Unfortunately, very little progress was made relative to how high the expectations were for this conference. It was supposed to be the end of 12 years of negotiations since we signed the last major global agreement on climate change in 1997 (the Kyoto Protocol).

Possible Outcomes

Here is a quick review of the possible outcomes from these past two weeks of negotiations:

1) A new commitment phase for Kyoto + a new deal that included language from Kyoto AND had the US signed on and it all went into effect immediately.

2) Throwing out Kyoto (which would remove the punishments that developed countries would have for not reducing their emissions during the first commitment period) and only signing a new commitment.

3) Realizing that they aren’t ready to sign anything. Then they could figure out which parts they can agree on and that will be an outline for the year moving forward. Then they will set a timeline and a process for how to complete the treaty within the next year. By that time, a senate bill will have been passed and they can make a LEGALLY binding deal.

4) Signing a greenwashed accord that doesn’t really have any impact and is only politically binding, but it makes it look like they did something meaningful.

5) Everything falls apart and nothing is signed at all.

No one really expected #1. We thought #2 had a slim chance. What we were really pushing for was #3 because it would eventually result in something meaningful. What we got was something between #4 & #5 because not even all of the countries could sign on to the greenwashing because they knew it was meaningless.

There’s still a chance we can get something like #3 (a plan for a legally binding deal next year) but it’s unclear at the moment where we stand because things were so crazy. No one here can even fully analyze what just happened or where it leaves us. This was certainly supposed to be the climax, but we’ll see if they can keep the momentum going until next year.

Where we are at now

The result from the negotiations (as I understand it) was a document created by the developed countries that lists the efforts to reduce carbon pollution that they would have done even if there were no negotiations. Many countries entirely rejected it since it was produced outside of the normal UN negotiating process and it didn’t really have anything meaningful in it. Since not all of the countries could agree to the document, it didn’t become part of the official agreement at the end of the negotiations. The chair of the talks said that the most they could do was “take note of it”. As far as I know, no other meaningful document came out of the talks.

The mood here in Copenhagen is a mix of disappointment, confusion and hope for the future. All of the people I talk to are torn between feeling absolutely furious that no leadership was present at COP15 and feeling like we must focus on what we can do to improve the situation as we move forward.

Moving Forward

There was a great debrief with all the US youth yesterday where we formed a plan for the next 12 months on how we can get the US senate to pass a climate bill so the US has a better bargaining chip on the table next year at COP16. We made plans about how to be a more cohesive group with a strong strategy instead of being very reactionary to what happened on a particular day. We broke into working groups and discussed what the next steps necessary to make this all happen.

Copenhagen was supposed to be the climax of years of negotiating and it turned out to be mostly a flop. Personally, I think it will be hard to keep that momentum going into COP16 in Mexico which didn’t have high expectations like COP15.

In the weeks to come everyone will have a chance to digest what happened (and didn’t happen) here in Copenhagen. This is where the expectations for COP16 will be set. The least that our leaders can do is build pressure for COP16 so that it has high expectations and has a chance of producing a legally binding deal.

President Obama also needs to hold a lot of bilateral meetings with some of the power players (like China and India) so that everyone is on the same page and ready to produce an agreement before we get to Mexico City (for COP16) next year.

2050

It is our job to make to sure that all of these necessary elements are ready in time. Time is certainly our biggest threat right now. Scientists say that we must start drastically reducing our emissions within the next five years and we must reduce them by 80-90% by the year 2050 if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change. Nature doesn’t negotiate, so we have to make sure our elected officials find the political will to start taking serious action within that time frame. If they choose not to act, they are bargaining away our futures, not their own. How old will our negotiators and politicians be in 2050?

Inside the Tycho Plenary

To briefly update you on what is going on here in Copenhagen. This has, for the most part, and in the simplest terms, been a shit show. And I say that with all due respect to the international communities that are here from NGOs to Government to students to youth to businesses.

This morning  the COP President, Connie Hedegaard, announced that she is resigning from her position, meaning that her role will be filled by the not-so-climate-competent Danish Prime Mister Lars Løkke Rasmussen. Which was partially to be expected but seems to be amplified by the media.

