It's time for Copenhagen

Miliband laments climate result amid strains with China

2010-03-16T09:52:00.001+01:00

Miliband laments climate result amid strains with China

* China accused of ‘hijacking’ Copenhagen climate talks

BEIJING: Visiting British Foreign Secretary David Miliband expressed his disappointment on Monday over the Copenhagen climate summit, a day after China’s premier hit back at charges Beijing sabotaged the meeting.

Miliband’s comments in Beijing underlined lingering strains between the two countries over the December summit since his brother, Climate Change Minister Ed Miliband, said Beijing had “hijacked” the talks. “We were very disappointed by the outcome of the Copenhagen conference and we all have to take responsibility to make sure that in the year ahead up to the Mexico meeting we regain lost ground,” the foreign secretary told reporters.

Mexico hosts the next UN summit on climate change beginning in November. Ed Miliband wrote in a newspaper article in December that China had vetoed attempts to give legal force to the accord reached at the UN-backed talks in the Danish capital. He also said Beijing had blocked an agreement on reductions in global emissions — charges that China has denied.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao again dismissed the charges on Sunday, and denied he snubbed a meeting of state leaders including US President Barack Obama at the summit, saying China was not even invited. A controversy had erupted after reports emerged that Wen sent a low-ranking foreign ministry official to the meeting.

“Why was China not notified of the meeting? We have so far received no explanation for this and it remains a mystery to me,” he told reporters at an annual press conference to close parliament. He also said China - the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases - was unfairly perceived as a climate change spoiler. “It still baffles me why some people continue to make an issue about China,” he said, adding that his “conscience is clear” and the Copenhagen outcome was positive. The British foreign secretary’s visit comes with ties also strained by China’s execution of a Briton for drug smuggling. (AFP)

China alleges diplomatic snub at Copenhagen summit

2010-03-16T09:50:00.002+01:00

China alleges diplomatic snub at Copenhagen summit

(AP) – March 14, 2010

BEIJING — Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he was snubbed at last year's Copenhagen climate change conference and fired back Sunday at critics who accuse China of arrogance.

China was blamed by some for undermining efforts to reach a binding agreement at the December conference and Wen was himself criticized for skipping a meeting of top leaders attended by President Barack Obama.

However, Wen says he was never formally notified of the late-night Dec. 17 event and sent Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei to register a protest. Wen said no explanation had been given about the lack of a formal invitation.

"Why was China not notified of this meeting? So far no one has given us any explanation about this and it still is a mystery," Wen said at an annual news conference on the final day of China's legislative session.

"It still baffles me why some people try to make an issue out of China," he said.

Wen said China remained fully committed to the nonbinding Copenhagen Accord that requires developing countries to propose voluntary actions to combat climate change.

"China worked with other countries attending the Copenhagen conference, and with joint efforts we have made the Copenhagen Accord possible," Wen said.

"This result has not come easily and it is also the best outcome that could have been achieved on an issue that concerns the major interests of all countries," he said.

As the world's largest emitter of heat-trapping greenhouse gases, China has come under increasing pressure to commit to reductions. Beijing said before Copenhagen it will cut its "carbon intensity" — a measure of carbon dioxide emissions per unit of production — by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels.

The dustup over Wen's Copenhagen appearance was part of a series of controversies portraying China as more aggressive and intransigent in its relations with the outside world. Having weathered the economic downturn better than many nations, Beijing is increasingly regarded as seeking to assert its influence and resist demands for reform.

During his 60 hours at Copenhagen, Wen held numerous meetings and speeches but made no remarks to the media, as is standard with Chinese leaders.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects that official sent to meeting was Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei, sted Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.)

At least they're on board ...

2010-03-11T12:59:00.002+01:00

Here's how the NY Times puts it:

Climate Goal Is Supported by China and India [!!!]

By JOHN M. BRODER
The New York Times

WASHINGTON — China and India formally agreed Tuesday to join the international climate change agreement reached in December in Copenhagen, the last two major economies to sign up.

The two countries, among the largest and fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the world, submitted letters to the United Nations agreeing to be included on a list of countries covered by the Copenhagen Accord, a three-page nonbinding statement reached at the end of the contentious and chaotic 10-day conference.

China and India join more than 100 countries that have signed up under the accord, which calls for limiting the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, beyond pre-industrial levels...

The inclusion of China and India has only a minor practical effect but will provide a boost for the agreement’s credibility.
“After careful consideration, India has agreed to such a listing,” Reuters quoted India’s environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, as telling Parliament on Tuesday. “We believe that our decision to be listed reflects the role India played in giving shape to the Copenhagen Accord. This will strengthen our negotiating position on climate change.”

Mr. Ramesh confirmed India’s action in an e-mail message.

India sent a letter on Monday to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the body responsible for international climate negotiations, stating its intent to join the Copenhagen Accord.

China’s chief climate change negotiator, Su Wei, submitted a single-sentence letter saying that the United Nations “can proceed to include China in the list of parties” signed up under the accord.

China has said it will try to voluntarily reduce its emissions of carbon dioxide per unit of economic growth — a measure known as “carbon intensity” — by 40 to 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. India set a domestic emissions intensity reduction target of 20 to 25 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels, excluding its agricultural sector.

[Hey, this looks pretty in line with the class simulation. P.S. Need we remind the developed countries that these are voluntary targets? We don't have to do them -- we're not historically responsible for these emissions -- but we will take them on as national actions. And we'll be accountable to our own parliament, thank you very much. =P]

The United States pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 17 percent by 2020 compared with 2005, contingent on Congress’s enacting climate change and energy legislation.

Negotiators are trying to write an enforceable global climate change treaty, but there is little expectation that such an agreement will be reached this year. The European Union’s climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard of Denmark, said Tuesday that nations should now aim to reach an agreement in 2011 at a United Nations conference in South Africa, rather than this year in Mexico.

[Maybe South Africa rather than Mexico should be the next Stanford trip? We have a Stanford center in S. Africa ... ]

Times of India, on the other hand, emphasizes in their reporting the "conditional association" with the accord.

India okays Copenhagen Accord, with riders

After three months of confabulation within the government, India on Tuesday allowed a conditional association of its name with the Copenhagen Accord. The accord, which had been negotiated by 29 countries including India at the Danish capital in December 2009, had become a bone of contention with some countries refusing to accept it while the BASIC countries distanced themselves from the contentious document.

While the US and other developed countries were keen that key countries, such as India and China, should back the accord to the hilt, the two along with South Africa and Brazil had instead indicated that the primacy of the formal UN negotiations should be maintained.

Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh told TOI, "We have made the conditional association and I have been informed by the Chinese government that it too will associate itself with the accord in a similar fashion as India."

The BASIC countries had stepped away after an assessment that the accord, if operationalised immediately, as recommended by the rich countries, would tilt the balance of international climate negotiations against them. They demanded that the accord, which only a select group of countries had been party to, should either be treated as a mere guidance note or be taken through the formal negotiations and be accepted by all the 180 plus countries in order to gain greater legal status -- something that failed to happen at the Copenhagen meet.

Now India has reiterated that "the accord is meant to facilitate the ongoing negotiations in the two tracks (of the formal UN negotiations)" and that it is not a legally binding document. India has also demanded that its name be used to back the accord only if all its conditions, including the fact that the pact will not become a new track of negotiations or a template for outcomes, is indicated in the Copenhagen Accord.

So it goes...
URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/science/earth/10climate.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/India-okays-Copenhagen-Accord-with-riders/articleshow/5665061.cms

MRV there yet? MRV there yet?

2010-03-11T12:42:00.000+01:00

MRV is apparently still being made an issue. "Scrutiny" is out. "Consultation and analysis" were what were agreed to. "Verification that is non-intrusive" might be possible.

Emissions: China joins India on scrutiny
http://beta.thehindu.com/news/article228685.ece?homepage=true

"On Wednesday, Mr. Xie [Zhenhua, vice-chairman of NDRC and one of China's lead negotiators at COP15] also lent support to India's opposition to any international scrutiny of voluntary actions to reduce emissions, which the United States and some European countries are calling for. That, Mr. Xie said, was out of the question, being “an issue of sovereignty”.

“Autonomous efforts must not be subject to MRV [Measurement, Reporting and Verification],” he stressed. He, however, added that China had agreed to “verification that is non-intrusive” in the interest of advancing negotiations at Copenhagen, and to “reduce mistrust” with the West. While China and India had initially been opposed to any MRV of voluntary projects, they had agreed to “consultations and analysis” in the negotiations but not to “scrutiny”.

Developed countries [on the other hand] Mr. Xie said, “should be subject to MRV in emission reductions and also in providing technological, financial and capacity building support to developing countries”.

The question of international scrutiny of developing countries' mitigation actions remains a crucial sticking point in talks between the West and the developing world. In its submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) last month, the U.S. reiterated its call for “scrutiny” of voluntary actions, though it later changed its position following opposition from India, as The Hindu first reported on February 28."

Interviews with Jairam Ramesh, post-Copenhagen

2010-01-19T19:17:00.000+01:00

'Kyoto is in intensive care'

Q&A: Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State, Environment and Forests

Business Standard / New Delhi January 15, 2010, 0:55 IST

Jairam Ramesh is perhaps the most intelligent and energetic environment minister India has had. He has brought a new sense of purpose to his ministry, outlined an ambitious domestic agenda, introduced greater transparency, and dramatically altered India’s negotiating stance in the global talks on climate change. Here, for the first time, Ramesh speaks to Business Standard on what he has done so far and his future agenda. In the first of a three-part interview Ramesh speaks about the meaning of the Copenhagen Accord. Subsequent instalments will deal with the domestic policy agenda.

In Copenhagen, did you let the rich countries off the hook? What did you gain by allowing Annex I countries to dilute the Kyoto protocol?

They have not diluted Kyoto. The two largest emitters are not part of Kyoto. Let’s understand that 45 per cent of the world’s emissions are accounted for by two countries (China and the US), who are not part of Kyoto.

One outcome of Copenhagen was that negotiations under Kyoto will continue for the second commitment period. But the fact is, Kyoto is in intensive care. Most countries want to get out of Kyoto. The desire of the international community is to bring China into an international agreement on controlling greenhouse gas emissions. What the Europeans are saying is, we will not take commitments under Kyoto because the Americans are not doing it; and the Americans are saying we will not take commitments because the Chinese are doing it. To that extent, we are in a bit of a quandary. We have not killed Kyoto. We have bought time.

Let’s assume it is dead…
It’s facing a grave crisis. No question about it. The second commitment period is under question because of structural reasons, because of questions being raised on the US, and in the US questions being raised on China. What we got in Copenhagen was the mandate to continue the negotiations on that. Then we got the Copenhagen accord. Twenty-nine countries negotiated this accord.

What did India gain by aligning with China?
Our alignment was strategic. It goes beyond climate change. Within the climate change issue, it was India that helped bring transparency on to the agenda; and by bringing transparency on to the agenda, actually the pressure is on China to do a much better job on what it is doing — making it transparent. Frankly, it (China’s) is a very opaque system. For example, day before yesterday, the chief negotiator was shifted.

The criticism is that, after Copenhagen, the 2 degree limit on global warming is impossible to achieve. It will go well beyond that limit. And since India is among the world’s most vulnerable countries when it comes to climate change, basically, you’ve killed yourself.
It’s a no-win situation. There was pressure on us to agree to a 1.5 degree limit — Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Bhutan — all wanted that. We cannot agree to that. That will further constrict our development space. Even the 2 degrees — today we are 380 parts per million, it goes to 450. How much is going to be attributable to growth from India? We don’t know. There is no international framework for sharing.

What you are saying is that the 2 degree cap will not work?
No, what we are saying is we’ve agreed to a 2 degree cap by 2050. That was not at Copenhagen.

By killing Kyoto, you knocked out the 2 degree limit. If you are going to be one of the early victims of global warming, it will be a disservice to India to have let Annex I countries off the hook.
The best service to India is to agree to a 1.5 degree limit. But India has multiple objectives. India has its objective of ensuring its vulnerability gets minimised. Its objective is to preserve its development space for 9 per cent growth. If I had gone with purely environmental objectives, I would have perhaps taken a different stance. I did not go with a pure environmental objective.

How will we keep development space if we come under international scrutiny?
This is a bogus argument. India has been under international scrutiny for the last 55 to 60 years. We are quite adept at handling ourselves internationally. We do Article IV consultations with the IMF. We do trade policy discussions with the WTO. In fact, our trade liberalisation autonomously has been far more aggressive than what we have committed to under WTO. The IMF comes and produces a fiscal and monetary policy assessment. Has our sovereignty been eroded? Just because we have consultation and analysis (that’s the word, not scrutiny)?

I have said from day one that we have nothing to hide. We are quite willing to have consultations, I’m quite willing to put up every year a climate policy statement of the Government of India. I’ll discuss it with whoever you want. How will sovereignty get eroded because of that?

