Anna Collins blogged about how this was playing out in the negotiations Wednesday:

I was watching the chaos that erupted in the SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice). The talks ground to a halt over AOSIS putting forward the proposal for a technical paper on the science of scenarios for going above 1.5 degrees temperature rise. The paper would collate what is known and what is not known about what happens to our planet as we go above 1.5 degrees.

They want the UNFCCC to confront the reality of this in the paper, THEN make their decisions about action to tackle climate change.

However for some this reality would not be welcomed. The proposal was strongly blocked by many of the oil producing countries.

Swedish blogger, Erik Malm, went a bit further in explaining his view of the role of oil producing countries:

Once again, the climate negotiations find its greatest foe in oil. Even Venezuela diverts from their friends in the G77/Kina. But when over 80% of your GDP, is based on oil exports – oil really is thicker than blood. Several countries searched for support from Saudi Arabia until the very end.

“You have heard the most vulnerable countries plea for your support, if you do not agree with their consensus will send you a very unfortunate signal to the millions of people who follow this process all around the world. We have a duty to them!“, said the negotiator from Barbados.

Immediately thereafter, Kuwait uttered support for the Saudi line.

“Developing countries will need to transform and diversify their economies – who will assist them to make the switch from eg tourism to fisheries? Who will retrain their workforce?“, asked the delegate from Saudi Arabia.

They tried to resolve their internal differences through smaller consultations. However, these consultations proved to be futile and no progress was made. The OPEC countries would not compromise. With this, the SBI and SBSTA meetings are adjourned for now. The proposal of a technical paper on 1.5 degrees will surely be discussed further. When the parties meet again in Bonn, in August, it will most likely be on top of the agenda.

The session closed on Wednesday with no resolution. One can never clearly read the motives behind country interventions – except only to assume they’re working to advance their own strategic interests. On Thursday morning, SBSTA resumed and Venezuela offered compromise text, followed immediately by Saudi Arabia suggesting that the group would never get consensus on this issue and should move on. Knowing the Saudi’s would block gave Venezuela the chance to stand on high ground (ethically speaking, anyway) in support of AOSIS, without further threatening their own position as a major oil exporter.

The Chair ceded to Saudi Arabia’s request and the good guys (AOSIS, in my view) lost… or did they?

I thought the Seychellois ambassador Ronald Jumeau, did a great job summing up the effect of what went down at a 350.org press conference on Thursday. My favorite quote:

“One of the responses we’ve had on this issue is: the small island states can easily google. why don’t you google this information? Now, whoever made that may have though he or she was joking – but be careful what you ask for. We expect that after this… a lot of people out there… members of the public… the youth of the world… people withing the UNFCCC process… people outside… are going to say: What is this fuss about 1.5? And you can bet, they are going to google.”

See the whole press conference (organized by our friends at 350.org) in the UNFCCC video archive.

Quem chegava hoje de manhã no hotel Maritim, onde acontecem as negociações de clima, era recebido por ativistas segurando uma faixa onde estava escrito “bonn polluters” (poluidores de Bonn) e distribuindo um adesivo escrito “bonn procrastination” (procrastinação de Bonn), fazendo clara referência à British Petroleum (BP). Por ser a petrolífera responsável pela mais recente catástrofe ambiental envolvendo vazamento de petróleo, após a explosão e afundamento de uma de suas plataformas localizadas no Golfo do México, a empresa foi escolhida para evidenciar a atuação do setor petrolífero nas negociações da Convenção Quadro da ONU sobre Mudança do Clima (UNFCCC). Desde o início, lobistas do setor circulam pelos corredores, evitando chamar atenção, e tem como porta-vozes os países da Organização dos Países Exportadores de Petróleo (OPEP), que frequentemente sabotam um possível acordo. Dessa vez, não foi diferente.

Ontem, durante a reunião de encerramento do órgão da Convenção responsável por prestar assistência científica e tecnológica (SBSTA), não foi possível atingir consenso sobre o item 9 da agenda, que trata dos aspectos cientifícos, tecnológicos e socioeconômicos da mitigação das mudanças climáticas. Os pequenos países insulares (AOSIS), com o apoio dos países menos desenvolvidos (LDCs) e União Europeia, entre outros (Austrália, Noruega, África do Sul), propuseram solicitar ao secretariado preparar um documento técnico sobre as opções para limitar o aumento médio da temperatura global em 1,5 e 2 graus centígrados.

