COP17 Durban Climate Conference December 1
2nd December 2011,
A serious revolution | Green Climate Fund | Reporting disasters | Bolivia REDD proposal | CDM without Kyoto Protocol? | AOSIS/LDCs proposal for 2012 agreement | Another banking rescue |
7:25am GMT, 1 Dec update from Adam Groves
This is probably the largest, the most deeply rooted, revolution that mankind has ever seen... it will revolutionise the way you and I interact with each another, the way we travel, the way we consume, the way we produce, everything. There is not one aspect of our human life that will not be touched by this... our lives will be very, very, very, different. We're talking here about a very serious revolution.
These aren't the words of protesters camped outside the convention centre, but of Christiana Figueres, head of the UN climate secretariat. She argues that the 'revolution' (this UN process) is slow precisely because it is so huge. Take a look at the video below to see the interview in full.
8:52am GMT, 1 Dec update from Adam Groves
How can information on climate change best be communicated? That's the question being asked at the Climate Communications Day event, being held here in Durban. Follow the discussion on twitter using the hashtag #ccommsday
Agent350: Since 97% of scientists think #climate is changing, let them speak 97% of the time and give the skeptics 3% #ccommsday
11:30am GMT, 1 Dec update from Bill Gunyon
The Climate Action Network has just finished its daily briefing on behalf of over 700 NGOs around the world. I want to take advantage of their presentation to tidy up where we are on the Green Climate Fund.
It's one of the big tests of the Durban talks to get this new Fund moving so that promised long term finance can start to flow to countries affected by global warming.
Ilana Solomon of ActionAid USA confirmed that the draft instrument to establish the fund was not approved by the conference yesterday, due to objections by the US. Other countries with (other) reservations include Saudi Arabia and Venezuela (on behalf of the regional ALBA Group).
Details and the timetable for the "informal consultations" that will now be facilitated by the South African presidency were requested but not forthcoming. Referring to the consensus achieved by the Transitional Committee in advance of the conference, Ilana warned:
we risk unravelling the entire agreement if all parties start renegotiating it
However, she felt that there is still determination amongst all parties that the fund should be "operationalized" in Durban.
Although not disclosed in the debate, the US objections are thought to focus on the relationship between the Fund and the UN climate regime, on the rules for private scetor engagement (too strict), and on wording the might prevent contributions from the richer developing countries like China.
We could do with some clarity on the process and timetable from the South Africans today. It's unsatisfactory that such a crucial component of the talks is left blowing in the wind.
1:16pm GMT, 1 Dec update from Bill Gunyon
I have a slight variation on the communications question posed here by Adam earlier today. How should climate journalists report the fatal flood disaster that hit Durban on the night before the opening of the UN talks?
Divine retribution for the UN's failure to protect God's creation? A portent of things to come? A banana skin laid by global warming skeptics?
It's not just the Durban COP17 coincidence. The deluge came just days after the release of the Extreme Events and Disasters report, a key input to the talks.
A single event cannot be attributed to human-induced climate change.
The stock reply, given when Adam interviewed Dr Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, publisher of the report. But Dr Pachauri did go on to explain that his report "clearly established" that we can expect more of this sort of event.
My feeling is that the media has been properly restrained in exploiting the deaths of poor city residents to advance the discourse on climate change.
In an excellent example published this morning, the Managing Editor of tcktcktck.org, Heather Libby, has clearly resisted the temptation to rush out a story which landed on her lap on arrival in Durban.
A few more days of wise reflection may inspire campaigners to find the appropriate tone for bringing this terrible event to bear on the ministerial decision-makers when they arrive in Durban next week.
2:49pm GMT, 1 Dec update from Bill Gunyon
The head of the Bolivian delegation, Rene Orellana, announced this morning that he will be submitting proposals to the conference for an alternative to REDD+ (the scheme for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation).
We have observed that the mechanics of REDD emphase the role of forests as carbon stocks. We think of forests as places where life grows, where people live.
This alternative recognises the multiple contribution of forests to food, water and biodiversity. It follows that climate change demands adaptation actions to protect these assets, as well as preventing further deforestation. A much more nuanced package than getting paid for not clearing forested land.
Towards the end of the briefing the Bolivians did rather gloomily concede that REDD+ does enjoy a following wind in the talks. New ideas may not be welcome.
I've seen so much criticism of REDD from the biggest and best NGOs that I'm sure the Bolivians will not be without sympathy. The International Institute for Environment and Development was involved in a side event yesterday which doesn't sound too flattering about what's on the table.
One or two basics I try to keep in mind as we wade into this topic over coming days.
First, there are real and unresolved problems in defining how the REDD principle can be administered (measuring forest cover etc) before money even comes into it. Second it is possible, maybe even likely, that REDD can move forward without the need for private sector finance. And third, it is possible to involve private finance without recourse to the dreaded carbon markets.
The Bolivians should cheer up a little.
4:58pm GMT, 1 Dec update from Bill Gunyon
Brazil's daily press briefings have been timed in the graveyard slot of 6.00pm but as yet this has failed to dim the smiling benevolence of Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago, head of the Brazilian delegation.
Such is the Ambassador's charm that Alex Morales of Bloomberg stumbled into a most unprofessional apology for asking such difficult questions about the European roadmap for a climate change agreement.
