On some things related to COP15, I am impressed. The organizers managed to make it pretty affordable—free public transport, plus the food expenses weren’t bad unless you were buying anything liquid—and they managed to attract a huge range of people. I was bumping into people I know from many continents purely by coincidence.
Of course, the restricted entry, incredibly long lines, and speed of communication were less impressive, but I understand that we can’t meet every challenge. I feel blessed just to have been included as a student observer.
Today was especially mixed—I was one of the lucky ones assigned an entry pass for the morning, and I saw John Holdren (Presidential Science Adviser) and John Kerry (Senator) speak. I lurked in the hallway shyly basking in the presence of Jonathan Pershing (Negotiator, US) and Tom Heller (Captain Awesome, Stanford Law) when I noticed them chatting people up. But I knew that I was in the Bella Center because I wasn’t allowed to leave, which in turn meant the Stanford people who should have had my pass for the afternoon session weren’t allowed to come in. And some protesters were being teargassed and otherwise put in suboptimal conditions for a variety of reasons. Many of these same disadvantaged delegates were those who had stood in incredibly long lines outside in snowy Copenhagen for preceding days.
So I was lucky.
A few comments about today, then: very interesting press release session by a representative from China’s Ministry of Finance. Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) is completely unacceptable to China, and completely essential to the United States with regard to Chinese and other national emissions reductions. China’s argument? If the money or the technology is supplied by the international community, MRV is fine. If not, no MRV. An interesting argument. On the one hand, I understand the point: other national policies aren’t scrutinized. On the other hand, if China insists that its targets be considered independent of international negotiations and thus not subject to MRV, it’s not exactly fair for China to be pointing to its domestic reductions as its contribution to the international climate negotiations, reaping the political benefit of appearing to have done something. You can’t have it both ways, and they won’t, but it’s a shrewd negotiating position.
The United States has been defending its actions largely by trying to explain the Congressional process to the international community, which is good: people don’t understand that there’s a bill reconciliation process or that Congress is the source of all the money—and why should they?—but these are very important to the US’ position. That said, when a session on how US action fits into an international framework turns into a bunch of Congressional energy and environment staffers discussing the plight of the small-town farmer in Ohio, it’s easy to see why the international community sees the country as self-centered. The US has not been very good at presenting a unified front, at least in what I’ve seen. States like to be recognized for their efforts; many want to distance themselves and their agencies from the last administration and do so vocally and in a way I’m not sure is totally appropriate in an international setting.
Teleconferencing is disappointing. Even at a conference like this, where many of us preach the virtues of not flying, I heard people get excited to go to a talk, then realize it was a teleconference and opt not to. I went to two myself: I left the first after 3 minutes because the connection was bad, though it was a speaker (Amory Lovins) I much respect, and I handled the other one (by the US Department of Defense) mostly because it was a mixed live/teleconference event.
Two more brief thoughts, then it will be time to leave the Bella Center forever (oh, the yellow nongovernmental organization badges!): the problem of increased extreme events doesn’t get enough airtime, and neither does the challenge of actually allocating and distributing available funds. A few brief comments have been made on the fact that a two degree rise in average temperatures also means that fluctuations in day-to-day temperatures reach much higher peaks, and that means things like killer heat waves get more and more common. With funding, of course, making the money available is a necessary condition, but you need to have a good plan and a good implementation system if that money is going to get where it needs to go. So preplanning and presenting fundable projects or objectives is important, I think.
Comments