What did we get in return for shifting our negotiating position?
First, we did not shift, we negotiated our position. On the global goal, we got what we wanted. We went to Copenhagen with the express objective of having a global goal in terms of an increase limited to 2 degrees Celsius. Nothing more.

We didn’t want a 50 per cent cut in global emissions. We didn’t want a PPM (parts per million) goal. We wanted a temperature goal. We got that. We didn’t want the Copenhagen accord to be a legally binding treaty. We got that.

It is an operational document, so it is binding, de facto.
It is not a legally binding document. The Americans themselves don’t want a legally binding document. It is an operational document.

You set out to change the agenda before you went to Copenhagen. The picture the government presented in the run-up to the meeting was of speaking in different languages, then the negotiators were on strike.
We are an argumentative society. We allow a multiplicity of opinions. We are a democracy at work. We have diversity at work. Ultimately, what is it that the PM wants.

Since you are leading the effort, did you not discuss and get a consensus before you took a formal position?
If Dr Manmohan Singh had gone for consensus in 1991, would we have got economic reforms?

So, you did not get a consensus?
But I did not do anything by stealth. I said whatever I had to say in Parliament. I said, when I was asked, ‘Have you shifted from the position,’ I said yes. I had said we would have our domestic obligations subject to international information. I said it had changed to international consultation and analysis. Yes, it’s changed. There is no big loss to national sovereignty.

You also took the position that we don’t need the money, whereas under Kyoto the money was supposed to come?
Who will give us public money? Nobody will. We are the world’s fourth largest economy, the second fastest growing economy, and the world will give us money? Let us be realistic.

There was supposed to be a transfer of technology, too.
Who is going to transfer technology? Why would they transfer technology? That was under UNFCCC (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) in 1992, when China was nowhere on the horizon as a greenhouse gas emitter, and India’s 8 per cent growth was a dream. Things have changed. We are not junking UNFCCC. In Copenhagen, after a long time, India was seen to be pro-solution in the debate.

'I wear two hats-to get coal for power and to save forests'

Q&A: Jairam Ramesh, Minister of State, Environment and Forests

Business Standard / New Delhi January 16, 2010, 0:54 IST

In this second part of the interview with Business Standard, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh talks of his domestic agenda, and what he plans to do in terms of greening the power and transport sectors — from switching to new technologies in thermal power generation to outlining “go” and “no go” areas for coal mining, depending on the extent of forest cover in the coalfields; and from stipulating new emission standards for the auto industry to stressing technological change in the railways.

Can you elaborate on your domestic green agenda? What is it, how are you prioritising it, and is there a timeline?

The Planning Commission has announced the establishment of the expert group on a low-carbon economy. We have started serious thinking on how to achieve 20 to 25 per cent reduction in emission intensity by 2020, on the 2005 level. Our preliminary work has suggested it is eminently feasible. Now we have to get into the nitty gritty — power, transport, buildings and agriculture.

What are you doing in the power sector?
Between 50 and 60 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for by the power sector. One big constraint we have is that coal will remain the mainstay of the power economy. Broadly, the objective is that we want to add 13,000 MW every year, and 6,000-7,000 MW will come from coal alone. That is assuming that our renewable energy programme picks up, the nuclear energy programme picks up, more gas will be used for power generation, and assuming that we are able to sort out many of the environmental problems associated with hydel. Under the best case scenario for non-coal, coal’s contribution will still be 6,000-7,000 MW.

So what does that mean?
There are two problems. One is, we will be using largely domestic coal, because we have the world’s third largest coal reserves and we are not going to be able to import much coal. Today 10 per cent of coal is imported. We don’t want to be in a situation where 50 per cent of our coal is imported. We are producing 500 million tonnes of coal, and will produce a billion tonne in 7 to 8 years’ time. All incremental coal will come from our coal reserves in Jharkhand, Orissa and Chhattisgarh, and the reserves are in medium and good canopy forest areas. So we have a problem there on coal.

Secondly, we have a problem on CO2 emissions. The single-most important technology transition that has to take place in the power sector is to move from sub-critical to super-critical and ultra super-critical generation. This means increasing the temperatures at which steam gets generated and used.

How much does that change things?
It reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 10 per cent. India’s first super-critical project will be commissioned by end of 2011. It is coming up at Mundra, a Tata Power project. Technology for the boilers is from Dusan in South Korea, and core technology for the turbines is from Toshiba. That will be the first. It is five units of 800MW each.

Does this raise the cost of electricity?
It is all competitively bid, tariff-based bidding. They have taken into account the associated costs of technology. And you use less coal. The capital cost is more, undoubtedly. But the world over, people are moving to this technology. We have started the transition.

What else are you doing to green the power sector?
A second transition will be in combined cycle coal gasification. India’s first integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) unit is a 122 MW coal-based plant coming up in Vjayawada, and will take about three years to commission. Bhel and APGenco have a joint venture for that. The United States is working on a 600 MW IGCC plant, and so is China. The two most important options in coal-based power generation are super-critical and ultra super-critical, and IGCC. If we are going to continue this extraordinarily high level of dependence on coal, we have to rethink our technology strategy as far as coal combustion is concerned.

What about the forestry angle to coal mining?
I have to admit, I wear two hats. One is to help in the build-up of power generating capacity, because I was in the power ministry also. Now I have to look at it from a different angle. I have to look at it from the forestry angle. I am faced with a serious situation in Chhattisgarh. Some of the best forest areas will be destroyed for the next 30 years. I hope they will be regenerated 30 years from now. But we have to take a 30–year hiatus between destruction and regeneration.

One of the things we are doing is taking major coalfields and dividing them into go–areas and no go-areas. We have mapped the North Karanpura coalfield, where we have identified 59 mines, of which 38 happen to be in the go areas. These are in forest areas where tree density is low and we can work there. The remaining 21 are in no go areas. We have suggested to the ministry of coal, rethink your production strategy and maximise production in the go areas and keep out the no go areas for the time being, till we work out some alternative.

Any other coalfields where this is being done?
We are doing this for seven big coalfields of India. North Karanpura was the first. We are doing it for Talcher, and Ib Valley. The fact is the more coal we produce, the more forests we are going to give up. That will have its own impact on global warming. But India has not been a contributor to deforestation. We are one of the few who have been re-foresting. We have added 3 million hectares in the last 10 years, and aim to double it in the next 10. Brazil in this period lost 2.5 million hectares per year. If we are not careful, we can enter the Brazil and Indonesia league.

What are the issues in transportation?
Transport accounts for between 5 and 8 per cent of our greenhouse gas emissions. But the rate at which it is going, by 2030 we are looking at 20 per cent of GHG emissions coming from transport alone. This is not surprising because it took India 62 years to reach one million cars production, and your second million will be reached in the next year. The Chinese are selling one million a month. You can see why Chinese are the high emitters, because of this large vehicular population.

The single-most important step to take is to move towards a regime of mandatory fuel efficiency standards. Whether you define this fuel efficiency in terms of CO2 emissions or in terms of kmpl (kilometres per litre), that’s a technical issue. The Europeans have always had kmpl standards, now they are imposing CO2 emission standards. We already have those standards. The job of the government is not to dictate technology but to determine standards. Once you have done that, technology choices will be made by producers.

Would you go as far as California, which has set zero emission standards?
That’s an extreme level. It’s an intervening phase that we have to get into. The industry is on board. The whole thing has got stuck for one year because of a bureaucratic turf battle between the ministry of surface transport and the ministry of power. The issue was who will formulate and legislate. Should it be legislated under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Energy Conservation Act. We have spent one year on this issue. Even today we don’t have any clarity.

What are you going to mandate?
Fuel efficiency standards in terms of kmpl.

Have you indicated what the levels are?
Those standards have been worked out. What level of upgradation is required from existing levels, has been worked out with industry. Industry is comfortable with it. They are not saying this will impose an intolerable burden. These standards are there in other countries. It’s just a question of getting the administrative mechanics right. We’ve lost a year on this issue.

Are you going to use more gas for public transport?
There are many other systemic issues on public transportation. The whole rail-road mix is an important issue. The railway sector has to undergo a massive technological upgradation. That’s been talked of for the last couple of years. This is what the Chinese have been able to do. One big element of their stimulus in the last three years has been spending on the railways.

What about bio-fuels in transportation?
I am not entirely gung ho on bio-fuels because of the land issues involved. We are talking of electric vehicles. In general, in the transportation sector, mandatory standards are the critical starting point that will trigger a whole set of decisions on the part of producers and they will bring in new technology to meet these standards. The railways are going to be very significant, too.

'Negotiations have dictated our climate change moves'

Q&A: Jairam Ramesh, Minister for Environment and Forests

Business Standard / New Delhi January 18, 2010, 0:47 IST

In this concluding part of his extended interview to Business Standard, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh talks of his agenda for greening Indian industry: new energy efficiency norms for industry, applying a new environment index at industrial clusters, and the like.

What is the scope of your green plan for industry?

The big thing we are awaiting is the national energy efficiency mission, which we have announced. The amendments to the Energy Conservation Act are now awaiting parliamentary approval. We are introducing a market-based mechanism for energy efficiency — a cap and trade system, so to speak. In nine energy-intensive industries, like cement, fertiliser and refineries, the best-practice energy consumption norms are stipulated. An energy-efficiency certificate is to be introduced, as a legal sort of tender, mandated under the Energy Conservation act. Say there’s a company meeting these standards by a substantial amount and there are companies well above the standards by a substantive amount. You create an internal market for trade in the certificate.

There is an auditing issue here, because there is no reliable way of auditing who meets the norms.
There are 714 energy-intensive units for which we will have the norms set. It’s a new era we are entering. To my mind, it is the only system which will work. We are not a country where you can close down units.

Internationally, the carbon trading thing is no longer seen as such a great idea.
This is not carbon trading. The metric is not carbon emissions. The metric is energy consumption. This is a big step forward that we’ve taken. The Bill has been introduced, the amendments are there. I expect by the end of the Budget session these amendments will be passed. By the middle of the year, the whole process of creating market-based mechanisms will fall into place.

Tell us about these industrial clusters that you have rated on environmental quality.
We got IIT Delhi and some other independent institutions to study where we are on environmental quality in 88 clusters. We looked at air pollution, water pollution and land pollution. Based on the results, we devised a Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index, which we will update every year.

The second part is to devise intervention. There has been a failure on the part of State Pollution Control Boards to monitor environmental quality. The infrastructure has not kept pace with industrial expansion. I have been to Vapi and Ankleshwar, which are the most polluted clusters. A simple thing like the drainage system has not kept pace with the expansion. Units have proliferated, but the basic infrastructure provided for in the mid-60s and 70s has not expanded. What you see in Vapi is red-colour effluent getting into the soil or municipal drains. It is a complete failure of environmental management.

What corrective steps are you taking?
I’ve had a chat with the finance minister. I said the primary responsibility of environmental management in these clusters is of private industry. However, there are many cases in which you will need common service facilities. You will require infrastructure facilities. I suggested we create a financial corpus – Rs 500 crore to begin with. This money from the Centre will stimulate state governments to participate, industry to participate, banks and financial institutions to participate. It is the Centre that seems to be more concerned with the environment than states. States are more concerned with growth, investment and employment.

What about the plans to encourage green buildings?
Buildings will be a very important contributor to our emissions. If you see the modern service economy, it is turning out to be as energy-intensive as conventional manufacturing. That is because of the way buildings have been designed. In the United States, the building sector is responsible for 35 to 40 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions. We are not in that league as yet. As the service economy modernises, as urbanisation increases, as per capita income goes up, as prices of ACs fall, we will be in a situation where the building sector will play a very important role.

The most important thing is to have codes that are best practice in terms of energy consumption and emissions. We have introduced codes called the GRAHA. There is an international code called LEAD. India’s most efficient (from an emissions point of view) public building will be the new ministry of external affairs, which will be commissioned by June. Our ministry’s own office building, which will be commissioned by November 2011, will reduce energy consumption by 50 to 60 percent. There are similar buildings in Gurgaon – the Wipro office building, the ITC building, the Teri University. The bulk of the construction activity in states is in municipal building codes. If we are able to show what can be done at the Central level, the demonstration effect of these buildings will ensure that private buildings that get permission under various energy codes will also be energy compliant.

Don’t such buildings raise costs?
For our building, we are looking at Rs 100 crore. What it would have cost had we not taken in all these features, that exercise we have not done, though it would be an interesting exercise. What the corpus will do is to fund activities such as a common effluent treatment plant.

With all that you are planning, will you reach your emission reduction targets?
With our eyes closed, we will reach 20 per cent. Many of these actions are in various stages of implementation. I expect the low carbon economy group to come up with a few more suggestions. We have many studies to show we can do better.

You have said that India has no data on emissions intensity beyond 1994. If so, what is the basis for your targets?
We have internationally-used data. The only source of comparable data is either Energy Administration of the US or the International Energy Agency in Paris. They use our Economic Survey and sectoral surveys and calculate.

