How many delegates does it take to install a light bulb?

Danish newspaper humor on the COP: How many delegates does it take to install a light bulb?

The answer is here: http://blog.politiken.dk/ytournel/2009/12/10/cop15-pa-15-sekunder-dag-4/ and translates to:

12 to discuss which direction the light bulb should be turned
157 to insist on having the light bulb produced in their home country
13 to oppose the installation of the light bulb
19 to question the very existence of the lamp
38 to discuss whether to use an energy saving light bulb
1 immigrant to do the dirty work.

Journey to the Center of the Earth

By Noah Hodgetts

My apologies for going a week without blogging – my laptop crashed at the conference on Tuesday, so my access to internet has been limited.

On Wednesday four members of our delegation: Rich, Taj, Ken, and myself had the privilege of visiting Samso, Soren Hermanson’s carbon negative island – a two-hour train ride and almost two-hour ferry ride west from Copenhagen. Although it was an exhausting four-hour journey each way, having the chance to see Samso in person was an awesome experience. Samso, unlike Mount Desert Island is accessible to land only by boat, but has a similar year round population of around 4,000 and is just slightly smaller than MDI.

Samso was able to become carbon negative in only 10 years partly because of Denmark’s Feed In Tariff which allows producers of wind energy to sell extra power back into the system for a profit. Soren’s efforts to make Samso the first carbon neutral and now negative island in Denmark had the benefit of only having to rally one municipality, rather than the four municipalities of Mount Desert Island – plus the National Park Service. All five entities would need to sign on to any effort to make MDI carbon neutral. Samso also had the benefit of receiving state funding, since the island won a Danish renewable energy competition.

Denmark maybe years ahead of the United States in mitigating climate change with its 6,000 plus wind turbines and 97% district heating throughout the country, but we share similar challenges and can learn several lessons from Samso. Most important is that we engage the community and stakeholders from all areas and make sure they are on board before proceeding with such an ambitious plan. Number two is that we need to emphasize that smaller is better in reducing energy consumption and transitioning to carbon neutrality. Number three is that it is possible to become carbon neutral/negative without reducing emissions from all sectors. Samso has offset island vehicular transport emissions from the surplus renewable energy produced by its 10 2.3 Mw offshore wind turbines (pictures coming soon).

Seeing Samso’s efforts first-hand has given me hope for trying to make Mount Desert Island carbon neutral and eventually carbon negative in the coming years!

I will be posting pictures from our visit to Samso in the coming hours. Check back soon.

The color orange is beautiful

Geena Berry '10 at the march in Copenhagen

By Geena Berry

Orange at work
I’m hiding in a plenary room. Mostly so I can have the mental and physical space to write this out, plus the computer lab is not conducive for  munching on the pack of trail mix I’m enjoying for lunch. It’s already been a long day, and it is not even noon.  I attended my first YOUNGO meeting this morning. The YOUth NGOs, is what the UNFCCC recognize. Anyway, I went to the meeting this morning to support an Australian youth who presented a draft of the youth declaration we have been working on since Sunday. I had some expectation there would be a couple of comments (comments meaning heated debate and argument) about the one pager we proposed, but we didn’t even get there. The process that is currently established does not allow for the spokes council to deal with such matters. For clarification, the spokes council is made of spokes that are representing all the groups or organizations. Generally, knowing that we only have an hour a day together, not reading through full documents would be appropriate. However, when you are presenting a document that represents all of YOUNGO, and in turn loosely the youth of the entire world, one would hope our declaration would be representative. Talking about it would have been nice. Instead the declaration got pushed to the side, and with the help of the policy group. Well, the work got done, but maybe without the best representation there could have been.

Orange in action
I sometimes get lost in the amount of actions that happen in one day among the youth. There are too many emails, some don’t send emails, they happen during 15 other events, there are 15 other actions going on, etc. Yet, either way I appreciate what seems like random noises echoing down the halls until you realize it is a scant, dance and important message that brings attention to the youth and all of our futures that are at stake.  It’s helpful to draw attention to ourselves and all the other important things we have written, our policies, statements and declarations; these documents give us credit, the actions give us weight. Our weight, drive and pushing the envelope is what makes us so effective.

