Wikileaks Shed Light on US Position in Copenhagen

For those interested in understanding the realpolitik behind Copenhagen and the continuing talks in Cancun,  I recommend the reporting of the UK Guardian newspaper.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-us-manipulated-climate-accord

Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial “Copenhagen accord“, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Meeting with Dr. Pachauri of the IPCC

One highlight of the trip was a Tuesday evening meeting with Dr. R.K. Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  As head of the IPCC, Dr.  Pachauri has been responsible for building the global scientific consensus about climate change, publishing reports endorsed by every government in the world.   He correctly points out that this is the first time in history this process has been tried and successfully accomplished.    The IPCC received the Nobel Prize for its work.

In his capacity with the IPCC, Dr. Pachauri has met with many of the most well-known US leaders including Presidents Obama and Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore, and he follows US politics closely. We had a lively discussion about President Obama’s leadership and the recent election.  Dr. Pachauri shared observations about many other prominent officials, including the leadership of the UNFCCC.  

Dr. Pachauri’s own experiences in the last few years have been challenging, with climate deniers launching attacks on the science in IPCC reports, the IPCC organization, and Dr. Pachauri himself.   As has been publicly reported, he even hired lawyers at one point to defend himself against libel charges.  Dr. Pachauri links these attacks to corporate interests, unfortunately, opposed to international action on climate change.   Unfortunate but not surprising, however, considering that action on climate change will constrain profits of carbon-intensive energy producers and major industrial energy users. 

As we think about positive roles that private sector companies can play, we should be emboldened to act in order to show that companies can be part of the solution and not just obstructionist forces.  At the same time, there must be continued action by forward-thinking companies within carbon-intensive industries to reduce the political influence of obstructionist peers.  The companies 3M, DuPont and PG&E were mentioned in our Tuck side event today as ones playing positive roles, and should do more politically to prevent obstructionist companies from holding up action.  This would include speaking up to defend the integrity of organizations like the IPCC and UNFCCC.

The Role of Business? Step up!

Christiana Figueres, the tiny but powerful UNFCCC Executive Secretary, addressed an audience of business leaders at the opening of the World Climate Summit, a business focused event happening in conjunction with COP16.  She states that expectations for COP16 are more realistic than COP15 , but the stakes are higher .

Yes, she believes that there is a “deal to be done” here in Mexico but shared two major concerns. The first concern is that the “deal may escape” because of the process. The UN places high value on transparency and representation from all countries. Without  both of these elements present as an integral part of the process, there will be problems. The second concern is the expected outcome, what she articulated as a “minimous agreement, pathetically inefficient compared to what the science tells us.” Despite this expectation, she indicated that COP 16 agreements  are  needed as a foundation on which the future climate work will be built. 

Ms. Figueres urged business to use their leverage to:

1) impact their value chain both up and down to ensure that their carbon footprint is decreasing quickly and that consumers are aware of the carbon impact of their purchases,

2)transform the sector in which the firms operate to develop pioneering technologies that reduce impact, and

3)influence policy makers within their own countries.

She said that negotiators have their positions set before their arrival at the COP sessions, so the work of influencing minds and policies needs to happen within individual countries. With some private sector actors applying a “handbrake” to action on climate change, businesses who care need to raise their voices to be heard.  Her closing plea to the business leaders present was that “if business sees itself as stewards of the planet then step up because we need you”.

Education: Cop 16 Takes Aim at Children

Today, I attended a side event on UNFCC Article 6 (Education, Training, and Public Awareness) aimed specifically at children.  This session focused on the urgent need to educate young people on the issue of climate change and sustainability.  In the words of the panelists, young people are the key to sustainability in the future.  There was a strong consensus that non-sustainable behavior is not an inherent trait, but rather is learned during the formative years.  As such, the discussion centered on the unique opportunity presented by the 2.2BN people in the world under the age of 18.  Through education at an early age, civilizations around the world can better understand the subject of climate change and be coached in ways to make small personal contributions (suggestions included recycling, walking or biking instead of always driving, and taking shorter showers to name only a few). 