Why don’t we have our own data beyond 1994?
Our whole approach to climate change has been dictated by international negotiations. Our mindset is, does the UNFCCC demand it? By May of this year, we will have an emissions inventory for 2007. The ballpark numbers will not change. From then, we will keep updating once in two years.

The Chinese are now among the top solar companies. Can you explain this, and where do we stand?
Of the top 10 solar companies, four are already Chinese. China has strategically decided that they want to be world leaders in green technology by 2020. China has 12,000 Mw of wind-based energy, whereas India has 8,000 Mw. Five years ago, India was ahead of China. The Chinese are selling super-critical technology for coal-based power generation. The Chinese have grasped this as a strategic opportunity. Japan is also trying to recover the technological leadership that it lost in the 80s. They are also betting in a big way on green technology. It’s not the United States, but Japan and China that will be the drivers of technology on coal-based power, wind, solar energy.

More than China: India's Role at COP15

2010-01-10T07:47:00.008+01:00

I've been meaning to post this intriguing piece from UPI. It contends that the US/EU view of COP15 as primarily a financing, tech-transfer, carbon market (plus verification) conference, diverged from that of India and China.

According to the authors, China pursued multiple agendas -- not only its "national interest" in climate markets, but also cementing its "leadership role in the developing world." However, in their estimation, India was really the big surprise -- a potential ally to the West who has been pushed into common cause with China. (Even though the countries may not have the same needs and are at different points in their paths to development). While India is often cited as a counterweight to Chinese influence in Asia, they warn that if the West (and the U.S. in particular) do not carefully cultivate that alliance, the relationship between New Delhi and Beijing may become increasingly cooperative.

Lesson: "The West made the mistake in Copenhagen of lumping India together with China, and this mistaken view proved to be self-fulfilling." [NOTE: In Schneider's COP15 class, we watched this "bundling" happen over and over again. It was a big problem.]

Copenhagen Consequences for the U.S., China and India

The frantic post-conference scramble for high ground shows that whatever it was that happened at Copenhagen, it was not expected. At least not by the United States... to understand what really happened and why, it is necessary to take a step back and take a wider perspective - one that includes not only the climate accord, but also the global economic situation and geopolitics.

From the perspective of the United States, European Union and other industrialized countries, the focus was largely on creating financial mechanisms around carbon trading, technology transfers, financing for "green tech," economic growth targets and verification regimes. It would have been more accurate to bill it a "climate market" conference.... With the right deal the global carbon market alone, worth an estimated US$118 billion in 2008, could potentially be worth more than US$2 trillion by 2020....

Negotiators from the United States, European Union and other industrialized countries had been working on this financial track for a long time, and likely believed going in to Copenhagen that the groundwork had been laid for such a deal. The assumption was likely that China, given enough incentives - especially around technology transfer - would sign on out of self-interest, and others such as India would give in to pressure to accede rather than risk isolation.

However, while the West was largely looking at Copenhagen as a climate market deal, others were taking a more multi-faceted view. China, as it often does in international negotiations, was pursuing multiple agendas. It engaged in climate market negotiations to press for national advantage, but was also using the meeting to cement its role as a leadership voice in the developing world. This was to be expected.

The article's analysis on India:

The big surprise was India. After sending some mixed messages before the conference, New Delhi finally made it clear that as far as it was concerned the meeting was about long-term strategic options. It questioned the good faith of the Western negotiators, with at least one Indian strategist pointing out that some of the same people involved in credit default swaps that contributed to the collapse of the global financial system were involved in setting up carbon trading....

India didn't like or trust the proposed deal and wanted to show the West that a compliant India could not be taken for granted. Just as important, it wanted to show that, should a perceived fair deal with the West not be possible, it had other options, namely a closer relationship with China. This dovetailed with a broader strategic reevaluation of the India-China relationship.

China is aware that some think India should be used to counter it, and would like to increase cooperation, rather than competition, with its Himalayan neighbor so that it can focus on other arenas. And India is questioning if it should allow itself to be used as a pawn against China, taking a loss both economically and in terms of security, but seeing little benefit.

As a result, a fascinating and potentially game-changing geopolitical pas-de-deux unfolded in Copenhagen. The international media and punditocracy christened the United States and China the new G2, in reference to the expected preeminent leadership roles of the United States and China of their respective developed and developing country contingents. But what increasingly became clear was that a different G2 was influencing the agenda: China and India.

India demonstrated that, while it wants an equal alliance with the United States and its Western allies, a subservient allegiance is not an option."

The authors finish with this recommendation:

The gain of getting the world's most populous democracy on its side - not on China's - is worth some concessions, not just for the sake of a climate deal but for larger strategic purposes. The West made the mistake in Copenhagen of lumping India together with China, and this mistaken view proved to be self-fulfilling. Analysis of India has long suffered from "hyphenation." First it was India-Pakistan, now India-China. At the beginning the India-China link was competitive; Copenhagen has shown it has the potential to become cooperative. The time has come to rehyphenate democratic, economically strong, English-speaking India. It would be to the benefit of the United States and its allies to create a new cooperative link: India-United States.

Article URL: http://www.upiasia.com/Politics/2010/01/04/copenhagen_consequences_for_the_us_china_and_india/1537

Change in Strategy?

2010-01-03T22:17:00.004+01:00

Happy 2010 everyone! It's a brand new year.

In today's Washington Post, there's an article by John Pomfret analyzing China's recent behavior on the international stage, including at COP15. He uses language that's a bit more colorful -- for instance, he quotes a "senior U.S. official" talking about the "sense of triumphalism" on the part of the Chinese. (In my own analysis, I think I went with a sense of "satisfaction.") But it seems like people are generally on the same page.

Still, U.S. officials and analysts have noticed a new assertiveness -- what one senior U.S. official called a "sense of triumphalism" -- on the part of officials and the public in China. This stems from a sense in Beijing that the global economic crisis proves the superiority of China's controlled economy and its authoritarian political system -- and that the West, and in particular the United States, is in decline.

This triumphalism was on display during the recently concluded climate talks in Copenhagen. China only sent a deputy foreign minister to meetings set for the level of heads of state; its representatives publicly clashed with their American counterparts. And during the climax of the conference, China's security team tried to block Obama and the rest of his entourage from entering a meeting chaired by China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao.

That type of swagger is new for China and it could make for a stronger reaction from Beijing.

"If they really believe the United States is in decline and that China will soon emerge as a superpower, they may seek to take on the U.S. in ways that will cause real problems," said Bonnie S. Glaser, an expert on China with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Complicating this picture is the view of some American analysts that the Obama administration -- with its intensive outreach to Beijing -- tried too hard in its first year to cultivate ties with China. Playing hard to get might have helped smooth out China's swagger, they suggest.

"Somehow the administration signaled to the Chinese that we need them more than they need us," Lampton [David Lampton of Johns Hopkins SAIS] said. "We're in the role of the supplicant."

I would add that the "triumphalism" was not only on display; it was a concerted effort by China to send a signal. This doesn't mean such an uncompromising attitude will be manifested in all future COPs, especially if they can start successfully reaching their carbon intensity targets. In that case, the Chinese might decide to act in a cooperative fashion and help reach a global agreement because it would be affordable! But at COP15, shaping how China is viewed by others (the U.S. in particular) was more important than coming to an agreement that, in all likelihood, would simply present more loose ends, and which wouldn't have made much of a difference to the country's domestic situation anyway.

Looking ahead, we may see a coordinated strategy from Beijing to forge a new international reputation. China would like to be seen as the "tough, independent new kid on the block" and will probably pursue this goal in contexts where it doesn't risk much (like COP). They will want to build this reputation when it's cheap to do so, because it'll put them in a stronger position for future negotiations with the Americans on more sensitive issues -- negotiations in which they might actually have to give something up.

[I could also be wrong, and rather than carrying out a well-considered geopolitical strategy, the Chinese may fully buy into the self-inflating rhetoric that "China is rising and America is on the wane, so we can do whatever we want". Some hard-line nationalists do use this type of language, and I've heard reports that Chinese diplomats have had to ... secure their nationalist credentials with stronger language.

Faced with such a scenario, the world would need to take action to channel China's energy into a more positive expression. The "tough, independent new kid on the block" should understand that we live in an interconnected world, and we all must do our part! That involves give-and-take, cooperating, "sharing" and "playing nice" with others.]

仙人降世 ... Teaching the barbarians a lesson!

2009-12-31T03:21:00.006+01:00

A hagiographic account from the Chinese Foreign Ministry of Premiere Wen Jiabao's brave and noble exploits at the Fifteenth Conference of Parties.

In the far-off realm of Copenhagen, Denmark, where snow and ice covered the earth, and subjects from many lands roamed the hallways of the Bella Center ...

Verdant Mountains Cannot Stop Water Flowing; Eastward the River Keeps on Going

Readers, please take no offense! I mean this all tongue in cheek. (Though I suspect the authors did not. ^ ^)

Sing their praises...

2009-12-30T23:59:00.006+01:00

More laudatory pieces in the Chinese media this week:

Undeniable facts showed China, by demonstrating sincerity, confidence and determination, has exerted maximum efforts to move forward the Copenhagen climate change negotiations with an eye on striking a widely accepted accord.

China plays key role making Copenhagen talks successful (Xinhua)

The key words here? "Sincerity, Confidence and Determination"

Allies from around the world have also joined in to tell China, "We've got your back!"

World media reports have praised China's efforts in promoting international cooperation to combat climate change and its contribution to a substantive result at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The per capita carbon emission in China is far lower than that in Western countries, the state media from different countries, including India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Central Africa Republic and Malawi, said recently. Acknowledging that China was facing a heavy task of development, they said that China's demand for due right to development was justifiable and reasonable.

During the Copenhagen Conference, China made all efforts to communicate and negotiate with other countries. It especially brought together developing nations to jointly safeguard their common interests and made a remarkable contribution to a substantive result of the conference, they said. Meanwhile, media in small island states, including Antigua and Barbuda, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, also spoke highly of China's responsible attitude and forceful measures on tackling climate change, saying China's effort could match that of any developed countries.

They said that some countries' criticism of China on the issue was groundless and irresponsible.

World media reports praise China's contribution to Copenhagen climate talks (Xinhua)

I feel like I'm editing CENA all over again, ha ha.

Compare and Contrast

2009-12-30T23:28:00.013+01:00

A split-screen view of Wen Jiabao and Obama's Friday at the Bella Center would be extremely fun. In fact, I think I might make that later today!

The Chinese POV:

Endeavors to build global hope: Chinese premier's 60 hours in Copenhagen (Xinhua)

in contrast to the Obama show:
Obama raced clock, chaos, comedy for climate deal (AP)

Also take a look at the transcript of a briefing to the White House Press Gaggle on board Air Force One -- it's really worth a read! Agence France-Presse also has its version.

"I don't want to say the gentleman is ignorant..."

2009-12-27T11:50:00.024+01:00

Searched YouTube for the actual video of He Yafei bashing U.S. climate envoy Todd Stern for stating that funding would not be going to China.

Stern had been quoted as saying: "I do not envision public funds, certainly not from the US, going to China. We would intend to direct our public funds to the neediest countries." (Also quoted here.) He noted that "China -- to its great credit -- has a dynamic economy, and sits on some two trillion dollars in reserves. So we don’t think China would be the first candidate for public funding." Needless to say, the Chinese were not pleased.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onx-rZyAF9c

Here's a CCTV report on the same spat: http://english.cctv.com/program/newshour/20091212/101174.shtml.

BONUS VIDEO - White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs threatening to pull out of a meeting when American journalists are blocked from entering a US-China meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDAMo5wZmEI

SUMMARY - What China accomplished

2009-12-27T11:24:00.028+01:00

The short version of my previous post following the end of COP15, on China's role in the climate negotiations:

Up to the last minute, I held out hope that there would be a breakthrough, and during the conference, I was as inclined to lay responsibility on the Americans as the Chinese for the less-than-ideal outcome. It was only later on that I realized the mistake I had committed.

Like many others, I deluded myself into thinking that climate change was the priority for the Chinese in Copenhagen. I had bought into the narrative of a greening China that is committed to meeting this challenge, but is simply constrained by certain economic and developmental priorities. The Obama visit in November, the carbon intensity target, Beijing's public pronouncements leading up to Copenhagen -- these all pointed to a country that was interested in pursuing a serious global agreement.

In fact, if we look at the behavior of the Chinese delegation over the two weeks of COP15, it was more consistent with the pursuit of "national interest" more traditionally defined -- in IR terms. They intended to send a message to the US and the EU about China's status as a rising power: "The world needs China on board for any arrangement to succeed. Our country has arrived on the world stage, and we will not be dictated to by Western powers. In the future, our concerns -- however we define them -- must be taken into account as real constraints."