The LCA text is completely bracketed, meaning that all the nations disagree on what the text should be for the new treaty. This means that since the AWGs couldn’t agree on a text the COP President (who was Connie but is now Lars) will put on the table. Based on my intellegence it is very likely that the Lars is going to push for this text, which is probably weak. The G77 will not be into it this proposed text. Essentially this means that we are looking at a complete green-washed collapse. The best thing we can hope for at this point is a plan for a clear mandate, timeline, and work programme, coming out of Copenhagen of when we’ll get a legally binding agreement. Hopefully some sort of framework to lead us into Mexico (and maybe the Senate will pass a bill in that time).

I feel powerless.  I have been meeting in our technology transfer group, to review the policy papers that are on the table, many of which we aren’t even supposed to have.  Thankfully, we have a chance to review them and read what is going through the writers’ heads.  I wish they were stronger.  I also wish that there was something concrete we could work toward.  We are surely making recommendations to improve the papers, some of which we submitted to our US writers.  But overall, who knows if they will actually take them.  Further, who knows if the negotiators will actually to agree to them.  In the end though, the text is simply not as strong as it should be, not as responsible as it should be.

Through these dire seeming outcomes, it is good to blow off some steam.  Kate, Brian, Rachel and I went to the Carlsberg brewery.  What an awesome place!  They have been making beer there on a huge scale for a long time.  Through their tour, well, it was more like a museum!  Where they displayed how people made beer even from a very old age.  It was very interesting to note the bottle designs on the Carlsberg bottles.  Some bottles included the well known swastika, although it was comforting to note that that design was on a bottle before the 1930s (In which it was backwards, and I’m sure meant its original meaning of good luck or well being).  But I digress, after this wonderful history lesson and tour of the Brewery, us four talked about what was causing a serious itch.

Our current tactics seem to be lacking.  Us as youth have been doing what we have learned as grassroots organizers.  Lobbying, performing actions, analyzing policy, developing our structure and utilizing our whole tool box.  What we were discussing though, the four of us, were new tools.  I have to catch myself though, does the means justify the ends?  I surely hope so, as we now are facing a barrier, our right to enter the Bella center will be restricted, and ultimately, revoked before the negotiations end.

Apparently, there are so many heads of state attending, that they first are restricting all of the NGO presence by 30% of their original numbers.  By Thursday, they will allow only 1000 NGO delegates.  By Friday, 90.  How does one even define democracy these days, maybe that definition I learned in middle school is outdated.  Maybe this is where why our youth is so important, to redefine, retool and revo… oh never mind

Whatever the outcome of the rest of this week, whatever great atrocity Saudi Arabia may commit by their statements, or action that youth perform, or great speech Obama gives, will justice be served?  Climate justice?  Will Tuvalu, as part of the G77, receive their world commitment they need to stay afloat? (pun intended).  If the leaders will not step up and take this responsibility, we as youth will, and sooner than you think.

- Jesse Boudart

Answer: The structure and process description can be found here (the link in the top right hand corner labeled UNFCCC Process).

Yes, we, as accredited delegates, get to sit in on the negotiation meetings (Plenary sessions). We also have access to read all proposed texts written by the different negotiating groups (such as AOSIS and the EU).

“Forests and carbon sequestration are big for me right now, and big for the Northwest. What kinds of discussion and/or commitments are you hearing on that issue? From my perspective, we need a system that:

1. Sets baselines for carbon stored in forests today, through a method that is affordable, efficient and reasonably accurate.

2. Sets standards for carbon uptake and for carbon storage based on forest growing conditions from ideal (highly productive) to marginal and wood technologies that substitute wood for materials with a higher carbon footprint (concrete and steel).

3. Is certifiable by third parties.

4. Can be linked to national policies whether they are based on carbon taxes, cap and trade systems or some other mechanism.”

REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is a key issue and a key policy point for the negotiations. It is being discussed from indigenous rights to offset projects to forest plantations to NGOs such as Climate Action Network. It is an policy that con go incredibly correctly or incredibly wrong. REDD is an important component to a comprehensive climate bill because our most effective carbon sinks are our natural froests. However, there are a list of critiques of the REDD policy especially when it is connected to CDM (Clean Development Mechanism). REDD policy must be applied in a manner that is equitable and fair for those who depend on the forests for survival (ie indigenous people) Now in these international negotiations the primary focus of the REDD discussion is how it impacts the global south, since they are the ones with the greatest amount of forest cover and have the most to lose currently–and I say this with no disrespect to our Pacific Northwest forests.

In the negotiations there has been a lot of disscussion of both REDD and LULUCF (Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry) policies. So I’m just going to ellaborate on the US’s position and the most recent international development:

The view of the United States is that “mitigating deforestation should occur in the broader context of sustainable forest management and sustainable development.” In addition, the US believes that REDD should be encompassed in the nation’s low-carbon mitigation strategy. However, it believes that private investment in these projects is the most sustainable mechanism for maintaining these policies, but understands that in the sort term it needs a significant amount of support financially and technologically. (I have no idea how they scientifically measure the amount of potential carbon that can be sequestered from the atmosphere over the next 50 years from a forest that the begin to protect now, but I’m sure that it is expensive)

Now here in Copenhagen the most recent development on this topic was yesterday:

“France clashed with other EU nations Thursday over how to calculate carbon emissions absorbed and emitted by forests.

French climate ambassador Brice Lalonde slammed a proposal favored by countries with huge forestry industries — especially Finland, Sweden and Austria — as containing “sloppy, even fraudulent” accounting methods.

Worldwide, deforestation and forest fires account for 12 to 20 percent of total greenhouse gas output, so being able to accurately measure changes in those emissions is critical in the overall effort to tame global warming.

How that is best done is what has divided the EU bloc of 27 nations.

France has taken the lead in calling for a totally transparent accounting practices, a position applauded by green groups.

But other countries, notably major consumers of wood as a heating fuel, have proposed to project generous envelopes of their forest-related emissions up to 2020, which they would then promise not to use up.

“We are talking about ceilings that are so high that there is no chance they would ever be reached,” Lalonde told AFP.

These countries would then claim that they had, in fact, reduced their total emissions as measured against this fictive benchmark, he explained.

Across the entire 27-nation bloc, this would result in a net addition of some 118 million tonnes of CO2 released every year, two percent of the EU total.

“The EU cannot embrace fraudulent methods and then turn around and ask developed countries to accept something that they are not willing to impose on themselves,” Lalonde said.”

And that is where REDD currently stands!

Today I had the amazing opportunity to speak on behalf of the youth at an official UN session.

(For a higher quality video Click Here and go to 2:42.)

All of the countries who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol were present, and I was given the floor by COP 15 President Connie Hedegaard. While I delivered my speech, I tried not to look at the huge video screens that broadcast my 40 foot face back to me. Connie Hedegaard responded, “thank you for that very clear call for adaptation funding” and the room applauded, even though there were almost no youth delegates present because NGOs were blocked from the room as a result of the awesome Tuvalu disruption (definitely the biggest thing that happened here today).

After just 90 seconds, it was over, but I hope that our message, that the countries who caused this problem must pay for its effects, will resonate.

The most gratifying part of my day was when two members of the Nepalese delegation rushed to thank me and gave me two postcards of Nepalese mountains and said “this is what is melting. this is where we held our cabinet meeting.” I can’t believe that the delegates from Nepal thanked me.

Text of the speech:
“Thank you for the floor, Madame President.
Vulnerable people world-wide are already suffering the impacts of a warming planet: the World Health Organization estimates that climate change contributes to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually. These effects will only increase in their severity and universality. In addition to ambitious and binding emissions reductions, you must commit to adequate adaptation funding for affected communities now; here, in Copenhagen.
People around the world are already taking steps to preserve their lives and livelihoods. Farmers develop high yield grains to address food shortages, women plant trees to mitigate drought, and coastal communities organize to prepare for the next storm. I too am willing to adapt. This is my adaptation promise:
As a youth from an Annex 1 country, I will gladly give 25 cents a day for climate resilience. With 25 cents a day, my friends in the Maldives can retain their national sovereignty. With 25 cents a day, my sisters in Bangladesh can implement rapid response systems to save their families in flash floods. With just 25 cents a day, my peers in Nepal can develop water resource management for when their glaciers melt.
I call on wealthy governments to give at least $100 billion dollars per year to an adaptation fund that is accessible, democratically-run and accountable to the UN treaty. These grants must be additional to existing ODA and commensurate with the immense scale of our countries’ historical contributions to this global crisis. This is not a question of aid, but of just compensation. Only 25 cents a day per Annex 1 citizen is all it would take.”

Thank you to Amira Karim, Katherine Phillipson, Jess LeClair and Marielle Remillard for being such a great speech-writing and support team!

Now this is relevant because the small island nations went up against and directly contradicted some of the most powerful nations (the G77). The big heads don’t want a new treaty because they don’t want it to undermine the Kyoto Protocol, and Saudi Arabi doesn’t want a treaty at all, but you must remember that the US is not ratified under the Kyoto Protocol. Therefore, the US isn’t even part of that deal so it could potentially just be easier to create  new one that could be ratified by the US and all other nations, because without the US there really is no deal. Also, the Kyoto Protocol, though not aggressive enough, is what we currently have to work with and if the “new treaty” (which is currently not even allowed to be a discussion) isn’t better (or it is worse) then we don’t want it at all.

Overall, I believe that we should stand in solidarity with the groups that are calling for that which is most aggressive (ie. the small island nations and the science). And yesterday at 3:00 p.m. a groups of activists showed their support for Tuvalu. See images

Stay up-to-date with the CCN’s developments at Copenhagen and ask us questions!

Below is the full text. I think it does a good job of explaining where we are at with the current COP15 negotiations and where we are headed with a climate bill.
_____________________

To: President Barack Obama
From: Mr. Jeremy Blanchard
Date: 7 Dec 2009
Subject: Climate Change Policy Recommendations

As a young person in the United States, I feel an obligation to ensure a healthy, prosperous future for my children and for all future generations. Because of this, I have spent the last year organizing campuses and communities to take action on the largest challenge that our species has ever faced: global climate change. To avoid catastrophic climate change, the United States must take the lead in reducing greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously revitalizing our economy with clean, safe energy. To achieve this goal, the country must pass ambitious climate legislation and negotiate a strong international climate treaty. Mr. President, you must lead the way to ensure that these goals are met. The strategic recommendations outlined here are meant to be ambitious yet still politically realistic.

Climate change is unlike any problem that we have ever faced before. The problem is distributed spatially because one country’s emissions effect the entire world, not just the area from which they originated. It is also distributed temporally because carbon emitted today will remain in the atmosphere, causing continual warming for up to 500 years to come. Another unique and challenging aspect of global climate change is strong dispersion between the causes and the effects. It is impossible to point to a particular drought or hurricane and say that it came directly from the carbon emitted from a particular coal plant. We are even unable to say that the these weather events came directly from climate change—the most we can say is that they were stronger or more frequent than they would have been without any warming. These factors leave us unable to use past challenges as a direct analogy to the challenges we face today.

Since this problem requires action from every country on the planet, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the best outlet to facilitate a global agreement to reduce carbon emissions. The UNFCCC is a protocol to create binding emissions reductions targets while still considering the different responsibilities that developed and developing countries have in relation to this problem.

The goals that you and your cabinet should strive to meet must be in line with what scientists say is necessary to avoid the worst effects of climate change. This means keeping the average temperature rise between 1.5° and 2° Celsius and reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere below 350ppm. To reach those targets, we must reduce our emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. While there may be compromises on how to make such reductions, the targets themselves are not negotiable because they are mandated by the natural laws of physics. Additionally, The United States must also poise itself as a bold leader in the international community. By bringing a sense of urgency to this problem, taking responsibility for our previous emissions, and refusing to delay action for worry of the economic repercussion, we will be an example to the rest of the world and encourage them to take bold action to reduce their emissions as well.

The first element that will bring your administration closer to reaching these goals is the agreement that will come out of this years UNFCCC meeting; COP15. This 15^th meeting of the countries who signed on to the UNFCCC was set to be the place where the successor to the Kyoto protocol was signed. Other heads of state and yourself have already lowered expectations and said that this is not a possibility based on the current situations of the main countries involved in the negotiations. Of course, it is the Senate’s responsibility to ratify any treaty that you sign, so in that sense, it was logical to put off any final treaty negotiations until a climate bill has been passed. While I acknowledge that you have invested your political capital in health care reform and that you have not been in office very long, it is very disappointing to see the hope of negotiating a legally binding treaty be thrown out the window before the negotiations even begin. My disappointment aside, there is still much that can, and must be accomplished at COP15.

First, the negotiations can produce a series of accords that can be acted upon right away. Even though the final, legally binding treaty may not be complete by the end of the two-week-long negotiations, there are many areas where countries can agree. Additionally, countries should be able to begin taking immediate action to reduce emissions based on these accords. Second, the accords that countries produce must be used as a foundation to create a draft treaty which get us 80-90% of the way to a complete treaty. Finally, there must be time line and a framework for turning the “politically binding” draft treaty into a legally binding one. This time line should terminate at COP16 where the final fair, ambitious and binding treaty will be produced.

Since the purpose of delaying the negotiations until COP16 is to pass a climate bill in Congress, the next element of strategy I would advise is to invest your political capital into passing a strong bill in the Senate. This bill must be passed before the midterm elections in the spring, when the political climate will be less conducive to such legislation. Most importantly, I suggest that you personally push domestically and internationally for a new metric to account for emissions reductions and use this bill as a forum for this shift. Currently, most emissions reduction targets are spoken about in terms of carbon caps. A more complete system should use the metric of “carbon cap equivalents” instead. The value in this new system is that it more fully represents any plan to reduce emissions. While a carbon cap is the most explicit metric, it generally only applies to industries that can be easily monitored. Carbon cap equivalents would allow the United States to account for other elements that will be part of the legislation including energy efficiency improvements, carbon intensity (CO₂ per unit GDP) reductions and highly verifiable offset credits.

Using such a metric internationally allows every country to wholly represent their emissions reduction pans. The World Resources Institute estimates that if the House version of the climate bill were measured in carbon cap equivalents, it could potentially reduce emissions by 23% below 1990 levels by 2020, whereas the direct carbon caps only measure 4% below 1990 levels. Since many developing countries, like China and India, refuse to agree to hard emissions caps and would rather talk about carbon intensity reductions, it would be beneficial to use a new metric that accounts for the progress they intend to make. Historically, the Senate has refused to enter into binding emissions reductions targets until China and India do the same. With this new measurement, it will be clear that China and India are taking action on the issue in a very real way, and the Senate will likely be more supportive of climate legislation.

Another card that you must play to pass a climate bill is to begin regulating carbon through the EPA under the Clean Air Act. Although the Act is very blunt tool for dealing with distributed pollution like greenhouse gases it can be used a political tool to make the cap-and-trade proposal in the senate bill look more favorable. Industry does not like direct regulation because it is not responsive to market forces and it is not as predictable as congressional legislation. Just today, the EPA announced it’s endangerment finding and it’s plan to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air act. This is a perfectly-timed announcement because it gives us more negotiating power in Copenhagen and, more importantly, it gives industries a chance to see what regulation would like before the climate bill comes to a vote in the Senate. With the option of a market-based cap-and-trade solutions on the table, polluting industries that might otherwise have opposed a climate bill suddenly have an incentive to support it because it is better than the alternative.

After the climate bill has arrived on your desk to be signed, the United States will be able to negotiate, sign and ratify an international treaty that it can live up to. The best place to do this will be at COP16 in Mexico. With specific targets in hand from the climate bill, it will be possible to nail down the remaining elements of the treaty and show the rest of the world that we are finally seriously addressing the issue of climate change. One important element of the treaty will be the time when it goes into effect. The predecessor to this treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, had a 55-55 clause which stated that it didn’t go into effect until 55% of countries had ratified the treaty and 55% of emissions were represented. It took 8 years for Russia to ratify the treaty and bump the total emissions represented over 55%. As our emissions must peak within the next few years, we absolutely cannot wait eight years to begin implementing this treaty.

