An agreement will come…but will it be (soon) enough?

Andy is a friend from Poznan. He is a Fulbright Fellow and was at the UNFCCC conference on behalf of Civic Exchange, a Hong-Kong based NGO, where he is a researcher. He wrote the following article reflecting on the December negotiations. I think is a wonderfully succinct statement of what was(n't) accomplished in Poland, the timbre of current conversations in Washington about climate change, and what it all means for Copenhagen.



By Andy Stevenson

As a long-time follower but first-time observer of the UNFCCC negotiating process, I came to Poznan excited about promoting my organization’s work and meeting thousands of other ‘climate nerds’, but also aware that a number of factors would likely slow to a crawl ‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable’ progress on a future agreement.

During my first few days in Poznan the more pessimistic side of my brain was clearly winning. As expected, there was a lot of discussion about the global financial crisis.

‘If the US Congress (and other western countries) can mobilize 700 billion dollars overnight to bailout the banking industry, why does it take them two years to pass climate legislation, and why does the Adaptation Fund have only 100 million dollars?!’ was the exasperated cry from many Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and other Least Developed Countries (LDCs). It was hard not to agree with them, but equally difficult to find signs that their message was being heard.

Although work plans were agreed upon and assembly documents of proposals were put forward, it is hard to find optimism in the progress on the Bali building blocks. There were still substantial gaps between developed and developing countries in all four areas, including interim targets, the framework for technology transfer and financing, and the nature of MRV commitments from developing countries. It seemed hard to believe that some developing countries were asking that they only be required to measurably, reportably, and verifiably spend all the money they are given. Thankfully more reasonable proposals such as a registry of national mitigation actions seemed to gain consensus.

Another expected stumbling block was the ‘lame-duck’ role of the US negotiators. Many observers had correctly recognized, however, that the change in administration on January 20^th is far less important than gauging the mood in the US Senate (and House). Several congressmen and staffers were in attendance and presented at side events on the status of legislation. It should be a promising sign that these were among the most well attended events in Poznan, but many observers walked away disappointed that very, very few specific details were given about what to expect over the coming year.

The staffers worked hard to temper sky-high expectations under the Obama administration, arguing that an agreement in Copenhagen could be reached even without a comprehensive climate bill passing before December, which seems unlikely. The tricky point here is that action in Congress will be proceeding along two interconnected fronts: a domestic cap-and-trade and renewable energy plan, and the ratification of the international treaty that binds the US to its commitments in Copenhagen.

The former will be relatively easy to come by, as it will be framed in terms of reducing dependence on foreign oil and include a number of goodies such as tax breaks and subsidies for burgeoning green industries. In addition, most of the key committees in congress for climate legislation will be taken over by ‘climate hands’ in the new administration. On the other side, staffers in Poznan pointed out that the treaty ratification will require convincing 67 of 100 Senators across party lines (it’s often extremely difficult to secure the 60 required for most legislation) that China and India are doing their fair share as well. The failure of Bill Clinton to secure this support before signing Kyoto was cited as a mistake that cannot be repeated.

This led me to ask the (seemingly very important) question ‘What specific type of commitments are most Senators looking for from developing countries?’ Although Chatham House rules prevent me from publishing their responses, they reminded me of the cryptic line from the US film ‘Field of Dreams’: ‘if you build it [China and India], they will come [the US]‘. While this may work in Hollywood, it will be a hard sell in Copenhagen. The message that I took away is that instead of a bold resolution from China or the US cementing the deal, it will be a tense back-and-forth, give-and-take negotiating process that will likely have the world on its toes right up to December 18^th next year.

My final note of pessimism came from the lack of connection between rhetoric and reality in the area of science. Although it was being repeated often in the corridors (including an inspiring event and publication by the Tallberg Foundation) the message that science has become even more serious than the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was not getting reflected in the text, aside from some promising discussion of new insurance and risk management mechanisms. I was disappointed by the lack of connection with or even mention of science (aside from dismissing its impracticality for governments) in several high-level reports. Although there are no easy answers, giving the ‘Voice of the Planet’ a stronger place at the negotiating table will be imperative going forward.