While the developed nations -- the Europeans especially -- thought the 40-45% carbon intensity cut was an "initial offer" to start the bargaining, it turned out to be a "final offer." It was something the Chinese were committed to doing regardless of the outcome at Copenhagen. (This was quite a clever move. In offering any sort of commitment, the Chinese went beyond their responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol, while upholding the "common but differentiated responsibilities" framework as interpreted by the developing world.) Because this figure was already on the table, and because they were ready to act unilaterally, the Chinese did not have much stake in whether COP15 succeeded or failed. This presented an opportunity to advance a different political agenda important to Beijing.

Especially after funding for China was taken off the table in Week 1 (humorous at the time when vice-Foreign Minister He Yafei publicly bashed climate envoy Todd Stern. See video here), if the Chinese ultimately didn't care, there wasn't much else the US could offer to sway them. Furthermore, because the waters were so muddy, it would be easy to deflect blame, so Beijing risked very little to send this signal to the US. In the end, power politics outweighed the environmental impulse on the part of the Chinese.

This doesn't mean the Chinese aren't going to do anything about energy at home -- as NRDC China Program director Barbara Finamore has pointed out, they really do see the benefits of becoming more efficient. (Good for industry, good for competitiveness, good for the government coffer.) Thus, they will be serious about implementing the carbon intensity targets, which are by no means easy to accomplish. Tack onto that the updated Statistics Law that promises severe penalties for officials caught altering numbers, and there are some powerful incentives to get industry and government at all levels moving toward the goal.

In the end though, as an individual from Fiji who was also present at COP15 said to me, "The Chinese weren't here to play ball." After all, you don't keep Wen Jiabao out of the "group" negotiations where Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, and other heads of state are present if you are serious about finding a solution. You only do that if you want to send a different kind of message.

The lesson from Copenhagen? Realism bites back.

Holiday Greetings!

2009-12-25T22:01:00.002+01:00

God Jul and 聖誕節快樂 to everyone!

Wishing all the best for mankind and the planet.

Glad to be home with family.

What China accomplished

2009-12-25T21:45:00.011+01:00

UPDATE: Condensed version here.

How could this have happened? With mild hopes and expectations seemingly tempered by past experience and current conditions, COP15 was set to achieve a "politically binding" agreement, with a COP15.5 next year to finalize details. Why was the outcome so far from what all parties had been expecting?

I analyze here the role China may have had in these negotiations. It was only on Sunday, after chatting with Yue Li, and then in discussion with a Fijian conference participant on the plane to Frankfurt on Monday, that the terrible realization of what China was up to dawned on me. When I arrived in Calgary, the BBC was reporting Milliband's piece in the Guardian and China's response. Then the next day, a former professor sent me this article discussing how the Chinese delegation behaved, and it was a sad confirmation.

Many of us made the mistake of assuming they had made climate change a priority; we bought into the narrative that "China is greening. The country is doing everything it can to fight climate change, which China itself is vulnerable to. However, it does face certain economic constraints and developmental priorities, which are not unreasonable." We should have realized that, behind the scenes, other forces may have been motivating the Chinese.

Things looked a lot better going into COP15, especially when Beijing announced its carbon intensity commitment back in November. It was a catalyst for India, Brazil and South Africa to follow suit, and it set a positive tone for the negotiations. Though the targets were unambitious, most people thought these represented a starting point for the negotiations -- much as the EU had said 20% reductions were committed, and they would raise it to 30% if a meaningful agreement could be reached. India explicitly stated that its goal (20-25% reduction in carbon intensity) was only a starting point, and it might do more if an “equitable” agreement could be reached. Unfortunately, rather than a starting point for bargaining, the Chinese offer turned out to be the final asking price.

Tack onto that Obama's visit to Beijing in November, and the fact that he changed his arrival in Copenhagen from Dec. 9, the beginning of the conference, to Dec. 18, the last day, and it seemed like something had to have happened behind the scenes that gave the Administration confidence a deal could be reached -- at least enough of a possibility of agreement to risk putting the President's prestige on the line. The fact that 120+ other leaders would be in Copenhagen created a sense of mild optimism for a meaningful outcome. I kept tamping down my expectations in the weeks leading up to COP, but hope still existed.

It was difficult to tell what the Chinese strategy was over the first week and a half in Copenhagen. It really seemed like it could have gone either way. The first week, they were fully in line with the G-77, which was making hard demands. (No more than 1.5 degrees of warming, a lot more funding, deeper emissions cuts from developed countries, etc.) But by all accounts, countries nearly always start off stretching the bounds of what's likely or possible, and give way only later on in the negotiations, with incentives and deals and compromises.

Sadly, compromise was not forthcoming, and progress was very slow. Nations were still very far apart heading into the second week of negotiations. By Tuesday, the second week of the COP, the Chinese were still spouting the hard line "blame the US and the West" rhetoric at their evening press briefing (which took place at 5 PM at their delegation offices, in a little couch area and an adjoining press conference room dubbed the "China Information and Communication Center 中国新闻与交流中心"). Things did not look good ... yet I continued to wonder if this was simply a negotiating tactic, to extract more concessions from the West. No one was truly countenancing failure. In the meantime, much of the rhetoric was coming from the G77 + China bloc, not only China per se, so it was hard to pin it on them. (G77 efforts really seemed well-coordinated, at least on the PR front. You had islands noisily protesting with the help of NGOs; you had G77 spokesperson Lumumba di-Aping of Sudan making dramatic pronouncements about the culpability of developed nations; and you had China, India and others backing them up in a united front.)

On Wednesday, with only 3 days left, we were hoping for the best, but I had a bad, bad feeling that the COP would end without agreement. Throughout the day, I kept turning to my friends and saying, "I hope COP doesn't fail. It would be horrible if things just imploded." It was starting to seem a distinct possibility.

No positive news came out of Bella Center that day. (There was restricted entry, so the Stanford delegation was taking turns getting in with secondary passes. I was in downtown Copenhagen for the afternoon -- the first time I had seen sunlight in several days -- but then the Bella Center stopped NGOs from exiting/entering around 2 p.m., so I wasn't able to make it back in for the 5 p.m. Chinese briefing. However, my friend went to a different briefing by the Finance Minister, and she reported similar rhetoric, specifically on MRV.)

On Thursday morning, things looked absolutely dire -- media were reporting that the Danes were admitting the likelihood of failure, and the Chinese were saying that only a "short political statement" could be expected. But then Secretary Clinton gave her $100 billion in funding speech, and hope was reignited. I spoke to some people familiar with how China operates at these international negotiations, and was told that now the Americans had taken action, had offered something, the door was open to a deal. (I wrote a posting about this here: http://copenhagentime.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-post.html)

MRV (measurement, reporting, verification), the major sticking point, wouldn't have to be intrusive; verification strategies could be devised that were acceptable to all parties -- measures that would respect China's sovereignty, but give enough confidence to the Americans (especially the Senate) that the Chinese were living up to their end of the deal. At that point, it was up to the Chinese to reciprocate: things looked more optimistic, and the stage was set for a potential deal. There was even talk of greater "flexibility" by the Chinese, and media reports transmitted this revived hope.

I kept thinking that with the arrival of Wen Jiabao, the Chinese would suddenly change their tune, at least behind closed doors. The Chinese wouldn't want to be spoilers (or at least wouldn't want to be seen as spoilers), and they were simply waiting for an appropriate moment to make an announcement, perhaps in conjunction with Obama.

But on Friday morning, Wen declined to attend the "group" negotiations with other heads of state, including Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc. This was simply shocking! What were the Chinese doing?!? Obama reportedly went to negotiate with Wen on a bilateral basis afterwards, and a US official said that the talks were "constructive" and "made progress." (By the way, is this standard operating procedure at the State Department? To always say that the talks are making progress, even if they are rocky, in order to encourage greater cooperation?) We all held onto hope for a last-minute breakthrough. (In any case, according to media filings and e-mail updates from the one Stanford individual who got into the Bella Center, things were at a standstill in the plenaries, so it was really up to the U.S. and China.)

Then came the end. After the mad dashing about by world leaders on Friday, what we had was the weak agreement -- so far from all expectations that it was nearly a failure. Comedic, really, when you consider that Obama had to barge into a meeting between China, Brazil, India and S. Africa to get it done. (Okay, apparently he did not "barge" per se, but his presence was not exactly planned.)

I was exiting the Copenhagen Central Station, and I remember looking up at the news ticker and seeing the line "Obama and Wen are in a meeting." Shortly thereafter, at the hotel I had just checked into that day, I turned on CNN. They said that Obama had met with Brazil, China, India and S. Africa and an announcement was imminent. He was consulting with the EU and others, and once that meeting concluded, a press conference would start.

It was very ironic, because I saw the Obama announcement of the "breakthrough" before most of the delegates in Bella Center, because he had pre-recorded his remarks after wrapping things up in the small group meeting, and then left for D.C. I had the UNFCCC webcast open, and the reporters were all still sitting around waiting for the announcement, while CNN was already playing the tape of Obama's recorded speech. I can see why some of the delegates from small nations were livid -- they hadn't been consulted about this "Copenhagen Accord". It had been negotiated by a small group of countries, and now it was tossed on them and they were expected to agree to it!

On the plane ride home from Copenhagen, I sat next to a Fijian observer with links to her country's delegation, who was actually present in the Bella Center for the last two days. She was furious at the turn of events and at the oh-so-weak "agreement" (you could hear the " " quotation marks when she spoke about it, ha ha =D). She was deeply frustrated by the COP process and the UN bureaucracy, disappointed with Obama and what he brought to Copenhagen, angry at Nasheed of the Maldives for buying into the final "agreement".

As we discussed what transpired in Copenhagen, it suddenly dawned on us what the Chinese had been up to. More explanation is needed, but in short, we simply asked ourselves the questions: "What were the incentives for China to act? What motivated the Chinese?"

They were already committed to reducing carbon intensity -- this was going to happen, whatever the outcome at Copenhagen. Then in the first week, the U.S. pretty much eliminated any possibility for funding for China. (The Chinese were quite angry about this statement. This is when they called Todd Stern "extremely irresponsible" and lacking in "common sense", ha ha ha.)

So the choices for China were to:
1) Help usher in a climate deal and avoid being painted as a bad guy who blocked a deal; or

2) Flex its muscle and show the nation's status as a rising power. Demonstrate that the rest of the world needs China on board.

Apparently, they chose option 2. It was a warning shot to the U.S. that in this and future endeavors, Washington will require Beijing's help. We must take their views into consideration. It continues a trend where the Chinese are gaining confidence and saying to the West, "We will not be dictated to." As the Fijian put it, "They were never here to play ball." Instead, they were in Copenhagen to make a statement.

To put it another way, what would have been more valuable for the Chinese? To gain a gold star and international plaudits as a "cooperative player" in the global effort to fight climate change? Or to send an unmistakable signal to the Americans that China has arrived on the world stage and will no longer remain compliant -- and more importantly, that it now has the power to back up that approach? (And in the process, embolden Brazil, South Africa and India to also take a stand.)

One reading of this turn of events: For some time, China has wanted to be seen as a global leader. And it's starting to seem as if they don't envision their role as a soft consensus builder, bridging the developed and developing world. All the talk about "peaceful rise" and "responsible stakeholder" not withstanding, they want to be a robust and independent foreign policy actor. Their "core" national interests -- whatever they define them as, whether it's something as small as sovereignty and verification, or as serious as China's claim over Xinjiang -- are hard constraints that must be taken into account as such. These constraints can't be pressured away or bought off. And in the end, China didn't risk much at Copenhagen to send this message.

Indeed, by the end of the week, I don't think they really cared much about their own international reputation; things were so muddy that blame could easily be tilted anywhere. It becomes a he-said, she-said, and frankly, the U.S. does not have much credibility in this fight, especially because the Chinese had made a commitment before Copenhagen.

And what about jumping ship at the last day, abandoning the united bloc of the G-77? The G-77 + China had actually shown fractures throughout the conference, because some of the small island nations wanted stricter targets an stronger commitments from even the larger developing nations. But China had also consistently sought greater inclusion of developing countries in the negotiation process. Well, to put it another way, the Chinese used this as a reason to slow or block progress, and did not agree to things like smaller group negotiations. Yet on the last day, at the very end of the conference, the Chinese did not hesitate to drop the "all developing countries must participate" banner and take part in the closed-door negotiations to work out the final agreement. The Chinese were unmistakably a linchpin in the group of countries that worked to finalize the Accords -- basically, G-20 plus some additional developing nation representatives -- and the critical role they would have to play in any deal was clear. I suspect you could feel the smug satisfaction radiating from the Chinese. This I think is the real prize that they captured.

