We need to understand not only the issue of climate change, but also the substantial effect it has on already marginalized communities– those with the smallest carbon footprint that are the most at risk. For me, the idea of adaptation funds is new, and it was interesting to see how this is being addressed in international negotiations like this. I feel we need to look not only at how we stabilize the climate system, but also how we bring stability to the impoverished and vulnerable nations of this world. We must not leave the least developed countries out of the solution.

-Tiffany Mayville

COP15: A Political Perspective

Day 8 of the UNFCCC

Despite the heavy snow, Tuesday—Day 8 of the UN Conference on Climate Change– brought a glimmer of hope in the quest to achieve a multi-lateral climate treaty between the 192 parties to the Climate Convention. The G77– a negotiating block representing 130 of the least developed nations– returned to talks after walking out early Monday morning in an attempt to strong-arm Western countries into contributing more funding to developing countries for climate adaptation. While today developing countries contribute more than 50% of the global carbon emissions, the Venezuelan Prime Minister commented that the current problem of climate change was not caused by current emissions, but by 150 years of industrialization in the North. The developing countries, too, he argues, have the right grow and prosper.

As these events unfolded at the conference, the UCSB delegation struggled to keep up with both the language of the conference and the fast-paced and often overwhelming atmosphere. Most of us arrived here Saturday evening and quickly learned how to keep warm while waiting to gain access to the conference. After registration, small groups broke off and spent Saturday and Sunday exploring the multitude of side exhibits offered all over the city. Highlights included the elaborate Hopenhagen Square– a central plaza that displayed a giant illuminated virtual world and a large Christmas tree with cycle-powered lights, several technology and art showcases describing local and national efforts towards innovating sustainability from around the world, and an electric car show which showcased new ride-share electric cars that were compact, affordable, and clean. The events displayed an innovative side of COP15 that does not garner much international media attention, but will play an important role nonetheless.

Monday marked our first full day of participation in the proceedings of the conference, and, unfortunately, a dismal and complicated day of negotiations. The first meeting I attended was a Plenary session of the Annex I signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Despite arriving 30 minutes early, a severe delay, a room change, and the above-mentioned Boycott of negotiations by the G77 countries set the stage for an impasse.

On a lighter note, later in the day I had the opportunity to hear the Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, his Undersecretary, Christina Johnson, and several leaders of the developed nations discuss their collaboration on the newly proposed Climate Renewable and Efficiency Deployment Initiative (Climate REDI), which seems a promising strategy for bringing innovative energy technologies to the developing world.



The progressive move by the US enlightened my position on our country's stance on climate change. Prior to this conference, I was under the assumption that our lack of participation and cooperation in UN negotiations around climate change meant a lack of recognition of climate change as a serious and time-sensitive issue. With this ambitious effort, however, the United States has taken first steps in showing the world that our government does have an interest, albeit a small one to date, in multilateral climate change initiatives. Many delegates do not share my optimism, however, and looked on with disdain at the lack of international focus on prominent issues such as deforestation, oceanic changes, and environmental justice.



This pessimism was particularly distinguished at the the YOUNGO meeting, which brought together youth leaders from around the world. The purpose of these daily meetings and the daily events held by the Youth Leaders was to discuss proposals set forth by the officially recognized youth delegation to the United Nations. The proposals focus on several issues, from global days of fasting in solidarity with the nations most harmed by climate change, increased transparency in the negotiations, and on the reality that today's youth will inherit this earth in whatever state decision makers leave it for us.

The global youth will settle for nothing less than a comprehensive plan that includes young people in the language of any future proposals and treaties. YOUNGO released its official statement today, which was distributed to individual delegates.

The last few days have been very fast paced and there is still plenty more to report on. Stay tuned for further updates.

Cheers from Copenhagen.

-Michael Hewitt

Monday, December 14, 2009

Another World

Sunday. Jet-lag had my room-group sleepy, but once awake we were out the door and back in the insane excitement of a town absolutely buzzing with activism. Some features to share:

The square next to City Hall holds an enormous floating globe with streaming 3-D video projection featuring news updates and climate change facts. The effect is quite staggering.

