UKYCC’s Jamie – more interesting than the tennis

Preparing for going to the UN Climate Conference in Bonn featured a lot of policy acronyms, buying a German phrase book, drinking a lot of tea as a memory aid for learning these two foreign languages, and a lot of ‘BONN voyage!’ jokes from friends.

Arriving at the UN, it’s easy to feel like an outsider in a club of chummy delegates, amid the cheery greetings of the negotiators who have become old friends over all the years of struggling to negotiate an effective global deal to tackle climate change.

But we have a voice here.

The most open, honest and fruitful meetings are coming from YOUNGO, the youth NGO network here. We’ve found a really supportive group of motivated young people from across the world, with differing levels of knowledge but a singular focus and sense of urgency.

It is crucially important to twin these two dialogues, and involve youth representatives in the discussions between delegates. It is time to inject some of energy, dedication and ‘youthy vibes’ into a process that can seem tired and frustrating. This is the way to get real solutions to a problem that will affect us all.

Paul talks to RTCC about youth involvement within the UN 

We’ve been focusing on youth involvement within the UN climate negotiations – so talk to us! We’re tweeting away during our time here and our messages will be enriched by involving your voices – so please get in touch with what you want to see happening!

The @ukyccdelegation Team

Usually, being a blogger at the UN climate talks means that you will have to spend some time during the day scratching your head and wondering what would be the most relevant and most important issue to highlight among the many discussions that have taken place since the morning.

Yesterday however was one of those rare days when the answer to this dilemma seems self-evident: it is almost as if we had a theme day here at the negotiations, with most of the discussions of the day evolving around the concept of “equity”. Equity has become a central element of the discussions for a couple of reasons. First, India has been really vocal in advocating for a stronger reference to the concept to justify its claim that its own development needs should have priority over any climate actions expected from the country. Also, as countries have recently agreed to launch a new round of negotiations to determine the responsibility of most countries (both developed and developing nations) after 2020, delegates are looking for a way to allocate this responsibility between very different actors.

So yesterday, equity was the main buzzword in the corridor of the Maritim with a 6 hours long workshop, a press conference and an evening panel all dedicated to this theme. The issue with this notion is that it allows for a very diverse range of interpretation as their is not, at this stage, one single definition of what equity would mean in terms of the role expected from each country in mitigating climate change. Priti, our Indian tracker, wrote a post yesterday commenting on India rigid position on the equity issue, while Nala provided an extremely interesting insight on the Chinese perspective on this issue (I really recommend these two blogs). Let me just complete this range of views commenting on the EU relation to the concept.

The EU presentation during the workshop yesterday was welcomed by most as very constructive. Instead on hammering their own interest, the EU highlighted that the issue of dividing responsibility among countries is an integral part of the EU decision making, as it is facing a similar challenge internally than the UNFCCC is expected to address: define on what basis to define which countries are expected to do more than others.

A couple of months ago, I had the chance to chat with the EU Commissioner for Climate Connie Hedegaard at a buffet following an event. She mentioned the difficult discussions expected around the topic of equity and explained that while the EU was ready to play a constructive role in these discussions, they were looking for a practical approach to equity that could serve as a basis for discussion. I mentioned the Greenhouse Development Framework, but its seemed unknown to her. I wish she would have been here in Bonn: Shivan Kartha, from the Stockholm Environmental Institute, made a few presentations today in Bonn on the model develop by his team already a few years ago.

His approach is very straightforward and enables to identify a formula to determine what the responsibility of every country could be in relation to climate action. The most interesting element in this approach is to consider the issue of inequalities within a country, allocating responsibility only to the middle and upper class within each countries. It also takes into consideration respectively the “capacity” and the “historical responsibility” of each country (you can find out more yourself here for instance).

Every time I have seen Shivan give his smooth presentation, I have felt reassured by the fact that one can actually come up with a concrete proposal to calculate what the fair share of climate action could be for each country. In relation to the EU, the Greenhouse Development Rights approach leads to two conclusions. Internally, the responsibility of the 12 new member states is disproportionably small compared to it of the Western EU members (the GDR framework allocates only 10% of responsibility for European emissions to the Eastern countries). And more generally, this would require a tremendous effort by the EU, about twice as much as what the EU is ready in the context of a global agreement.