The Chinese held all the cards. They didn't need us; we needed them! It honestly did not matter if a strong or a weak agreement was reached at Copenhagen. They had a unilateral carbon intensity goal they set out to do voluntarily (and they will follow through because it makes their industry more competitive! It's something they want). That's all that was on the table for them. Once the funding went away, there wasn't much else the Americans could give to sway them to do more; the Americans didn't really have anything they wanted. (Even if Obama wanted to make more cuts, he couldn't outrun Congress. And whatever amount of funding the West decided to give to the developing countries for adaptation and mitigation, it could always be spun as a shortcoming on the part of the developed world. 跟中国无关). Furthermore, as public opinion has it, the Chinese don't have to do more -- given "common but differentiated responsibilities" and the Kyoto framework, as a developing country, they really aren't committed to anything. The carbon intensity cuts are a goodwill gesture and it sets them up nicely in the media's narrative on what happened at Copenhagen.

The Fijian lady considered MRV an excuse for China to obstruct, not a legitimate reason. And given the possibility for reaching agreement on that issue, I am now inclined to agree. It was a justification for holding up an agreement, not a deep and abiding concern. If they had wanted to, there were many ways out of that thicket.

So if you look at their incentives for reaching an agreement and what plausible goals the Chinese might have had, climate was never a paramount interest. My main mistake -- one also committed by others -- was deluding myself into thinking that "stopping climate change" was their priority, rather than understanding how they were driven by considerations of national interest that lie outside the realm of energy, the environment or even economics.

In Copenhagen, realism bites back.

Feel free to leave remarks or give your own analysis of what happened.

Back home!

2009-12-23T07:35:00.003+01:00

Major brain disconnect: blue sky and golden sunshine?!? How can it be?

Such confusion in my mind, after two weeks of winter & (admittedly nice) snow...

Now I can't stop smiling!

Irresponsible. And realism bites back.

2009-12-23T00:17:00.005+01:00

Just a few days ago, my own feelings were that the Chinese had not been particularly uncooperative, but still gave them some credence, as the United States itself is not a paragon of climate virtue. I was still disappointed in the outcome at Copenhagen, though.

Then on the airplane, speaking with a person from Fiji who was in Bella Center the last two days, I suddenly realized that there was no incentive for the Chinese to have a deal come through. Either way, they were going to unilaterally do the carbon intensity cuts. The question is, what message did they hope to send with the talks? 1) "We care about the climate and are a cooperative partner" or 2) "We are a big country to be reckoned with now"?

The Fijian and I had suspicions it might actually be the latter, and when we examined China's interests and incentives, we realized that the Chinese didn't really have much at stake if no deal arose. The funding hopes were cut off pretty cleanly in the first week, and the Chinese admitted as much. So there wasn't much left for the Chinese to bargain with; posturing, support for the G77 and developing nation agenda (i.e. bloc leadership) could be the name of the game. Then when the heads of state started arriving, their role as a broker and make-or-break linchpin became apparent.

As she put it, they were "not here to play ball." Any negative publicity would be outweighed by the rise in national stature -- or at least at least in an equivalent message delivered behind the scenes.

Now we find out from someone who was there first hand what had happened ... this is just horrible. China's role ... confirmed! Grrrr!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas

More to come.

Oh China

2009-12-22T13:48:00.006+01:00

This was all over the BBC last night.

The road from Copenhagen (Ed Miliband in the Guardian)

The talks were chaotic, at times farcical. But in the accord there were real gains we can build upon
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-climate-change-accord

Britain blames China for climate talks' failure (Reuters)
http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE5BK1H0.htm

--- vs. ---

China Defends Climate Talk Stance (Associated Press)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/22/world/AP-AS-China-Britain-Climate.html

China says Britain sowing discord in climate politics (Reuters)
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINTOE5BL03020091222

The adventure continues

2009-12-22T05:00:00.007+01:00

Well, I thought the layover in Frankfurt would be the last of winter I would have to see. I expected to be back in lovely, temperate California by now. The Air Canada flight out from Frankfurt was delayed for de-icing. I napped while this was going on, so I assumed it would take 10 minutes, like it did at Copenhagen. Apparently the flight was actually delayed for 2 hours, so by the time we arrived at Calgary, it was already past six.

We waited in a loooong line at customs. Then I had to pick up my suitcase from the baggage claim, and then recheck it and get a boarding pass. Unfortunately, it was already nearly 7 when I got through customs, and the bag never showed up, and the flight was leaving at 7:14, and it was just a big mess.

Air Canada really needs to revamp its baggage handling system. They kept dumping out all these suitcases that sat in piles two or three high on the carousel, that nobody was claiming. Everyone already present didn't see their bags for the longest time. (Or in my case, at all). I would have just gone through to my connecting flight, but they said we were not supposed to leave without our bags.

Eventually, I had to go to the lost baggage counter. It was already past 7:30, and the SF-bound flight had already left. Unfortunately, I found out it was the last flight of the day. (In any case, the US customs gate had also closed at 7 pm, so it was unlikely that I could have gotten through). It turns out lots of Frankfurt bags hadn't arrived (even though we had plenty of time for them to ensure all the luggage got on board in Germany). Since my final flight is to SFO, I am supposed to file the missing bag form once I arrive in San Francisco. It would have been nice for them to tell us earlier; I would have just gotten on the flight for home.

Anyhow, I am booked for an 8 a.m. flight to SF. (I am supposed to show up at 6 a.m. ... and no, that's no longer considered arriving early, lol.) I guess I will have to spend another 12 hours away from home. So there's another story for the stack that is this Copenhagen Adventure.

I suppose in a way I now get to commiserate with all the people trapped on the East Coast, in Europe, between UK and France, by air or rail or bus, as they seek to get to their December destinations.

The islands speak again

2009-12-22T04:56:00.004+01:00

Met a girl from Fiji who was also on the Copenhagen to Frankfurt flight. She was working at COP with 350. She was disappointed and angry, and was losing faith in the UN. (I gave her the line about the UN being a collection of member states, so it was really the member states she should be angry with.)

Some of her thoughts:

- Weak agreement

- Completely under the control of the "umbrella group" i.e. G-20 -- other countries had no input

- Nasheed (of the Maldives) signed on! She was really mad at him for that.

(I tried to reason that he wanted to keep the UNFCCC process together, that if he and other SIS had just abandoned it, the conference could have ended in outright failure. She said that he could have made a speech about how he was being forced to sign on, given the exigencies of the situation, but that he was not happy about it. Instead, he was highly supportive).

- Weak performance by the U.S. Disappointed in Obama. (We discussed Congress' role, how the US is not a parliamentary system, not a majoritarian system with good party discipline, so how the Senate goes is absolutely pivotal, and not guaranteed even though there is a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress.)

- China's obstructionist behaviors. Major revelatory moment here.

- Should we have a COP16 or not? Better or worse for UNFCCC to fail? (I pointed out that without UNFCCC, island nations and small countries have no say, it would just be G-20 dictating terms. At least there are some mechanisms for participation in UNFCCC)

- Funding ambiguous. ($100 billion in the Clinton speech. But public/private sources? Alternative sources? It's really unclear what all this means. The Fijian was also worried about how much will be from existing aid vs. new aid.)

- The whole "accord" is ambiguous. Not only non-committal, but even what it says is open to interpretation and not very clear.

- The outcome was way worse than anyone had anticipated. Have to go back to the drawing board and see where we go from here.

CPH

2009-12-22T04:54:00.003+01:00

Trained to the airport this morning. Goodbye, Copenhagen!

- I've never been told, "You're too early, the gate hasn't been assigned yet."

- Efficient! There was a massive line reaching around the corner, but in about 20 minutes, we were already checking in.

- The Danes are lovely people. They have trust in others and are open and kind, even to strangers.

Musician stirring ...

2009-12-20T23:58:00.009+01:00

I spent today walking around downtown Copenhagen, from the Main Square through Norreport's shops and cafes, to the Amalienborg Palace (which was lovely in its symmetry and with an unpretentious-but-noble presence), to the King's Garden (snowed in) and Rosenborg Castle (stiff, and mostly filled with jewels, which for some reason was singularly unexciting. As the person manning the store put it, it's a storage attic).

The last destination I had in mind for the walking tour was the Fortification next to Osterport station. It was getting dark, and I decided not to venture into the big snowy park across what looked like a frozen moat. Instead, I walked down Esplanade/Brodegade back toward the center of town.

By happenstance, the road passed by the domed building I had seen earlier from the plaza at Amalienborg Palace. On the map, it was called the Marble Church, and I decided to take one more look around. I crossed over to ( ) street, which had festive holiday lights strung across and strolled through the winter night. I arrived at the church and took a few photos of the exterior, turquoise oxidized copper against a twilight sky. As I circled around the edge and prepared to walk home, I glanced in the window and caught a glimpse of an exquisite interior. Amber had mentioned the other day that she always liked to see the insides of churches, simply for the aesthetics -- so I decided to give this one a try.

At the front door, there was a sign that said, "no sightseeing." Apparently the doors were closed for an ongoing "koncert." I glanced at the program posted on the wall, which looked awesome -- my eyes focused on the words J.S. Bach -- and at once decided to stay.

As soon as I walked inside, I could hear strings floating across the room. I tiptoed to a pew and sat down, relaxing into the blanket of sound. The music swelled, and it was absolutely rapturous ... that moment ... you musicians know what I mean, the feeling you get when the music crests into a wave of harmony and togetherness, carrying a particular emotive force ... The sound was stunning, enveloping the audience in its brilliant and lovely timbre. I could have stayed in place for hours, with swimming acoustics that reverberated and bathed you in beauty and light. The scene ... the high rounded dome, soft golden illumination, saints and angels in shining garb standing in 12 panels around the heavens ...

The chamber orchestra played through Tchaikovsky's Serenade for Strings, and I do not know if I was awake or dreaming in that world awash in beauty and sound. I felt fortunate to be allowed this perfect moment on a winter night.

Sigh(s)

2009-12-20T07:39:00.002+01:00

Depressing post from the BBC's Richard Black on the implications of the, uh, "Copenhagen Accord" on climate change negotiations; the way collective action will be manifested; and the future of the UNFCCC as a mechanism for international coordination. Some key points:

What appears to have happened is that the UN process was effectively ambushed by countries that perhaps don't want there to be a UN process.
...
Intriguingly, the morning after the deal was announced by White House press release, it wasn't clear whether it counts as an agreement within the UN system or whether it lies outside. If parties had adopted the deal, it would be a UN issue. But they didn't, because there was no consensus; instead governments only decided to "take note" of the accord.
...
During their discussions afterwards, several delegations suggested this means it isn't a UN agreement - and various UN officials gave different interpretations. If it turns out not to be a UN agreement, then - at the extreme end of things - the UN climate convention could effectively be dead as the powerful world's favoured instrument for controlling emissions. A deal made at a UN summit would move outside, being a free-standing arrangement effectively decided by the 26 countries involved in the drafting. It will mean that a select group of countries - the G20, or thereabouts - will basically decide what they want to do, and then do it.
...
Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance? Is it the end for the idea of global, negotiated governance on other environmental issues?

Maybe this post should be called "Collective Sighs Post-COP15". I'm really interested in seeing where this issue of environmental governance and international environmental regimes go ... We should ask Wara or Weyant when we get back to Stanford.

Collateral Damage - REDD goes under?

2009-12-19T10:27:00.001+01:00

Lack of a final deal means other issues in the climate talks, such as REDD, may also be casualties -- even though there was substantial support and agreement for these parts of a deal. I don't follow REDD closely (you should check with Matt Colgan, one of my roommates here in Copenhagen, who has been sticking with it through the whole COP) -- but it was one of the bright spots in the whole process. It would be a tragedy if it sank with the foundering "comprehensive" agreement.

I became worried when I saw this article:

Forest Plan Gets Ax at UN Climate Talks (Dec 19, 2009)

By Michael Casey, The Associated Press

COPENHAGEN -- A plan to protect the world's biologically rich tropical forests was shelved early Saturday after world leaders failed to agree on a binding deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Delegates scrapped plans for a comprehensive climate agreement that would have included the deal to pay poor countries to protect their forests. The program is known as REDD for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation.

''REDD gets punted along for another year,'' said Kevin Conrad, executive director of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, which includes many of the 40 tropical countries that would take part in the program. ''It's depressing,'' he said. ''It means I've got to spend another year ... coming to meetings and talking about the same things.''

The burning or cutting of trees for logging and to clear land for plantations or cattle ranches is blamed for about 20 percent of global emissions. That's as much carbon dioxide as all the world's cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships combined. About 32 million acres (13 million hectares) of forests are cut down each year -- an area about the size of England or New York State -- and the emissions generated are comparable to those of China and the United States, according to the Eliasch Review. Deforestation for logging, cattle grazing and crops has made Indonesia and Brazil the world's third- and fourth-biggest emitters.

''The failure of the U.N. process to agree on a system to fund and regulate the protection of the world's forests means that business as usual logging and forest conversion will continue,'' said Stephen Leonard of the Australian Orangutan Project. ''No treaty means that forest destruction will continue unabated, forest dependent peoples rights will not be protected and endangered species will continue down the path to extinction.''