Mr Corrêa do Lago playfully danced around this minefield of a question as though engaged in snakes and ladders with his grandchildren. "One little word can make all the difference," he declared.
When Mr Morales demanded to know what that word might be, I fully expected the Ambassador to say "please", echoing our own grandparents' affection for that little word. Instead he reflected that different countries have their own ideas about important words.
Indeed they do. But this shadow-boxing of the early days of the UN talks is going to come to a sickening halt before much longer. Which loyalties will give way? How do Brazilian ambassadors climb down?
5:25pm GMT, 1 Dec update from Bill Gunyon
Just one potentially important point that we did learn in the Brazilian press briefing. Ambassador André Corrêa do Lago said very emphatically that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) cannot continue unless a second commitment period for emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol is agreed.
His logic is impeccable:
If there is no amendment of the Kyoto Protocol, you will not be creating the demand (for carbon credits). This is the basis of the Clean Development Mechanism.
He's referring to the central purpose of the CDM which is to enable rich countries to offset their emissions obligations with carbon credits from low carbon projects in developing countries.
Many corporate interests hanging out in Durban are lobbying for the CDM to be allowed to continue without the Protocol. During today's conference sessions Claudia Salerno of Venezuela was busy seeking reassurance that this commercial perspective has no traction.
But as we reported here yesterday, the South African minister, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, appeared to envisage just that possibility (of a decoupled CDM).
Now, the Brazilian Ambassador would never concede to a difference of opinion with a fellow BASIC country. We'll be charitable and observe that Ms Mashabane was speaking in her neutral role as President of the UN talks.
1:32am GMT update from Bill Gunyon
Oxfam cranks up its Durban video campaigning into top gear with this pacy Canute stunt to illustrate the increasing risk of extreme events.
I wonder whether it might have been just as effective without the campaigners and their props. I just stare at how that flat sandy beach seems to merge into the seafront buildings without so much as a dune in sight.
2:01am GMT update from Bill Gunyon
Remember 1.5C and 350 parts per million? Whatever happened to these "safe" limits of temperature and carbon dioxide concentration?
Of course it doesn't help that we're already up to 389 ppm and that many scientists say we'll hit 1.5C even if we never burn another bucket of coal.
But I'm always surprised that the big NGOs don't try harder to slip these benchmarks into their texts. Many of the most vulnerable countries have no choice but to hold out for them, however despairing.
All credit, therefore, to BBC's Richard Black for spotting that the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) have made aggressive representations to the Durban conference to respect these targets in determining the level of ambition for emissions reductions.
Furthermore, these two groups are clearly fed up with the talk of delaying a comprehensive agreement until 2020. They want discussions to start right away with a deadline of just 12 months to settle differences.
I'm not convinced that this is a new story. The submissions may have been made in the opening statements of parties to the conference on Tuesday. The official Earth Negotiations Bulletin published on the same day gives a less full account than that of the Third World Network released only yesterday. My guess is that caught Richard Black's attention.
2:15am GMT update from Bill Gunyon
The Sierra Club has wasted no time in making its presence felt in Durban. This most familiar name of environmental activism in the US has scored notable successes in closing and preventing construction of coal-fired power stations across that country.
Now the campaign group is putting out an anti-coal message in a country famous for its dirty fuel dependence. But things are not straightforward in South Africa, a rapidly developing country where many people are restricted by income and energy poverty.
It's therefore good to see that this article covers not just the anti-coal stunts but also a serious discussion involving Mary Robinson about energy access.
Image by Nicole Ghio/Sierra Club
2:23am GMT update from Bill Gunyon
I learned yesterday that the world had been saved.
The world was saved by the carefully planned and perfectly executed actions of its great powers, united by their unhesitating concern for the human family. We shall be forever grateful to the United States, Japan, the major European nations, China, Brazil and, it must be said, even Canada.
I do concede that these major powers were not elected governments. They were central banks, acting in unison to prevent the European currency plague from contaminating the global financial system.
The banks took this action because their expert economic advisers told them that the system was on the verge of meltdown. These experts were not certain about this but the banking authorities decided to take no chances.
I doubt very much if this news has reached Durban. And I’m quite certain that its cost will never be known.
But we are undoubtedly saved, at least for now, because the barometer of our well-being is once again ticking clockwise. The global stock markets have rebounded.
The shared values which underpin this remarkable act of international cooperation are honourable but no longer fit for purpose. They were forged in an era in which the great forces of nature were capable of absorbing any abuse dished out by one runaway species.
Humanity has now acquired the intellectual means to know its fate but lacks the wisdom to respond. This existential absurdity finds its greatest expression in the climate change conferences of the United Nations. How can so many people care so much but achieve so little?
They all do care - every negotiator in Durban, every long-suffering ministry official, every angry NGO campaigner, every lobbyist and entrepreneur. They should unite in tearing up their order papers for Saturday’s official proceedings, forget the tiresome acronyms of their trade and join the Durban Day of Action to convey a peaceful message for radical change to their political masters.
Durban itself should abandon the vanity of pinning its name to another vacuous compromise that might just possibly be achieved from this UN conference. The city has far greater potential resonance for the fight against climate change outside the conference centre.
It’s one of the world’s cities most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. And it’s the home of Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace, one of few people on the planet who can pluck out the heart of this terrible problem and compel a response. Go and listen to what he has to say.
