In 2050, I’ll be 77, and given the pace of the climate talks in Bonn these two weeks, I’ll likely spend most of my retirement either under water or on fire.

If finalized in the next climate agreement, the weak targets offered so far by developed countries virtually ensures that greenhouse gas concentrations (and sea levels) will rise to levels well beyond what science says are safe limits to ensure the survival of peoples and nations. Over 100 youth from 6 continents (the Antarctic youth called in sick) participated in the Bonn negotiations, watching our leaders draft an increasingly costly and damaging climate for us to live through.

Daily at the negotiations, youth have shown our governments how vulnerable our generation will be to the warming and climate change they are creating with their short-sighted proposals. We literally brought two camels and tons of sand to the negotiation entrance to highlight the drought and desertification many of our countries increasingly experience. We rapped and rhymed about the threatened survival of nations and developed countries’ weak financing proposals. Youth tracked key negotiators to remind them the next generation is watching, and blogged to their peers in multiple languages.

We supported indigenous rights and opposed deforestation and forest degradation. Global North and Global South youth played an UNfair (sic) game of football (the Americans insisted on playing soccer) to highlight the unequal negotiating position of developing countries. They also worked to raise money for their developing country members to participate with them in the Copenhagen talks. Fifty Chinese, Indian, and United States youth wrote the 1st collaborative statement (in two languages so far) by youth from these three countries on a shared vision for our nations’ roles and opportunities in cooperating on an agreement.

In the end, it is clear that negotiators have largely ignored the perilous position they have put their children in, and ignored the science as well. Japan’s 8% reduction from 1990 levels in 2020, and Russia’s, Switzerland’s, and New Zealand’s lack of any specific targets raises the chance youth will grow up suffering through climate tipping points and accelerated warming. These “commitments” put an incredible burden on our countries’ future leaders to create post-2020 cuts necessary to reach 2050 reductions.

Despite continued leadership by President Obama, and skilled diplomacy by lead Bonn negotiator Dr. Jonathan Pershing, industry lobbyists have ensured that weak domestic legislation will prevent the U.S. from honestly offering strong international commitments in Copenhagen. At best, the American Clean Energy and Security Act as written would let the U.S. achieve a 3% reduction in 2020 and create only a fraction of the clean energy jobs Americans desperately need. At worst, 1% is likely given offsets and other loopholes.

[JR:  The 3% reduction is compared to 1990 levels, as the link makes clear.  I assumed, given how this paragraph is written, that Kyle also meant 1% reductions compared to 1990 levels.  If not, I'll let him clarify.   I can't see a plausible scenario where ACES as currently written, coupled with Obama's other clean energy and GHG-reduction investments and mandates, doesn't take us to 1990 levels or below by 2020 (see here).]

While Bonn failed to deliver the protections to peoples, species, and generations youth know are needed, they renewed our commitment to redefining what is pragmatic and possible. Delegates should expect to hear from us again soon.

We reported to the COP 14 at 8:45 am for our participation in an international youth side action. Representatives from 50 countries stood at the entrance corridor in a disciplined queue showcasing different messages with their country flags. ‘Share our vision”, we called out in unison to the negotiators, UN observers, intergovernmental party members, journalists, NGO & business participants as they walked past us. We continued to echo our messages one by one till our time slot came to an end. “The youth of the world are cooperating, when are the political leaders going to join hands?”, “Fight disease, tech transfer funding, stop deforestation save our coral reefs, indigenous rights, adaptation fund, mitigation, save our forests, developed countries should take responsibility of their historical emissions.”

The youth movement had kick started with yet another powerful, energetic event which beckoned to the political leaders of the world. I felt charged up standing in the midst of the youth, voicing their slogans in a crescendo.

Another highlight of my personal experience in the conference was my role as the youth liaison to the UNFCCC Secretariat along with Line Kirk from Denmark. After the action in the morning, we went together to discuss with Maurice working under the UNFCCC Secretariat about the booking of meeting rooms for the youth. We were thrilled to know that the secretariat had agreed to give us a room (Aesculapian Snake) from 10am to 11am, everyday for us to assemble and have our youth meetings. This arrangement worked out very well for the youth as we all had a debrief in the morning before we launched our actions for the day as a youth movement.

