Earlier last week, scientists reported that monitoring stations across the Arctic were registering readings of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels higher than 400 ppm.  Far above the “safe” 350 ppm, we are headed towards the eventual reality of surpassing even the two degrees target agreed to by politicians in the global climate negotiations.  Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar reaffirmed last week that the United States is giving the go-ahead to Royal Dutch Shell to begin drilling up to five wells in the off-shore Arctic.  This is part the US strategy to not only become “energy secure,” but also stay ahead in what seems to be an inevitable scramble to divide up the resource rich Arctic.  Already, Norway and Russia have embarked on the process to tap what seems to be a mammoth find of fossil fuels (oil and gas) hidden below the icy depths of the Arctic.

Many will recall Russia’s symbolic flag placement on the ocean floor at the North Pole in an attempt to lay claim to the territory (according to the United Nations Law of the Sea Russia may have the right to it based on its continental shelf).  Even while the 8 nation members and 6 groups representing indigenous groups on the Arcitc Council are working to create a common framework for cooperation in the Arctic, other nations like Brazil, Japan, Korea and China are asking for stakeholdership in the region.  One noted diplomat from India suggests that the Arctic should be preserved for scientific research and peace along the lines of the Antarctic.  But who would forego such riches?  President Grimsson of Iceland hailed the Arctic model of cooperation as a “new form of diplomacy” at a conference in March 2012.  As the ice crystals settle, what will emerge is a new permanent secretariat of the Arctic Council with representation from not only the Arctic littoral states but also the indigenous groups who have been living in the region for centuries.  This secretariat will supposedly be democratic, have an “emphasis on science-based outcomes,” have “equality of partners in the decision making process,” set new diplomatic norms, and most importantly, all its tasks will be oriented toward the future (because it is assumed the Arctic will melt).

There have been a flurry of events organized globally on the opportunities presented by the melting of the Arctic.  At least 12 symposia have been organized in the last decade around the opportunities for the oil and gas sector in the region.  Companies are sharing the advancements they are making in their abilities to tap resources in a region previously off limits due to ice.  Thanks to climate change, the situation in the Arctic has changed with sea ice retreating faster than anticipated.  Little is understood of how the melting Arctic ice may impact global fisheries, carbon uptake by the oceans and ultimately tip the planet’s delicate ecological balance.  Some estimates say the entire Arctic will be ice free during the summer in 30 years time. Meanwhile the climate negotiations have themselves arrived at a juncture where the work accomplished in the last 18 years means little.  Even less may be expected from the upcoming Rio+20 conference.  Perhaps they could take a lesson or two from this “new form of diplomacy” around the Arcitc.  No one in government is saying it, but we are all thinking it:  this is irony on ice.

“If we accept this text, we are killing ourselves.” These were the words of an ambassador from a small island nation in the final hours of the longest UN climate negotiations in history. “We may be small, but we are not dead,” he continued. With these strong statements, the ambassador sought to rally other countries like his to push back against the weak agreement the conference had produced.

Continue reading more at the Fletcher Forum.

COP 17 Durban, South Africa

This is the fifth annual UN Conference of the Parties (COP) conference that I have attended.  My journey in the process started with the landmark COP 13 in Bali, Indonesia in 2007.  That conference was the first major one that was to layout a roadmap for what the post-Kyoto regime might look like.  Its mandate was to establish a new comprehensive strong treaty by COP 15 in 2009 (Copenhagen).  Copenhagen did not result in a new regime, it yielded some political targets for emissions reductions by major emitters and hollowed the process of any trust it may have built up over the years.  COP 16 was weak and only seemed to be a victory because of how low the expectations really were.  The world is no safer today than it was 20 years ago when the Rio Earth Summit established the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).  In fact, emissions are higher, the planet is warmer and all signs point to a global average temperature rise 2 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels.  This is at a time that scientific research is calling for a global cap at 1.5 degrees which we would reach immediately even if we were to stop all emissions today.

So what is happening at this COP?  Despite getting minimal media attention in the lead up to these negotiations, they are quite important.  The fate of the Kyoto Protocol, the only legally binding instrument that holds much of the developed world responsible (save the United States) for reducing emissions is set to have its first commitment period expire in 2012.  Here we need a commitment from the parties for a second commitment period to continue to reduce emissions and sustain the growing carbon market.  A market that has helped spur the innovation of many new clean technologies.  Already there are signs that signatories to the Kyoto Protocol want out.  Japan, the host country for the Protocol for example.  Canada announced its formal withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol just the day before the negotiations started.  Efforts by some parties to push off any major decision until 2020 are alarming and were recently slammed by the Director of the UNEP.  It is unlikely at this point that the text on “Shared Vision” which is meant to establish a global long-term reduction of 80% by 2050 and a peaking year for emissions of 2015 will emerge in the final decision at this COP.  However a representative of the African Group stated boldly today that “African soil would not be the graveyard of the Kyoto Protocol.”  Let us hope that is not the case, but perhaps its fate will be left up to the negotiations next year in Doha, Qatar.