Despite these challenges, I couldn’t help but leave Poznan with a vague sense of optimism that is hard to pinpoint or define. Perhaps it was the frequent battle cry of ‘We must view the financial crisis as an opportunity, a chance to think even bigger, and not a setback!’ that finally seemed to be gaining some traction among several countries (including my own). In addition there was the ever-present, highly energized, and inspiring youth delegations. In Poznan I moved somewhat awkwardly between the more activist youth organizations (where I fit in terms of age) and the academic circles (where I fit in terms of experience). With the rapidly growing and highly credible international youth movement on climate and sustainability issues, the only question seems to be, will they (we) grow up and take power soon enough to solve this crisis?

Finally, having lived in China for the past 15 months, I (as well as many other delegates) couldn’t help but feel a sea change in the attitude of the Chinese government and negotiators, although it was not fully reflected in their official statements or positions. Through their presence at certain events and the seemingly increased freedom for Chinese academics to present innovative proposals, they seemed to be preparing to take on a stronger role in negotiations and actions (as they are with many international issues). The challenges will be to communicate with the rest of the world the significant steps China is already taking, and, through the international agreement, support their committed goals for energy efficiency and sustainable development.

Forward-Thinking

Climate change presents the world with a beautiful opportunity to re-empower those voices, the voices of the yin (if you'll indulge me) which we have been gagging, to restore balance within both the human community and the larger ecological community. The potential for this radical reconciliation is my wellspring of energy.

But make no mistake, it also presents the opportunity for the powers-that-be to justify the expansion and tightening of their authority. As I watched negotiations in Poznan, Poland, it became clear from my vantage point (focusing on deforestation issues) that this is a distinct risk we must acknowledge. For what better excuse to trespass upon liberty, to consolidate authoritarian power than the very preservation of the planet? Right now, the only people talking about this risk are those who still insist that climate change isn't happening and is only a global conspiracy. Why aren't those of us who are calling for solutions to climate change talking about it too, for preparedness' sake?

Climate change is a unique problem in that it is, by definition, international. The climate is no respecter of state boundaries. Building walls to the north, south, east and west won't neutralize this threat. The global character of climate change makes its effective and timely resolution, definitionally, a threat of historic proportions to the nation-state system that has governed the world since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.

Those of us who are agitating for a forward-looking climate change policy must keep in mind several things:

1. It is clear: we must address climate change -- hard and fast.

2. It is highly unlikely that industrialized sovereign states, the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, will legislate hard or fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change in high-risk regions of the world. Domestic legislation will not satisfy global imperatives because domestic legislation isn't supposed to satisfy global imperatives -- it's supposed to satisfy national imperatives. Domestic law-making simply wasn't designed to address problems with scopes that are as unambiguously global as that of climate change.

3. Currently, the only institution with a shred of de jure international political authority is the United Nations (there are plenty of others with de facto international political authority, but we're going to ignore them for the time being), but for better or worse, as it stands, the UN has no "teeth". It has no monopoly on the legal use of force. It can only ask, politely, that countries sign, ratify, and implement treaties. Enforcement of law is still under the purview of sovereign states.

4. If we can't rely on domestic action to "fix" climate change, an international body, like the UN, must be invested with real authority, i.e. the legal use of force, so that it can (ostensibly) ensure that individual states reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and thus avoid global catastrophe. Who would invest the UN or some such body with authority? The UN, for example, is controlled by the permanent members of the Security Council, France, China, Russia, the UK, and America. Ultimately, such a choice would be theirs. Many would say that there is no way that you're going to convince all the permanent member states of the Security Council to relinquish, piece by piece or in one fell swoop, the sovereignty of their states -- unless, of course, they see that there are gains to be had by doing so, and these gains outweigh the costs. I do wish that the virtuous, enlightened philosopher-kings at the helm of the Security Council would count the preservation of our common home as gain enough. Sadly, they don't.

5. By gain, of course they mean money, land, and votes. If conceding sovereignty would beget more money, more land, and/or more votes for the puppet-masters, such a concession will be made. And, mind you, there is already lots of cash to be made, land to be acquired and votes to be secured in this erosion process.

6. Empowering the UN in order to address climate change is going to have repercussions far beyond that particular issue. The character of these repercussions will be in large part, up to us.