I went to the stork plenary for a while to listen to the various parties talk about technology transfer, and provision for financial and technical support. While I glanced through the stork Plenary, I ran to hear the last 5 minutes of the European Union in a press conference. The representatives made a key note on technology and investment as hand in hand opportunities.

Inspite of not attending the full press conference it was extremely fruitful for a few representatives of the Indian Delegation to have a three minute chat with UNFCCC Secretary, Yvo de Boer, and confirm an appointment with him for the next day for 20 minutes for a one on one meeting with the India youth delegation . The Indian Youth Delegation were delighted to share this opportunity with the youth community and represent them with specific questions for Mr. De Boer .

While the excitement of our break through subsided I headed for a UNFCCC side event on the LEG/NAPA at 1:00 pm. It was an update on the work for the Least Developed countries Expert Group (LEG) and the status of implementation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) highlighting results of collaborating institutions. As per the definition of UNFCCC, NAPAs provide a process for LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to their urgent needs to adapt to climate change – those for which further delay would increase vulnerability and costs at a later stage. As of October 2008, the UNFCCC secretariat received NAPAs from 38 LDCs. As per the status from 2001, there had only been one NAPA project implemented in Bhutan.  The reason why it was implemented was because the studies with regard to disaster risk, feasibility and assessment of costs were completed before hand by the infrastructure in Bhutan. In most developed countries this process is extremely time consuming. The discussion that followed the presentation voiced concerned opinions of many officials representing LDCs. They questioned the implementation strategies of NAPA, the reason in the delay of the implementation. Why did it take so long to implement one project since 2001?  Why was it taking so long to implement NAPAs from 38 LDCs while there was a dire need for ground adaptation strategies?  The board specified on the need for a comprehensive climate strategy at national level. There is a need to mainstream adaptation in all aspects of economy and society. There is also a dire need to establish a vital connection between traditional knowledge and the solutions for adaptation policies. There was also a need to define adaptation and streamline it in development.

Along with the side event, the international outreach group were active in organizing yet another international youth action at 1:15pm, ‘Meet and Treat,’ for government delegates entering the afternoon plenary session – offering traditional polish pastries together with an invitation for government delegates to meet with the youth.

At 3 pm I headed for the communications group meeting. We discussed a fresh angle to add to our discussions. We decided to have two press conferences oriented towards the youth. Another challenge was to get across the international youth message through our actions, particularly to the media and the country representatives. We also discussed various aspects of the working groups. There were to be liaisons from all the working groups. The liaisons were to meet every evening at 6pm and put together an amalgam of all activities and feedbacks from all working groups. They were further to report back to their individual groups and share information as to what was happening with the other groups.

At 3:30 pm I headed for the AD Hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the convention (AWG – LCA). This was a workshop on a shared vision for long term cooperative action.

The shared vision encompassed of mitigation and adaptation priority actions targeted country based. The idea was to build on a national level adaptation planning and implementation, building on existing processes and existing financial programs. Every country would have to prioritize in new and additional finance and investments.

The goal was to reach 350 ppm, below 1.5 Centigrade above pre–industrial levels. In reference to the baseline of 1990, the emissions reductions were to be more than 85% by 2050.

The goal of Annex 1 countries: reductions by 20% to 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 85% by 2050.

Japan was to achieve stabilisation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climatic system. The suggestions were to incorporate innovation in day to day lifestyle, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

Dr Pradipto Ghosh, negotiator representing India stressed highly on per capita emissions and climate equity. He pin pointed on the ultimate goal of the shared vision. The method, the relevance of the method, the relevance of the provisions of Kyoto, cumulative emissions, historical emissions in a time frame of eco-systems, food production, economic development. “All the elements of ‘The Bali Action’ plan are comprehensive and interrelated. “

According to Dr Pradipto Ghosh, three relevant points include ;

1. Equity: All humans are responsible towards achieving any stabilization target.
2. Right to development of LDCs: Rapid development, poverty and vulnerability are interrelated.
3. Adaptation: economic & social development and poverty eradication, stabilization of emissions, mitigation measures should be compensated by developed countries through transfer of technology to account for their historical emissions.