The lack of parties’ commitment to mitigate has put a lot of pressure on finance for adaptation and technology transfer.  Durban may deliver by approving the work of the Transitional Committee on the new Green Climate Fund and get this annual $100 billion dollar fund started by 2020 in order to meet the needs of developing countries.  With the world still dealing with the economic downturn it is uncertain whether or not the markets will be able to deliver that kind of funding.  Delegates complained that the price of carbon in Europe had dropped to 5-6 Euros and that the 2% levy on CDM (which is still in need of reform) had generated a pitiful amount of funds which are necessary for “survival” as adaptation funding.    India has floated a proposal to deal with the issue of “equity” based on “entitlements” to emit given the remaining global carbon budget.  If their proposal (which is based on historical emissions) is to be used, developed countries would have little to no room to emit more carbon, in some cases having negative entitlements for which they would have to pay developing countries in order to give them the clean technologies they need to not emit.  Currently this proposal is being discussed amongst the negotiating blocks and has not entered the formal negotiation agenda.  If not the financial mechanism, perhaps the Technology Mechanism will make some breakthroughs in Durban by addressing the issue of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and the work of the Climate Technology Centers and Network (CTCN).  Technologies are crucial to getting the mitigation process started, with or without targets.

I sat quietly listening to the opening statements of the usual suspects yesterday as the negotiations kicked off.  The night before the heavens had opened up with a torrential downpour which caused heavy damage and loss of some lives in Durban—perhaps a sign that the Earth was tuned in, even if the politicians weren’t.  “No single nation is dispensable,” stated the Chair of the Association of Small Island States, a grouping of 43 states threatened with sea-level rise.  “Now.  Now.   Now.  Now, for the people, now, for the planet,”  she said in a desperate attempt to remind the parties that decades had passed and much is at stake.  We can walk away from Durban and keep attending conferences or we can make substantial progress.  Progress to reinstate faith in the process, and pave the way for a future we want.

The climate negotiations live to see another day! Amidst the cheer and applause that marked the end of the talks in Cancun, Mexico; a mischievous sense of relief was shared by many parties and observers to the COP. Did we strike a historic deal that will limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius? Did we pave the way for a sustainable future? Far from it! The Cancun negotiations were a diplomatic success and an environmental failure.

Many have already commented on the outcomes of COP16 but here we look at the pros and cons from Cancun and attempt to simplify it for our readers.

Pros

a) After the disappointing outcome of Copenhagen, the UNFCCC process was under severe stress to deliver an outcome that was negotiated in a transparent and consensual manner. Cancun managed to deliver on this front. It restored faith in multilateralism as all nations except one (Bolivia) signed on to the Cancun agreements. Possibly realizing that it was counterproductive as it was an unaffordable risk to hijack the process, parties laid their guns to rest for a little while.

b) More clarity on Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable (MRV)/ International consultation and analysis (ICA) mechanisms for finance and technology was reached at COP16. The proposal highlights the need for countries to undergo ICA even for unsupported domestic action but without any punitive implications and MRV for mitigation action supported through international funding and technology.

c) Greater clarity on technology transfer was reached. The talks never mention the “technology” itself that could be transferred but enhances the scope for more cooperation in tech transfer.

d) Article 6 of the convention and enhanced implementation of the New Delhi Work Program highlighted the recommendations from the YOUNGO. Nations will appoint focal points on Article 6 who will work with civil society in enhancing climate education, youth involvement and issues like gender equity.

Cons: (this list could go on but here is a condensed version)

a) Under the Kyoto protocol, mitigation actions have not been scaled up to match what the science demands and current figures carried from the Copenhagen Accord indicate a possible rise of 3-4 degree rise in temperature.

b) Kyoto protocol itself is slowly drifting into a state of limbo as nations are considering a single track negotiation process. The biggest downside is the fact that a legally binding agreement has not been reached in Cancun.

c) Appointment of the World Bank as a trustee for managing the fast track and other long term funds over a period of three years. This is highly opposed by civil society and rightly so given the track record of the bank in investing in fossil fuel industries and de-prioritizing local development needs.

d) Funds mobilization has been deferred to a later date.

e) Finalization of tech transfer, REDD + and finance mechanisms has been deferred to COP17

Road to COP17

a) Civil society needs to push for a legally binding outcome right from now, carefully sussing out various legal aspects of a global climate deal and lobbying for it. This needs to happen irrespective of the speculation on the second commitment period under the Kyoto.

b) The processes for an Adaptation Framework and funds mobilization are due February ’11 and May ’11 respectively and domestic lobbying has to happen over these two issues. Primarily on the elements of an adaptation framework and the source and form of funds for fast track finance.

c) China and India have to be studied closely to understand their domestic progress on climate change and to encourage them to eventually anchor their absolute commitments in a legally binding framework.

d) Under Article 6, civil society will have to lobby for enhanced involvement in climate policy and decision making.

e) Further mass mobilization needs to happen to push for domestic as well as international legislation on tackling climate change.