A Arábia Saudita, apoiada pelo Kuwait, Qatar e Venezuela (pois é, nesse momento, o país esqueceu sua solidariedade com os países mais vulneráveis e vítimas dos capitalistas do Norte e lembrou que grande parte das receitas do seu PIB vem do petróleo), declarou-se contra a elaboração desse relatório, chegando até a sugerir que os países usassem o Google para saber mais sobre o assunto. Essa posição dos países da OPEP causou grande desconforto dentro do G77 (aliás, não entendo como um bloco que representa quase todos os países em desenvolvimento do planeta, de AOSIS a OPEC, pode ter uma posição conjunta sobre clima). Os países partiram para consultas informais, mas não conseguiram chegar em um consenso, provocando a suspensão da sessão para hoje.

A AOSIS  só estava pedindo que um relatório fosse elaborado, não que se adotasse um acordo para limitar o aumento da temperatura em 1,5 grau centígrado.

Hoje, a sessão foi retomada com a Venezuela falando que apoiava a elaboração do paper (lógico, sabia que seus colegas da OPEP iam bloquear de qualquer jeito). Em seguida, a Arábia Saudita falou que não ia adiantar nada continuar discutindo esse assunto porque não iam mudar de posição e propôs que essas discussões sejam retomadas em Cancún, durante a CoP-16, quando o SBSTA também se reúne. Barbados, pela AOSIS, perguntou por onde anda a solidariedade e fraternidade entre os países em desenvolvimento e disse que as negociações não são um jogo e a Bolívia perguntou como é possível que não sejam capazes nem mesmo de entrarem em consenso para elaborar um relatório.

Também gostaria de ver essas perguntas respondidas, bem como essa aqui: o que vai fazer os países da OPEP mudarem de posição daqui a seis meses?

No fim da tarde, Kuwait, Omã, Arábia Saudita e o Qatar ganharam o prêmio Fóssil do Dia, dado para os países que menos contribuíram para o avanço das negociações hoje.

Posso ser linchada pelo que vou falar agora, mas vou falar do mesmo jeito, para criar polêmica. É muito fácil e simplista enxergar mocinhos e vilões nesse debate. Constantemente demonizamos os países cujas economias dependem da exploração de petróleo, sem parar para pensar nas consequências que a tal transição para uma economia de baixo carbono vai trazer para esses países. A maior parte da economia desses países gira em torno disso, portanto, é lógico e completamente legítimo que eles ocupem seus espaços em um fórum que está debatendo justamente um corte radical no uso de petróleo no mundo. O que não é aceitável, do meu ponto de vista, é que a Arábia Saudita (e outros países) se comporte como vítima das mudanças climáticas, sabote as negociações, como fez hoje, e não aceite sair do status quo, aceitando explorar outras fontes de recursos para sua economia. Isso é absurdo! Chegaram até a dizer, no sábado, que os combustíveis fósseis são vítimas das mudanças climáticas e constantemente manifestam que querem fazer parte dos fundos de adaptação porque, de acordo com eles, vão ter que se adaptar às mudanças climáticas tanto quanto os pequenos países insulares, países menos desenvolvidos…

]]> http://youthclimate.org/sobre-sabotagem-e-procrastinacao-54551/feed/ 0 http://youthclimate.org/stop-sp-oil-ing-our-future-54483/ http://youthclimate.org/stop-sp-oil-ing-our-future-54483/#comments Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:16:21 +0000 Leela Raina http://adoptanegotiator.org/?p=9128 Its been 10 days since I have been tracking the negotiations. Every day seems like a new day but the routine it seems like the same feeling. Its like you’re listening to one of those old songs on a tape and sometimes it gets stuck , keeps repeating a sad and irritating tone and then you need to rewind it over and over again.

The only ray of sunshine comes when you have a great dinner , share a laugh with you colleagues and shop. In the evening I took a detour from the main station and just went and stood in the store . Looked at the happy kids, the enthusiastic teenagers, the worried mothers and the overworked saleswomen doing there rounds in the H &M store in Bonn. Having the chance to see colours and shoes and bags rather then the placards of countries and people fighting over whether a technical paper should be presented gave me hope that maybe no matter what goes inside the UNFCCC, life still moves on , you still love ice cream and girls still love shopping.

No doubt that there were wide interconnections in life that we as humans are so closely and neatly woven into. Everything can also be traced back to the people inside the UNFCCC and the decisions they influence and make.

Its interesting to note that among us in Maritim are roaming around 50 -60 accredited Oil Lobbyists. They have been polluting the talks and disrespecting the very spirit of why the convention was set up in the first place. These lobbyists have worked there way up all the way to not only civil society and media but country delegates themselves.