The need of the hour would include deep reduction targets of 25%-40% by 2020 on the baseline of 1990. India stressed on equal rights to the common man, equal arrangements in Copenhagen wherein all parties should reach a consensus.

Ghana stressed on polluters pay principle, urgent precautionary measures, equity at an intra and inter generational level, access to ecological space, solution not limited to mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and finance. Ultimately the global goal should be measurable, verifiable and reportable with the help of mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and finance.

According to Brazil, an innovative approach on technology development was very important. Currently there is an implementation deficit. The shared vision would require a new cooperation approach determining responsibilities of the Annex 1 countries and non–Annex countries. The level of support would determine the action. However financing of projects wasn’t to depend solely on markets. It would demand scaling up of public sector funding on a concessional basis. Further adaptation would have to be country driven. Historical emissions were to be considered and each country would act accordingly with a view of the future.

Despite the fact that the workshop was extremely interesting, I had to rush to meet Joydeep with the Indo-Asian News Service to discuss our role as an Indian delegation. The article he published came in the Deccan Herald, Times of India, and a blog of news relating to Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.

I ran to the UNFCCC office to book a press conference room. The theme of the youth press conference to take place on the 11^th December, was to be “voices of the global youth.”   Having fulfilled this, I attended a little of the negotiations in the Stork Plenary. While it was extremely interesting, I remember being very tired. At 6 pm we had our Indian youth delegation debrief session. We spoke about our busy day and each one shared their thoughts and ideas about the conference. It was a fruitful exercise since everybody clarified their misconceptions and problems if any. We also had the dinner reception on this day hosted by the Polish government for all participants. So it was great to look forward to good food and interactions during dinner time. We had the opportunity to meet with the official delegate from Trinidad. We chatted the night with our youth colleagues from around the world–dreaming of a future that can be.

Saudi Arabia  stated that they cannot support REDD being so fast tracked.  They need more time.  Measurable, Reportable, Verifiable (MRV)-pledges from the DCs (developing countries) and demand for the resources to be pooled together and  for a system that matches the resources with the action, provided that there is reporting from both sides.  What they can do with some of the unilateral reactions is that they can use their resources to pick up the credits which will contribute to the mitigation.  The other concern for them was the impact of mitigation actions- need for bigger cuts and more involvement, a system that provides for the assessment of this mitigation for different parties that should be a part of the portfolio for mitigation activities under the UNFCCC. The actions and efforts to combat Climate change, MRV efforts in particular system can find out how to distribute resources equitably.

Papa New Guinea’s main concerns were on focusing on the list of points on the Bali Action Plan, and lack of clarity on REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries). They highlighted the tension as a country to reach emissions reductions and at the same time go by their sustainable development objectives.  Thus, nationally appropriate measures and GDP growth financing capacity should be combined with the dual objectives should coexist.

New Zealand stated that MRV in context of developing countries and developed countries want their actions to be recognized and this is fundamental to the whole process. The bulk of global emissions is with Annex , thus they should take responsibility.

Japan felt that countries should try not to be prerogative and should consider the sectoral proposal (a proposal that quantifies emissions reductions based on the efficiency of key sectors:  cement, steel, etc.), spread of information and the importance of actions.  Their emphasis was on measuring- collection of the right data and capacity building.  On the REDD issue Japan commends all countries and appeals them to keep the momentum of workshop in Accra.  There is a need to revise the methodology for implementation of REDD and they have organized various workshops in their country to discuss the topic. Finally, they believe that the benefit of REDD should go to all stakeholders in a transparent manner.

France on behalf of EU (European Union) feels that  developed coutries should take lead in emission cuts and national mitigation programmes as a vehichle to encourage others . They should continue to build on current systems on measuring in MRV and make it comprehensive.  This should be seen as a vehicle and a tool for mitigation and to recognise the actions and context of accountabily and its environmental effect. We must be clear as to where we want to end up because for building this system the measuring should be done at national level and reported in compliance with the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).