Bonn Voyage!

The conference ended on Friday. We were disappointed to leave before the youth climate rap that was performed from the balcony at the end of the last Working Group meeting, but we had non-refundable, non-transferable, super cheap train tickets and we didn’t want to ruin our thrifty traveling streak.

Thanks for following us. We’ll be back later in the fall.

P.S. Ever seen a camel frozen mid-spit?

-Taylor and Anthony

UNequal: Does the ref speak your language?

It’s obvious to even the inexperienced observer (me) that the form of the UN negotiations is unfair in several ways.

The plenary discussions are almost entirely in English. Delegates who aren’t native English speakers either negotiate in a second, third, fourth or nth language or they rely on a delayed translation via wireless headset. The delay is only a few seconds, but it’s still not the same. I’ve listened to English translations of non-English speeches. It’s much harder to track the delegate’s argument because the syntax and linguistic rhythm is usually lost. Plus, the live translation is far less precise than the original speech. In these legal arguments, precision is critical.

Deepa Gupta on Youth and the Global South

I mentioned before how many impressive 20-somethings I’ve met here at the Bonn climate talks. I haven’t yet given them a chance to speak for themselves on the issues they are passionate about, so an interview was in order.

Deepa Gupta has been a leader at the Bonn conference by leading a fundraising effort to bring youth from the Global South to Copenhagen in December. She is also the co-founder of the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN), and was an Indian Coordinator for the Australian Youth Climate Coalition. In February she participated in the IYCN Climate Solutions Road Tour, a five-week trip across India in an electric car. NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote about the project, mentioning Deepa specifically. I sat down with Deepa to learn more about her and the issues she cares about.
—

Japan announces emissions target, outcry follows

Immediate backlash after Japan announces emissions target

The conference is buzzing. As the Chair was making concluding comments at a major session this morning, the Japanese delegate buzzed in to make a final intervention*. The delegate announced that he had just received word from his home government that the President of Japan, Taro Aso, had decided on a mid-term emissions reduction target. I was looking for a power outlet at the time, but I quickly turned up the volume on my receiver so I could hear the announcement from the balcony.

Over the last few days, there has been much speculating here in Bonn as to when the Japanese would make their announcement and what it would be.

*’Intervention’ means comment or speech in UN-speak.

In a press conference, Kim Carstensen, head of the WWF’s climate initiative, called switch from 1990 to 2005 baselines a “smokescreen of figures” to that today’s announcement is only a 2% stronger than Japan’s commitment through the Kyoto Protocol of 6% reduction by on 1990 levels by 2012.

If Japan intends to obscure the numbers, it hasn’t confused the major media reporters. Articles from the WSJ, NYT, and BBC all report the baseline switch. Nevertheless, these articles explain the baseline issue in the second or later paragraphs, so the 15% message is still the most clear and visible.

On Grist.org yesterday, Geoffrey Lean called the Bonn climate talks “a dialogue of the deaf”. We’ll see if Japans listens to this message.

My Questions

1) Why does the press listen to these people?

2) Is “slash” really the right term to describe the 14% cut planned by the U.S.?

Check photoshelter for photos of the press conference before posting.

Links

WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124462901241601729.html

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/business/energy-environment/11yen.html?ref=global

Japan Today: http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-vows-to-cut-emissions-by-15-below-2005-levels-by-2020

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8092866.stm

Hugh Bartling: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/hugh_bartling/2009/06/japan-on-the-hot-seat-at-bonn.php?ref=reccafe

Geoffrey Lean: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-09-bonn-climate-negotiations/

WWF: http://wwf.org/

Press conference: http://unfccc2.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/090601_SB30_Bonn/templ/ply_page.php?id_kongresssession=1821&player_mode=isdn_real

Gaigu:

As the Chair was giving concluding comments in a major session this morning, the Japanese delegate signalled to make a final intervention.  The Japanese delegate began his intevention by saying that he just received word that Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso decided on a mid-term emissions reduction target. I was looking for a power outlet on the balcony at the time, but I quickly abandoned my search, turned up my headset volume, and listened. The rest of my afternoon was spent keeping track of the youth and NGO reaction. (‘Intervention’ means comment or speech in UN-speak.)

Why I Wouldn’t Want To Be President Obama

In my fraternity there are many biology, biochemistry, and chemistry majors. They often chide me for majoring in political science. “It’s not really a science. And it’s not nearly as hard! We have to take lab finals and still get the same among of credit as you!” While I think a question of which major is harder will result in a predictable debate, today I thought of the difficult job both scientists and policy-makers have in the arena of climate change. At the Oceans side-event, I stood up to ask the first question.

“Seeing the science and knowing how hard it is politically to get things done, I do not envy the part of negotiators and heads of states. Which do you think is harder, to research the science and provide solutions for fighting climate change or–noting the struggle in the U.S. over a cap and trade system and Japan’s unambitious 8% reduction target announced today–for delegates and heads of states in developed countries to find the political will to make decisions that line up with the science?”

