A Final COP Postcard: The Longest Day
21/12/09 08:07
The COP is finally
over, and I’ve had about 36 hours to begin to
absorb its truths and promises. Written so soon
after the negotiations have ended, I have no doubt
my reflections will achieve at best a facile and
tenuous first draft of history (or a poor excuse
for journalism). But I must write something to
describe where climate adaptation — our efforts to
prepare ourselves and other species for the coming
climate — is headed since the conclusion of the
Copenhagen sessions.
I’m collecting these
observations on the winter solstice, the shortest
day of the year in the northern hemisphere. It is
the darkest day of 2009, bounded between the two
longest nights. And I’m writing after spending
almost three weeks in Denmark for these meeting,
deliberations, and negotiations.
If you’ve followed the news at all then you’ve probably read of slow progress or great disappointment. Perhaps you’ve seen reports about delegates including my friends and colleagues stuck inside of the Bella Center for almost two days, of forcible evictions, and the helpless rage and fruitless sympathy those of us outside tried to lend to our colleagues by email and phone. You’re probably as confused as most of us about the results.
Frankly, the angriest people I’ve met in the last few days are Copenhagen’s taxi drivers. Apparently the city’s contribution of free public transportation passes to all registered delegates left the taxis empty and drove away the seasonal tourists from Sweden and Germany, who could find no place to stay and felt frightened of the reports of demonstrations and strikes. I’m surprised things weren’t worse. I saw muted drunkenness, angry sleeplessness, and a wall of furious protestors, hemmed in by vans of police and paramilitaries. But those taxi drivers… We few, we happy few… we left them suffering. Climate change made them pay most directly. Or at least most immediately.
The final document is called the Copenhagen Accord. It’s only three pages of a general statement of intent. Adaptation is almost completely absent. The document represents discord as much as it shows some limited consensus since the accord is nonbinding. There is a reasonable chance — perhaps a fighting chance — that within a few months another new gathering will solidify the accord into something that can become national actions or even a treaty. In this sense, the whimpery ending of the COP could still linger on with a bang. I don’t think that history has really settled on the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting yet. If anything, the process just ran out of momentum for now.
My small role at the COP was to focus on adaptation — and on a certain approach to adaptation. Actually, I think the results around climate preparation are somewhat more clear and will have more immediate outcomes. I see two results for adaptation from Copenhagen.
For the first, you have to remember that the Copenhagen Accord is not the only product of the COP. A set of documents, equally nonbinding, was also produced on a wide range of more narrow and technical topics, such as the role of forest carbon and how to provide compensation money for the most vulnerable nations. These were finalized in a series of negotiations that lasted almost a week, with almost every night’s meeting running into the wee hours. Friends from developing countries in the negotiations contacted me during this process, passing on their frustration and exhaustion. I hope they have a long period of recovery. Their efforts and those of others were largely in vain, however. The final adaptation document doesn’t significantly recognize that adaptation is about managing natural resources in a sustainable way. Narrow interests, not just in the developed world, stripped this language away. The special problems of water management are not mentioned at all.
Perhaps the most agregious changes to the final document were in the principles section — or what used to be a principles section. Key statements declared that the least-developed countries of the world were the most vulnerable to climate change, and that the historical polluters — that is, those of us have benefited the longest from high rates of carbon emissions — should bear the financial responsibility for funding adaptation. The US and a few other countries removed all of the principles. However, Saudi Arabia and a few other wealthy oil-producing export countries insisted on adding language on “response measures,” which are intended to recompense them for the loss of income they expect when they lose their oil revenue. While I am sorry they have spent their billions unwisely, I do not feel the need to pay them for their lack of internal investment. Many countries without extensive natural resources — Singapore, the Netherlands, Japan — have become wealthy by being smart. By investing for the long term. The oil-exporting countries must do the same.
When a followup meeting is scheduled within a few months, all of these technical issues and documents will be taken up again. Perhaps they can be sorted out. But this first result for adaptation is adaptation seems as likely to be as contentious as climate mitigation. There is confusion at the global scale. There is no robust adaptation policy we can look forward to for now — no insurance plan, no cavalry coming over the hilltop. (And certainly no U.S. Marines storming the beaches.) In the end, the UNFCCC is even less relevant to climate adaptation than it was a few weeks ago. I don’t know when or if that will change. Any waiting for global assistance must end. At least for now.
The second result is just a hunch I have, but I believe my hunch is based on what I’ve already seen in the eyes and first emails of my colleagues. I went to this meeting knowing that my efforts in the COP were probably not going to be very significant in the larger drama. But I think the mitigation policy and communications interventions of the NGO community were expecting to exert a stronger voice and role in the end. Their very reasonable expectation was that at a minimum we would have a decent climate mitigation treaty, or a document that seemed like it could easily become one. Much was spent and sacrificed with this assumption — what else could we do? — but in the end the decisions were made by a small number of world leaders in a cloistered room in the Bella Center in the early morning hours. The decisions were made far above our paygrade, with all of the traditional power interests together. We weren’t there, even if we were a few rooms — or kilometers — away. We didn’t really have much to say about the final accord. The effort to result ratio feels discordant and unsatisfying.
As a result, as the leaders of NGOs return to the planning sessions, their boards, and their media teams, I expect many groups to refocus away from climate mitigation, or at least to look more closely at issues they are more likely to win. Reengineering economies away from a carbon basis is very difficult and relies in the end on influencing the highest levels of power. The situation is not as tractable as we would like. And many will begin to work … on adaptation. Not every NGO will make this choice, but this approach is closer to the historical norm for most.
I have suspected since at least May or June that the work of climate change after Copenhagen would vigorously shift to adaptation come January 2010, but I thought this was because we would have a firm climate mitigation agreement focusing on greenhouse gases by now. COP16 in December 2010 in Mexico City would be the Adaptation COP. Instead, I think the effective irrelevance of the UNFCCC for now means that in absence of a global UN voice on adaptation, NGOs will have to create an alternative structure to enable adaptation across borders and institutions. This is a difficult problem, but it’s also a more tractable one. The time for adaptation has arrived, after a long, long night.
As someone who appreciates irony almost more than love, the winter solstice of 2009 will actually be one of the longest days in my lifetime. Taking off at Copenhagen’s dawn to fly 10 hours to Atlanta, Georgia, I will land two hours before sunset. My “day” will last about 17 hours — generous even for a day in June in Denmark. The Norse pagans of northern Europe viewed the winter solstice as a time for contemplation and preparation, and of hope as the following day would begin strengthening. The winter solstice was about spring for them. And I think that’s how I’m coming to see this solstice, on this my longest day.
My hopes are tempered too, as I am also quite mindful of the personal costs of Copenhagen. My colleagues gradually dissolved into their flights home after three weeks (and a full year) of high intensity and focus and much personal loss. My own physical and emotional costs have been high. As I stood in the passport control line upon landing in Europe on 3 December, my mother called to say that my uncle, her brother, had died. It wasn’t expected. I chose not to attend the funeral a few days later to grieve with my family but stood in a high window on a cold day and watched the water for a long time. I also missed my father-in-law’s birthday. And I spent a long time away from my very patient wife and my impatient dogs. Of course, I have a lot of neglected work to do when I get back home.
I cannot yet say if the trip to Copenhagen was personally worth these costs. But it’s over, and we all need to move on.
If you’ve followed the news at all then you’ve probably read of slow progress or great disappointment. Perhaps you’ve seen reports about delegates including my friends and colleagues stuck inside of the Bella Center for almost two days, of forcible evictions, and the helpless rage and fruitless sympathy those of us outside tried to lend to our colleagues by email and phone. You’re probably as confused as most of us about the results.
Frankly, the angriest people I’ve met in the last few days are Copenhagen’s taxi drivers. Apparently the city’s contribution of free public transportation passes to all registered delegates left the taxis empty and drove away the seasonal tourists from Sweden and Germany, who could find no place to stay and felt frightened of the reports of demonstrations and strikes. I’m surprised things weren’t worse. I saw muted drunkenness, angry sleeplessness, and a wall of furious protestors, hemmed in by vans of police and paramilitaries. But those taxi drivers… We few, we happy few… we left them suffering. Climate change made them pay most directly. Or at least most immediately.
The final document is called the Copenhagen Accord. It’s only three pages of a general statement of intent. Adaptation is almost completely absent. The document represents discord as much as it shows some limited consensus since the accord is nonbinding. There is a reasonable chance — perhaps a fighting chance — that within a few months another new gathering will solidify the accord into something that can become national actions or even a treaty. In this sense, the whimpery ending of the COP could still linger on with a bang. I don’t think that history has really settled on the outcome of the Copenhagen meeting yet. If anything, the process just ran out of momentum for now.
My small role at the COP was to focus on adaptation — and on a certain approach to adaptation. Actually, I think the results around climate preparation are somewhat more clear and will have more immediate outcomes. I see two results for adaptation from Copenhagen.
For the first, you have to remember that the Copenhagen Accord is not the only product of the COP. A set of documents, equally nonbinding, was also produced on a wide range of more narrow and technical topics, such as the role of forest carbon and how to provide compensation money for the most vulnerable nations. These were finalized in a series of negotiations that lasted almost a week, with almost every night’s meeting running into the wee hours. Friends from developing countries in the negotiations contacted me during this process, passing on their frustration and exhaustion. I hope they have a long period of recovery. Their efforts and those of others were largely in vain, however. The final adaptation document doesn’t significantly recognize that adaptation is about managing natural resources in a sustainable way. Narrow interests, not just in the developed world, stripped this language away. The special problems of water management are not mentioned at all.
Perhaps the most agregious changes to the final document were in the principles section — or what used to be a principles section. Key statements declared that the least-developed countries of the world were the most vulnerable to climate change, and that the historical polluters — that is, those of us have benefited the longest from high rates of carbon emissions — should bear the financial responsibility for funding adaptation. The US and a few other countries removed all of the principles. However, Saudi Arabia and a few other wealthy oil-producing export countries insisted on adding language on “response measures,” which are intended to recompense them for the loss of income they expect when they lose their oil revenue. While I am sorry they have spent their billions unwisely, I do not feel the need to pay them for their lack of internal investment. Many countries without extensive natural resources — Singapore, the Netherlands, Japan — have become wealthy by being smart. By investing for the long term. The oil-exporting countries must do the same.
When a followup meeting is scheduled within a few months, all of these technical issues and documents will be taken up again. Perhaps they can be sorted out. But this first result for adaptation is adaptation seems as likely to be as contentious as climate mitigation. There is confusion at the global scale. There is no robust adaptation policy we can look forward to for now — no insurance plan, no cavalry coming over the hilltop. (And certainly no U.S. Marines storming the beaches.) In the end, the UNFCCC is even less relevant to climate adaptation than it was a few weeks ago. I don’t know when or if that will change. Any waiting for global assistance must end. At least for now.
The second result is just a hunch I have, but I believe my hunch is based on what I’ve already seen in the eyes and first emails of my colleagues. I went to this meeting knowing that my efforts in the COP were probably not going to be very significant in the larger drama. But I think the mitigation policy and communications interventions of the NGO community were expecting to exert a stronger voice and role in the end. Their very reasonable expectation was that at a minimum we would have a decent climate mitigation treaty, or a document that seemed like it could easily become one. Much was spent and sacrificed with this assumption — what else could we do? — but in the end the decisions were made by a small number of world leaders in a cloistered room in the Bella Center in the early morning hours. The decisions were made far above our paygrade, with all of the traditional power interests together. We weren’t there, even if we were a few rooms — or kilometers — away. We didn’t really have much to say about the final accord. The effort to result ratio feels discordant and unsatisfying.
As a result, as the leaders of NGOs return to the planning sessions, their boards, and their media teams, I expect many groups to refocus away from climate mitigation, or at least to look more closely at issues they are more likely to win. Reengineering economies away from a carbon basis is very difficult and relies in the end on influencing the highest levels of power. The situation is not as tractable as we would like. And many will begin to work … on adaptation. Not every NGO will make this choice, but this approach is closer to the historical norm for most.
I have suspected since at least May or June that the work of climate change after Copenhagen would vigorously shift to adaptation come January 2010, but I thought this was because we would have a firm climate mitigation agreement focusing on greenhouse gases by now. COP16 in December 2010 in Mexico City would be the Adaptation COP. Instead, I think the effective irrelevance of the UNFCCC for now means that in absence of a global UN voice on adaptation, NGOs will have to create an alternative structure to enable adaptation across borders and institutions. This is a difficult problem, but it’s also a more tractable one. The time for adaptation has arrived, after a long, long night.
As someone who appreciates irony almost more than love, the winter solstice of 2009 will actually be one of the longest days in my lifetime. Taking off at Copenhagen’s dawn to fly 10 hours to Atlanta, Georgia, I will land two hours before sunset. My “day” will last about 17 hours — generous even for a day in June in Denmark. The Norse pagans of northern Europe viewed the winter solstice as a time for contemplation and preparation, and of hope as the following day would begin strengthening. The winter solstice was about spring for them. And I think that’s how I’m coming to see this solstice, on this my longest day.
My hopes are tempered too, as I am also quite mindful of the personal costs of Copenhagen. My colleagues gradually dissolved into their flights home after three weeks (and a full year) of high intensity and focus and much personal loss. My own physical and emotional costs have been high. As I stood in the passport control line upon landing in Europe on 3 December, my mother called to say that my uncle, her brother, had died. It wasn’t expected. I chose not to attend the funeral a few days later to grieve with my family but stood in a high window on a cold day and watched the water for a long time. I also missed my father-in-law’s birthday. And I spent a long time away from my very patient wife and my impatient dogs. Of course, I have a lot of neglected work to do when I get back home.
I cannot yet say if the trip to Copenhagen was personally worth these costs. But it’s over, and we all need to move on.