REDD would be financed either by wealthy nations or by a carbon-trading mechanism -- a system in which each country would have an emissions ceiling, allowing those who undershoot it to sell their emissions credits to over-polluters.

---

UPDATE 1: Karim says it is still on the final draft, so hopefully the program can still be created/effectively implemented.

UPDATE 2 (12/20/09): One paragraph regarding REDD-plus is included in the final Copenhagen Accord. Two other points on REDD were not included.

P.S. REDD-plus is what we call India's provision to pay countries for enhancing carbon stocks (by planting trees), in addition to preventing deforestation.

Wall Street Journal -- editorial nonsense?

2009-12-19T07:55:00.012+01:00

Saturday, Dec. 19. Around 8 a.m. I will get to my emotions regarding this COP in another post. For now, I just want to respond to some of the drivel that's coming out in the American media.

This morning, The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial called "Copenhagen's Lesson in Limits". I'm not in an overly joyful mood, and the editorial board is testing my patience with their flippant and dismissive wave of the hand at COP and the efforts by all the delegates. If you read the piece,it is misleading and contains serious inaccuracies. It's not a meaningful commentary, just a political potshot that makes claims without a factual basis. There are major problems with the editorial because it trades accuracy for glib one-liners. Though rhetorically clever, the one-liners are still wrong--sorry, you don't get points for extra snarkiness.

Coming from an editorial board that revels in "debunking" climate change and excoriating all manner of efforts to combat global warming's harmful impacts, I shouldn't have expected any better -- they never wished the COP success anyway. However, it's still annoying to hear such derision, right when everyone's hopes were for a good outcome.

Several lines in this article struck me as particularly erroneous. They were pronouncements made from the armchair, rather than with a view of the negotiating floor. For example:

We can't wait to hear Mr. Obama tell Americans that he wants them to pay higher taxes so the U.S. can pay China to become more energy efficient and thus more economically competitive.

What is the WSJ talking about? This is just ludicrous.

1) Pricing carbon is a way for AMERICA to get more energy efficient and competitive. If our industries are inefficient and polluting, instead of continuing to subsidize dirty, inefficient production by feeding cheap coal or electricity generated by fossil fuel, putting a price on carbon (via tax or permits, you choose) is a way to encourage industry to get leaner and more energy efficient. Carbon intensity in the US has slowly trended downward in the past half century. Let's accelerate the transformation and develop cleaner, greener jobs. Furthermore, in addition to ramping up efficiency of our manufacturing, the US should be getting into a leadership position on clean technology and developing innovative new industries.

2) China is most likely not even going to get funding from the United States; the primary recipients of assistance are the LDCs and other “nations that are the most vulnerable and least prepared to meet the effects of climate change,” as Secretary of State Clinton said. The American delegation was pretty clear on this throughout the COP15 negotiations. Head of delegation, Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern also said earlier, "I do not envision public funds, certainly not from the US, going to China. We would intend to direct our public funds to the neediest countries." (Also quoted here.) He noted "China -- to its great credit -- has a dynamic economy, and sits on some two trillion dollars in reserves. So we don’t think China would be the first candidate for public funding."

(The Chinese were extremely unhappy about this statement, and Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei blasted Stern for it, claiming he "lacked common sense" or was "extremely irresponsible." However, they eventually admitted that things would probably play out this way and agreed that funds should be focused on the neediest countries. See FT Times articles here and here and a clarification by the foreign ministry.)

3) Rather than foreign aid, China is more likely to receive international funds by participating in a carbon market. This shouldn't be a problem because the Wall Street Journal loves markets and market-based mechanisms, right? One such mechanism, the CDM, has its problems, but projects in China are coming under increasing scrutiny, with several Chinese projects rejected.

4) In any case (THIS IS A KEY POINT!), China has already stated its intention to move ahead unilaterally with its carbon intensity target, regardless of the outcome at Copenhagen. Chinese industry doesn’t need U.S. funding to retool and get even more competitive. Increasing efficiency is a smart economic move, so industry and government are willing to act of their own volition. As Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said at a press conference: “Our commitment from now to 2020 is pledged on the basis of no external funds. It's a unilateral action." Premiere Wen Jiabao noted that China "will fulfill it regardless of the outcome of the Copenhagen climate talks." So America’s money is safe for now. We don't have to "pay" the Chinese to do this; they are committed to doing it because they realize efficiency boosts competitiveness!

In any case, China may not even desire U.S. aid, because it would come with MRV stipulations, which they’ve been somewhat allergic to throughout the negotiations.

5) Some funding will be used for mitigation activities like efficiency improvements, but much of the funding is designated for adaptation and forest preservation. Again, see Clinton's speech at COP15 on Thursday, Dec. 17.

6) As Thomas Friedman said on the CNN+YouTube debate on Wednesday, "WE'RE ALREADY PAYING A TAX!"

(Watch the clip at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeBzFx21_lA, start at: 6:00)

(UPDATE 12-24-09) The YouTube clip no longer seems to be accessible, so check this one out instead, around 26:20)

We are funneling money to all manner of authoritarian regimes overseas that don't like us very much because of our addiction to fossil fuels. So in terms of taxes, “We're already paying one; it's just a matter of which treasury it goes to.” Friedman says he'd prefer “paying it to our own American treasury, to fund U.S. schools, U.S. hospitals, U.S. roads, U.S. research,” as opposed to unfriendly governments.

-----

Another paragraph in the editorial that is extremely problematic:
No doubt under the agreement China will continue to get a free climate pass despite its role as the world's No. 1 emitter. At Copenhagen the emerging economies nonetheless proved skilled at exploiting the West's carbon Tguilt, and in exchange for the nonconcession of continuing to negotiate next year, or the year after that, they'll receive up to $100 billion in foreign aid by 2020, with the U.S. contributing the lion's share.

1) What a double standard. For the longest time, the United States ALWAYS got a free climate pass "despite its role as the world's No. 1 emitter." Even today, we aren't covered by the Kyoto Protocol because we refused to ratify it!Thus, while virtually every other developed economy has emissions targets, we have no commitments under Kyoto. This is why there was a scramble at COP15 to find a way for the US to make commitments to reduce emissions outside the KP track, while the rest of the Annex I countries made commitments in an extension of Kyoto.

2) "Carbon guilt"?

Uh ... if you were even paying attention to the negotiations, the US delegation repeatedly insisted that the funding was NOT for reparations, but for assistance. The head negotiator for the U.S. categorically rejected the notion of carbon guilt. (Indeed, this position was a source of tension and angered other delegations, since they thought the West should not only take on more historical responsibility, but pay for it.)

LINK: U.S. sees robust climate talks, no "reparations"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B82J220091210

3) Aid of $100 billion through 2020

Er... what's wrong with that? The low-lying coastal countries, small-island states, and LDCs are the most vulnerable to the damage caused by climate change. We are essentially screwing them over with our refusal to curb our emissions. This money is for help with adaptation, as well as mitigation and forest management. So yes, they should be getting this money, because they face substantial harm as we continue to pollute and refuse to change our ways. (This is called the “Polluter Pays” principle.). Unfortunately, nature will not be so kind while we dither.

And is the US really going to take up the lion's share? We've been extremely stingy so far, despite having the greatest historical emissions and one of the greatest per capita emissions. The EU has been ponying up a lot more cash. Anyway, rest easy, Wall Street, funding will come from "public and private sources" of finance, so you'll get your cow to milk.

-----

Obstructionists like the WSJ editorial board need to get out of the way and let American industry and society rise up to meet the challenge head-on: to become more efficient; cut emissions and resource usage; and pursue opportunities in new fields. The SAME OLD WAY is unsustainable and headed for failure. Why do we want to preside over the old economy of the 20th century when we could be leading the new economy of the 21st? Take it from someone who lives in Silicon Valley; being on the cutting edge and innovating is actually a good thing. I believe in the capacity of people, corporations and institutions all over the United States to join in the renewal of our nation and regain a position of leadership. Fighting efforts to mitigate climate change and spreading misinformation are not helpful to that mission.

2009-12-18T22:52:00.005+01:00

2009-12-18T22:52:00.003+01:00

2009-12-18T22:52:00.001+01:00

Seesaw Depressing Day

2009-12-18T22:22:00.005+01:00

It's been up and down today. Went to sleep around 6 or 7 a.m. happy that the door was now open for an agreement, because the US had moved. We were waiting, then, for China to respond.

I had a bit of a suspicion that this might not pan out the way we hoped, so I sent a caveat to the Stanford list, following up.

P.S. In case it wasn't clear ... this note is not saying any of this *will* happen. It's saying that there's a possibility, a potential opening, so don't completely despair. Hopefully the Parties will take it up and keep working toward an agreement.

It's also possible that political exigencies will overtake what seems to be a real possibility. As Lily Cheng pointed out last night, the US and China both know what they have to do on climate. But there are definitely things that can still get in the way.

Then this morning, I awoke to reports that Wen Jiabao did *not* attend the meetings with other world leaders, including Pres. Obama, and instead sent another Chinese official. WTF! What is China doing?

This did not bode well. The rest of the day seemed to fluctuate, sometimes with pessimistic news, other times with hopeful notes. It was all just so unclear. I saw some articles that said progress was again possible, because US had offered funding, and China was showing "flexibility" on international verification. But then bad news about Wen ...

The whole afternoon, I just couldn't shake the feeling that the COP was failing, and we were going to wake up tomorrow morning with everything having imploded, no agreement reached, nothing close to what we hoped coming through this conference.

Later in the day, though, I heard news that Obama and Wen were meeting alone (bilaterally), so perhaps some discussion was happening. In news reports, the meeting was termed "productive".

Brief exchange with Arlo, Stanford's communications specialist at COP15 who is live-blogging the event. I e-mailed to him:

I'm only [now feeling] a little depressed, because while the window of opportunity is open, China is not moving forward to seize it. They're still holding rigid, playing a political game of brinksmanship. Given the constraints of its domestic political situation, the US has done something to hold open the door. Now we need the Chinese to reciprocate.

I have been hearing conflicting reports all day; some are very pessimistic, some are saying the Chinese are warming up. The Prime MInister did NOT attend the group meeting(s) with Obama, but later, Obama and Wen Jiabao did meet bilaterally.
It is unclear what's happening, Karim's appraisals seem very down, news reports aren't shedding much light except that there's a new draft text in case the conference fails. Sad.

Two cents (0.136 RMB) on China + some analysis

2009-12-18T08:07:00.002+01:00

While negotiations seemed deadlocked earlier today, measures taken this afternoon may have revived hopes for an agreement in Copenhagen.

Two of the major stumbling blocks to reaching an agreement at COP15 have been the positions of the United States and China. The general feeling from both developing countries and our European friends (see here and here) is that the U.S. offer to reduce emissions is underwhelming. (The U.S. proposes reducing its GHG emissions 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, equivalent to reducing 3-4% below 1990 levels). American suggestions of $10 billion in funding to developing countries through 2012 have also been criticized as inadequate.

Conversely, the refusal of the Chinese to accept MRV requirements -- measuring, reporting, and verification -- claiming that it violates national sovereignty, is a major sticking point with the Americans. It’s been cleverly couched by the Chinese as, We aren't taking [getting?] your funding. And since you aren’t paying for any of these projects, no MRV. Or as Wen Jiabao said on Thursday:

"For developing countries, only those mitigation actions supported internationally will be subject to the MRV." Any "voluntary mitigation actions [that China takes on by itself] should not be subject to international MRV.”

China has indicated that its 2020 carbon intensity goal counts as a voluntary action at the international level, though it will be legally required at the domestic level. These points of contention have held up negotiations for several days, with a pretty pessimistic outlook this morning.

However, by late this afternoon, things just might have shifted. At an event in the evening put on by the BlueGreen Alliance (a uniting of workers and environmental groups to further the agenda for "good jobs, clean environment, green economy"), I ran into Barbara Finamore, the head of NRDC’s China program, who has decades of experience working in the country and who has contacts well-positioned to know how the Chinese delegation operates at international negotiations. (See her quote in the New York Times on December 15. By the way, for transparency's sake, I should note she was my boss when I worked in NRDC's Beijing office in 2007.)

Barbara felt that Secretary of State Clinton’s announcement -- that the U.S. will help raise funding of $100 billion for developing countries to deal with climate change -- could break the logjam. Since the U.S. has made a move, it is now up to China, which has been asking for more concrete steps from the Americans all along, to reciprocate.

According to Clinton (transcript of speech and related article):

"the United States is prepared to work with other countries toward a goal of jointly mobilizing 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the climate change needs” of developing nations.

However, this must be done "in the context of a strong accord in which all major economies stand behind meaningful mitigation actions and provide full transparency as to their implementation.''

