| Louisville Climate Action Network |
This page was
most recently
updated on
10 Dec 09.
most recently
updated on
10 Dec 09.
Reports from Copenhagen
| Tuesday, 08 Dec 09 |
Beginning with the second day's top stories from my perspective:
First was the "leak" of a document that allegedly represents behind-the-scenes
agreements between key developed countries, which—to the dismay of developing
countries—seems to indicate a plan to impose an emissions-reduction framework on
developing countries that they would strenuously oppose.
It proposes to establish a “peaking year,” a point in time after which per-capita
emissions could go no higher. Predictably, the text proposes higher per-capita rates
for developed countries (at least for the short-term) than for the developing countries.
Plus it would give more control over any money that developed countries would give to
developing countries than the later would prefer. The developing nations view this
approach as very unfair, and as locking them into a lower quality of life, long-term.
Another notable story was China's rather harsh intervention (diplomatic speak for a
very short speech wherein a nation states its position on an issue) at the plenary
session, over the level of proposed US emission reductions. Frankly, I view this sort of
jockeying and bashing as par for the course during the negotiation process.
Expectations generally remain mixed. The US delegation held its first briefing for NGOs
last evening, but there was no unexpected information. Though US Envoy Jonathan
Pershing is sticking to the assertion that only a politically binding agreement is possible,
not a legally binding agreement, one never knows until it's over.
Ukraine was designated “Fossil of the Day” for proposing that it would "only" allow its
emissions to increase by 75% by 2020!
US Undersecretary of State Maria Otero addressed gender issues, and reported on the
work of the Global Gender and Climate Alliance. She stressed the vital role of women
in developing countries regarding family nutrition and health.
Another panel addressed public transportation in the US, and featured the transit
managers from Portland and Salt Lake City, plus the Mayor of Denver. Over the period
of 1999-2019, key western US cities are investing $136 B into public transit.
Denver increased its sales tax by 4/10th of a cent, and is adding 119 miles of commuter
rail. Salt Lake City has 45 new miles of commuter rail, with 20 more miles underway.
The Portland transit chief said that there are two things that Portland citizens don't like:
sprawl and density (transit humor). My take away: progressive cities “get it.”
By the way, I've grown fond of the "next bus" system in Sweden: a digital display at all
major stops shows when the next several buses will arrive.
David Sandalow, Deputy Secretary of the US Dept. of Energy, gave an update on the
$80 B in the stimulus package for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects by
the Obama administration, appliance and vehicle efficiency standards, a mandatory
greenhouse-gas (GHG) reporting rule and the endangerment finding earlier this week.
Sandalow also quoted Jonathan Pershing (lead State Department negotiator, behind
Secretary Clinton and Todd Stern) as saying there is "an enormous sense of potential"
here, as well as "a lot of work to do."
Another panel focused on a favorite topic: the co-benefits of addressing air quality and
climate change. The basic idea is that choosing wisely among GHG emission-reduction
strategies also yields significant reductions of other air pollutants, e.g., NOx, particulate
matter, ozone precursors, etc.
(The professional association for state and local air pollution officials, now called the
National Association of Clean Air Agencies, developed this concept and was one of its
earliest promoters. APCD has taken significant steps in that integrated-strategies
direction. (NACAA also sponsored my attendance at earlier UN climate negotiations.))
Another panel of presenters updated a packed room on the status of energy efficiency,
renewable energy, etc, in China. It was hosted by the Natural Resources and Defense
Council and featured three folks that I've worked with in my recent work in China:
Barbara Finamore and Alex Wang, both of NRDC, and Mark Levine with Lawrence
Berkley National Labs. (My work has been with the Regulatory Assistance Project,
working through the Energy Foundation-funded China Sustainable Energy Project). Dr.
Levine noted that China's proposal to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by
40%-45% by 2020 is very aggressive and substantially better than “business as usual.”