The Oil Producing and Exporting countries face the most amount of danger economically , considering almost 80 % of their GDP comes from the export of oil. Rather then seeing this as an opportunity to switch to an alternative fuel they take the easiest path that of calling themselves the “victim” of climate change

OIL has proved to be thicker than blood and here is a simple explanation why. The Oil producing countries not only lost all logic but are now dictated by this slimy oil running through their veins. Because of the way this disease makes them behave they were awarded a fossil today.

The fossil goes to these four Parties for risking the good faith and integrity of the negotiations by blocking all attempts to secure a technical review of the 1.5 degrees target and suggesting that vulnerable countries use “google” to get information that they need/want. They did this in the teeth of emotional pleas from vulnerable countries and numerous rounds of diplomatic efforts to reach a compromise. Saudi Arabia even gave us a list of traded goods which would be in peril from a 1.5 degrees target. See if you can spot which one is their true concern: rice, cocoa, tomatoes, coal, oil…. (If you’re stuck, look up their chief export on Google.)

Now that they have stalled the negotiations on the scientofoc aspect one can only wish that the talks at Cancun are also not stalled and that it migth not be a curtain raiser to more nasty drama to unfold at the UNFCCC negotiations.

Outside the UNFCCC , OIL is making news, apparently so much news that BP the big oil company had to buy off the terms oil spill from google to control the falling stock value in the stock markets. Its a shame that the big media cant see how much of this problem of the oil spill is linked to what going on inside the negotiations.

This is why they got a honorary fossil today:

BP-USA is awarded an Honorary Fossil Award from CAN International for fostering our addiction to fossil fuels, an addiction that is driving global warming towards dangerous climate change and lies behind the disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico.

The consequences of foregoing a global agreement to move off fossil fuels and invest in a low-carbon future are clear – scientists have run the numbers – unless warming is checked temperatures will increase way beyond the threshold for catastrophic climate change.

For some countries the toll is already mounting.  As the negotiations began here in Bonn, hundreds died in India and Pakistan during the hottest heat wave on record, with temperatures shooting over 50 degrees Celsius (122 F).

This is bitterly ironic given that we have alternatives. Each year we delay, we pass by opportunities to invest in clean energy.  The International Energy Agency has calculated the cost of passing by those opportunities at $500 billion a year. At same time $100 billion a year in subsidies are paid to fossil fuel companies worldwide.

Checking climate change and sustaining economic growth depends upon an international agreement to invest in clean energy.

BP-USA, a leader in fossil-fuel development that has played out so disastrously in the Gulf of Mexico, is awarded an Honorary Fossil for failing fulfill its responsibility to help break the fossil-fuel addiction it has fostered and address climate change.

Hoping for a better future where blood is valued more than oil and where there wouldn’t be any climate talks , and I can go shopping without worrying that , oh my god, I gotta save the world!

Bonn Polluters?

How often do you think about the realities of climate change?

Today I am not at the UNFCCC in Bonn, today I am back in London. I have left the UNFCCC behind, left the rest of the trackers still tracking away and have returned back to my normal life.

Back to reality.

However yesterday while I was still in Bonn a different type of reality hit me.

The reality of what this is really all about.

Yesterday I had the opportunity to chat to an African negotiator in these talks. We talked about the African position here and what the outcomes of these talks really mean for Africa. While we were talking it reminded me of my Kenyan friends and of new friends I made in Bonn, from Nigeria and from Zambia. It reminded me of hearing them talk about the realities of climate change in their lives. It reminded me of being in Kenya last year, of seeing the wildebeest migration come so early, of talking to people about how the climate is changing everyday, and how much harder it is making their lives.

So often at the UNFCCC we end up in a bubble. A crazy bubble of acronyms, interventions and endless hunts for free food. But it is a bubble where even though we are at climate negotiations the reality of climate change doesn’t seem…well….real.

But yesterday the reality hit me hard again and it took me out for a while. I realised sitting on the Wednesday of the second week of talks, with only 2 more weeks of talks until the next cop in Cancun, that things were not looking great. One of the main things we hoped to see achieved in Bonn was a new text to work off…we do not have it. Yet again we are behind where we need to be if we want to achieve what we need to at the COP.

Talking to the African delegate, him talking of the need for us not to talk about what we think can be done, but to talk about what HAS to be done to stop us condemning millions to an uncertain future, made me think.

His story is the reality.

Droughts in Africa is the reality.