In other words, this effort to mobilize funding ("from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance") will commence only if (1) a deal is reached, and (2) the deal must include measures that ensure "transparency" and the ability to conduct MRV. The funding will have a "significant focus on forestry and adaptation" and is "particularly ... for the poorest and most vulnerable" countries.

Several members of the G77 have already sent messages to the Chinese indicating that they are amenable to this plan because they truly need and want the funding, and have asked the Chinese to make a deal possible. (This group includes the Maldives, Ethiopia and Bangladesh. See here.) This is not to say all G77 countries are convinced. Lumumba di-Aping of Sudan, who acts as chief negotiator of the G77, said, "This is a good signal, but it's still insufficient. We need more money." (Quoted here.)

On the Chinese side, some leaders are worried that that MRV could mean intrusive actions, such as factory-level inspections, with foreign experts entering individual facilities to ascertain whether China is living up to its carbon intensity goals. They feel this is a major affront to sovereignty. Beijing says that it will make its efforts transparent, and compliant with national laws and regulations, and this should be good enough. Or as He Yafei, vice-foreign minister, put it, China’s laws would guarantee compliance. (Mentioned in NYTimes article from December 15. Ugh, don't get me started on how this seems preposterous.)

Finamore and others have been attempting to convince parties on both sides that intrusive inspections of this sort are not what MRV is about, and such drastic measures are, in fact, not needed to verify that the Chinese are meeting their commitments. For one, China publishes data about its electricity generation, fuel use and energy use every year. The data are publicly available, and other international institutions (including multilateral lending institutions like the Asian Development Bank) make full use of it.

If the Chinese can continue working toward transparency and publicizing their actions, there is enough information in these and other reports to track progress in emissions reductions. The Chinese can feel that respect for their sovereignty is upheld, while the Americans (the Senate in particular) can be confident that the Chinese are not only taking on some of the global burden, but that the international community can verify progress.

Some of you will ask, How do we know China will actually publish accurate statistics? What if officials fudge the numbers?

For example, in the last Five-year Plan that runs through 2010, there was an energy intensity target, which would work much the same way this new carbon intensity target is supposed to work. Provincial leaders are evaluated in part based on whether they meet this target or not. Don’t they have an incentive to lie?

While there are many examples of this problem in China, and it remains an ongoing concern, there are also several factors that can mitigate the problem, at least when it comes to energy and GHG emissions reporting:

1. The Chinese government needs these statistics, too. As Lily Cheng pointed out, Beijing wants accurate data to work with.

2. A revision to the Statistics Law (more details here) was passed this year and comes into effect in January 2010. It imposes severe penalties (potentially even jail time) for leaders that fake or alter statistics. This should be a big deterrent.

3. Increasing energy efficiency and reducing emissions are things many local leaders want to do voluntarily. According to Finamore, mayors and other officials understand that these measures make enterprises more competitive and that it saves them money.

So the incentives line up in a way that should make energy statistics more believable and accurate. China, of course, can continue to make its domestic situation more transparent and potentially allow more independent auditing. But the measures wouldn’t have to be as intrusive as people think.

Neither the U.S. or China is likely to make a move that makes it look like it is capitulating on key matters -- but the gap between the two sides has begun to close, and thus, Finamore says “the door is open” for some form of an agreement.

-----

Additional points:

1. This situation could potentially further fracture the unity of the G77 + China grouping. As noted above, Bangladesh, the Maldives and Ethiopia, among others, have contacted the Chinese to express their support for an agreement in the wake of this announcement. Furthermore, in a televised debate, the president of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, even criticized the idea being floated by some of the G77 and China that "no deal is better than making a bad deal." According to The Australian, Nasheed said that "we are in the G77 and we want an agreement from Copenhagen. We do not agree with that viewpoint at all [that failing to make a deal would be better than a bad deal]. We have to have an agreement."

On the other side, in addition to Sudan/G77 head Lumumba di-Aping's intonation for "more money," Brazil has also raised concerns about "intrusive verification," while Ecuador's foreign minister noted that “What we really need are firm mechanisms to reduce emissions from industrialized countries. Financial mechanisms are useful, but not central, not a solution.” (Quoted in the New York Times).

This kind of split is probably not something China wants to preside over. It also wants to avoid the even worse position of being seen as the cause of failure at COP15. This all adds up to more impetus for the Chinese to respond. Since Chinese premier Wen Jiabao arrived on Wednesday, he has met with Brazil, Bangladesh, Trinidad, Ethiopia and Sudan. The U.S. in turn, has been meeting with India (among other G77 members) and may be reaching an agreement. Jairam Ramesh, India's minister of the environment and forestry says that the two countries agree on about "75% of things", and the last 25% is on ... you guessed it, MRV.

2. See this piece about the varying interpretations of when MRV can/should be applied to projects that countries undertake. US says all actions to reduce emissions by developing countries should be subject to MRV. Many developing nations say that only projects that get outside funding should have MRV requirements. This conflict dates back to the Bali Action Plan, and much of the debate centers around the placement of a comma in the text (!), which took delegates more than two hours to discuss. (!!!)

3. If worse comes to worse, another NRDC expert said that a bilateral statement by the US and China to jointly combat climate change might be the next best option. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

4. Associated Press has a good article on the implications of the U.S. offer on aid.

5. Check out Barbara Finamore's blog at NRDC's website with commentary on Copenhagen, as well as China's environment and its energy situation.

Tuesday 2nd Post

2009-12-18T05:59:00.011+01:00

Forthcoming...

Trifecta: Chinese solar tycoon, Governator, Pachauri

2009-12-18T05:59:00.010+01:00

Volunteered at the Commonwealth Club event this morning, where Huang Ming (CEO and Founder of Himin Solar), California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and IPCC head Rajendra K. Pachauri were to speak.

Huang and Schwarzenegger were on the first panel; Pachauri and the Vice Chairman of Deustche Bank were on the second. Schwarzenegger was ... fashionably late ... the event was supposed to start at 8:45, but I think we only got underway around 9:15 or 9:30.

Several lessons from this experience... forthcoming.

Things don't look so good...

2009-12-18T05:59:00.008+01:00

December 17, 2009. Around 11:30 a.m.

Hopes Are Fading for Climate Accord at Copenhagen (NYTimes)

With just two days remaining in historic and contentious climate talks here, China signaled overnight that it sees virtually no possibility that the nearly 200 nations gathered would find agreement by Friday.

An official in the American delegation said that China would agree only to a brief political declaration that left unresolved virtually all the major issues.

The conference has deadlocked over emissions cuts by, and financing for, developing nations, including China, who say they will bear the brunt of a planetary problem they did little to create. Leaders had hoped to conclude an interim agreement on the major issues that would have “immediate operational effect.” The Chinese, it appears, are not willing to go that far at this meeting.

-----

Danish official: Hopes for climate deal slim (Associated Press)

A Danish official acknowledged that hope was running out for a comprehensive climate deal because the negotiations between rich and poor countries were deadlocked. The official said the Danish hosts of the U.N. conference had not given up though it appeared unlikely that their ambitious plan for the conference would be fulfilled. ''As it looks now, we will not get the deal that we had hoped for,'' said the official, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the talks and asked not to be named.

-----

Copenhagen Climate Talks In Trouble (Reuters)

China told participants it saw no possibility of achieving a detailed accord to tackle global warming ... the Chinese had instead suggested issuing "a short political declaration of some sort."

While the overall picture appears bleak, there has been some progress in areas critical to reaching a deal. Africa dramatically scaled back its expectations for climate aid from rich nations on Wednesday, and Japan pledged about $11 billion in public funds to 2012 to help poor countries adapt to a warmer world and cut their emissions.

-----

So yeah, it's unclear if Denmark et al are trying to tamp down expectations, in case the whole COP really does implode, or if they actually believe it's going down the drain now. I'm also not sure if the Chinese are truly digging in and refusing to budge, or if this is just brinksmanship, i.e. a negotiating tactic. Either way, it's upsetting -- and it feels kind of irresponsible for them to be doing this.

-----

However, REDD has been a potential bright spot. Here are a couple articles on REDD from yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/science/earth/16forest.html

The United States, Australia, France, Japan, Norway and Britain pledged $3.5 billion in the next three years to a program aimed at protecting rain forests. The U.S. portion was $1 billion.

http://cop15post.com/2009/12/16/news/redd-alert-over-draft-deforestation-text/

Earth Hour

2009-12-18T05:59:00.007+01:00

(Afternoon with Kevan, Sabine and Johnny ... Tivoli Gardens ... Lantern Parade ... Lights off at 7 PM ... )

I carried a small Danish girl on my shoulders so she could see the stage. She couldn't speak English yet, so she gave me a quizzical look when I spoke to her, but her brother could speak English and translated for her.

This lady from the Hopenhagen organization kept asking Eric to take photos with his camera, lol. I had to continuously clean off the lens with my scarf, as it was snowing through the evening, and the lens kept fogging up.

I was freezing the whole time -- I was still wearing my suit and dress shoes from this morning, and my feet were especially feeling it. Until suddenly, near the end, I had gone down to look for a pen, and when I stood up, I suddenly felt warm, my feet were so warm. I realized this was not a good sign.

At the end of the event, we went to Burger King to warm up for a few minutes. Then we dashed over to McDonald's for wireless internet. (Yes, the same cafe I had gone to in the morning).

Afterward, Eric and I went to the "Global Greens" event for mayors, hosted at the Nimb Hotel. This is the event that Steve Schneider had sent out to the Stanford COP15 list. There were apparently five events going on at the same hotel, including one for mayors upstairs, where apparently Mayor Bloomberg of New York and Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, were present.

The GG event organizers said they would try to corral everyone passing through to come down to the "Vinotech" i.e. wine cellar, where the event was taking place. It wasn't part of the World Mayor's Forum upstairs, but none of the mayors would know exactly where they should be, so we were going to just reel them in.

There was a complex set of instructions that involved checking guests off on the list, then asking for a business card if they didn't have one, and then waving them in, where they could get their coats taken. (Amber and Matt Colgan were assigned to be coat people ... two Stanford grad students as manservants ... such luxury, lol! I told Matt, "Seriously, you shouldn't have to be doing this. These people can hang up their own coats. They're not royalty." Heh heh.)

It was a fine event. I think we were all tired and we just sat at the table and had a mellow time chatting and drinking wine (or eating oranges, in my case).

//Steve Schneider speech at the end//

It was truly an awesome day. To close it out, when we left the hotel after midnight, a soft white blanket of snow had fallen over Copenhagen. The sidewalks were covered with a layer of white. We were giddy at the sight of snow -- you see, some of us are from California, and snow is an absolute novelty!

We gathered it up in our hands, and tossed it into the air, and took photos of ourselves crunching through the fine layer of powder under foot. I bet the city looks wholly different tomorrow; it already seems calmer, quieter as we walked home through the snow tonight.

CNN + YouTube Debate

2009-12-18T05:59:00.001+01:00

A day in the Bella Center with the Google crew and Eli Pollak. I spent an hour corralling interested people and handing out tickets to get into the event. (The people had to be shuttled to the theater in small groups; it was in an inner room past Plenary I - Tycho Brahe, and security was extremely tight).

//Insert YouTube videos here.//

Yvo de Boer is smart, pure and simple. He does not obscure his points by using obtuse UN jargon; he was actually quite clear and able to communicate with the average person.

Thomas Friedman and Bjorn Lomborg had a heated debate during segment 5. Lomborg tried the tack of: Well, there are so many other problems than global warming, these other things [like disease or poverty] are priorities, we can't put so many resources toward mitigating climate change. Friedman was really animated and came back quite fiercely -- his point was that many of these problems Lomborg speaks of are precisely energy issues. For example, the clinic in Africa that can't afford refrigeration for vaccines -- the solution is cheap power! If we get the costs of distributed generation down, then we can provide a lot of the factors needed for development.

Funny thing: during the break after part 5, the assistant handed Lomborg two glasses of water. Lomborg held one glass out to Friedman, who must have still been really mad about what Lomborg had been saying during the debate. Friedman was about to take the glass, but then suddenly realized who was giving it to him, and then jerked his hand back and refused it. (It kind of looked like he was thinking, "Screw you! I'm not taking any water from you!" Heh heh heh.)

---

After the debate, we stayed in the area and watched SG Ban-ki Moon award Dr. Wangari Maathai the UN pin designating her a Messenger of Peace. Kind of awesome that we got into that event and saw them.

As I was preparing to leave, I had the sense that this would be the last I would see of the Bella Center. I took a photo of myself with the exit sign, and then walked out the door.

At that point, I was ready to go home and wished I could soon be on a flight bound for home.

Reducing Emissions: An evening with the “numbers”

2009-12-15T06:38:00.000+01:00

The life of a diplomat can be tough. It’s not all glitz and glamour—and you don’t always get to stand up at the podium making grand pronouncements of principle.

