Barcelona climate change talks 2009

From 2 till 6th of November, the last preperation meeting before Copenhagen will take place in Barcelona!

I’m  there, to push politicians to get a ‘serious deal’ for a new climate change treaty by promoting the Yasuni-ITT Initiative of Ecuador, promoting the 350 movement, and being a Global Youth representative of the Radboud University of Nijmegen.

So, on this page, you will read day by day the ins and outs of my days at the conference, meetings, presentations and days of non-stop 24 hour work for a good deal for our planet earth!

For information on the meetings outcomes and countries’ positions check:

www.adoptanegotiator.org
www. unfccc.org

Day 1 : 2 nov

Today, the climate change talks were officially opened by the UNFCCC and its chair, Yvo de Boer, at 10 am. Although I would have really liked to be there, I wasn’t able to since I had a presentation of the Yasuni-ITT Initiative at the Autonomy University of Barcelona. This I did with Carlos Larrea, the tecnical advisor of the initiative and my Ecuadorian thesis supervisor. The presentation included a general explanation of the initiative (carlos) and my part in which I explained how the initiative may and is addressing equity related issues.

Thereafter, we went to the conference (Fira conference). To arrive there,…. is quite overwhelming if you have never been to such a meeting of such scale. I walked into the computer room first, accounting around 200 computers, together with places for people with laptops. Thereafter, I went to the main cafetaria room, where different NGOs and other organisations are presenting themselves and their projects throughout the week. As I’m also promoting 350, I went to them and talked a little. I was trying meanwhile to inhale the scale, magnitude and organisational aspects of the conference, which is hard to do. Around 4000 people are here, including delegates, NGOs, businesses and more. If you have never been to such a meeting, you can feel lost… so I hoped that the next day would be better in terms of ‘finding my way’.

Day 2: 3 nov

After a deep sleep of 7 hours, I went to the conference where I met at 9am Carlos. Today was the task for us to promote the side event of Yasuni-ITT which will be hosted on wednesday, 4 nov, at 18:00-19:30. However, the flyers still didn’t arrive at the hostel of Carlos for the promotion of the event, and thus, we had to think of an alternative. Since printing here can be done without charge, and very quickly, I had an idea to make a very short summary of the proposal, put the event’s information, and our contact information on one A4 sized paper and print it as much as we need.  We distributed it around the conference: in the boxes of the delegates, on the boards, at other organisations and so on.  Meanwhile, I had other reunions and we had to talk with the Ecuadorian delegates to get them promote the initiative within the sessions and meetings.

It’s is still hard to not get lost in such a massive conference, however, when sticking to 1 job, you are fine. Although I miss out all of the negotiations and I’m not keeping track of them at all. Yet, the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) is distributing throughout the whole conference news letters, bulletins and more to keep the different parties updated. The main news of the day: the first plenary session (general session of delegates) was prosponed by Ghana, Egypt and others since they walked out of the meeting stating the developed countries need to be clear on their Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission targets. As I’m writing, it remains unclear whether the meeting continues in 10 minutes or not. If so, it would be a great opportunity to get involved in such a meeting as I have some spare time. If this is not the case, I will be attending my first side event at 18:00 till 19:30 and another from 19:45 till 21:15. It would be events which are interesting for lobbying for the Yasuni-ITT side event and in general, for financial support for the initiative.

Overal,,…. conferences can be confusing if you are not taking part in the sessions, even if you have your own things to do. Still, it remains interesting how different stakeholders are participating, especially the Youth groups with Climate Action Network, 350 and more: they are the ones who are gaining attention from countries and many state that their participation is very important!

Day 2: 3 nov, side event: frustration:

Being in Barcelona is an amazing experience (for me 1st time to be at such a conference)…. negotiations are going… well…. you yourself can fill this in how you want.. Africa and others boycot certain meetings as they think developed countries are not acting as much as they want and they ask for a real commitment, not of 2 degrees celcius warming (according to science, 350 ppm of greenhouse gases (around 1.5 degrees) is maximum for the tipping point of possitive feedback loops ). Furthermore, the outcome of Copenhagen will probably only within political will, rather than legally binding committments.