Tales of Sandwiches, Ice, and Oceans

Yesterday I attended a two hour side-event on melting arctic ice and today I attended one on climate change effects on the ocean. I really hadn’t planned to go to the latter, but there was a free lunch for anyone who attended. I planned to take a lunch and then go to a different session, but when I grabbed a sandwich, a delegate glared at me and said,

“HEY! Are you going to this oceans session?” I lied and said yes. Then I felt like I needed to stick around until the start and quietly slip out. Then I felt bad for lying, so I stayed.

Strengthening (damaging?) U.S.-Honduras relations

Today we received an e-mail at 4:26 pm that read: “The UNFCCC secretariat and Ministry of Environment jointly invite all participants to a buffet reception at 19.00 tonight at the Beethovenhalle in honour of the Lady Mayor of Bonn, Ms. Bärbel Dieckmann.”

The only important words here are buffet and reception. Buffet implies all you can eat, and reception implies free. Both are good.

So, are we making progress?

I’ve been asking people at the UN conference how they think the negotiations are going. Even though we’re here, it can be hard to tell. The answers we receive give me the same certainty that you might get from driving on the highway (or Autobahn) with a shorted-out dashboard. Warning lights flicker on an off. The speedometer flicks up to 150km/hr and back down to 0. One second, it looks like all systems are go. The next, you better get out of the car quick because half of the engine is about to drop out and the breaks are shot.

For example, in a press briefing hosted by the Climate Action Network, which represents 450 environmental and development NGOs from around the world, Srinivas Krishnaswamy gave a dismal overview of the negotiations, “We do hope they go to real negotiations from the blah, blah, blah position.” He reported that most of the proceedings over the past 8 days have involved statements and re-statements of national positions, but not much else.

In contrast, as the meeting of the Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action was drawing to a close a full 40 minutes early [very unusual], the Chair commented that he was encouraged by the pace and efficiency of the meeting and that he was quite surprised by how much work was accomplished. His tone barely conveyed the optimism of his words, but nevertheless, I took this as a sign that negotiations were moving faster than expected. Perhaps those involved in this process for many years have a different sense of fast and slow.

The broken dashboard analogy is particularly fitting because just as dashboards provide mostly negative feedback, that’s most of what we’re hearing about the negotiations. We’ve heard that it’s slow, unfair, inadequate, and inefficient. Every once in a while, we hear the “institutional defense” that the process is necessary even if it is painfully slow.

In my analysis, most answers we hear fit the political location and agenda of person we ask. Environmental NGOs and developing nation delegates tend to highlight the present and future injustices across the world. Delegates from developed countries acknowledge that the process is slow, but are quick to note that there are 192 countries involved and that the issues are more complex than others may perceive.

There’s no objective status meter for the negotiations except for the eternally lit, flat-screen that displays the Countdown to Copenhagen at the front of the room. It doesn’t tick, but it’s ominous enoug

I’ve been asking people at the UN conference how they think the negotiations are going. Even though we’re here, it can be hard to tell. The answers we receive give us the same certainty that you might get from driving on the highway (or Autobahn) with a shorted-out dashboard. Warning lights flicker on and off. The speedometer flicks up to 100 mph and back down to 0. One second, it looks like all systems are go. The next, you better get out of the car quick because half of the engine is about to drop out and the breaks are shot.

Public and private fund flavors

A lot of the conversation here at the Bonn Climate Change Talks is about money–public money, private money, who has money, who needs it, how it gets divided, who counts it, why I don’t have more of it… you get the idea. One of the only finance issues they don’t discuss is why the conference center sells Dixie cups of coffee cost for €2,50. That’s almost 4 USD for a 3-oz. shot of regular coffee. You want cream? Add €,50. Anyway, we haven’t blogged about finance discussions because they are the most complicated, but I’ll try to cover one of the big questions involved–private versus public funds.

World-wide network of NGOs write their own treaty

Worldwide network of NGOs proposes their own treaty

A worldwide network of non-governmental organizations organized over the past eight months to write an entire legal text that they propose could serve as the treaty signed by all UNFCCC countries in Copenhagen in December. It’s an 82-page legal text with a 60-page summary. It’s impressive that all these NGOs with such a diversity of interests could coordinate and compromise (hint, hint to the delegation teams) to author this document. If you want to see what a proposed UN treaty looks like, check it out.

I asked one of the presenters about the requirements of developing countries, emerging economies, and developed nations, respectively in the proposal. In their proposed treaty text, developed countries would have legally binding target percentages and would reduce their total emissions by __% from 1990 levels by as a group. Developing countries would achieve reductions through support from developed countries with emission offsets verified by a reformed UN branch, the Clean Development Mechanism.

For more on their proposal, see http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-40169020090608

Over the past eight months, a world-wide network organized the writing of a legal text of an ideal Copenhagen treaty that they propose could be signed by all UNFCCC members in December. This afternoon, they presented the treaty and held a Q&A at a side event. In an unprecedented demonstration of energy and enthusiasm by both NGO members and delegates, the audience applauded after each section of the text was presented. On the other hand, in a typical show of poor cell phone etiquette, there were 33 audible cell phone rings during the 90-minute session.