Reality Check

A UNEP report suggests that under the Copenhagen Accord pledges , we are set to emit around 53 Gt of Carbon into the atmosphere whereas the road to 2 degrees Celsius demands arresting emissions to 44Gt. There is a gap of 9 Gt which is equivalent to a reduction of 1 Gt every year. Nations need to target this reduction every year starting 2011.

Climate change is no longer a projection into the future, It is here, and now. NASA’s record indicates that 2010 was indeed the warmest year of the decade. While in Europe, there is a severe cold wave that is possibly due to the melting of the Barents – Kara sea ice in the arctic.

Erratic rainfall, floods, cold waves have set the trend in 2010 and one can only wait and see how 2011 unravels itself.

Looking ahead and fingers crossed!

Ixchel, Mayan goddess of Reason

Yesterday the 16^th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 6^th Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to its Kyoto Protocol (KP) kicked off in Cancun, Mexico.  The opening ceremony as usual helped set the tone of the event.  After having attended four COPs and a few intercessional UNFCCC meetings, one thing I always look forward to is the opening of the COP.  In addition to speeches by local politicians, the head of state, the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, and a representative of the science community, there is always an element showcasing the local culture.  While we are here to work, I still think it important to make sure that there be some symbolism as to why we are meeting in that specific part of the world (in this case Cancun) for such an event .

A few key elements were prominent during the opening that I would like to highlight.  First was the incredible speech given by Simona Gomez, a representative of the Mexican indigenous groups.  She spoke of how the climate in her native of Chiapas had changed and how her community of 6,000 needed alternate sources of income in addition to the handicraft trade.  The solution, she said, could be twofold:  getting paid to reforest a denuded area coupled with effective management strategies for local resources would mean the creation of jobs and saving the

environment.  As she spoke I could not help but think about the millions of indigenous people across the world who have been waiting for the day to be able to play a role in decision making processes that affect the resources on which they depend.  She ended her speech with:  “you who are so well prepared, know a lot . . .”  I asked myself if we the delegates, many representing political nation states, do in fact “know a lot.”  For if we did know this then surely we would know that the urgency of the issue requires immediate action to safeguard against planetary ecological collapse.  Surely we would know that the fate of future generations rested upon the only forum for addressing climate change.

The fate of the future generations was mentioned a few times in the opening.  A beautiful video prepared for the opening ceremony showed children with eyes closed or covered by cloth.  Their message was this:  “you grownup decision makers were children once too and had a vision of a perfect world.  You were inspired by the beauty of the planet.  Don’t close your eyes.  Don’t cease to see inspiration.  Let inspiration help you make the right decision.”  I am certain that a lot of the message was probably lost in translation.  Later, President Calderon of Mexico also encouraged the delegates to think of the children during the negotiations regardless of color or political boundaries because climate change understood neither.  Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

It was the need for reason that made Christina Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, invoke Ixchel, the Mayan goddess of the moon, happiness and reason, during her speech.  We are after all, in the land of the ancient Maya and we must tap the creativity and intelligence of that civilization to move the UNFCCC process forward.  We must also take lessons from history and recall that the Mayan civilization collapsed for many reasons, one of which might have been diminishing resources.  Let not the collective modern human civilization go the same way especially when we hold our future in our own hands.  Let us invoke reason.  May the Mayan goddess Ixchel watch over these proceedings.

President Nasheed of the Republic of Maldives at center

“There is nothing wrong with being helped to go on living. And that is what this[climate change] issue is all about,” stated a senior official from the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia. I am at a ministerial gathering of 28 nations of the Cartagena Group/Dialogue for Progressive Action convening in the beautiful island of Bandos in the Republic of Maldives. The participants are from Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Samoa, Spain, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, UK and the European Commission. The Cartagena Group/Dialogue is an informal space, open to all countries that want ambitious and comprehensive outcomes in the UNFCCC, and that are committed, domestically to becoming or remaining low carbon. These are “forward looking” countries, willing to work positively and proactively together within and across regional and UNFCCC groups. The aim of the Group/Dialogue is to openly discuss the reasoning behind each other’s positions and to explore areas where convergence and enhanced joint action could emerge. That is precisely what I see happening.

