| Louisville Climate Action Network |
This page was
most recently
updated on
17 Dec 09.
most recently
updated on
17 Dec 09.
Reports from Copenhagen
| Thursday, 17 Dec 09 |
Art sent two reports today, which are presented below in reverse order:
Midnight in Denmark
an agreement has begun to emerge. Negotiations won't end for another day or so, but
there have been enough changes in positions today to warrant update and comment.
In a key calculus area — emissions and effects and adaptation (dealing with effects) —
the key developed country (USA) won't agree to reduce its emissions below the targets
in the current House bill, but can agree to put more money on the table. Thus, today
saw the following the sequence, roughly:
— if Obama attends (some think he might not), he might sweeten the money pot more.
Earlier in the day there was apparently a leak of a UN document showing that the
currently pledged emission reductions are still about 4.2 giga-tons short of what is
needed to avoid a 3° C rise in average global temperatures. The 2° C figure seems to
have emerged as the current consensus target. Stay tuned. The last day-plus (both
Kyoto and Bali went into extra innings) promises to be a wild ride.
Tonight’s Blue Green Alliance event was very nice. I had my first opportunity to meet
Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, and I was able to speak briefly to
Congressman Henry Waxman. (A few years ago, I had the honor of testifying before
his committee on the merits of proposed federal multi-pollutant legislation to improve air
quality. And, of course, he is one of the principal co-sponsors of the Waxman-Markey
climate change legislation that passed the House this past June.)
Late-Morning in Denmark
Today's report is brought to you partly by younger attendees, who thus far must be
disappointed in both the process and the apparent outcome of this (historic?)
conference. But I sense that their disappointments are balanced by their grasps of the
complexity of the issues: that the issues are very important, especially to their
generation, but also that if addressing them were easy, they wouldn't even be here.
The state of play (from my perspective outside the conference hall where attendance of
observers was limited today to only 1,000): continued impasse on many key topics.
Sec. Clinton earlier today announced a new effort by the developed countries to infuse
a new fund with (at least?) $100 B per year by 2020. Carl Pope characterized this as
"truly a bombshell." The least developed countries called it insufficient. We'll see if it
moves the needle.
A related big question is who’d control such a fund. My understanding is that the US
wants the World Bank in charge. The developing countries want it to be administered
by the UN Secretariat on climate change — under the guidance of a group with
developing countries in the majority.
Yesterday's Plenary included initial statements from heads of state and ministers
(typically nations' environment-agency heads). I heard two notable ones:
Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish Minister of the Environment, said that Sweden supports
getting to "well below" 2° C and 95% reductions below 1990 levels by 2050 [both very
aggressive targets]. He urged both the US and China to agree to binding reductions.
And he finished with:
"Now is the time to show courage. Let this be the decisive place. Let this be the time.
Let this be the hall where we agree. Let this be where we look at the stars in the sky
and know that we are all citizens of this beautiful planet."
The main message of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, seemed to have been an
attack on the developed countries and an alignment with the developing countries. In
the course of his speech, he quoted, among others, Jesus (it's easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven), Kant
(humanity needs to consume less and distribute wealth more fairly) and Darwin (the
Earth can live without us; we can't live without the Earth). He also said, "There is a
ghost who is silent and is moving among us. This ghost is capitalism . . . If the climate
was a capitalist bank, the rich countries would have saved it by now."
I attended a couple of interesting side events:
One, by the Climate Action Network (CAN) featured John Holdren, the White House
Science Advisor, Dave Foster, head of the 8.3 million member Blue Green Alliance (a
labor-environment coalition that includes several major unions) and Dan Reicher, head
energy guru at Google (formerly a climate change advisor to President Clinton).
Reicher said that we need five key actions in the US to address climate change:
I also heard a panel of US Dept of Defense officials, describing how climate change is
an "accelerant to insecurity and instability" that may destabilize fragile and emerging
democracies leading to greater security threats for the US and world. Particularly cited
was the increasing rate of Arctic Sea ice melt and the problem that the Navy's plans for
the next few decades doesn't contemplate the need for a naval force to guard those
waters. Given the general cost of Navy carriers, submarines, etc, deploying a new
naval presence there could require serious dollars.
Rear Admiral Dr. David Tidley (who holds a PhD in meteorology) characterized the
science behind climate-change concerns as "irrefutable." Strong words. Frankly,
stronger than the IPCC's characterization.
Also present at this side event, but not on the panel, was former NATO Commander
and General Wesley Clark (and former presidential candidate). I spoke with him for a
few minutes—he's very pleasant person. I reminded him that I'd met him a few times in
Louisville at various meetings (OK, political fund-raisers). He seems to have a keen
interest in the issues/concerns raised at this side event.
Art Williams
Midnight in Denmark
an agreement has begun to emerge. Negotiations won't end for another day or so, but
there have been enough changes in positions today to warrant update and comment.