Another big question getting lots of attention: how int'l agreements should address
forest resources, especially forests providing sustenance to the indigenous peoples of
developing countries. Their representatives here have big concerns, even fear, that
the rules for protecting those forests won’t be fair to them. And, if adopted, perverse
incentives could accelerate deforestation. For example, promotion of biofuels could
lead some nations to cut down forests to plant crops for conversion into biofuels. Very
real and important issues. A huge number of people are here for this issue—which
usually goes by REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation).
Now, a couple of process observations:
In years past, country-delegation offices were separated from other entities, like NGOs.
You couldn't get to the official delegation offices unless you were a country delegate.
This year, all offices are together. I don't know how to assess this arrangement exactly,
but it does change the dynamics. There are fewer places for delegates to go to get
away from the swarming masses of people who want to lobby them. But the system is
now more transparent, and people don't have to lurk around to get to the delegates.
Everyone is much more thrown in together, and "lobbying" seems smoother.
A related, but very more important, component is the enormous extent to which state-of-
the-art communication technology has changed and is changing these conferences,
especially as used by the young folks in attendance, with clear consequences for
country delegations, and perhaps even how negotiations proceed and occur.
Netbooks, flip video phones, video cameras, bloggers, tweeters and WiFi have certainly
made this conference both virtual and viral. (It was a "mere" 12 years ago at the Kyoto
conference that I created my first e-mail account (earthart@yahoo.com and still in
use). It was cool and advanced then to sit at a huge, clunky wired computer in Kyoto to
send e-mail back home. I like that progress.
It seems that I'm constantly observing people (especially young people) questioning,
interviewing and lobbying country delegates with their video phones and cameras. Ten
minutes later, the interview is up on www.youtube.com or a blog.
Talk about accountability! It's hard to deny that what you said when it goes viral,
globally, immediately after you said it. No more saying one thing at the conference
about your country's position and thinking that it won't follow you home. This use of
technology just has to make a difference as things move toward outcomes.
A final observation about mobile sources in Sweden and Denmark (maybe it’s a cultural
comment): I have been here three days and around Malmö, Sweden, and
Copenhagen, Denmark, by bus and train quite a bit and have yet to see a pickup truck
or SUV. There are lots of small cars. I'm just sayin’ . . .
Art
First was the "leak" of a document that allegedly represents behind-the-scenes
agreements between key developed countries, which—to the dismay of developing
countries—seems to indicate a plan to impose an emissions-reduction framework on
developing countries that they would strenuously oppose.
It proposes to establish a “peaking year,” a point in time after which per-capita
emissions could go no higher. Predictably, the text proposes higher per-capita rates
for developed countries (at least for the short-term) than for the developing countries.
Plus it would give more control over any money that developed countries would give to
developing countries than the later would prefer. The developing nations view this
approach as very unfair, and as locking them into a lower quality of life, long-term.
Another notable story was China's rather harsh intervention (diplomatic speak for a
very short speech wherein a nation states its position on an issue) at the plenary
session, over the level of proposed US emission reductions. Frankly, I view this sort of
jockeying and bashing as par for the course during the negotiation process.
Expectations generally remain mixed. The US delegation held its first briefing for NGOs
last evening, but there was no unexpected information. Though US Envoy Jonathan
Pershing is sticking to the assertion that only a politically binding agreement is possible,
not a legally binding agreement, one never knows until it's over.
Ukraine was designated “Fossil of the Day” for proposing that it would "only" allow its
emissions to increase by 75% by 2020!
US Undersecretary of State Maria Otero addressed gender issues, and reported on the
work of the Global Gender and Climate Alliance. She stressed the vital role of women
in developing countries regarding family nutrition and health.
Another panel addressed public transportation in the US, and featured the transit
managers from Portland and Salt Lake City, plus the Mayor of Denver. Over the period
of 1999-2019, key western US cities are investing $136 B into public transit.
Denver increased its sales tax by 4/10th of a cent, and is adding 119 miles of commuter
rail. Salt Lake City has 45 new miles of commuter rail, with 20 more miles underway.
The Portland transit chief said that there are two things that Portland citizens don't like:
sprawl and density (transit humor). My take away: progressive cities “get it.”