I have to admit that during the session, I couldn’t help but be skeptical of the effectiveness of education alone.  It may be that my business school education is dulling my sense of non-economic analysis, but ultimately, I feel that changing behavior will come not from education but by changing incentives.  Certainly, education is very important and individuals around the world should be made aware of the consequences of their actions.  This is a worthy goal in and of itself and will change behavior on the margins.  At the end of the day, however, in matters of convenience or expense, I do not believe that education will change behavior in a meaningful way.  Can education really get people to take shorter showers or bike somewhere instead of driving?   

That said, I do not want to trivialize the very worthy goal of climate change education for young people, particularly in developping nations.  Education in any capacity, particularly climate change, is an extremely worthy goal and is a global imperative if the world is to meet the needs of future generations.  I was surprised, however, of the extent to which education was treated as the end goal, rather than as a step along the way.

Ears to the Ground

Pete Holzaepfel T’12 asked for an update on the proceedings.

Two quick thoughts: First, we are not at all linked into the actual negotiations. Part of this is the challenge of navigating the official UN channels, although the UN does offer some help to NGO observers coming up to speed. The other part of it is that our team has chosen to spend most of our time at side events and in informational meetings (such as the IETA-sponsored event Alex describes). Second, despite our being somewhat disconnected from the actual proceedings, it is probably still too early to tell. Conventional wisdom says that deals come together in the very last part of the conference.

Nevertheless, two excellent sources for following the daily proceedings are worth sharing.

Daily Reporting from the IISD (fairly objective)
http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop16/
Go to Daily Web Coverage on the left side of the page
Here is an example http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12490e.html

Highly technical, but features a section at the bottom of each day called “In the Corridors”. Here’s an excerpt from today:

Some delegates, still “traumatized by Copenhagen,” expressed concerns over transparency and speculated that many discussions were taking place behind closed doors. Those in the know confirmed that the “green room” discussions, convened by the Mexicans, were becoming a regular thing with mitigation being one of the key issues discussed. Some of the parties’ concerns crystallized during the evening’s AWG-LCA (ed note: AdHoc Working Group – Long-term Cooperative Action, basically the core group trying to determine the successor to the current Kyoto agreement that expires in 2012) meeting on mitigation with one delegate expressing alarm that “this process will be undermined if core issues related to mitigation are the subject of consultations in which all parties can’t participate.” Others, however, were encouraged by the consultation process: “Someone has to focus on the broad mitigation issues that are common to both tracks and the COP Presidency has reaffirmed that these complementary consultations will support the work of the AWGs. (AdHoc Working Groups)”

Daily Opinion and Reporting from the NGO Coalition
The ECO newsletter
http://climatenetwork.org/eco-newsletters

The ECO newsletter is printed in 5,000 copies and distributed around the NGO areas and the conference center each morning, published by the Climate Action Network.

Here’s an excerpt from today’s:

The future of Annex I forests and their role in climate change mitigation is about to be decided here in Cancun.

ECO has long highlighted how inappropriate and possibly fraudulent LULUCF accounting rules could be used by Annex I Parties to avoid accounting for their forestry emissions. This week a group of NGOs assessed the scale of these impacts, in particular, the magnitude of proposed forest management baselines relative to the ambition of Parties’ pledges. Astonishingly, the emission reduction efforts of some Parties could be reduced by up to 66% as a consequence of unaccounted emissions from logging their forests.

There is still more than one proposal on the table, and it is clear that the impact of forest management accounting on countries’ pledges will differ depending on the approach agreed upon.

A review process was proposed by developing countries earlier this year to evaluate the robustness of favoured baseline proposals by Annex I countries. The new KP Chair’s text calls on Parties to provide the required information by February 2011 and for expert reviewers to conclude their review by May.

But let’s be clear. The impact of the proposed reference levels is unacceptable and a review won’t fix that.

 

 

Short, Very Polite Statements

 

I am in the plenary listening to a series of short, very polite statements read by delegates from different countries and groups ( such as EU and Group of 77) supporting the COP process and highlighting what issues they feel are most important and deserve attention during these talks. All have emphasized the need to act . I expect there is a great deal of symbolism here – that these public statements provide a glimpse into the list of issues that fuel the deeper arguments taking place in the negotiations sessions. I talked with a negotiator from Ghana during the bus ride to the Moon Palace and he indicated that behind the scenes is where the real debate is found- not a surprise!

There are a few seats remaining available in the back of the room. I find it very satisfying to have access this year  and now can to do the work of an official UN observer- observing the process in action.