Orange in number
Today is Youth Day at the UNFCCC. My title, The color orange is beautiful, is a reflection on the BRIGHT ORANGE shirts and scarves we are all wearing today (some creative COA kids also have head bands!). Our shirts say “How old will you be in 2050?” and “Don’t bracket our future”. Both messages draw attention to our future, which negotiators won’t be around for. Orange clothing makes us visible. Walking down the halls, sitting in plenary, the orange is everywhere. Most importantly, it is not just the youth that are seen with the color on, it is also the others in the conference center that support us; other NGOs and governments. Government representatives with orange on, it’s a beautiful sight.

An introduction to climate finance…

By Richard Van Kampen

Sitting in the back of the first plenary meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) at the COP15 in Copenhagen, I wonder what kind of agreement, if any, will actually come out of this round of negotiations. I’m not pessimistic on the issue, however considering the progress of past negotiations under the UNFCCC, there is a significant amount of progress that needs to be made before an agreement is reached, and quite a few concessions that must be made by the developed world if that agreement will be fair, ambitious, and binding.

A major point of contention for many developed (Annex I and Annex II) countries has been their commitment under the Convention to provide financial resources that will cover the full costs of adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and capacity-building associated of climate change in developing (Non-Annex) countries. The negotiator from Algeria summarized my opinion of the financial aspect of the negotiations pretty well while addressing the chair person of the subsidiary body this morning. He made the statement that any agreement that is reached will be pointless without sufficient financial resources, a simple yet important point to consider. While so much work has to be done in other areas of negotiations, the issue of funding could cripple any progress that is made over the next few days.

The Bolivian negotiator spoke, in his words, “candidly” yesterday comparing climate change funding to the funding of corporate bailouts that have been occurring in the United States over the past several months. In short, he put everything into perspective stating that if Washington can spend trillions of dollars within the US to bailout Wall Street, what is it to ask for several or even several hundred billion dollars in funding from all nations in the developed world.

What he said is we’re talking billions, not trillions; and this is on a global scale – and not about one country’s domestic policy. The burden to fund climate change actions does not lie solely with the United States or any one single country, it is a problem that affects every nation and will take every nation in the world to solve.

Why are the costs the major point of contention for US leaders? Theoretically, the US would be able to support the costs of all adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and capacity building actions. As a citizen of the United States I would say that it is time for my leaders to pull their heads out of the ground (or wherever they have their heads stuck) and adjust their priorities. No one wants to inherit a world full of both financially and environmentally unsustainable corporations; there is nothing tangible nor any value in that. But, what is the value of inheriting a clean and healthy world?

Our senators, representatives and everyone within the US need to stop thinking with their wallets. Many youth present at the conference have been wearing shirts with the question, “How old will you be in 2050?” Personally, I think that would be a good question for every person to ask their senator, representative, or any political leader. The historical short-sightedness of our leaders and their willingness to sacrifice almost anything for financial gains needs to change, and the need for this change of perspective is urgent.

The value of their bank accounts most likely won’t be of any value to me in 40 years and doesn’t mean anything to me now, but the important and world-changing decisions they make within the next two weeks means everything. Their money won’t matter much to any of their children or grandchildren either, and won’t be able to buy them a cleaner, healthier world. The future of the world is at stake and if the decisions made within the next few weeks within the UNFCCC negotiations are made based on the wrong motives; it is quite likely that there will be no one to look back and say that we made a mistake or should’ve done something different. This is not a situation where we will get a second chance, or can learn from our mistakes as we have typically done in the past; if there was ever a time for our leaders to look beyond themselves and do the right thing, the time is now.

What YOU can do NOW!

By Brooke Welty

Found in the Copenhagen metro terminal on Forum Street.

I’d guess that most of you who are reading this blog are not in Copenhagen right now.  At this point no one knows exactly what will come of this conference that is seen to be a monumental point in human history.  A group of global youth came up with a list of 10 steps and tips (in no particular order) that can be used at home regardless of the outcome here.

1. Educate others Talk to people about the issue and motivate them to act.
2. Local Schools Get involved in local schools, educate today’s children to motivate them to take action, let them know about the issues, but also teach them how to create solutions.
3. Speak with your local government (if feasible) about positive steps to be taken regarding energy production, efficiency, supporting local farms etc.
4. Take individual action do what you can personally to address the problem.
5. Create an open space Talking about these issues is very important; by talking we can answer questions we may have, motivate people to join a group or take action; above all, we need to foster relationships to strengthen communities.
6. Start or join a climate action group If individual action can make an impact, a group of motivated individuals, working with other groups of motivated individuals can change the world.
7. Local Issues When discussing climate change, it is important to relate the global issue to a local problem; drought, sea-level rise, forest fires, agricultural impacts etc.
8. Use everyday language Don’t use wonky language that only a few can understand, phrase your thoughts in the everyday vernacular.
9. Media Be sure to involve the media in whatever you do, this can help to pressure a target or simply to motivate more people to join the movement
10. Empower People Motivate people to want to act, make sure people feel that they have the power to create effective change … because we do.

It’s not just the Youth, it’s the Children too!

By Geena Berry

Similar to how Taj started his post, I am sitting. More specifically, I am sitting on very uncomfortable blue carpet in the overflow plenary room of the working group on long term cooperative action, writing on a small legal pad (my computer, which holds the first blog I had started to write, has died, all out of juice.)  So, I shall begin again, with more information from today than I had before.

Long-term cooperative action refers to actions dealing with the climate crisis that will have long-term, lasting effects up to and beyond 2012.  The year 2012 is when the Kyoto Protocol moves into its second phase. Anyway, we are thinking loooonnnnnnnnnggggg term. GOOD. Looking into the future is why our delegation is here. We are youth, and we don’t want any “adults” to mess up our future world.

One of the slogans or rallying points that have surfaced at these negotiations from youth have been “How old will you be in 2050?” Well, I will be 62. Not too far from retiring age… maybe. Point being, the negotiators will not be able to see the mess they have left by their inaction. The only problem with this question that we pose is that children of today will really be in charge, not the twenty-somethings. By all means I am not saying we are doing nothing while we are here. It is good that we are here, voicing our opinions, giving alternatives, showing how small local initiatives have an effect. But are we saying enough, are we being effective by playing the rules? We have our suits, fancy shoes, we know the science and policy, have our computers (unless we forget our plug adapters!), the newest iPhones, we write our own declarations and policy points. We even have our youthful age. Yet this morning in the opening ceremony, we were not the focus of a beautiful film that was screened calling our leaders to action. It was children.

Childrens voices.

I admit that perhaps I found it more powerful than some other people. Kids are a soft spot of mine and even recently I have had conversations about how children are much smarter than we give them credit for. In Copenhagen I have marveled at the children roaming the streets by themselves and the small babies completely bundled up as their parents push them in a stroller or have them somehow attached to a bike. It was these youngest members of society, our children, that reminded all the governments and observers what is at stake:

Our world is at stake, we are at stake.

Yes, we are watching you and we want real change to happen.

Children’s voices saying, “Please help.” We need that help, we need it now in a big way.

Day 1 of the Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen

By Brooke Welty and Oliver Bruce

Emerging into the Bella Center main lobby, it’s hard not to be impressed with the organizational prowess of the Danish government. The entire lobby is decked out in trees, cafes, and information booths with big projected videos of clean energy technologies. It’s great to see that the place in which the next generation climate agreement will be negotiated is already a world leader in the transition toward a clean energy economy.

We’re excited to be here and to see what the next two weeks will bring. A month ago, we were worried that this conference would be a dud – that all that would result would be a set of weak decisons.
Being here though, and hearing the news in the last few days that only continues to get more positive, we’re cautiously optimistic that this moment will be remembered in history by future generations as the time that we made serious commitments to creating a more resilient and peaceful planet.

Diversity and Inclusiveness versus Efficiency

By J. Taj Schottland

As I sit in our initial communications work group meeting I can’t help but feel some frustration. The working group is charged with facilitating communications between the media and the international youth non-governmental delegation (YOUNGO). We are essentially the voice of the YOUNGO delegation. Obviously we have an extremely important role to play during these negotiations. We create the overall message that YOUNGOs will spread to governments, industries, civil society, and other constituents.

