Just as a bit of light relief (with a serious undertone of course) here’s Marcus Brigstocke’s Dr Seuss summary of the Copenhagen summit on the Now Show on BBC4.
This link is to the whole show, but if you only want the Dr Seuss bit, it’s at 13m13s. It’s very good. A bit scatalogical.
Hat tip to simonw and Tom_Watson on Twitter
Reports have emerged that John Key and his ministerial colleagues may have been a bit premature when they started boasting that he would be playing a star role in a BBC debate on climate change later today. It seems Key has been dumped in favour of Aussie PM Kevin Rudd. Perhaps the BBC wanted to avoid the spectacle of a lead panelist doing an “aw shucks, I’m pretty relaxed about it actually” routine…
Day 4 for me today. Yesterday, the developing nations staged a walkout from the negotiations. This was largely to dramatise their concern about the developed world’s unwillingness to taken on meaningful pollution reduction targets. After negotiations were suspended, there was a lot of discussion over what would happen here over the four days of the Conference that remain. To simplify massively, there are four big sticking points in the way of reaching a comprehensive agreement - the targets each country adopts; the level of compensation to be paid to developing countries; the best way to measure and police each nation’s emissions; and how the Copenhagen agreement takes over from the Kyoto Protocol.
Based on what veterans of the process have been saying, the consensus is that there are four alternative scenarios for how the week will end up:
1. A comprehensive agreement with detailed rules. Unfortunately, given the complexity of the issues that remain to be agreed, and the fact that the US is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, but is the key player in terms of making commitments for its replacement, this seems virtually impossible. The US has only really been engaging since President Obama’s coming into office in January, and although considerable progress has been made, including developing countries voluntarily agreeing to some fairly impressive emissions reduction targets, an enormous amount of detail still has to be resolved.
2. A political framework with minimal detail. This seems to be the best outcome that can be hoped for. Under it, countries will agree to a set of principles and goals that lack final numbers, with those numbers being negotiated in the two years between now and the expiry of the Kyoto Protocol. This is in fact how Kyoto itself came about – in 1995, countries agreed the “Berlin Mandate” which two years later became the detailed set of rules we now know as the Protocol.
3. A ‘greenwash’ agreement. Under this scenario, countries paper over their many disagreements but fail to make and real progress, or agree further steps. A high level statement of concern, but no agreed timetable for concrete actions, would be the outcome. In many ways, the worst possible outcome because it would take huge effort to get things back on track.
4. A dramatic failure. Developing nations,especially small island states at risk of devastation from climate change, frustrated at a lack of commitment from wealthy countries, walk out of the negotiations permanently because they won’t agree to a greenwash. Some new framwork would need to be found going forward, potentially via individual UN bodies like the Food and Agriculture Organisation on land use change and forestry, and International Martime Organisation and IATA on bunker fuels.
The NZ officials from MFAT, MFE and MAF are really well thought of here – as opposed to the political leaders from NZ. The officials are seen as having worked hard for many years on the technical issues at stake, and have a reputation for diligence, honesty and integrity. Thank goodness for them, even if they make our current Government look better than it deserves. It would not surprise me if the officials end up playing an important role in brokering any forward deal. Hopefully there will be one!
Here is a photo of me with Aaron Packard, one of the driving forces behind 350 Aotearoa, in the Radhudspladsen in Central Copenhagen, on Sunday afternoon. Aaron has done a terrific job working with other young people, first in New Zealand and more lately internationally, to raise awareness about climate change. 350.org works in a non-partisan way, and invites representatives from all political parties to participate in its events. One of its most recent rallies was a candlelight vigil held in Wellington on Saturday night.
I ran into Aaron as he and a colleague were putting up posters around the Radhudsplatsen – which has been set up as a people’s centre on climate change – to advertise a talk being given tomorrow by President Nasheed of Mauritius and Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. I met Bill today, and I’m looking forward to hearing the talk tomorrow. Mauritius is in the same position as many of our Pacific neighbours – it has contributed little or nothing to the problem of climate change, but being comprised of low-lying atolls, it will be amongst the first and most drastically to be affected by the problem.
Tomorrow also sees the arrival of ministerial delegations in Copenhagen. Business groups are miffed that they have been omitted from New Zealand’s (large) delegation, which – apart from Nick Smith and Tim Groser, and representatives of the iwi leaders’ group who were added as part of the National/Maori Party deal to amend the ETS – is
entirely composed of officials. Like NGO groups and media, business representatives are having to rely on briefings, conducted to date by Nick Smith’s politically-appointed climate change advisor, a former Business New Zealand staffer. A broader-based delegation, including key business and NGO figures, with direct access to official advice
and support, would be more likely to work in New Zealand’s interests.
Meanwhile, the Government maintains its increasingly untenable positions on:
And we all thought their “moderated” ETS was bad enough. It was just a warm-up (no pun intended).
A couple of weeks back I said that I would be going to Copenhagen for the COP15 summit.
I have decided to go to observe first hand what the world’s leaders finally agree to as well as to get a sense of how the current Government’s watered down ETS and lack of coherent climate change policy have affected New Zealand’s reputation overseas.
I will be blogging while over in Denmark, so stay tuned for more over the next week. I will also post my photos on Red Alert and at my own site.
In the meantime, you can show your support for a strong goal towards lowering GHG emissions.
Last Saturday I spoke to the Wellington march for Planet A, the video of the speech is below:
A copy of the speech is at my website here.
Please show your support by joining the Sign On campaign and encourage others to do the same.
We all now know Key is off to Copenhagen. Grant Robertson predicted it.
But he doesn’t know why? Somehow he thinks he is going to make a difference to the result.
We all know that he is only going because he was under intense international and domestic pressure to go. He doesn’t even believe in climate change and is scared that his comments while in opposition will be part of the briefing documents that his foreign counterparts will see about him. Not to mention the pathetic ETS he promoted through Parliament.
The best reason for him going has been given by Mike Moore. It is an opportunity to meet leaders who after a few such meetings might make themselves more available to meet him or take his phone calls.
Last night’s Sunday programme on TV1 had a couple of really interesting items on Denmark’s drive towards renewable energy. According to the report they now generate 20 percent of their electricity from wind farms and aim to increase that to 50 percent in coming years. In the interim, there is protest internally about the fact that the majority of their electricity comes from fossil fuels, coal in particular but also imported nuclear energy.
It was a timely reminder of how lucky we are to have such an abundance of renewable energy here in New Zealand. The majority of our electricity already comes from renewable sources, mostly hydro but also increasingly wind. There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be striving to generate all of our electricity from renewable sources. It will take time, but we can get there.
Sadly, one of the first things that National/ACT/Maori Party government did was repeal the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Act, which placed a restriction on further thermal electricity generation unless it was necessary for security of supply (ie. To make sure the lights don’t go out). It was another giant leap backwards from the new government.
I’ve put a new Private Members Bill in the ballot that would re-impose a similar restriction on new fossil-fuelled electricity. I hope enough parties in parliament will vote to send it to a Select Committee so that the issue can get an airing. There are costs involved, without doubt, but renewable energy is the way of the future.
