Alex's Apartment
Until I can get a few interviews and thoughts up from the final days of the conference (having bandwidth problems here) let this suffice for an explanation of the last two weeks ;-)
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
December 18th, 4:28 PM CET
NGO Forum
Around 8:30 this morning, Air Force One touched down in Copenhagen, beginning what many hoped would be the last, big push on the final day of COP15. President Obama's day began with select one-on-one ministerial meetings, including one with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jaibao. A later meeting between multiple ministers, however, resulted in a distinct snub as the Chinese vice foreign minister, He Yafei, was sent in the Prime Minister's stead to meet with heads of state. Rumor is that this is in response to Secretary Clinton's "Chinese proverb" quip yesterday, prodding China to cooperate, but this is unconfirmed.
The President's speech was brief, dry, and hardline - but not in a positive way. His message was that the United States has given everything it had to offer, and would not be giving any concessions. He did, however, acknowledge that the United States bears responsibility for climate change - a sticking point in the language of the negotiations between developed and developing countries.
He made no further concessions on emissions targets, sticking with, "cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050." One of his final lines - "We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say" - sounded more like the 43rd President of the United States, not the 44th. (For more on why the more things change, the more they stay the same, check out this article from a fellow couch surfer at greenmedianews.com, and the Daily Kos article that inspired it.)
Deviations between the speech distributed to the media beforehand and what actually came out of the President's mouth speaks volumes to the lack of progress today. The first read, "There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, AND NO OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO TRANSPARENCY and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price," with the change noted in bold. Though it was clearly a stab at China's reluctancy to accept MRV (monitor, report, and verify) measures, it seemed petty and out of place considering China's recent adoption of additional concessions. China has indicated it will agree to measures of transparency, though it is not clear what they may be. This remark could just as well have been aimed at China for their snub of the ministerial meeting earlier in the day.
The second should have read, "After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear," but instead finished with, "should now be clear," reflected the stagnation among leaders leading up to the President's address, instead of the quick resolution that was forecast.
There were no expectations that Obama would announce a surprise move, like Secretary Clinton's $100 billion bomb. The US is still very much bound by domestic politics. Though developing nations are still hoping for strong leadership from President Obama, the United States is definitely not putting anything else on the table than what they already have. With their will for a significant agreement eroding - the idea that it will be legally binding has already been scrapped - the United States seems like it has given up, and will punt anything binding to COP16. This is hardly the groundbreaking conference for which the world, owever futilely, had hoped.
Jessie
Around 8:30 this morning, Air Force One touched down in Copenhagen, beginning what many hoped would be the last, big push on the final day of COP15. President Obama's day began with select one-on-one ministerial meetings, including one with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jaibao. A later meeting between multiple ministers, however, resulted in a distinct snub as the Chinese vice foreign minister, He Yafei, was sent in the Prime Minister's stead to meet with heads of state. Rumor is that this is in response to Secretary Clinton's "Chinese proverb" quip yesterday, prodding China to cooperate, but this is unconfirmed.
The President's speech was brief, dry, and hardline - but not in a positive way. His message was that the United States has given everything it had to offer, and would not be giving any concessions. He did, however, acknowledge that the United States bears responsibility for climate change - a sticking point in the language of the negotiations between developed and developing countries.
He made no further concessions on emissions targets, sticking with, "cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050." One of his final lines - "We have charted our course, we have made our commitments, and we will do what we say" - sounded more like the 43rd President of the United States, not the 44th. (For more on why the more things change, the more they stay the same, check out this article from a fellow couch surfer at greenmedianews.com, and the Daily Kos article that inspired it.)
Deviations between the speech distributed to the media beforehand and what actually came out of the President's mouth speaks volumes to the lack of progress today. The first read, "There are those developing countries that want aid with no strings attached, AND NO OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO TRANSPARENCY and who think that the most advanced nations should pay a higher price," with the change noted in bold. Though it was clearly a stab at China's reluctancy to accept MRV (monitor, report, and verify) measures, it seemed petty and out of place considering China's recent adoption of additional concessions. China has indicated it will agree to measures of transparency, though it is not clear what they may be. This remark could just as well have been aimed at China for their snub of the ministerial meeting earlier in the day.
The second should have read, "After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations, I believe that the pieces of that accord are now clear," but instead finished with, "should now be clear," reflected the stagnation among leaders leading up to the President's address, instead of the quick resolution that was forecast.
There were no expectations that Obama would announce a surprise move, like Secretary Clinton's $100 billion bomb. The US is still very much bound by domestic politics. Though developing nations are still hoping for strong leadership from President Obama, the United States is definitely not putting anything else on the table than what they already have. With their will for a significant agreement eroding - the idea that it will be legally binding has already been scrapped - the United States seems like it has given up, and will punt anything binding to COP16. This is hardly the groundbreaking conference for which the world, owever futilely, had hoped.
Jessie
December 18th, 12:35 PM CET
Alex's apartment (new digs)
I spent the morning lugging bags across the city, so before heading out for the day I thought I'd post some videos from past events.
(President Obama is currently speaking live - thoughts on his speech to come.)
From Saturday, December 12th, opening remarks by Tuvalu.
From Tuesday, December 15th, Avaaz activists inside the Bella Center.
Klimaforum and Dr. Vandana Shiva! (Sunday Dec 13)
I wanted to add on a little bit to Kathryn’s post about Klimaforum on Sunday. In the afternoon I attended an event on carbon trading. Here there was a panel where many discussed the problems of offsetting and involvement of banks and speculators. Many of them noted the problem of many projects of “clean development and regulation of markets” maintaining the same system that created the problem, as well as providing opportunities for profit. The developed countries have made 75% of emissions, and are only 20% of the world population. 
One speaker describes how the UN process has, “reduced the problem to molecules,” rather than changing the structure of the system. I also went to an event on the Manifesto on Climate Change with
Dr. Vandana Shiva (mentioned first to us by Dr. Beach on the far right in the top picture). As Kathryn has already described, this woman is absolutely amazing! She is a radical progressive scientist, a beautiful speaker, and grassroots organizer. She is my new found inspiration for life. I mean, she's a scientist! Perhaps, I am making a big deal out of this 'being a scientist thing', but it’s just something I don’t see very often. She is part of a coalition working to make radical on-the-ground change. They have in-depth alternative solutions to the problems we are faci
ng. It is wonderful to see something concrete from an international group. They especially work to integrate agriculture, poverty, development, and the environment. If you want to learn more and read there unique manifestos look at: http://www.future-food.org/
One more thing about Dr. Shiva - Kathryn and I worked to talk to her a bit after the event. We fought against many aggressive reporters, including Amy Goodman from Democracy Now. After pushing through the crowd, I asked, “How do you balance being an activist and a scientist?” She smiled sneakily in response and said that, “There is no contradiction between these two things - they balance each other.”
Thursday, December 17, 2009
The Flood + Day of Action (Sat Dec 12)
A post from Olivia…. From Saturday December 12, 2009
On Saturday, Julia and I attended the large marches in
The next march for the Global day of Action started up a few hours later. By then the crowd had grown quite large. We joined in on some wonderful dancing, made friends with activists dressed as clowns, polar bears, pandas, and more. In the Global Day of action, the march took on a size between 50,000-100,000 participants (reflecting the range presented in the media). This action was part of thousands that took place all over the globe calling for meaningful serious action taken on climate change, and for a binding international agreement. In
During the march there was amazing drumming and a line as far as one could see of people. There were people of all sorts. As described more clearly in Julia’s recent post, the police have been engaging in pre-emptive arrests during the
December 17th, 6:50 PM CET
Forum, NGO Center
There were two sights I saw today that typified the current state of the negotiations. The first was a police-escorted motorcade, lights flashing, racing down one of Copenhagen's main streets towards the Bella Center. I suspect it was carrying a head of state from one of the upscale hotels downtown to the negotiations, stalled for the better part of the week. The second followed shortly after. One of the COP15 buses, running a special route to connect the Bella Center directly to other central points, passed by at a markedly slower pace. It was almost entirely empty.