People dying is the reality.

Reality is not about politics, reality is about science.

We can’t change the science but we can change the politics.

And the reality of the situation we are in means we must!

It would seem I am not the only one trying to get back to reality though. Today following the talks from afar (it’s weird being on the other end of the social media!) I was watching the chaos that erupted in the SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice). The talks ground to a halt over AOSIS putting forward the proposal for a technical paper on the science of scenarios for going above 1.5 degrees temperature rise. The paper would collate what is known and what is not known about what happens to our planet as we go above 1.5 degrees.

They want the UNFCCC to confront the reality of this in the paper, THEN make their decisions about action to tackle climate change.

However for some this reality would not be welcomed. The proposal was strongly blocked by many of the oil producing countries. Because another reality is that these talks are dominated by oil. From the oil producing countries blocking concensus, to the oil lobbyists working behind the scenes at every step.  Because for them a reality of this process is that if it really confronts climate change it will hit the way they make their money. So they are doing everything they can to stop this happening.

But this is another reality we can change.

We have to get these talks back on track to talking about the reality of the situation we are in.

As I sit back in my life in London the reality of the task in hand is starting to sink in again.

And with it the reality that this is it for us.

This is our fight. This is what we must do.

Being brought back to reality seems to have stoked my internal fire again.

<cross-posted on SustainUS’s Agents of Change blog and The Climate Community

The United States earned the 1st Fossil of the Day Award here at the  United Nations climate negotiations in Bonn. Nearly a week had passed where no country had acted badly enough in the negotiations to deserve a shameful Fossil, until the U.S.’s nomination.

The U.S. grabbed the title for blocking a discussion on greenhouse gas mitigation actions. The discussion would have helped build consensus on post-2012 actions to stop greenhouse gas pollution. Lack of a clean energy and climate law is pushing the U.S. to block an international discussion on future climate agreements (sound familiar?).

The discussion had been proposed by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). Many AOSIS countries are under extreme threat from rising sea levels and other worsening climate impacts. They also have some of the least capacity to deal with these impacts, and have contributed to climate change pollution the least of most nations.

The Fossil of the Day awards, run by the Climate Action Network (CAN), were created to highlight the countries doing the most to block progress in the United Nations negotiations.

Official press release from CAN:

FOSSIL OF THE DAY AWARDS

Bonn, Germany, June 5, 2010

The Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of over 500 NGOs worldwide, gives out “Fossil of the Day” awards to the countries who perform the worst during the past day’s negotiations at the UN climate change conference.

The award given out on June 5, 2010 in Bonn, Germany was:

The United States of America was awarded First Place. The U.S. earns the Fossil of the Day for blocking the common space discussion on mitigation in the Ad Hoc Working Group for Long-term Cooperative Action yesterday. Failing to pass a strong climate and energy bill is keeping them from participating in cross-cutting discussions, like the one AOSIS proposed, to build a post-2010 agreement to reduce global warming emissions.

The Fossil-of-the-day awards were first presented at the climate talks in 1999, also in Bonn, initiated by the German NGO Forum.

During United Nations climate change negotiations (www.unfccc.int), members of the Climate Action Network (CAN), a worldwide network of over 500 non-government organisations, vote for countries judged to have done their ‘best’ to block progress in the negotiations in the last days of talks.

www.climatenetwork.org

Filed under: Climate Justice, Climate Policy, Climate Science, global warming, Government, Impacted Communities, International Affairs, Intersessional, Legal, Politics, Region, United Nations, United States

Through sheer perseverance and patience, we had the opportunity to have an informal youth dialogue session with PM Lee Hsien Loong during his short visit to Copenhagen, in attendance for COP15. We asked him a number of questions gathered from our COP15 blog and other affiliated sites. In our short dialogue session, PM Lee addressed Singaporean Youths on the environment, Singapore’s stand at COP15, measures Singapore has taken / will consider, Singapore’s alignment with AOSIS and whether Singapore will take on a leading role in ASEAN on climate change policies.

Part 1 of Youth Dialogue

Part 2 of Youth Dialogue

Check out other videos we produced at COP15 at http://www.youtube.com/ecosingapore

Live from COP15
ECO Singapore Team
=D

]]> http://youthclimate.org/youth-dialogue-with-pm-lee-hsien-loong-29167/feed/ 0 http://youthclimate.org/battle-until-dawn-over-humanity%e2%80%99s-survival-28921/ http://youthclimate.org/battle-until-dawn-over-humanity%e2%80%99s-survival-28921/#comments Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:02:29 +0000 Kartikeya Singh http://www.whatswiththeclimate.org/?p=2051 It is 6:13 am and in the Bella Conference Center I am listening to the chair of the AOSIS (Association of Small Island States) trying to fight off uncontrollable tears. I am almost certain that the Group of 77 (a behemoth of 130 plus developing country states) is coming to an end. Countries are divided and I am witnessing accusations fly across the plenary. Why has it taken us so long to arrive at this point? We sit here with the “Copenhangen Accord” staring at our faces. It is a document full of hot air and is not what billions of people across the planet had been promised to deliver atmospheric restitution.

Once again the developed nations have managed to gain somewhat of an upper hand in the wake of greater sacrifices of the larger developing countries. That aside, negotiators had feared from day one of the talks that the documents and the process of negotiating would not mature to the point required in order to allow negotiations to move into the high level segment where over 100 Heads of States would come to sign a just climate deal. Their fears were realized. The process has been deeply flawed and the voices of nations regarding lack of transparency, conspiracy to kill off the Kyoto protocol has been true. I often found myself being witness to the injustice within the UNFCCC process (where had I not gone to certain meetings, I would have missed out on joint drafting sessions which I assumed were only scheduled G-77 coordination meetings). Text messages were sent, rooms were changed, information was not available to all.

All of this, in the wake of the greatest climate conference the world has ever seen since the birth of the Convention some 18 years ago. Why did it take us so long? How did we get so bitterly entrenched in this process? I have seen and learned more about the process as a negotiator in the last 2 weeks than I could have my entire life. As a result, I have become deeply disillusioned. Two nights ago, at the launch of the Maldives “Survival Kit” for nations, President Nasheed had all but given up on the process and called on youth to take to the streets and make this the absolute issue in politics. For nations like the Maldives that lie 1.5 meters above sea level at their highest point, this is an issue of their survival.

I would agree. After a bitter impasse, and stalling of the talks due to the flawed process, negotiators had still not made progress on many of the key issues. In the group discussing “enhanced action on mitigation” I found myself transported back in time as if no progress had been made between the developed and rapidly developing countries on any of the points on emissions reductions. On the issue of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing countries, the parties talked in circles and could not arrive at any concrete conclusions. Finally the Heads of States arrived adding further confusion to an already impossible situation. Having lost a day and half due to the boycott of the talks by members of the African Group and other major developing countries didn’t help but probably was the only thing that kept the two track process (the Kyoto protocol) alive. Late last night, the heads of 25 nations were invited as part of a “friends of the chair” group to help broker a deal: United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Maldives, Grenada, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Algeria, Denmark, Germany, Korea, Bangladesh, France, Gabon, and three others. The leaders of this group tried to hammer out a rough document to provide the basis for further negotiations. This was the Copenhagen Accord.

The deal is far from perfect. It is non-binding for starters and has a range of base years from which the many countries putting up targets can choose. If one looks closely, there is probably no way that it meets the 2 degrees guard rail target that we need at the MOST in order to avert a run-away climate disaster (even though it claims to use 2 degrees as the upper limit). It is far from what the islands need, far from what the Least Developed Nations require and still leaves many questions to be resolved. Yet it is the only thing that can salvage the absolute and utter lack of trust and faith that has been built up over the last two years between parties of the United Nations.

Climate poses the biggest question to humanity as to whether or not we are going to be able to save ourselves. That is after all, what we are trying to do here. At this time, what we need is trust, faith, and greater understanding to move forward. I am only 25 years old. I fear bringing children into this world and as I sit here listening to nation after nation make statements in favor of or against supporting the passing of the Copenhagen Accord, I am now as uncertain as ever as to the future of humanity. We have not attained “climate justice” here today. Nor have we secured our future. Outside over 200 protesters mobilized to arrive at the conference center to organize a “Shame Vigil.” Mind you civil society suffered the most fatal defeat during these talks by having been forcibly locked out in the final days. However, with an unprecedented over 45,000 registered delegates to the talks I think we have indeed arrived at a crucial point where the movement is unstoppable and will only continue to grow.

It is 7:00 am on December 19th and I am unsure as to what the outcome will be. I leave you with this:

“In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel.” –Severn Suzuki (age 12), Rio Earth Summit 1992

Last night the Avaaz team had dinner together at a local restaurant. We went around the table and shot out highlights from week one of COP15. My highlight was Tuesday afternoon. Tuvalu, a tiny island nation already being forced to plan for the displacement of its population, had just changed the course of the negotiations. Tuvalu, supported by over 100 countries was standing up for a legally-binding and enforceable agreement as opposed to a political one. Less than an hour after hearing the news of Tuvalu’s brave actions, organizations and youth mobilized to make signs and rally inside the Bella Center to say “Tuvalu is the Real Deal” and “Stand with Tuvalu”. By Friday the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had submitted a formal proposal that finally put a real climate deal on the table in Copenhagen.