In a key calculus area — emissions and effects and adaptation (dealing with effects) —
the key developed country (USA) won't agree to reduce its emissions below the targets
in the current House bill, but can agree to put more money on the table. Thus, today
saw the following the sequence, roughly:
- Sec. Clinton upped the mid-range (2020) monetary contributions from developed
country to $100 B - The developing countries softened their insistence that emission targets limit the
increase in average global temperatures to 1.5° C, i.e., appearing more open to
the 2° C target preferred by the developed nations - China moved toward agreeing to some verification mechanism for its reductions
- India backed away from its opposition to a jobs-in-transition program
— if Obama attends (some think he might not), he might sweeten the money pot more.
Earlier in the day there was apparently a leak of a UN document showing that the
currently pledged emission reductions are still about 4.2 giga-tons short of what is
needed to avoid a 3° C rise in average global temperatures. The 2° C figure seems to
have emerged as the current consensus target. Stay tuned. The last day-plus (both
Kyoto and Bali went into extra innings) promises to be a wild ride.
Tonight’s Blue Green Alliance event was very nice. I had my first opportunity to meet
Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, and I was able to speak briefly to
Congressman Henry Waxman. (A few years ago, I had the honor of testifying before
his committee on the merits of proposed federal multi-pollutant legislation to improve air
quality. And, of course, he is one of the principal co-sponsors of the Waxman-Markey
climate change legislation that passed the House this past June.)
Late-Morning in Denmark
Today's report is brought to you partly by younger attendees, who thus far must be
disappointed in both the process and the apparent outcome of this (historic?)
conference. But I sense that their disappointments are balanced by their grasps of the
complexity of the issues: that the issues are very important, especially to their
generation, but also that if addressing them were easy, they wouldn't even be here.
The state of play (from my perspective outside the conference hall where attendance of
observers was limited today to only 1,000): continued impasse on many key topics.
Sec. Clinton earlier today announced a new effort by the developed countries to infuse
a new fund with (at least?) $100 B per year by 2020. Carl Pope characterized this as
"truly a bombshell." The least developed countries called it insufficient. We'll see if it
moves the needle.
A related big question is who’d control such a fund. My understanding is that the US
wants the World Bank in charge. The developing countries want it to be administered
by the UN Secretariat on climate change — under the guidance of a group with
developing countries in the majority.
Yesterday's Plenary included initial statements from heads of state and ministers
(typically nations' environment-agency heads). I heard two notable ones:
Andreas Carlgren, the Swedish Minister of the Environment, said that Sweden supports
getting to "well below" 2° C and 95% reductions below 1990 levels by 2050 [both very
aggressive targets]. He urged both the US and China to agree to binding reductions.
And he finished with:
"Now is the time to show courage. Let this be the decisive place. Let this be the time.
Let this be the hall where we agree. Let this be where we look at the stars in the sky
and know that we are all citizens of this beautiful planet."
The main message of Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela, seemed to have been an
attack on the developed countries and an alignment with the developing countries. In
the course of his speech, he quoted, among others, Jesus (it's easier for a camel to
pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into heaven), Kant
(humanity needs to consume less and distribute wealth more fairly) and Darwin (the
Earth can live without us; we can't live without the Earth). He also said, "There is a
ghost who is silent and is moving among us. This ghost is capitalism . . . If the climate
was a capitalist bank, the rich countries would have saved it by now."
I attended a couple of interesting side events:
One, by the Climate Action Network (CAN) featured John Holdren, the White House
Science Advisor, Dave Foster, head of the 8.3 million member Blue Green Alliance (a
labor-environment coalition that includes several major unions) and Dan Reicher, head
energy guru at Google (formerly a climate change advisor to President Clinton).
Reicher said that we need five key actions in the US to address climate change:
- Increase public funding for R&D
- Increase capital for advanced technologies
- Build a smart grid to give consumers real-time info about their energy use/costs
- Adopt national standards for renewable energy and energy efficiency
- Put a price on carbon
I also heard a panel of US Dept of Defense officials, describing how climate change is
an "accelerant to insecurity and instability" that may destabilize fragile and emerging
democracies leading to greater security threats for the US and world. Particularly cited
was the increasing rate of Arctic Sea ice melt and the problem that the Navy's plans for
the next few decades doesn't contemplate the need for a naval force to guard those
waters. Given the general cost of Navy carriers, submarines, etc, deploying a new
naval presence there could require serious dollars.
Rear Admiral Dr. David Tidley (who holds a PhD in meteorology) characterized the
science behind climate-change concerns as "irrefutable." Strong words. Frankly,
stronger than the IPCC's characterization.
Also present at this side event, but not on the panel, was former NATO Commander
and General Wesley Clark (and former presidential candidate). I spoke with him for a
few minutes—he's very pleasant person. I reminded him that I'd met him a few times in
Louisville at various meetings (OK, political fund-raisers). He seems to have a keen
interest in the issues/concerns raised at this side event.
Art Williams
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |