---

YOUNG EUROPEAN GREENS’ PARTICIPATION IN UN CLIMATE CONFERENCE, BONN, GERMANY, AUGUST 2nd to 6th.

Monday August 02 2010 03:49:00 PM

The UN Climate Change Conference will take place in Bonn from August 2nd to August 6th. The Federation of Young European Greens (FYEG) will be attending the talks with a  delegation of 12.The Young Greens will not only be attending the talks but will also be present at demonstrations outside to show their commitment both to the political process and the social movements. During the talks, the FYEG delegates will disperse information and keep young Greens and activists updated by writing press releases and articles, posting blogs and tweets and using other new media such as Facebook and Youtube. In doing so, FYEG hope to create greater awareness of Green ideas which offer a valuable alternative and new approach to politics.

The Young Greens’ geographically diverse delegation is composed of Young Greens from Algeria,Germany,Belarus, Finland, Italy, the Philippines,England and Wales, Burkina Faso and Georgia. As well as participating in the talks and informing other Greens about developments, the FYEG delegates will have a fantastic opportunity to strengthen partnerships with other NGOs and take the lead in the European Youth Climate Movement. In doing so, we will be able to build on the achievements of FYEG’s delegation at the COP15 talks in Copenhagen.

In terms of campaigning, FYEG will be highlighting the need for industrialised countries to commit to a fair and ambitious deal if the negotiations are to be successful. Another key focus of the delegation will be the need for long term cooperative action which must adequately consider the less powerful and “developing” countries. It is imperative that these voices are heard.

Ultimately, FYEG will strive for an agreement capable of leading the international community towards a sustainable path.

Following the conclusion of the talks, FYEG will use the experience and knowledge gained during the negotiations to develop FYEG environmental policy papers and prepare for COP 16.

Updates will be posted at http://www.fyeg.org and also here:

 

 

Art of necessity V art of possible

4AUG

During the discussions towards the end of the recent Climate Action Network side event, the European Union delegate stood up and delivered a speech, offering insight into the rather alarming and unambitious ‘commitments’ of the EU. During the speech, he mentioned the following:

“It’s not about the art of necessity but about the art of the possible”

At what stage are the negotiators going to pull their heads out of the sand and take a close look at the facts and consequences of climate change and the adequate policies to address them? I would say what is necessary MUST be possible. We have no other option. The laws of nature don’t care about what the EU thinks is possible. The challenge can be seen as an attempt to jump across the Grand Canyon but the EU is telling us it’s only possible to jump half way.

If you don’t have the ambition and the will, if you don’t believe you are capable of creating policies to achieve fundamentally important targets necessary to safeguard the future of humankind, then you are holding us all back, ruining our only opportunity to prevent this possible catastrophe.

This is the question the EU, US and other Annex 1 countries need to answer:

“In order to stop runaway climate change the art of the possible will need to meet the art of necessary very soon. When do you expect this happy meeting to occur exactly?”

Fortunately a Climate Action Network (CAN) speaker had the last word – “what is necessary NEEDS to be possible”. Yes we CAN!

P.S.

After the event had finished, I overheard the EU delegate say to his colleague “this is the real carbon footprint”, referring to two children running past. So he’s not willing to take the step forward necessary to safeguard these two children’s future, but is willing to refer to them not as human beings but as “carbon footprints” in a way which suggested there existence is simply an environmental compromise. I normally try to refrain from ad hominem attacks, so please excuse me, but what an absolute idiot. We really don’t need these idiots standing in the way of our future.

 

 

Q&A with AWG-LCA Chair

5AUG

AWG-LCA = Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention

Question:

“During the open LCA meetings there seems to be a serious lack of cooperation and too much focus on structure instead of the substance of the negotiations which has lead to a worrying lack of progress. For example the lengthy expenditure of time discussing spin off groups to the AWG-LCA.

How can this situation be urgently improved and momentum gained?”