Before I offer a few things you should know about week 1, I want to offer two priorities for the final week:

1. Raise Expectations by Supporting Real Leaders
The final week is all about holding heads of state accountable for a writing a real deal. To raise expectations, we must generate a groundswell of citizen support for the demands of small island states, Africa, and other vulnerable nations inside of COP15. These brave leaders are calling for exactly what we want – a fair, ambitious, and binding treaty that gets us to 350 ppm and limits warming to 1.5 degrees C. We need to remind our leaders that our fates are bound together. By ensuring survival for the world’s most vulnerable we can avoid climate tipping points that would put all of our futures in jeopardy.

2. Stop a Greenwash
We need to draw a bright line between a real deal and a greenwash. Coalitions of nations have formed to create loopholes in everything from how we account for forest emissions reductions to whether we will create additional funds for adaptation and technology transfer or steal money from existing aid budgets. Despite a new administration, the United States remains the central figure keeping global ambitions low at COP15. When countries try to water down a deal, we need to be ready to respond both in Copenhagen and back home on a dime. If the deal is riddled with loopholes, sets emission targets too low, does not include strong long-term financing for developing countries, or is not legally-binding, it simply will not work. With 110+ heads of state putting their credibility on the line in Copenhagen, the risks for an empty political deal rather than a real deal could not be higher.

With those priorities in mind, here’s what you should know about what happened in week 1:

Small Islands and Africa Stood Up for A Real Deal

- On Tuesday and Wednesday COP plenaries were suspended as Tuvalu, supported by more than 100 countries and civil society groups, stood up for a legally-binding treaty.

- On Friday, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a key bloc of 43 countries, put forth a proposal for a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding treaty that would keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees C and rapidly decrease carbon levels to 350 parts per million.

- Wealthy countries came closer together this week on a number of issues while attempting to divide poor countries. I heard reports of intimidation tactics being used on Tuvalu for their bold actions.

- While speaking to NGOs the lead delegate for the G77 called the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees C “certain death for Africa and AOSIS”. He called for radical reductions of emissions from developed countries- 52% by 2017, 65% by 2020, 80% by 2030, and well above 100% by 2030. He called the $10 billion/year climate finance proposal “pittance” and called for something like the Marshall Plan, which dedicated 3.2% of the US economy after WWII.

The World Stood up for A Real Deal
- All weekend more than 150,000 people joined the largest climate demonstration in history in Copenhagen, including tens of thousands in Australia, and thousands more in more than 3000 vigils worldwide, all calling for climate justice and a real deal.
- More than 1200 people were arrested in a much criticized crackdown by police in response to a few small skirmishes and minor property damage. The rallies wer overwhelmingly peaceful, beautiful, and positive. At the end of the Saturday march there was a moving candlelight vigil just outside the Bella Center with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Mary Robinson, and forty children.
- Using media stunts, e-activism, and the mobilizations we defined a successful outcome for Copenhagen as a “real deal” with $200 billion in finance for developing country adaptation and technology transfer per year by 2020, a global peak year in emissions by 2015, and a legally binding treaty.

The EU, Japan, and other wealthy nations failed to lead
- Despite pressure from youth, aliens from Planet B, and groups like Avaaz.org and Oxfam, Japan and the EU have so far passed on the opportunity lead on a strong and long-term global finance package for developing country adaptation and technology transfer.
- Japan strongly opposed setting a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, winning “Fossil of the Day” on Kyoto’s twelfth birthday on Friday.
- The EU put forth a “fast-start finance” proposal for $10 billion by 2012. Unfortunately Germany missed an opportunity to ensure the money was new and additional to existing commitments, leaving the value of the proposal greatly diminished.
- Poland blocked a decision to raise the EU’s emission target to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 from 20%.
- Many wealthy nations are waiting for heads of state to arrive next Wednesday before making tough decisions and moving the ball forward.

Posted in Climate Justice, Copenhagen 2009, global warming, News and Media, Political Participation, Politics, South Asia ]]> http://youthclimate.org/cop15-week-1-recap-survival-is-on-the-table-24683/feed/ 0