By the way, I've grown fond of the "next bus" system in Sweden: a digital display at all
major stops shows when the next several buses will arrive.
David Sandalow, Deputy Secretary of the US Dept. of Energy, gave an update on the
$80 B in the stimulus package for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects by
the Obama administration, appliance and vehicle efficiency standards, a mandatory
greenhouse-gas (GHG) reporting rule and the endangerment finding earlier this week.
Sandalow also quoted Jonathan Pershing (lead State Department negotiator, behind
Secretary Clinton and Todd Stern) as saying there is "an enormous sense of potential"
here, as well as "a lot of work to do."
Another panel focused on a favorite topic: the co-benefits of addressing air quality and
climate change. The basic idea is that choosing wisely among GHG emission-reduction
strategies also yields significant reductions of other air pollutants, e.g., NOx, particulate
matter, ozone precursors, etc.
(The professional association for state and local air pollution officials, now called the
National Association of Clean Air Agencies, developed this concept and was one of its
earliest promoters. APCD has taken significant steps in that integrated-strategies
direction. (NACAA also sponsored my attendance at earlier UN climate negotiations.))
Another panel of presenters updated a packed room on the status of energy efficiency,
renewable energy, etc, in China. It was hosted by the Natural Resources and Defense
Council and featured three folks that I've worked with in my recent work in China:
Barbara Finamore and Alex Wang, both of NRDC, and Mark Levine with Lawrence
Berkley National Labs. (My work has been with the Regulatory Assistance Project,
working through the Energy Foundation-funded China Sustainable Energy Project). Dr.
Levine noted that China's proposal to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by
40%-45% by 2020 is very aggressive and substantially better than “business as usual.”
Another big question getting lots of attention: how int'l agreements should address
forest resources, especially forests providing sustenance to the indigenous peoples of
developing countries. Their representatives here have big concerns, even fear, that
the rules for protecting those forests won’t be fair to them. And, if adopted, perverse
incentives could accelerate deforestation. For example, promotion of biofuels could
lead some nations to cut down forests to plant crops for conversion into biofuels. Very
real and important issues. A huge number of people are here for this issue—which
usually goes by REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation).
Now, a couple of process observations:
In years past, country-delegation offices were separated from other entities, like NGOs.
You couldn't get to the official delegation offices unless you were a country delegate.
This year, all offices are together. I don't know how to assess this arrangement exactly,
but it does change the dynamics. There are fewer places for delegates to go to get
away from the swarming masses of people who want to lobby them. But the system is
now more transparent, and people don't have to lurk around to get to the delegates.
Everyone is much more thrown in together, and "lobbying" seems smoother.
A related, but very more important, component is the enormous extent to which state-of-
the-art communication technology has changed and is changing these conferences,
especially as used by the young folks in attendance, with clear consequences for
country delegations, and perhaps even how negotiations proceed and occur.
Netbooks, flip video phones, video cameras, bloggers, tweeters and WiFi have certainly
made this conference both virtual and viral. (It was a "mere" 12 years ago at the Kyoto
conference that I created my first e-mail account (earthart@yahoo.com and still in
use). It was cool and advanced then to sit at a huge, clunky wired computer in Kyoto to
send e-mail back home. I like that progress.
It seems that I'm constantly observing people (especially young people) questioning,
interviewing and lobbying country delegates with their video phones and cameras. Ten
minutes later, the interview is up on www.youtube.com or a blog.
Talk about accountability! It's hard to deny that what you said when it goes viral,
globally, immediately after you said it. No more saying one thing at the conference
about your country's position and thinking that it won't follow you home. This use of
technology just has to make a difference as things move toward outcomes.
A final observation about mobile sources in Sweden and Denmark (maybe it’s a cultural
comment): I have been here three days and around Malmö, Sweden, and
Copenhagen, Denmark, by bus and train quite a bit and have yet to see a pickup truck
or SUV. There are lots of small cars. I'm just sayin’ . . .
Art
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |