Compare and Contrast

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.

Irresponsible. And realism bites back.

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.

Collateral Damage - REDD goes under?

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.

Two cents (0.136 RMB) on China + some analysis

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.

Things don't look so good...

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/

Reducing Emissions: An evening with the “numbers”

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.

China + G77: The end of a beautiful friendship?

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.

350 on the Map (?!)

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

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)