Answer:

“We need to spend this time on process to reach consensus. I hope in China we can focus on what can be achieved. Let’s work with the parties to see what is achievable. What is not, must be put aside for now. Let’s isolate what is achievable from what is not.”

Back to the art of necessity V art of possible (see previous post)? Unfortunately the EU seems to think what is necessary is not achievable, so basically they’ll continue to exclude necessary targets from their policy making. Good to know.

Regarding the question regarding the LCA meetings now being closed to civil society, the business rep seemed very happy with this. I wonder why?

 

 

STOP PRESS: Annex 1 marries Kyoto Protocol in emotional ceremony

5AUG

Speech from the ceremony witnessed by members of the UNFCCC secretariat, delegates, observers and the press:

“Dearly Beloved,

We are gathered here in the presence of the UN to witness and bless the exchanging of vows that will bind Annex 1 and the Kyoto Protocol together in the covenant relationship of marriage. When this ceremony has ended, they will leave as wife and wife having been joined together by the UN in Bonn.

Of the three institutions ordained by the UN, marriage is the only one which is legally binding. Since it has its origins in the UN, it is honourable and is to be held in esteem by all mankind.

The institution of marriage is not a casual one and should not be taken lightly.  Since we live in an age where so many people have no respect for it, we need to constantly reassert and reaffirm that UN ordained marriage is for our good and that it should be viewed as holy. So holy is the relationship of marriage that the apostle Secretariat has likened it to the relationship of business and government.

Annex 1 and Kyoto Protocol, your love for each other should be an Eternal Triangle – the UN is at the apex and you, Annex 1 and Kyoto Protocol, are at the base of the triangle. When both of you are joined together with the UN at the top, then you will never be separated from each other at the bottom.

Your marriage should be the union of two lives – two hearts that beat as one – so welded together that they walk together; they work together; they bear each other’s burdens and share each other’s joys. I want to remind you to be friendly, loving and tenderhearted, and forebearing of one another in love. Remember, the vows you are about to take are as binding in adversity as they are in prosperity and that these vows are to be broken only by death.

I want you both to remember the great responsibilities you have: love and commitment. These are serious, yet magnificent. Our saviour, the UN, has given us the perfect eaxample of them.

Vows and exchanging of rings

The union of Annex 1 and Kyoto Protocol in heart, body and mind is intended by the UN for their mutual joy; for the help and comfort given one another in prosperity and adversity; and, when it is the UN’s will, for the procreation of policies and their nurture in the knowledge and love of the UN. Therefore, marriage is not to be entered into unadvisedly or lightly, but reverently, delibertly and in accordance with the purposes for which it was instituted by the UN.

Into this holy union Annex 1 and Kyoto Protocol now come to be joined. If any of you can show just cause why they may not lawfully be married, speak now or else for ever hold your peace.

[Everyone is delighted to continue]

I require and charge you both, here in the presence of the UN, that if either of you know any reason why you may not be united in marriage lawfully, and in accordance with the UN’s word, you do now confess it.

[silence]

Annex 1, will you have this Kyoto Protocol to be you partner; to live together in the covenant of marriage?

“Yes, I will”

 

FYEG Co-Spokesperson to present question to AWG-LCA Chair

Tomorrow morning YOUNGO, the youth constituency at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) will ask two questions to the Chair of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) at the Bonn Climate Talks. The second question will be presented by Sebastian Power, FYEG Co-spokesperson.

Q1: Presented by Jon André Hvoslef-Eide, YOUNGO:

“It has come to our attention that the doors of the negotiations of the LCA-track are closed. We understand that the negotiations are to be party-driven and that there may be some practical issues, but as often stated by the parties, the role of civil society plays an important part in conference.

We respect the use of closed meetings in order to fast forward to proceedings but that should be the exception rather than the model. We request more information from the closed meetings to be shared faster as the current information received is too late.

We want to know if the chair could give us a daily briefing from closed meetings to therefore grant us information as soon as these meetings are concluded.”

Q2: Presented by Sebastian Power, FYEG Co-spokesperson:

"During the open LCA meetings there seems to be a serious lack of cooperation and too much focus on structure instead of the substance of the negotiations which has lead to a worrying lack of progress. For example the lengthy expenditure of time discussing spin off groups to the AWG-LCA.

How can this situation be urgently improved and momentum gained?"

We hope to increase our participation at the Talks and also get the Chairs opinion on the reasons for the frustrating lack of progress.

COP16 to be another disaster?

A number of FYEG delegates attended the contact group meeting this afternoon on Annex I Parties’ emissions reductions. When we arrived at 15:00, the start of the session, no delegates were present, only the Chair of the meeting. Eventually the discussions started thirty minutes late with less than half the delegates present. I’m finding it difficult to comprehend the level of disinterest at these talks, it’s truly shocking. Currently the only criticism delegates can muster seems to be about the standard of sandwiches, the only urgency in the coffee queue.

We now have three days of the United Nations Bonn Climate Talks left and 10 days of negotiations before COP16. This afternoon’s session was completely wasted first by starting late, followed by the absence of more than half the delegates. Then the delegates discussed for the entire session yesterday’s workshop on reducing emissions for Annex I parties instead of discussing the substance of the meeting. This was despite countless reminders by the Chair to move on, get to the substance and to stop going back to previous discussions.

Saudi Arabia constantly referred to various unimportant and irrelevant issues about the summary of a previous workshop. Japan repeatedly stressed there must be no Kyoto Protocol post 2012 – so no legally binding agreement – which also was irrelevant in the context of the meeting. But they were not alone. The EU and many other groups and countries were happy to join the time wasting game. In short, yet again, no progress was made.

This all begs the question; are these negotiators in a state of denial about the issue they are trying to resolve? Do they not care? Have they subsided into this carelessness and lackadaisical attitude after too many meals with corporate lobbyists? Do they still need a few more decades to cash in on their oil reserves? What on earth is the problem?

 

 

Global Climate Change: The FACTS

Just to remind you all of where we are regarding the science of global climate change, I have selected a few rather depressing facts, ironically all taken from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which uses the International Panel on Climate Change as its source:

Climate change is already happening, is unequivocal and this change can now be firmly attributed to human activity.

Between 1970 and 2004, emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6, the greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol, have increased by 70% (24% since 1990). CO2, being by far the largest source, has grown by about 80% (28% since 1990). This has occurred because increases in income per capita and population have outweighed decreases in energy intensity of production and consumption.

Without additional policies, global GHG emissions are projected to increase 25-90% by 2030 relative to 2000. Fossil fuel dominance is expected to continue to 2030 and beyond, hence CO2 emissions from energy use are projected to grow 40-110% over that period. Two thirds to three quarters of this increase is projected to come from developing countries, though their average per capita CO2 emissions will remain substantially lower than those in developed country regions. Since 2000, carbon intensity of energy has been on the rise due to increased use of coal.

Overview of CO2 concentration level, corresponding temperature increases and year that concentrations would need to peak to maintain specific concentration levels.

 

 

CO2 concentration in ppm (pre-industrial levels at 278 ppm; current levels at 380 ppm)	Global mean temperature increase in C above preindustrial levels	Peaking year of CO2
350 - 400	2.0 -2.4	2000 - 2015
400 - 440	2.4 - 2.8	2000 - 2020
440 - 485	2.8 - 3.2	2010 - 2030
485 - 570	3.2 - 40	2020 - 2060
570 - 660	4.0 - 4.9	2050 – 2080

The world faces an average temperature rise of at least 3°C this century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at their current pace and are allowed to double from their pre-industrial level. Extinction among 20-30% of plant and animal species is likely if the global temperature increase exceeds 1.5 – 2.5 °C.