We have an awesome task ahead of us, both in importance and sheer difficulty. At the risk of sounding elitist however, my frustration stems from the high percentage of individuals present who mean well but aren’t particularly knowledgeable about the relevant topics. Furthermore, the vast majority of people in the group have no practical experience in creating an effective messaging campaign. What to do? Most people would argue that the power of the youth movement stems from its grassroots base and the moral leverage that we bring to the table. We youth are inheriting the triumphs and mistakes of the current climate negotiations. We have an especially high stake in COP 15.

Looking around the room at the high diversity and enthusiasm of our participants I can’t help but feel hope for our future. These people make the base of our movement and the existence of our movement possible. But I also look around the room and see people who are not necessarily the best people to create a message that will permeate through the media in an effective manner to capture attention. Really though, who am I to judge their ability?

I can’t decide. Should we create a communications work group made up of only youth with experience, high levels of education, and strong drive to lead? This workgroup would be both efficient and effective. Or, do we utilize the diversity of our work group? By valuing diversity and openness above creating a streamlined group of individuals with experience, what do we lose? Anything? I am always wary of elitist tendencies, however I can’t help but acknowledge that our communications workgroup will struggle longer and harder by attempting to be inclusive of everyone. Is that struggle worth it? Probably.

Why The Base Year Matters

By J. Taj Schottland

The best revelations come when sitting in a pub with friends having a good old fashioned political argument. Our discussion started over Afghanistan and the War on Terror. The conversation quickly heated up when we tackled President Obama’s recent speech outlining his plan to send 30,000 more US soldiers to the area. We had our differences in opinion regarding whether Obama was making a good choice. We realized that a lot of our dialogue hinged on whether we were convinced by Obama’s stylish rhetoric.

Since we are on day one of our Copenhagen adventure, the talk quickly shifted to climate change rhetoric. What would effective climate rhetoric entail?

I raised the possibility that there is one particularly important aspect of climate rhetoric that we need to address: that is the use of differing baselines that industries and countries are using to make their emission reduction pledges look impressive. Up until recently most countries have made their pledges based on 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. To put it simply, a country stated how much greenhouse gas they emitted during the year 1990. Then they made a pledge to reduce their emissions by a certain percentage below their 1990 levels of emissions by a specific future date. Recently the slick rhetoric machines of big developed countries have realized that if they use a more recent base year, say 2005, then their percentage reduction will look impressive. When their percentage reduction is announced the media and the general public often fail to notice that the percentage reductions are below recent base years, rather than the traditional 1990 base year.

This matters why? The US put forth the pledge of reducing emissions between 17 and 20 percent by the year 2020. This is good right? Actually this emission reduction is extremely weak compared to what is required. Yes, a 20% reduction compared to 1990 would be awesome, but the US pledge of 20% reduction is below 2005 levels. Based on 2005 levels the pledge is simply not good enough because it only equals a 3.5% reduction below 1990 levels. This does not approach the necessary reductions required to reverse the dangerous effects of human induced climate change.

My question is this: how do we educate the general public to understand and care about emission pledges and specifically how those pledges are deeply affected by the base year used? Any thoughts?

And the waiting begins!

By Noah Hodgetts

The Journey to Copenhagen for COP15 has officially begun for three more of us – Taj, Lindsay, and myself. As I sit here in Terminal E at Logan counting away the minutes until our flight to Zurich boards, I am excited beyond words. Everything the 14 of us having been preparing for over the past three months in Doreen’s Road to Copenhagen class is finally coming to fruition. No matter what happens at the conclusion of the the two weeks of talks, I will know that we couldn’t have gone in more prepared, something I don’t say lightly.

It is also exciting that our hard work and presence at the negotiations has recently been noted by several news outlets. This past Monday November 30th the Boston Globe published an article on the front page of the paper titled “New England sending a crowd to climate talks.” I am proud to say that Neil, Lauren, and myself were all quoted and Neil even has his photo in the print edition. The article can be accessed at http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2009/11/30/new_england_sending_a_crowd_to_climate_talks/

Brooke was also featured in an interview on Maine Public Radio with Morning Edition host Irwin Gratz: http://www.mpbn.net/Home/tabid/36/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3478/ItemId/9968/Default.aspx

The flight is now boarding. On to Copenhagen!