As world leaders fly in, NGOs and observers are increasingly shut out. Temporary work spaces have been erected all over the city and side events and lectures are taking place in cafes around the city, if they still happen at all. Grassroots networks struggle to reach their members and find physical locations in which to meet and organize. The question this raises - and my opinion is still changing on this - is how the content and progress of the negotiations are affected.
On the one hand, mere access to the Bella Center may be a little overrated. The site is so large, and hallways so crowded that experienced COPers remark at how difficult it is to generate the sort of informal run-ins and brief encounters that have characterized past conferences. Draft texts are not printed and distributed (or even put online) until they are hopelessly out of date, if at all. Most of the action happens in closed meetings, "bilats", or consultations with the secretariat, all inaccessible to observers. Even press conferences are closed to NGOs, though they are broadcast on the website live. The open plenaries rarely yield any new information on specific topics. Overall, unless one is plugged in with a delegation or otherwise working constructively at the Center, it's almost easier to follow the negotiations by keeping one ear listening to live feeds of the negotiations and press conferences, and an eye on email listservs, blog updates, and official press releases from governments, etc., as well as the occasional draft text - all of which can be done outside the conference.
However, by closing the Center to NGOs, as was done yesterday after protests inside and out led to concerns over security, the possibility for the kind of constructive work carried out by some NGOs was also shut out. One observer, expressing his frustration in an email on Wednesday, explained how he had been doing pro bono press work for a delegation from a small developing country without any communications staff of their own. Without help, they are unable to get their message out to their people at home or to news agencies at the conference. Now, the only leverage they have is what they can manage to accrue through the negotiation process, which amounts to very, very little. NGOs can also serve as resources to delegations needing guidance from experts on key subjects going into the text. By denying access to NGOs, a large wealth of knowledge is also excluded from the process. In this respect, there is no replacement for being in the same physical space as the negotiations.
So by protesting in order for everyone to "get their voice heard," one block of of civil society managed to obstruct the work of another. Ironically, the idea that the Reclaim Power Now movement on Wednesday would get everyone a spot at the table was patently counter-productive, and only served to further limit input from those poor, disenfranchised, and most endangered by climate change. But again, they were joined in their walk-out by the Bolivian delegation and Indigenous Peoples Caucus. I don't know that that's the smartest move those delegates could have made, but it obviously they saw it as their only recourse. After all, isn't this whole movement about giving developing countries control over their own future?
I welcome comments on this - I'm certainly far from understanding this dichotomy, and especially the role of youth.
Best,
Jessie
There were two sights I saw today that typified the current state of the negotiations. The first was a police-escorted motorcade, lights flashing, racing down one of Copenhagen's main streets towards the Bella Center. I suspect it was carrying a head of state from one of the upscale hotels downtown to the negotiations, stalled for the better part of the week. The second followed shortly after. One of the COP15 buses, running a special route to connect the Bella Center directly to other central points, passed by at a markedly slower pace. It was almost entirely empty.
As world leaders fly in, NGOs and observers are increasingly shut out. Temporary work spaces have been erected all over the city and side events and lectures are taking place in cafes around the city, if they still happen at all. Grassroots networks struggle to reach their members and find physical locations in which to meet and organize. The question this raises - and my opinion is still changing on this - is how the content and progress of the negotiations are affected.
On the one hand, mere access to the Bella Center may be a little overrated. The site is so large, and hallways so crowded that experienced COPers remark at how difficult it is to generate the sort of informal run-ins and brief encounters that have characterized past conferences. Draft texts are not printed and distributed (or even put online) until they are hopelessly out of date, if at all. Most of the action happens in closed meetings, "bilats", or consultations with the secretariat, all inaccessible to observers. Even press conferences are closed to NGOs, though they are broadcast on the website live. The open plenaries rarely yield any new information on specific topics. Overall, unless one is plugged in with a delegation or otherwise working constructively at the Center, it's almost easier to follow the negotiations by keeping one ear listening to live feeds of the negotiations and press conferences, and an eye on email listservs, blog updates, and official press releases from governments, etc., as well as the occasional draft text - all of which can be done outside the conference.