In Africa, there’ll be increased water shortages (up to 250 million people in Africa at increased risk of water stress in 2020), reductions in the area suitable for agriculture and sea-level rise and consequent threats to cities. By mid-century, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, and decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics, some of which are presently water stressed areas. In tropical areas, crop yield is projected to decrease, even with relatively modest rises of 1- 2 °C in local temperature, increasing the risk of hunger.

In the Asian megadeltas, such as the Ganges-Brahmaputra and the Zhujiang, large populations will endure high exposure to sea-level rise, storm surge and river flooding.

Projected changes to the climate will affect the health of millions of people worldwide. The changes will be most felt by those least able to adapt, such as the poor, the very young and the elderly.

The consequences of inaction a far too great. But I wouldn’t bet on parties to the UNFCCC safeguarding our future. We urgently need stronger, more coherent social movements to demand a fair deal. We need action now!

 

Learning from indigenous peoples

Another interesting side-event today at the climate change conference: “Learning from indigenous people on traditional forest management and REDD plus”.

The organizer – Tebtebba (Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education) – wants to bring community experiences to the core of the discussions, showing why we have to increase the value of indigenous traditional forest management practices.

Forests are not only about carbon: they are treasures of biodiversity, rich soils and more.

During the last Bonn Climate Talks, in June 2010, the Indigenous Peoples' Global Network on Climate Change and Sustainable Development (IPCCSD) was launched.

Members comprise several indigenous organizations and networks with on-the-ground work on climate change, indigenous peoples' rights and traditional knowledge in Asia, Latin America, Africa, North America, the Arctic.

Several examples of ongoing research and demonstration projects were presented today during the conference, like Loita forest “managed” by maasai people in South Kenya, the Miskito forest in the North Atlantic autonomous region of Nicaragua and Indonesia forests.

You can find more information on Climate Indigenous Portal, here http://www.indigenousclimate.org/    

 

 

YOUNGO intervention during discussion on long-term cooperative action

During the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) session this afternoon, YOUNG, the official youth constituency at the UNFCCC, made an intervention on behalf of global youth. FYEG participated in editing the presented text – see below.

“Following what you agreed upon in 1997 in Kyoto, the Protocol needs new targets for the next commitment period that will start in 2012. You have been negotiating for more than three years to fid solutions to the challenge of your generation and the survival of mine. But instead of finding the agreement we need, you failed, in Bali, in Poznan and also in Copenhagen.

Progress on a second commitment period to the Kyoto Protocol is not as good as we need it to be, and as we demand.

The whole climate community is already looking for solutions because we fear that we are going to fail again in Cancun and that we’ll also likely fail in South Africa. Instead of reaching the agreement that human kind needs, States seem to be cynically weakening the strongest legal instrument we currently have to deliver the ultimate objectives of the Convention.

As young people, we are often accused of lacking long-term commitments and serious goals. But today, we are definitely not the ones who have failed in their commitments. We are committed to the Kyoto Protocol and the further implementation of strong, legally binding targets. I am here today to ask each and every one of you – can you show us you are committed as we are?

There are only four weeks of negotiations left before the end of Cancun. And the list of tasks is still long. All it takes to say ‘yes’ is to provide targets which really have integrity, and to ensure that any mechanisms that currently weaken that integrity are significantly improved.

You can do this by bringing about domestic action in each of the Annex 1 countries. You can do this by closing loopholes in policy areas such as LULUCF [Land Use Land Use Change and Forestry]. You can do this by adopting the -40% target by 2020 and by agreeing on keeping the average increase in global temperature below 1.5 degrees Celsius. You can do this by ensuring that there is commitment. Because we respect the Kyoto Protocol, but without real commitment this just won’t work at all so we need a fair, adequate and legally binding agreement to ensure it fulfils our common needs.

So, right now, we’re asking the big question: through real commitments to the Kyoto Protocol, and new targets, will you give us a safe future?