A representative from an industrialized nation stated clearly, “don’t push us, [to be even more ambitious] or you are not going to like it.” While the words may seem a little jarring, that was not the intent. The purpose was to make clear that negotiators and country representatives sent to UNFCCC talks can only do so much as they are at the mercy of the political winds of the countries they represent and might suffer backlash from voters. It reaffirms that if large industrialized (and rapidly emerging) economies are to take strong action, it requires the majority of the citizens of those countries to have the will. And while we witnessed the lack of political will to pass through climate and energy legislation before the congressional mid-term elections in the United States this week, countries small and large gathered at Cartagena have provided a glimmer of hope, giving a breath of life to the stale atmosphere that lingers within the UNFCCC post Copenhagen. The truth is that the stiff negotiating environment of the UNFCCC rarely allows for a common space for understanding country positions and barriers to creating a comprehensive agreement. This is especially true given such forums are reduced to a debate over choice of words in what is essentially a legal contract. This is the second meeting of the Cartagena Group/Dialogue with regular meetings planned in the future. The arrival of this group is also important as Copenhagen revealed that even large groupings such as the G-77 are beginning to fracture due to the rise of BASIC. The latter’s demands conflict with many Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developing Countries (LDCs) who are calling for a 350 ppm or 1.5 degree Celsius warming target. It remains unclear what future groupings could be like within the UNFCCC and there is no formal “Cartagena Group.” The current impasse in the UNFCCC requires new alliances and I suspect with time, a “G-X” will emerge to break the deadlock.

Ethiopia, a nation that is often recalled for chilling images of the devastation from the droughts and famines of the mid-1980s, has announced its commitment at this event to become carbon neutral by 2025. The nation, which can be considered a cradle of humanity’s agricultural experimentation and development had only 5% of its original forest cover remaining in tact by the early 20th century has seen that percentage grow to approximately 30% today. Last year, it planted 7 billion saplings, second only to China. Joining it in this commitment was the small pacific island of Samoa which pledged to become carbon neutral by 2020. The Prime Minister of Antigua & Barbuda pledged that the tiny Caribbean island nation would slash its emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. Costa Rica and the Maldives also reaffirmed their commitments to go carbon neutral by 2021 and 2020 respectively. And while no industrialized country has yet made such a commitment, Norway is developing its own carbon neutral plan for the year 2030.

The Cartagena Group/Dialogue will continue to discuss ways to deepen and enhance access to carbon markets for all nations, leverage the finance commitments from Copenhagen, and tackle MRV structuring (the measuring, reporting and verification component of mitigation commitments). All of this is in hopes that Cancun can pave the way for a breakthrough at the Earth Summit in South Africa in 2012. ”While expectations for Cancun might not be high, we certainly cannot lower ambition.” The Cartagena Group gathered here in one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change impacts made that clear.

“In a complete reversal of international trends, new cars in India are spewing more greenhouse gases than older models, pushing up emissions in Delhi alone by 72% in five years (2002-07), the Centre for Science and Environment said on Monday, releasing its analysis of emission data accessed from the Automotive Research Association of India.” (Times of India, 03/06/08).

Fuel guzzling cars hit the road in Delhi with fuel efficiency having dropped for post-2005 models even with engine sizes having remained the same. This in the back drop of 1,000 vehicles a day being added to the streets of the capital and a strong negative media campaign to scrap the much needed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system launched this April. The BRT when completed would cater to approximately 80% of the city’s commuters (including pedestrians and cyclists). For the first time, connections are being drawn between the rise in the number of cars and not just particulate emissions, but also carbon emissions.

May 28th, 2008: Delhi’s youth and young professionals convene for the first ever, Delhi Youth Summit on Climate (DYSoC) to debate the fate of the city’s developmental future in the backdrop of a climate constrained world. Here everything from water supply to waste management, and energy & transportation to new urbanism were discussed. Solutions from the youth were drafted into a Delhi Youth Charter on Climate. Youth and young professionals from all over the National Capital Region (NCR) and from many other cities including as far away from Hyderabad and Chennai descended on the capital and broke out into working groups to debate the solutions. Insights were also given on the role of youth in policy making and how to move forward with the charter for effective action. Over 150 participants including observers from various NGOs were present and the atmosphere was charged with positive “can-do-ism.”

The real question is whether or not youth can take effective action for change in a society so riddled with a“youth should have the same views as their elders” attitude. This is something the nascent youth movement on climate change in India will hopefully be able to indirectly address. After all, with the nation being 75% below the age of 35, it is the future of the youth that is being negotiated by the elders. It’s time their say is taken into account. One thing is for sure: increasingly the connections between rapid development and climate change are being made in a nation that is still struggling to come to terms with per-capita emissions (1/20th of the US per-capita emissions) and its own growing responsibility in this global challenge.

The draft Delhi Youth Charter on Climate can be found here: draft-delhi-youth-charter-on-climate