It is not that the process of political globalization is necessarily bad, but it should be acknowledged that (1) the organizations guiding the process are at this moment decidedly undemocratic and lack transparency and (2) the circumstances under which it's happening are not particularly stable. In times of fear, many look for strong, centralized leadership that promises salvation. Many are willing to compromise their liberty in exchange for alleged security. We've seen it happen time and again throughout history, no? It will be no less so as the heavens and earth begin their wholly-justified revolt against us, only on an entirely new scale.

We must pay attention and consider honestly all the potential ramifications, good and bad, of our endeavor to address climate change. Solve it we must. We must also be nimble, forward-thinking, and prepared enough to cut off at the pass the grave risks that arise from our doing so. Acknowledging and equipping ourselves to meet these risks only makes us stronger.

International Youth Delegation

Intervention to the SBSTA Plenary Session, Dec. 10, 2008
Marcie Smith (US), Josh Wyndham-Kidd (Australia), Guppi Bola (UK)

------------------------------------------

On behalf of the International Youth Delegation, thank you for this opportunity.

It is well known that forests play a critical role in regulating carbon in the atmosphere. But they are also the home and source of the livelihoods of 1.6 billion people. They protect our watersheds, regulate water flow and disease, and recycle nutrients. Their contribution to the world’s biodiversity is unparalleled. We cannot continue to view forests in a utilitarian, compartmentalized, reductionist manner. Forests are more than trees and carbon. Forests are life.

Given the crucial roles played by forests, the International Youth Delegation has been closely monitoring the negotiations surrounding REDD. We are encouraged to see that REDD is a priority here in Poznan, but are gravely concerned about certain proposed features and omissions within the REDD mechanism and the weak recommendations SBSTA has made to the UNFCCC.

Any REDD mechanism must be first and foremost a mechanism for forest protection and climate stabilization, not a mechanism by which Annex-I countries avoid domestic mitigation actions. Offset markets and massive corporate profits are not, and should not be, the aims of this scheme. Buying a plantation in a developing nation cannot replace genuine reductions at the source of the vast majority of global emissions – in nations like mine, the United States.

Going back to first principles, it is vital that the UNFCCC definition of forests be changed to exclude woody-crop plantations. They store less carbon, less securely and less permanently. We are truly astounded that this seemingly obvious point requires comment. The conversion of natural forests to plantations is deforestation, pure and simple. The perverse outcomes of the Kyoto definition have shown us that. Moreover, forest degradation should be holistically defined as any loss of carbon carrying capacity or any harm to biodiversity.

Critically, a REDD mechanism must clarify and strengthen the land tenure rights of local and indigenous peoples, not further degrade them. It was shocking to hear yesterday that some nations here – including my own Australia – wanted to negotiate away the rights of first peoples. Our message on Human Rights Day is that these rights are non-negotiable. Representatives of indigenous peoples have come all the way to Poznan to speak with you here. Why should they wait until February 15 to submit this recommendation to the UNFCCC? How can we expect someone to be a responsible steward of the land if he or she knows that it could be wrested from them at any moment? Land scarcity and insecurity have been at the root of countless conflicts throughout human history, but we remain confident that we can find a way to secure Green Carbon that won’t ultimately require the deployment of the Blue Helmets. I know that the indigenous peoples here, and the International Youth Delegation, will express our views to you throughout this process, for as long as it takes. Just be aware that, for many peoples, and the ancient forests that sustain them, every day that we take to deliberate is another day of irreversible destruction.

Your children are tired of dressing up like polar bears and penguins in and effort to convince you to act in a manner consistent with science and conscience, a manner that respects the natural cycles and systems that govern us. Your children are tired of being called foolish for prioritizing the preservation of our common home over profit margins. Your children are tired of reminding you that we are here to safeguard the survival of all countries and all people. I once heard that the single thing that all humans share is a desire to pass on to their children a secure future. Please – give us a reason to believe this is true. Give us a bold, binding and just climate treaty that features science-based targets, effective LULUCF rules, and an equitable REDD mechanism.

"No coins. It's change I need."

Dec. 10, 2008. Poznan, Poland.
UNFCCC COP14

We're tired of dressing up like penguins and polar bears in effort to convince you to act in a manner consistent with science and conscience, in a manner that respects the cycles and systems that govern us.

Dec. 10, 2008. Poznan, Poland.
UNFCCC-COP14