We’re hoping you’ll say yes. The world and the younger generations are looking to you. We ask you, please don’t disappoint us again. “

Presented by Florent Baarsch

 

 

Brief summary of day one @ Bonn Climate Talks

YOUNGO met today before the opening meeting of the Bonn 3 Climate Talks. It was great to see such a large number of young people attending of which our delegation comprised about half, contributing significantly to the meeting. We discussed amongst other issues our “mission” at Bonn which varied from tracking delegates and relaying information back to our organisations and the public to specific activities such as preparing a YOUNGO submission of article 6. We also discussed two possible interventions split between AWG-KP and AWG-LCA meetings (see YOUNGO AWG-LCA Intervention blog post) and an NGO meeting with the new UNFCCC Secretariat Christine Figueras where we can raise two questions. Greenpeace will tutor us later in the week in the art of portraying clear messages during actions.

Generally both AWG discussions are not progressing at an adequate speed as per usual. The EU, as it has stated in a number of previous discussions, is still offering 20% reductions by 2020 or 30% depending on stronger commitments from other countries. Of course there’re a number of loopholes (e.g. LULUCF) which in reality reduce these pledges to relatively meaningless reductions and with respect to the science are totally inadequate. The Alliance of Small Island States believes Annex one countries pledges are in reality only 1 -7% reductions based on 1990 levels if you account for the loopholes. The AOSIS speaker was the only one to receive applause, largely from the NGOs present.

There was also a long discussion on a recent incident at the UNFCCC Bonn Climate Talks II involving the distribution of leaflets and the removal of an official name plate by Oxfam and WWF which was contrary to the rules of the negotiations. These actions were described with a little exaggeration as a “heinous crime” by some oil rich states as they called for further exclusion of civil society as punishment. This relatively minor incident unimportant to the negotiations and completely insignificant in comparison to the issue being discussed was used by some countries as an opportunity to waste a significant amount of time, especially considering there’s only 11 days of negotiations left before COP16. Fortunately, there was a happy ending of this discussion and ALL parties agreed to put this behind them and move forward.

This evening a number of us will attend the reception hosted by the German government – free food and drinks and a golden opportunity to informally lobby alcohol infused delegates. Nice.

 

 

Report on the Migration and Displacement side event @ Bonn Climate Talks

Migration and displacement: policy options for Para 4(f) in the AWG-LCA text (UNU and partners)

United Nations University (UNU)

During the side event on migration and displacement, comprehensive discussion on climate change-induced migration and displacement took place in relation to the capacity of vulnerable populations to adapt. Since the impacts of climate change leads to loss of livelihoods, poverty aggravation forces populations to migrate. UNU representative state that shifting to other sources of livelihood upon the anthropogenic and natural degradation of the traditional one, causes further destruction of the ecosystem. Hence numerous conflicts arise out of the recurring environmental changes and pressure.

Several factors play a role in the environmentally induced migration decision such as profession (mainly farmers and cattle herders), attachment, (land ownership, family, history), cultural issues (language), financial means, alternative livelihoods in other villages/regions and attraction factors in villages/regions/countries of destination. However, a number of sectors particularly women, children and elderly are marginalised in the process. This holds true especially in the adaptation and challenges strategies. To make it worse, migration and environmental degradation consistently goes through a vicious cycle. Trend wise, research has shown a shift from seasonal migration towards permanent migration. Apart from this, cross border migration is becoming more and more common compared to internal migration.

Case studies on selected vulnerable countries were likewise presented. Worth mentioning is the drought prone country of Nigeria which is exposed to climate change-induced impacts through decrease of rainfall and changes in rainfall variability and distribution, potentially increase of droughts in terms of extent and frequency). Aggravating the situation is the higher population pressure leading to less viable land productivity.

In order to address potential conflicts, vulnerability and migration patterns due to environmental degradation and water crisis must be assessed. In addition, a clear distinction between environmentally-induced and economic-induced migration should also be made. In conclusion, further efforts to support communities not to move out will be an effective strategy to manage the risks associated to migration. Therefore, migration should be the last resort!