After COP16, the United States has more work to do to tackle the climate change crisis. We must work hard to implement the climate bill and fulfill its obligations under the treaty that we will have ratified. Most bills are strengthened quite a bit after they are initially passed, so I also urge you to ensure that amendments which do this are proposed and passed during your term in office.

The eyes of the world are on your administration, Mr. President. I don’t want to have to explain to my children about flags being lowered in front of the United Nations building because a small island state no longer exists due to sea level rise from climate change. I want them to grow up in world with safe, clean energy and a stable climate. To have such a future, the United States needs to not only do its share to reduce emissions, but also use our position as a global leader to demand that other countries meet their obligations as well. All of this will take bold, dynamic leadership on your part. I am confident that future generations will praise you for the action that you take now to address the climate crisis.

REFERENCES

Bals, Christoph. Substance or Greenwash Show? The Time for Half Measures is Over. Issue brief. Berlin: Heinrich Boell Foundation, 2009. Print.

Larsen, John, and Robert Heilmayr. Emissions Reductions Under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Tech. The World Resouces Institute, 19 May 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2009. <http://pdf.wri.org/usclimatetargets_2009-05-19.pdf>.

Light, Andrew, Nina Hachigian, and Julian L. Wong. “Counting the Real Progress on Climate Action.” Web log post. Center for American Progress. 27 May 2009. Web. 6 Dec. 2009. <http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/counting_progress.html>.

After months of anticipation, fundraising, minor anxiety attacks, painstaking conference calls, major anxiety attacks and an absurd mad dash to finish the term early…we are here. Well, we’re here in one form or another anyway. Most of our 10-person party is still decently jet-lagged and hits a wall at 4pm, but we’re adjusting. And to be honest, the jet lag is worth it. It’s all been worth it so far, and it’s only the first day of COP 15. Damn it feels good to be here.

Most of us got into Copenhagen on Friday or Saturday and attended the Conference of Youth over the weekend to prepare ourselves for the impending insanity of COP 15. The weekend was filled with workshops on topics ranging from the structure of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change…beware the acronyms…) to how to be an effective youth delegate at the negotiations. We spent a lot of time networking with other youth from around the world and discussing the goals and strategies of the international youth delegation.

I wish I could describe what it’s like to be here, but honestly it’s so intimidating and exhilerating to be on the edge of the next two weeks that there is no way I could do it justice. My efforts at the moment are focused on getting a full night of sleep and preparing myself for the looming frenzy. Though the questions in my mind are limitless: who will stall? Who will walk out? Who will resort to projectile objects? Does Obama’s decision to attend the negotiations at the end of the conference actually mean something will get done? Oh so many mysteries…can’t wait to see what the next 15 days holds in store for us and the rest of the world.

As for our lovely blog here, we will be blogging every day and posting video updates probably every other day. This is our plan for now, but for everything we’ve heard about how absolutely insane the next 2 weeks will be, there’s no telling how our schedule will actually turn out. Regardless, we will be posting something every day. But instead of aiming to enlighten you all on each and every action of the negotiations (which most of the other 10,000 media people here will be doing), we want to do something a little more interactive and engaging. Our goal with this blog is to connect people to what’s going on here in Copenhagen and promote action on climate change in our communities at home. In order to get our readers more involved we’re suggesting that people write us with questions that they have about the negotiations, either inside the conference or out, having to do with policy or individual reactions, who’s throwing shoes at whom – really whatever you want. We will then try to answer those questions in our next post, and that will generally dictate the content of the blog. This means we need you to write us with questions you have about what’s going on here at COP15! There should be a form posted tomorrow morning for questions and then we’ll be on our way.

We are all looking forward to hearing from everyone over the next few weeks so please submit questions and comments for us. Oh and, uh, good luck with finals…*snicker snicker*….