A temporary museum set up by the government shows Copenhagen’s energy conservation and efficiency projects, and highlights several “future cities”– places like London, Los Angeles, Jakarta, and Mexico City– that are investing in massive sustainable infrastructure improvements, like two-story bicycle parking garages.

The Hopenhagen campaign, which promotes eco-friendly companies and business approaches to solving climate change, has plastered the city with billboards. Their message of hope can be found at bus stops, inside the metro stations and on the sides of buildings throughout the city.

In one plaza, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has shipped in a massive block of ice to demonstrate climate warming. As the block slowly melts away, a polar bear skeleton is revealed. WWF is also exhibiting art and films about the disappearing cultures of native Arctic peoples.

Everywhere you turn, the imminent specter of global warming stares you in the face, but–everywhere you look– someone is dancing, waving a flag, giving a speech, handing you a flyer, making a difference for this world in peril.

After threading through throngs of people in the streets and taking some bread and coffee for breakfast, we hopped on the metro out to Copenhagen University for the YouNGO (Youth NGO) meeting. Representatives from a multitude of youth groups met to plan various actions, and Quentin, Corie, Emma and I listened eagerly.

This year, the Youth have been approved as an official constituency by the United Nations Secretariat, due to the fact that climate change will mostly impact our generation most severely. The truth is that elected representatives are making decisions now that will have effects long after they are dead and gone, and we the youth will inherit this Earth, in whatever state its in. As a U.N. constituency, Youth can hold press conferences inside the Bella Center, ask questions in State Department meetings, and release proposals for how the treaty should proceed. Corie and I filmed an interview with an organizer for the American youth delegations in Copenhagen. These delegations consist of more than 300 people, out of 2000 youth at the conference. The United States has more young people here than any other nation.

A quick stop at the hostel to warm up, then back to the freezing streets. In Hopenhagen Plaza we got on stationary bikes and powered a Christmas tree’s lights with our renewable human energy. Then we made the trek to the alternative People’s Climate Summit (Klimaforum). This incredible space provides panels, films and exhibits that seek to supplement the U.N. activities, and give those not certified to enter the negotations a chance to share ideas.

Stomachs rumbling, we quickly located the banquet tent and purchased a cheap vegan dinner, homecooked and delicious. Full and happy, we entered the main lecture hall, where parliament members and activists from Australia, Canada, France and Brazil discussed solutions to the climate problem that weren't even on the table at the official negotations: keeping carbon dioxide to 350 parts-per-million in the atmosphere, capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius, and demanding that rich countries pay billions of dollars in “climate reparations” to the poor countries most affected by climate change.

Frustration with the UN process was tangible, as soon the panel degenerated into a pulpit for ranting and raving. I think everyone here agreed with the necessity of the strong demands listed above, but what we lacked was a concrete method to push them into the COP15 dialogue–angry yelling accomplished nothing.

Disenchantment aside, KilmaForum is an inspiring place, and tomorrow we will return to hear more of the views that are being shut out of the “official” negotations–the views held by ordinary people not bound by any political restrictions.

I’ve never had busier and more inspiring days than these two in Copenhagen, and still four more to go! I feel like I’m in another world, one where everyone really, truly cares about the gravest problem we face, and where the passion to work toward a solution is so apparent. What's needed is to take this Copenhagen climate world and remake the rest of the planet in its image.

-Andrew Dunn

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Bright Green Business Expo

Hey All!!

Being in Copenhagen is without question a life-changing experience. So far, only 36 hours into the trip, I know many of us have met some INCREDIBLE people and all have learned a great deal about climate change as it is perceived by citizens from all over the world. The eye-opening perspectives we've been exposed to thus far will remain with us forever.

Today, Amy, Cassidy, and myself were fortunate enough to stumble upon an event, the Bright Green Business Expo, that featured a speech by US Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu. The event focused primarily on green energy solutions and how to power our growing world without sacrificing the climate. Northern European was very well represented, with Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden all very prominently displayed. Over one hundred businesses showcased their roles in stabilizing the climate system.