The path of the EU towards an equitable contribution to climate action remains a long way ahead; let’s us see how fast we move towards this direction.

The ad hoc working group on Durban platform (ADP) has begun at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Bonn, Germany. The agenda of the ADP is to form a protocol (according to the least developing countries), outcome (India), legally binding instrument  (European Union). This is a post 2020 climate regime much like the Kyoto protocol. But, with increased mitigation or reduction of future emissions from Annex I (developed) and start of legally binding mitigation cuts by Non Annex I countries (developing) and finance and technologs support for non Annex I countries to achieve not just to take a low carbon growth but also help to adapt to problems being caused to the vulnerable due to ongoing climate change effects.

Understandably, Durban platform could be our future and will play a very important part in future generation burden sharing issue and that of common ambition of saving the planet as well as that of differential capabilities. With minutes left to the election of officers, I give you a brief look into who are the nominees and let you decide what that could mean for the ADP political dynamics.

Mr Jayant Moreshwar Mauskar (India)

He is the Special Secretary in the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Govt. of India. He is a lead negotiator in India’s bilateral and multilateral climate negotiation team. Prior to this he was the Chairman of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). He was the director of the oil and natural Gas Corporation limited. In his career, spanning more than three decades, he has experience in Trade and Investment, Industrial Promotion and in the Energy/Hydro Carbon sectors.

Mr Harald Dovland (Norway)

He was the lead negotiator for Norway for 12 years and headed the ad hoc working group on further commitments for annex I parties under the Kyoto protocol (AWG). He is also a consultant for the engineering firm Poyry plc which publishes the Global Carbon report which helps market observers, analysts, policy makers and carbon market professionals in finance, energy and carbon intensive industries understand and exploit carbon markets.

Mr Kishan Kumar Singh (Trinidad and Tobago)

He is the head of the Multilateral Environment agreements at Ministry of Housing and the environment of Trinidad and Tobago. He has been in the capacity for 3 years and is a supporter of direct access to Green Environment facility by individual countries. He was also the Chair of the 24^th session of the Subsidiary body for scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA).

A chair is quite an important catalyst in moving the negotiations forward to a position where there is consensus between different parties. A good dose of humor, patience is a definite plus. And as chairs there is a possibility that the negotiators might feel closer to the national positions. And, that delicate balance of what the platform calls for action and national priority should be maintained.

The man on the chair has a huge task in front of him. This might well be one of the greatest breakthroughs in climate negotiations after Kyoto!

“The next window to meet will be the last week in June or first week in July, in Geneva,” said Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. “There is great enthusiasm from countries to be represented on the Board. While I would have liked to see the Board get down to work immediately, a short postponement to reach full agreement on its membership means it can launch smoothly and push ahead with the tasks before it,” she said. “To ensure that happens, I ask governments to submit their pending nominations without further delay so the pressing work of the Board can begin,” she added.

The GCF was launched at the UN Climate Change Conference in Durban last year, through the approval of its governing instrument and it has its own interim secretariat. The GCF is being designed as a major global channel for long-term financial support to help developing countries in the urgent task of building their own sustainable and climate-resilient futures.

One of the immediate tasks of the Board is to consider the six offers from countries to host the Fund, including Germany, Mexico, Namibia, Poland, the Republic of Korea and Switzerland.

The GCF has been designated an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention and will function under the guidance of, and be accountable to the Conference of the Parties (COP), meaning all countries under the UNFCCC. The Fund will have a Board of 24 members. Additionally, two private sector representatives, one each from developing and developed countries, and similarly two civil society representatives will participate in Board meetings as active observers.

Josph Bast.jpg

The somewhat hysterical Heartland Institute President Joe Bast has lashed out at the lengthening list of "friends" who are trying to distance themselves from the institute's increasingly embarrassing anti-science antics.

In a letter to one of the "scholars" who have asked to be removed from the list of "Heartland experts" (BigCityLiberal is keeping a good headcount here), Bast complains that his institute has always tried to stay "above the fray," and it's now being victimized "by ideological extremists as part of the ongoing attack on us and our donors."

In that light, Bast scolds his former supporter:

So John, I’m disappointed that you would side with folks who would use such tactics. if you want to stand up for truth seeking and honesty, for taking an unpopular stand against prevailing wisdom, then you should be speaking up for me and The Heartland Institute, not abandoning us in this moment of need.

read more