As i’m busy with my own work, I’ve only been to 2 side events and I wanted to share with you a very ‘interesting’ one of the PEW CENTER of the USA. Maybe somebody knows it?

Basically, PEW states the following:
The Cop15 treaty will be balanced scientifically and politically if:
-  with 2 degrees Celsius outcome
- with 50% GHG reductions by 2050
- population growth and family planning can hardly be discussed
- within the US and the delegation of the US, it’s impossible to have first an international agreement on GHG targets, followed by an approval of the Congress as the congress would probably not agree with the international GHG targets (read: COP15) ….
- Civil society in the US is diverse, also their opinions, and politicians also need to listen to others, such as businesses. Indeed, politicians are backed by citizens through their votes, but also by ‘others’ (read: donations of firms and so…). Thus, Civil society does not include citizens, but also the ‘market’ based stakeholders which influence politicians and their decisions.
- In the end, USA will not have the public support of having binding international agreements, or even: the (national) political institution will not have the support to go through a committed ( with 350 ppm and so on) agreement on climate change as they are dependent upon different stakeholders.

Thus, the international delegation of the US, within the COP and during Barcelona, (according to Pet) will only think about the domestic complications (due to the problem that nationally, strong commitments will probably be impossible), rather than international binding commitments.

During the questions and answers, several critical questions were posed to the center regarding:. population planning aspect, 2 degrees statement, statement of ‘non consensus of 2 degrees’ as at least 80 countries state that it needs to be maximum 1.5 degrees and all the science states that.. and so on…

In my opinion, the problem of different interests of politicians in the USA may be true, as in many other countries; however, I think the US Youth would agree with me by saying that the civil society of the US (let alone other countries) does not agree with such an ‘non-stament’ of international negotiations of climate change at all! I talked to one of the persons of PEW later on (during the reception) which ended into a heavy discussion. I asked whether the PEW center takes into account the general public opinion and the ‘common interest’ as it would be a ”tradegdy of the commons’ if the US would state: ok, less than 2 degrees is not possible, and the scientific aspects are not clear on that anyways (not: IPCC, Club of Rome and many others state 350ppm is maximum, and thus 1.5 degrees), and almost all other countries agree with this amount: more we cannot do. We can only reduce 50% by 2050.

Moreover, many other countries still stick to the 2 degrees aspect, also the Netherlands and the EU as a group of countries! ok, things like COPs are political, and most probably the outcomes of COP15 would only be ‘political’, but it is possible to change to 350 and at least 85% reductions by 2050 when there is the will and major push of civil society? Even though the Governments are put in place to protect the common goods?!

Isn’t it so that science, from the IPCC, Club of Rome and many other institutions are stating exactly 350 being the maximum, although we surpassed this 10 years ago already?!(Now around 378) And if they state 1.5 degrees is maximum?

However, isn’t it so, that the civil society’s stakes are high on this issue, also in the USA and not only on far areas such as the Artic?  Shouldn’t that be taken into account by politicians when voting for a bill? Also the stakes of their citizens? the opinions of Youth?Of many others than fossil fuel based industries?!

I hope Youth and civil society in the US can have effect on the politicians there, and I hope people all over the world can push the US and others during Barcelona and Copenhagen to ‘think out of the box’. Hope we can reach the US delegates in terms of political will and ‘legal’ will before it’s too late!

Day 3 and 4: an emotional rollercoster…..

Bersten, Hier even in het Nederlands gezien ik te moe en druk ben om goed engels te schrijven.

Afgelopen dagen waren een rollercoaster van emotionele situaties. Ten eerste, hebben Carlos Larrea en ik veel gedaan om het Yasuni-ITT Initiatief  te promoten door 2 side events, een ook met de UNDP, een pers conferentie dat op video footage komt op de UNFCCC website, door met verschillende delegaties te praten, media en meer. Alles is zeer onrealistisch gezien hier vele belangrijke organisaties en mensen zijn en gezien de beslissingen van zo’n groot belang voor onze verdere toekomst zijn.

Echter….. onderhandelingen gaan super super super langzaam en gaan de slechte kant op. de Maandag begon met dat Afrika uit de onderhandelingen van een van de 2 werkgroepen is gelopen omdat het bindende target eist van ontwikkelde landen, die die landen nu niet willen geven. Nog steeds zijn de onderhandelingen langzaam: ontwikkelingslanden staan als 1 tegen ontwikkelde landen en staan voor maximum 1.5 graden (350ppm) opwarming, goede financiele steun voor adaptatie, technologische transfer, REDD met inheemsebevolkingsgroepen rechten die worden beschermd en meer. De ontwikkelde landen willlen niks toezeggen in concrete zin mbt financiele steun, targets en meer. Ja, ze zeggen wel targets als 2 graden (450ppm) dat volgens wetenschappelijke rapporten zoals de IPCC en de Club van Rome tot catastrofele gevolgen zullen leiden.  Deze landen geven aan dat 1.5 graden politiek niet mogelijk is, ze daarvoor geen maatschappelijke steun hebben etc. Maar dat hebben ze mis: de grootste beweging over heel de wereld nu is die mbt van klimaat, vooral de 350 beweging dat 5200 acties heeft gehouden op 24 oktober over heel de wereld (meer dan 180 landen) en voornamelijk is geregeld door jongeren! Dus: jongeren kunnen wel degelijk wat, en willen dat oudere generaties die nu de beslissingen nemen, opkomen voor hun rechten! En terecht: jongeren, zoals ik, zullen de gevolgen onder ogen zien door beslissingen die nu worden gemaakt.

Meest constraterend is om te zien dat vele ontwikkelingslanden niet alleen adaptatie projecten opzetten, maar ook mitigatie: zoals Ecuador. We hebben deze week veel positieve feedback gekregen, en ik heb vele presentaties gehouden afgelopen dagen, met mensen gepraat en meer over mijn scriptie en het voorstel. Dit is hoe de wereld door moet gaan: met zulke innovatieve voorstellen en uiteindelijk moeten we ook zonder de petroleum gaan leven gezien het ten eerste opraakt, en ten tweede niet mogelijk is om 350 te halen door nog steeds op deze eindige natuurlijke bronnen te leven

Ondertussen heb ik ook gepraat met de Nederlandse delegatie en ik denk dat zij zeker pushen voor meer werk binnen de onderhandelingen, maar ze blijven bij 2 graden omdat het Kabinet dat heeft besloten. Dit kan moreel en fysiek niet in mijn optiek: jongeren zullen hier vreselijk door leiden, evenals ontwikkelingslanden en ontwikkelde landen in het algemeen. Het is onaanvaardbaar op 2 graden aan te houden, zoals ook het hoofd van de IPCC en vele andere vooraanstande wetenschappers kenbaar maken. We kunnen nog leven met 1.5 graden (350) maar zeker niet met 2 graden!

Deze onderhandelingen zijn een emotionele toestand waarbij je van zeer positief en gemotiveerd, naar totaal niet wetend rondloopt wat te doen doordat je je zo vreselijk voelt van hoe de onderhandelingen gaan. Je slaapt maximaal 5 uur per nacht, omdat je van allerlei dingen te doen hebt en 3 banen bij elkaar, en kan ook niet slapen wetende dat deze onderhandelingen slecht gaan, en kan leiden tot een wereld wat vergelijkbaar is met minstens 3 wereldoorlogen tegelijk (met 2 graden), zoals een wetenschapper uit Australie kenbaar maakte tijdens een side event over 350.

Dus bij deze roep ik allen op: doe wat vanaf nu tot COP15 om in ieder geval Nederland en Europa zover te krijgen dat ze voor 1.5 graden en 350 gaan. Nu staan de onderhandelingen ‘politiek gezien op 2 graden, maar in realiteit op 4 graden! Dit zou een wereld worden waarin geen mens zou willen leven!

Verder.. van side events en meetings krijg ik weinig mee gezien ik veel aan het werk ben voor Yasuni-ITT gezien we maar met 2 man werken, maar sommigen heb ik bijgewoond….Daarover meer in het volgende stuk…