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

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

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

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