In this setting, it was very interesting to hear Dr. Chu speak, especially given the perception of the U.S. as a climate laggard. With the American Clean Energy and Security Act stalled in the Senate, any domestic action is far from certain.

Mr. Chu however, was optimistic about our country's role in tackling climate change. He spoke for 30 minutes about the need to change, and how this change would come about. He highlighted current energy solutions already have in place, and what he hopes to see be within the next 10-20 years. I gained great insight, and even hope, from this speech.

All in all Copenhagen has been amazing thus far. The best is yet to come!

-Jen Reichardt

The U.S. Dilemma

As I wandered with my friends through the dissipating crowds of activists, I hoped that their demonstration today had made an impact; that delegates representing nations were actually paying attention to the statements made by average citizens from across the globe. There is intense pressure on politicians to strike a deal here by Friday, but the path to such a deal will be incredibly complicated.

I had the opportunity to discuss the negotating process with a pair of men in the Italian restaurant we visited for dinner. They were talking passionately about something they obviously felt was of utmost importance, so I figured it was probably conference-related. Interested in what these men had to say, Natasha and I sat down near them. As it turned out, the two were representatives of a group that facilitates cooperation amongst non-governmental organizations (NGOs), hundreds of which are in Copenhagen today.

The two activists told us that the central question in the treaty right now is whether the U.S. will be a part of it or not. After Bill Clinton agreed to sign the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, he asked Congress to ratify it and was shot down, by a vote of 95-0. Although everyone is asking Barack Obama to pledge a firm commitment to cut U.S. emissions, we also don’t want him to make Clinton’s mistake and return home having made a promise the recalcitrant Congress won’t let him keep.

Obama has said the U.S. will cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050, compared to 2005 levels. These targets are laid out in legislation that is currently stalled in the Senate. If Obama pledges anything more than what the Congress is expected to approve, he might have a mutiny on his hands.

The problem is, most other nations are using 1990 as a baseline for their emissions targets, meaning that the U.S. target of 17% is actually only 4% compared to Japan’s 25%, France’s 34% and Brazil’s 42%. A good Copenhagen treaty would require uniform cuts across the board, say 30% for all countries by 2020, but there’s no way the U.S. will achieve that. So will targets be dumbed-down to accomodate our country in a least common denominator treaty, will we be incorporated in a different manner, or will the rest of the world move on without the second-largest global polluter?

-Andrew Dunn

Initial Thoughts from Copenhagen

Greetings all,

Today, Sunday, the Bella Center (where the conference is being held) was closed, but that didn't keep us from engaging the climate movement here in Denmark! Some of our group attended a meeting of YOUNGO (Youth Non-Governmental-Organization), where the news of the hour was that since so many NGO observers have come to rally for an effective solution than were anticipated, a quota system would be enforced, and not all delegates would be granted access to the UN negotiations. The YOUNGO group is working to ensure that youth from the underrepresented global south are not barred from the negotiations that will decide the future of their homes and ways of life. We stand together as allies.

Also today, some of us went to check out Klimaforum, the 'People's Conference', where we heard speakers from the green parties of France, Brazil, Canada, Kenya and Australia, respectively. These representatives universally highlighted the importance of justice and equity in the climate discourse.

Another alternative convergence taking place this week is Hopenhagen. Each night so far, there has been a huge conference in the city square, accented by speakers calling for an agreement that will restore hope to the globe. Today, a massive globe in the middle of the square was illuminated, and displays were open that showcased the average daily water consumption of each country relative to one another, what different states are doing to reduce their carbon footprint, and much more.

Today goes to show that even if some of us do not have the opportunity to be in the Conference, there are still many ways to be involved and active!!

Peace&Trees,
Emma Fujii

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Saturday, 12 December: The People Take to the Streets

Greetings everyone.

This morning my plane landed uneventfully at the airport in Copenhagen, but little did I know the city was stirring. An estimated 100,000 people (my sources may be inaccurate, check the news!) took to the streets Saturday in peaceful demonstration, calling for strong measures to regulate climate change. The action began with a rally in front of parliament in near freezing temperatures. Groups of activists carried banners, played music, chanted, and passed out flyers as they made their way through the streets of Copenhagen toward the Bella Center.

Upon my arrival, my hosts informed me of the event, which, according to them, was supposed to be a way for the Danish people to voice their opinion on the proceedings of the climate conference. The crowd was made up of more than just Danes, however. People from around the world (Tibet, the Arctic, Asia, you name it) took to the streets in solidarity, calling for agressive action. I took as many pictures as I could of the masses listening to the speakers, marching the streets, shouting, and climbing the street lamps.

Even in the relative chaos of this huge demonstration, peace prevailed. Some arrests were made, but the majority of the demonstrators were simply out to voice their support for global action on climate change.

I think that this demonstration shows that people really are concerned about this issue and want to see their leaders usher in a new era of climate politics by negotiating an effective solution. While I didn't make it to the Bella Center today, I believe that this demonstration is an important example of what is really happening here in Copenhagen, and a valuable experience to share with the followers of this blog. Not bad for my first day in town.

I've also been informed that so many people have signed up to come to the conference that some organizations that have been granted accredidation may be turned away at the Bella Center. Now that shows a strong interest from the world when the turn out almost doubles the capacity of the venue. Luckily, Copenhagen is alive with a variety of climate events throughout the week, so even those who are denied access to the official sessions will have the opportunity to explore the other events going on throughout the city that encourage dialogue on climate issues.

-Heather Berry

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Climate Talk– from Santa Barbara to Copenhagen

Featuring UCSB Professors and Student Delegates!

by Gail Osherenko.

UN Climate Conference Days 2 & 3

The past two days have been extremely fast-paced, informative, and entirely overwhelming (in the best possible way). Yesterday, I was granted permission to sit on the spokes council of the International Youth Climate Movement (IYCM) as representative for the UC Santa Barbara Delegation. Each day, this coalition of Youth NGOs from all parts of the world gathers to strategize, discuss events and actions, and vote on positions in order to unify and amplify the voice of our constituency. By maintaining close communication and supporting one another, we can– and will– ensure the youth are heard.

Through IYCM, I have joined a team focused on formalizing the youth as stakeholders in the climate debates in any adopted texts. Our task is to lobby delegates for explicit mention of the youth not only as the ultimate victims of unchecked climate change in the long-term, but also— more importantly— as integral components of the solution. With intergenerational equity, increasing access to formal and non-formal environmental education, addressing the rights of young women and girls as they pertain to climate change, and establishing direct youth involvement in the deliberations as our guiding principles, we hope to take strides to promote and solidify the youth as fully capable members of global society.

Now to the state of the deliberations thus far (as much as Kevin and I have been able to cover): There has been a great deal of interesting talk in the last two days about the functionality and scope of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), a flex option that allows countries to purchase credits from non-annex countries for projects that reduce emissions within their borders. While there has been much praise for the mechanism as an entrepreneurial market solution that is one of the few aspects of Kyoto that begins to bridge the gap between the global North and South, it has not been without criticism.

The least developed country block (LDCs), largely composed of African countries including Sierra Leone, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others, expressed concerns regarding the equitable distribution of CDM projects regionally, as significantly less than 1% of all projects approved under the program have been within African borders. This certainly raises questions, as one of the primary purposes of the CDM is to promote sustainable development in poorer areas of the world.

In what seemed to me a far less credible complaint, the Umbrella Group (Industrialized non-EU countries), Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates criticized the CDM board for refusing to accept Carbon Capture and Sequestration as an accredited methodology. For this somewhat backwards argument, the Umbrella Group was awarded Second Place in the Daily Fossil Awards hosted by the Climate Action Network, which observes: “[These countries] have gotten used to subsidizing the coal and oil industries in their own countries— but do they really have to subsidize the same dirty companies in developing countries too?” One would hope that the answer is a resounding NO! To follow this daily 'award', visit http://www.fossil-of-the-day.org.

On a more inspirational front, Tuvalu, a member of the Alliance for Small Island States (AOSIS), gave a moving address in plenary in which it boldly called for a new, legally binding treaty to run in parallel with the Kyoto Protocol. In what the representative from Tuvalu referred to as the 'Copenhagen Protocol,' the state called for concrete financing mechanisms, adherence to the principle of intergenerational equity (as laid out in the UNFCCC), measures to stabilize global emissions at 350ppm, and aggressive action to curb climate change at the level deemed safe by the scientific community. Many of the island states were quick to give their support to this measure, stating movingly that this is truly a matter of life or death for entire nations and human civilizations.

While China, Saudi Arabia, and India voiced opposition to such a protocol, the NGO community showed great solidarity and support for the bold declaration of Tuvalu, staging a number of demonstrations throughout the day in which "Tuvalu Survival" was the resounding theme. I was glad to be a part of this organized peripheral support.

Later in the day, I had the pleasure of watching Secretary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson discuss the positive implications of Monday’s endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act on the regulation of domestic CO2 emissions in the United States. While President Obama has made it clear that legislation remains the primary goal for climate action, this victory in the EPA opens great doors for the U.S. to at last take serious action to combat climate change. Administrator Jackson expressed optimism that this decision, and the election of President Obama, will usher in a new era of U.S. action on the environmental front. Let’s hope she’s right.

The experience at the Conference thus far has been eye opening, engaging, and positively enriching. While this has come at the expense of the schoolwork I still have to do, I wouldn’t trade this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the world.

Best,
Nick Allen

Monday, December 7, 2009

UN Climate Conference Day 1

Greetings from Copenhagen!

Day one of the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC began with an early wake up to a Copenhagen shrouded heavily in fog. After a quick breakfast and a much-needed cup of coffee, Kevin and I suited up in formal attire, donned scarves, hats, and gloves, and made for the metro. The atmosphere at the station—and more so on the packed tram—was electric. As we pulled up to the convention center, overlooked by a massive wind turbine chopping valiantly in the breeze, our excitement only grew.

Once past three rounds of security and safely within the conference grounds, our first stop was the Youth Non-Governmental Organization (YOUNGO) breakout session hosted by the International Youth Climate Movement. While the meeting was a bit drab with opening logistics, the diversity of representation in the room was nothing short of inspirational. French, Ethiopians, English, Solomon Islanders, Canadians, Americans—representatives from a total of more than 100 countries—sat together, prepared to work with one another to create positive change. It was a gathering unlike any of which I’ve ever been a part.

This year, we, the youth, are for the first time recognized as official stakeholders in the international climate deliberations. This presents us with an opportunity to voice the concerns of our generation as a unified global whole, a concerned demographic block that spans the north-south divide and transcends the ideological gap that precludes effective negotiation. While it appears unlikely that a strong and binding treaty will emerge from the conference, we can nonetheless help to shape the normative discourse for future international discussion.

This is the positive message I took from a day that was not without serious concern. In the opening plenary session, Saudi Arabia was quick to call the science of climate change into question and suggest a ‘comprehensive’ (read: time consuming) reevaluation of the founding principles behind the debate before any policy take shape. For Saudi Arabia, a country whose primary export is oil, such stall tactics are to be expected, though distressful all the same. I’ll plan to keep a close tab on this aspect of the debate in the week to come, and will keep you posted as to the traction this statement and those like it seem to have. Let’s hope the international community has moved beyond such blatant self-interest.

At day’s end, I attended the welcoming reception at city hall, where I feasted on my first free meal of the conference (let’s hope there’s many more where that came from!). After sating myself, I headed to the city center where I ‘enjoyed’ a ridiculous concert by a Danish rock group called Nephew (youtube them, it was pretty funny).

This is where it gets good: after the concert, as people went their separate ways, I realized the reception room was still open, with plenty of wine and food to go around. I made my way back in, only to find myself face-to-face with Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change! I approached him and shook his hand, informing him that he was the reason I’ve been vegetarian for the past four months. He was delighted, and proceeded to question me for about five minutes or so about how I felt both physically and spiritually without meat weighing me down. After following Dr. Pachauri for years in researching climate change, the experience was absolutely surreal.

Day 1 was a great one. I’ll be back with more updates!

Best,
Nick Allen