Avaaz's aliens demonstration - standing with a delegate from Panama. Hilarious AND smart - video to come.
However, by closing the Center to NGOs, as was done yesterday after protests inside and out led to concerns over security, the possibility for the kind of constructive work carried out by some NGOs was also shut out. One observer, expressing his frustration in an email on Wednesday, explained how he had been doing pro bono press work for a delegation from a small developing country without any communications staff of their own. Without help, they are unable to get their message out to their people at home or to news agencies at the conference. Now, the only leverage they have is what they can manage to accrue through the negotiation process, which amounts to very, very little. NGOs can also serve as resources to delegations needing guidance from experts on key subjects going into the text. By denying access to NGOs, a large wealth of knowledge is also excluded from the process. In this respect, there is no replacement for being in the same physical space as the negotiations.
So by protesting in order for everyone to "get their voice heard," one block of of civil society managed to obstruct the work of another. Ironically, the idea that the Reclaim Power Now movement on Wednesday would get everyone a spot at the table was patently counter-productive, and only served to further limit input from those poor, disenfranchised, and most endangered by climate change. But again, they were joined in their walk-out by the Bolivian delegation and Indigenous Peoples Caucus. I don't know that that's the smartest move those delegates could have made, but it obviously they saw it as their only recourse. After all, isn't this whole movement about giving developing countries control over their own future?
I welcome comments on this - I'm certainly far from understanding this dichotomy, and especially the role of youth.
Best,
Jessie
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
December 16th, 2:45 AM CET
An update from Julia about the movements surrounding the negotiations:
Hello there,
Apologies for not writing for a while. The past few days in Copenhagen have been something of an alternate reality, a place that you might dream of during general frustrations concerning the workings of this mad world. Yesterday, I attended a panel and general assembly with Naomi Klein, Michael Hardt, and one of the lead organizers of the "Reclaim the Power" action (who has now been stealthily arrested by plainclothed officers while coming out of the UN conference center. Yet another one of the 1300+ preemptive arrests here in Copenhagen.) The meeting was held at Christiania, a freetown that was built in the '70s - a haven for art, activism, and unconventional thinking. Beautiful graffiti everywhere, lights in the trees, and activists from all over the world coming together to hear Naomi Klein.
Friends, the sight nearly brought me to tears.
The energy in the tent was so powerful - people wanted to be mobilized, motivated, energized. I climbed a scaffolding and ended up with an excellent seat, for the space was so packed that people were sitting on top of each other. It was very emotional to see the global North and South come together in this arena - there were folks from Guatemala, Uganda, Italy...the list goes on. Discussions involved alternative energy examples from around the world, logistics for the "Reclaim the Power" action, climate change effects on various communities, and goals for the People's Assembly to be held on Wednesday, which would include the indigenous governments, autonomous nations, and NGOs excluded from the UN conference. International solidarity was rich and in the air.
As I strolled around Christiania later that night, suddenly a wave of tear gas came flooding through its streets. What came next was nothing less than a siege. Earlier, the police had sent a helicopter to watch over what had a been a very nice party in Christiania, shining its powerful spotlight into our faces...and suddenly they were behind the trees at either entrance. I'm not sure about how it all started, but what ensued was equivalent to a war film on hyperspeed. According to a long-time resident of Christiania, the community is under constant surveillance by the police. As the black block built fires to protect their home, the police rushed the community and I was trapped for a few hours in a center area - all dark except for the police flashlights, helicopter searchlight, and the bouncing cigarette tips of folks trying to escape. Finally, we were let out after a few random groups were cornered and taken away.
That night brought up many new questions, questions of police mentality and protest culture. If it were not 2:44am, perhaps I would explore them a bit more here. And so it goes.
Read some real COP15 news at http://indymedia.dk/ and http://icop15.org.
Good night, dear friends.
*Christiania photo - credit to commons.wikimedia.org.
*Raid photo - credit to http://twitpic.com/photos/christianianews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)