Shortly after 9 p.m. tonight, a contact group of the AWG-KP—that’s Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol—gathered in the Hans Christian Andersen meeting room. (As Prof. Schneider explained it, a contact group is formed when there’s a sticking point during the plenary, the main negotiating sessions, a particular issue that needs to be hashed out or clarified. Then all the interested countries dispatch representatives to work on crafting an understanding on that point, while the rest of the plenary moves on and discusses other issues on the agenda.)

In our case, the representatives were there to discuss the emissions reductions that each country in Annex I of the Kyoto Protocol would be willing to commit to, and then determine what those emissions reductions would add up to in aggregate.

Sounds like a sexy topic, right? You’d expect fireworks and grand-standing and denunciations as the debate heated up over who should commit and why and how much. Well, the session wasn’t the verbal sparring match we anticipated. For a couple of hours, we mostly stared at a projection of a table:

The two columns read:

Quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitment (2008-2012) (percentage of base year)
Quantified emission limitation or reduction commitment ([2013-2017][2013-2020]) percentage of base year or period

The brackets indicate that content inside the [ ] is up for discussion. The contact group got underway, with various delegations making statements under the Powerpoint glow.

There was some discussion of inserting text: adding footnotes and qualifications; noting this issue or quibbling with that formulation; clarifications or caveats on how emissions reductions are supposed to work. I’m going to make up a phrase here—something like “temporary conditionalities and self-referencing anomalies” seemed to rule the day. Other delegations would object or want to further discuss what was being added to the document. It wasn’t long before the whole conference room turned to gentle droning, and observers and delegates alike started to drift.

At some point, members of the contact group realized that not much was getting done, because the key question of “how much” each country should commit to was still not answered.

Micronesia: It might be best to leave this. We are straying quite far from where we hope to be. (Editor's note: She sounds like Vienna Teng … lyrical, musical voice) (Muzicon)

Chinese delegate: I doubt whether we are making progress and question if we should be here at this late hour, if all we are doing is repeating these old lines (Muzicon)

Since the discussion did not seem to be getting anywhere, the chair suggested that meeting in a “smaller group” as opposed to the wider “contact group” to try to work through some of the issues. She then fielded responses to this proposal. The session then spent the next hour discussing how to proceed (as opposed to the substance of the agenda.)

The process of diplomacy is sometimes … well, I’d venture *often* ... like this. It seems a hard to be a diplomat, especially when you’re dealing with minute details that will wear down your teeth. (Or in this case, deciding what exact procedure would be appropriate for you to begin wearing down your teeth).

My friend Eric Yang Yi pointed out that this kind of working session is very much like 苦功 hard work, hard labor. The participants basically sit there, and go line by line, nitpicking the text, the exact phrasing of each line, mostly contesting the particular language in the document, though in some cases also raising points of principle, Phrasing probably has legal and political rammifications, which is why they do it, and it's important work. (However, it seemed like a lot of these caveats and clarifications imported long-standing arguments to the discussion, which is why some delegates felt like things were moving backwards). The verb Eric used in Chinese to describe the process is 磨, meaning "to grind." It’s exactly like that: a wheelstone grinding against rocks, until the final product is polished—or at least in close enough shape to pass back to the larger plenary.

In fact, when we left, the contact group was still going, though delegates were visibly wilting, and some were showing their frustration. Cearly, they were very dedicated people, and as the Chinese delegation put it: "We're willing to stay here all night, if we are making progress toward an agreement." But many of them felt that they were simply spinning wheels without getting "the numbers" down.

I would have stayed longer to catch the end of the tale, but I didn't want to miss the last Metro out of Bella Center. I was afraid there wouldn’t be any trains after midnight.

(This entry is an impression of the proceedings of an AG-KWP contact group that took place on the evening of December 14, 2009 at the Fifteenth Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen, Denmark. While descriptions are faithful to what was observed from 9-11:50 p.m. from a particular individual's vantage point, the author makes no claims of its accuracy as a reflection of the COP process or of AG-KWP contact groups in general. The author takes no responsibility for the reaction of readers or their actions subsequent to reading this blog.)

Eric surreptiously having his photo taken with Yu Qingtai, one of the Chinese negotiators.

The Belarussian delegate checks her e-mail while the contact group softly hums in the background.

Random Hallway Encounter - Jairam Ramesh

2009-12-15T06:34:00.000+01:00

In the Main Hall, around 11 a.m., next to the black-and-white globe...

Whoa! I just shook hands with Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Minister of the Environment and Forestry. Woohoo!!!

See, I'm kind of a fan. I wrote a policy paper on India's approach to climate negotiations for the COP class, so I've read a lot of his speeches and pronouncements to the media. And now to see him in person! It's kind of awesome.

He was strolling along the hallway with his assistant. I happened by, and suddenly, it was like "Wait! That's Jairam Ramesh! In real life!" I went up to him and said, "Minister! I just wanted to say, 'Hello!'" and extended my hand. He looked a little bemused that he had a fan.

I didn't say anything else, as I assumed he was on his way somewhere, but I walked away with a huge grin on my face.

China + G77: The end of a beautiful friendship?

2009-12-13T10:39:00.000+01:00

There has been talk of a split between China and the G77, who have traditionally negotiated as a bloc at climate conferences. For example, see this piece in the Guardian discussing the rift over Tuvalu's proposal or a more positive note by Michael Wara at the Environmental and Energy Insights blog.

So I wonder if these photos are a hint ...

10:49 PM on Wednesday, December 9 - Still open late at night

7:30 PM on Friday, December 11 - Something's different here

Ha 哈哈. Granted, it was a Friday night and maybe everyone went home. But a white death shroud? Kind of 夸张. And there *were* negotiations on Saturday, too.

Okay, not that there's any animosity between China and the G77 in particular. It's more of a natural, amicable differentiation of responsibilities (har har) as nations' interests and capabilities evolve. After all, China does have a distinct emissions profile and is clearly at a different stage of development than most countries in the grouping. So moving ahead of the G77 members, China and India have in recent weeks stated their willingness to take on some sort of carbon intensity commitment. (Though binding emissions cuts are still out, and the right to development for poor countries remains a fundamental part of the platform).

The group also appears to have maintained a united position on what they're demanding from developed nations: living up to historical responsibility, making deep and significant cuts in emissions, major funding for adaptation and mitigation.

Daytime in the Bella Center

2009-12-13T10:38:00.003+01:00

Historical Responsibility

2009-12-13T10:38:00.001+01:00

Science IS a contact sport

2009-12-13T10:37:00.000+01:00

Press conferences are "no touch" -- please keep your hands to yourself.

350 on the Map (?!)

2009-12-13T08:02:00.000+01:00

Some people might think this sounds horrible, but a little part of me felt that AOSIS was being somewhat unrealistic, or even extreme with their proposal for 350 ppm and a limit of 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial. (Though perhaps this view was also colored by the throng of demonstrators surrounding the spokespersons). These demands seemed to be reaching outside what a final agreement could most likely achieve. Why derail the negotiations, where the world can at least start to act, by putting forward demands unlikely to be met? (In this article that came after the Tuvalu proposal was aired, Yvo de Boer notes that developed countries seem to be set on 2 degrees, not 1.5 degrees.) With 450 ppm, we can definitely push for serious emissions reductions and greater funding for adaptation. But what will happen if AOSIS adopts this hard line and then negotiations founder? Do we really want to walk away with no agreement? That'll be worse for the planet.

As I mentioned earlier, the AOSIS representatives were adamant that the proposals be considered fundamental demands. But it remains unclear whether this action was meant to stake out an aggressive negotiating position to create space for a more favorable agreement, or if these are truly make-it-or-break-it conditions.

Perhaps they feel they have no other choice but to take a more extreme stand. I understand part of this is political posturing, to capture the spotlight and boost the visibility of island nations and their views. For small states that traditionally have a limited voice in international affairs, the COP may be one of the few instances in which their concerns can be heard and actually taken into account. (Since they are, admittedly, sitting on the front lines).

However, in the weeks leading up to Copenhagen, the process seemed to be moving along with developed countries (EU, Japan, US), and large developing countries (like China, India, Brazil) seen as the key players. Perhaps then, these actions could also be interpreted as an attempt by small islands to overcome a feeling of helplessness, as other nations rolled through with their own agendas. Yet one somehow gets the sense that if island nations did not truly feel their way of life was threatened, there would be less inclination to take such a stand. There are easier ways to be heard.

Whatever the case, it’s having an effect. By pushing the envelope, small island nations have changed the bounds of what everyone is discussing at the conference, and subsequent proposals have reflected this.

-----

Video of the AOSIS press conference

Dessima Williams (Grenada/AOSIS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2R3jIjewGk

http://www.youtube.com/user/1skycampaign#p/u/12/54S0X-GDzaA

Q&A at the Press Conference

Selvin Hart (Barbados/AOSIS) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEm5wFZkLAo

Mohamed Aslam (Minister of the Environment, Maldives) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT9PPD20Fuk

The islands have their say

2009-12-13T07:21:00.006+01:00

Friday, Dec. 11

We were heading into a briefing for civil society by UNFCCC head Yvo de Boer (around 11:15 AM), when I noticed a gaggle of cameras and a crowd of conference-goers gathering a short distance from the auditorium entrance. I slipped out of line, and as I edged closer, I realized AOSIS (Association of Small Island States, a bloc of 43 countries) was holding a press conference to lay out the group’s negotiating position.

In the wake of the uproar over Tuvalu’s proposals the previous day, here was another bold statement by island nations. The first speaker, Dessima Williams (from Grenada and head of AOSIS, a bloc of 43 countries) was articulate and rather emotive. She emphasized that AOSIS members are on the “very frontlines of the devastating impacts of climate change.” Many are already suffering damage, and the effects will only grow worse with time.

The head of AOSIS, Dessima Williams of Grenada, speaking at the press conference.

Watching her, it really hit me hard: these people are fighting for their homes, their livelihoods, their way of life. With global warming and rising sea levels, whole communities might simply disappear under the waves. I had understood this conceptually, but to hear someone facing this prospect make such a calm, yet impassioned statement -- when essentially everything is at stake -- somehow crystallized the situation. For them, it’s not merely an academic discussion of how many percent, from what base year, under what scenarios. It’s not a political question of “What’s acceptable to domestic audiences?” It’s a question of survival.

Key demands by AOSIS:

Warming not above 1.5 degrees C from pre-industrial (in contrast to the the 2 degrees C that has been widely circulated by other proposals)
This means stabilizing at 350 ppm, rather than 450 ppm, and will require much deeper cuts from developed countries.
Significantly more funding for adaptation (!!!)
A legally-binding treaty. Though many have said only a political agreement is achievable next week, AOSIS wants the outcome to be legally binding.

In laying out their position, AOSIS asked for developed nations to shoulder their historical responsibilities and for the whole world to take appropriate action to stave off disaster. Williams noted that AOSIS countries would be doing their part: several nations will follow the example of the Maldives and pledge to go carbon neutral. Many more will implement renewable energy plans. They encouraged the throng of supporters (who carried "350 ppm" and "We support AOSIS" signs) to keep up the pressure.

Left to right: Selwin Hart of Barbados, AOSIS negotiator; Mohamed Aslam, Minister of the Environment for the Maldives; and Williams.

The speakers were adamant that these were fundamental demands, but it remains unclear whether this action was meant to stake out an aggressive negotiating position to create space for a more favorable agreement, or if these are really make-it-or-break-it conditions. In any case, with 2 degrees of warming, some islands are still going under, and we’ll have populations, or even whole countries, that will be forced to migrate.

. us in the United States, a climate treaty usually calls to mind energy efficiency and renewables, cleaner technology and greener jobs—things that I wholeheartedly support and that many of us are willing to dedicate our careers to achieving. We see in a global agreement a catalyst to help renew American society and move it toward a more sustainable path.

But sometimes it’s good to hear from those who are first in the line of fire, whose lives are directly impacted by the challenges we face. It helps us to recall what’s at stake.

"Keep up the pressure for 350 ppm."

A couple more details on AOSIS and their statements:

This is not the same as the Tuvalu proposal from yesterday, and in her remarks, Williams took pains to point this out. The speakers noted that they are working with China/India/other G77 to try to formulate the new plan, compared to the Tuvalu plan which engendered China and India’s opposition.
The press really is fast. There were several news crews recording the whole affair, which ended right before lunch. By 2 p.m. some stories were already published:
Business Green (http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2254835/copenhagen-brink-vulnerable)
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/10/copenhagen-climate-change)
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B91TU20091210)

Serendipity

2009-12-13T07:21:00.005+01:00

First Full Day

2009-12-13T07:21:00.003+01:00

Side Events + First Night

2009-12-13T07:21:00.001+01:00

Wallet Incident

2009-12-13T07:20:00.002+01:00

Arrival at the Bella Center

2009-12-13T07:20:00.001+01:00

Begin posts

2009-12-11T05:40:00.001+01:00

Photos and words to come.