National Security and Climate Change

“We in the very top of the Navy absolutely believe that climate change is real, it is a threat to national security, and we have to deal with it now.”

Rear Admiral Titley said this yesterday at the international climate negotiations here in Cancun at the U.S. Department of Defense Panel on National Security Implications of Climate Change. He went on to say that “our world is changing because of gasses that are put there [in the atmosphere] by human activity.”

These words followed those of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy Amanda Dory who said that “the climate is already changing in troubling ways that have implications for national security.” She described how climate change is being considered by the the DOD as one of the many factors making the world a less safe place in the future. Climate change makes the list of “Enduring Trends” in the Quadrennial Defense Review because it “will shape the future security environment for the foreseeable future” along with resource scarcity, disease, and demographics. According to Dory, the Quadrennial Defense Review is the DOD's “preeminent defense strategy document” that evaluates “plausible future challenges," in terms of prevention and “deterrents of future conflicts."

Dory touched on how climate change will destabilize weak states and challenge strong states. Other speakers cited research related to climate change and investments by the military to reduce its carbon footprint.

Guest Post: Health and Climate Change

I have had the good fortune of meeting Sudhvir Singh, a medical student from Auckland, New Zealand who is here at the negotiations with the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations. Below is a guest post he has asked me to share that summarizes recent research on the connections between health and climate change.

" When most people think of climate change, they probably think of rising sea levels, dying polar bears and controversial, boring discussions about carbon emissions that never seem to progress. This reflects a lack of understanding of the profound impacts of climate change on human health. Indeed, the well-respected medical journal The Lancet describes climate change as the biggest threat to global health in the 21st century. Appreciating the relationship between climate change and health adds to the argument for urgent mitigation by underlining the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to both health and the economy.

In most simple terms, global climate change will affect health directly by increasing the frequency and severity of extreme weather events – including some of the natural disasters that we commonly see and hear on the daily news such as floods, storms and heat waves. The devastating floods in Pakistan this year and the deadly European heat wave of 2003 (which claimed more than 40,000 lives) are the type of events that are likely to become more common in the future. This, along with rising sea levels and the increasing demand for scarce resources, will result in forced migration and potential conflict. As many crops will have poorer yields, food security and human nutrition is likely to be threatened. Environmental change will also alter the conditions under which vector-borne infectious diseases spread. For example, mosquitoes will be able to inhabit new geographic areas and therefore expose more people to diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. These adverse health impacts will impact poorer countries to a much greater extent than developed countries, an injustice that cannot be ignored.

Simple actions taken to live more sustainably have profound benefits to health and save money by reducing health care expenses. For example, consuming less meat and more fresh produce and choosing to cycle, walk or use public transport instead of driving are healthy lifestyle choices that reduce the risk of developing cancer, heart disease and diabetes and also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing the number of coal-fired power plants in favour of renewable energy sources would simultaneously reduce the occurrence of respiratory illnesses such as obstructive lung disease and lung cancer. The Health and Environment Alliance has estimated that if the EU reduced carbon emissions by 30% by 2020, there will be an associated reduction in healthcare costs of up to €30.5 billion per year, which represents 2/3 of the costs of implementing a 30% reduction compared to a 20% reduction. Action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will therefore result in substantial benefits to health and to the economy.

Appreciating the human impacts of climate change is an important addition to the argument for urgent mitigation. To find out more please visit the World Health Organization climate change and health webpage (http://www.who.int/topics/climate/en/) or Physicians for Social Responsibility (http://www.psr.org/environment-and-health/global-warming/). Please also visit our blog for information about how you can help join the health movement and our network 'Young Friends of Public Health'
(www.ifmsa.wordpress.com)."

-Sudhvir Singh, International Federation of Medical Students' Associations

Climate Negotiation Basics

It is tough to understand what happens at the climate negotiations and how it happens, but I am starting to wrap my head around it. Within the negotiations process, groups with similar interests come together to form coalitions to amplify their affect. Within these groups there are subgroups and sometimes sub-subgroups for specific policy issues and/or regional concerns. Any country can be part of as many or as few groups as they like. It's a strategic decision, and often times it is limited by the size of a particular country's delegation. This grouping system means that a group must reach a consensus and then, as a group, try to express and advance their ideas about the treaty in opposition/relation to all the other groups fighting for space with the eventual goal of putting their ideas, or some form of their ideas, into the final document that will someday become the international climate treaty.

This leads to an immensely complicated process of policy point trading. The U.S. might not care so much about Land Use and Land Use Change policy dealing with swamps, so they might trade this point with AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) for support on the framework of how we keep track of carbon emissions from manufacturing. Even with this great political game going on, it's really boring to watch: it all happens in a room filled with rows and rows of negotiators sitting at long tables with country placards and microphones being called upon one after the other to express support or dissent for proposals. Once a negotiator is called upon they could talk for 10 minutes (often done to deliberately waste time or to create a sense of urgency around consensus for a particular issue), or they could say 3 words (perhaps indicative of a desperate negotiator trying to save time).

When an agreement is reached on the ideas surrounding an issue, then the words of the text have to be decided. This means a bracketing of text. Yes, [brackets]. A sentence might look like...We must have [a robust legal framework surrounding the transfer of adaptation technologies][protect intellectual property rights with a strong international legal framework][pass sanctions on countries who fail to adequately protect intellectual property rights of parties allowing access to adaptation technologies]. And so on and so on, and then you pick and fight for your favorite wording, or you add another bracket. Or, and if you don't like version 1 and just can't live with the bracket situation happening, then you could always submit version 1a, 1b, 1c with language of your own.

Right now, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia and the rest of the world are at a standstill about adding a target of limiting climate change to 1.5 degrees Celsius in a shared vision text (which is more like a mission statement than anything else). The Bolivians (super socialist) are pushing for a 1 degree Celsius change, the rest of the world is asking for 1.5 degrees Celsius, and Saudia Arabia (a long time obstructionist of the climate negotiations) is pushing for 2 degrees Celsius. So the text looks like this now [1.0][1.5][2.0].

A quick dip into the geo-politics of why this is happening...The Bolivians see themselves as being one of the few countries to genuinely represent and push for indigenous rights. They're undergoing a big socialist movement now that is giving the indigenous majority there a role in the government for the first time, and so they are very blunt as negotiators and push for things that the rest of the world will not ever accept. The Saudi Arabians, our allies who produced Osama bin Laden and the 911 high-jackers, have been trying to slow and stop this process for years. They continue to profit from the inelastic demand of oil and the money applied by the U.S. and other nations to have some influence over OPEC. The rest of the world is doing a lot of talk here about shifting away from heavy dependence upon oil, which is bad news for the Saudi's cozy position, so they obstruct, delay, and block reasonable proposals, like the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit for the effects of climate change in the shared vision part of the text.

And, that's an oversimplified explanation to one single little bracket fight going on now. There are hundreds happening on all different subjects here in Cancun today.

Response to a Few Climate Questions

I think that if you are genuinely interested in climate science, then you could read the International Energy Agency reports, or reports from NOAA, or from our armed forces, or from NASA or many other organizations to find out these answers. It is easy to find contrary opinions to climate change within the public discourse, but if you really take the scientific discourse seriously and look critically at the scientific consensus, then in time I think that you might change your mind.

I think you understand that no science is absolutely certain. This is what I was taught at Statesboro High School, and this is what they are teaching at Statesboro High today.

What science does is point us to rational conclusions (that are never accepted as absolutely certain) upon which we can base decisions. Science tells us that we've reached peak oil and that the world's population will grow to 9 billion by the time I'm 64. No one is arguing about that. It also tells us that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in a very long time and that the rate of increase has been accelerating since the industrial revolution.

But all this is science, and so there is an element of uncertainty. If you pour vinegar and baking soda into a kid's volcano, just because it overflows every single time doesn't mean it will again...there could be some other factor acting upon it. The most likely cause for that overflow appears to be the mixing of baking soda and vinegar, but no scientist is absolutely certain of this fact. You can choose to put that kid's volcano above your carpet and mix the two ingredients together with the belief that it will not overflow, but many people might think that is a dumb thing to do. I imagine that if you saw a child about to pour those ingredients into a volcano on your carpet, then you would exercise the precautionary principle and say "Stop!"
So I say stop, but a lot of people don't like that because there are a lot of political and economic implications they don't like...that good Americans react to emotionally, regardless of the fact that the chemical processes of the atmosphere are happening. It is scary to me that people are not concerned with science, because if the scientific consensus is correct, then this means very bad things for my generation and my future children and grandchildren.

Reaction to Steven Chu's Talk at the COP16

I am grateful for the access to high government officials here in Cancun, and I am glad that Steven Chu chose to end his speech with a quotation that called for inter-generational equity.

I showed up to hear the Secretary of Energy for the United States government come to talk to a knowledgeable audience at the climate change negotiations about energy policy in the U.S. Instead we got an earful of praise of the wonders of science, a twenty minute explanation of how climate change was happening, a harangue upon the minutia of future battery technology, and speculations bringing scientists together to invent new technology to combat climate change. The irrelevance of Steven Chu's words to an audience hungry to hear more might have been made up by some real engagement with people through a question and answer session, but, oh no, look at the time, sorry, we just couldn't have predicted that if we have Steven talk now then he would have to leave immediately afterwards to catch a plane. Really it is just a huge logistical failure on our part...I wish I could argue with the airlines (said the handler), but, you know, this guy is only in charge of a major government department and so he couldn't possibly have been put on another flight. D


Taking a wider view, are these irrelevant presentations and lack of engagement strategic messaging? Nothing new or significant has been said, and ideas about climate change have been tossed around completely apart from the ground of U.S. climate and energy policy. This is certainly relective of what is happening in the negotiations (what the U.S. are doing in the negotiations), but the State Department does a lot better about communicating the reality and the feasible possibilities of policies that could be adopted to mitigate climate change.

I can't help but take a swipe at the DOE communications team and say this: if you're listening, get some training from Ben Kobren (Pershing's communication guy) about how to better do your job. It was definitely a big waste of time for anyone informed and interested in climate change and energy issue.

America and the Kyoto Protocol

America is the only country in the world that did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the only document that legally binds nations to emissions reductions under international law. The reasoning in the Senate back in the late 1990s was that the structure of the document was flawed because it allows developing countries to emit a certain amount as they develop their economies while developed countries had to take steps to cut emissions. The clinch point for the Senate was China. Our Senators believed that if China did not commit to binding emissions cuts, then the Chinese could emit more CO2, and so would out compete our businesses.

Our Senate's action upon this deeply flawed assumption has made the U.S. much less competitive in the long term. This is a much bigger issue than just “oh no, China is going to out compete us.” The whole world has been orienting their institutions, production facilities, and markets to make more with less. More and more investment firms are now asking for CO2 emissions data from major companies to gauge whether or not a company's business model is sustainable and hence a good long-term investment. More and more countries have passed tough energy efficiency standards on their products, and so if we do not adopt similar standards, then we cannot export certain goods to major markets (e.g. many American cars cannot be sold in most other developed countries because we haven't bothered to work on fuel efficiency). One British economist recently predicted that if the United States does not take significant steps to cut its emissions, then our country could eventually face trade sanctions due to the unfair competitive advantage we might have as we produce dirtier products.

Our leaders' out of step attitude on climate change and their inaction on the climate change issue as being directly detrimental to future financial well-being of all American citizens, as well as to American economic power. It is an option to continue to be the only country on the planet to do nothing about climate change, but it is getting to the point that it will be economically harmful in the short term.

Here at the climate negotiations, the whole world is desperately negotiating around our climate change inaction, making concessions so that some agreement can be arranged that is acceptable to our people. We are the most powerful nation in the world and we could be working to create a consensus about a future-oriented climate agreement that sets the U.S. on track to remain the world's top economic power in the 21^st century. Instead, because we choose to not engage with climate change, we have chosen a way in which the rest of the world decides around us what the future will look like and how major elements of the global economy will be structured. Forging on towards an American future not informed by the reality of peak oil, a basic respect demographics that predicts a world population of 9 billion by 2050, and the best scientific climate knowledge available is a choice we can still continue to make, but if America continues to choose more emissions now, then eventually it will mean much less money and much less political power in the next few years.

Explaining Lobbying to Chinese Youth

Today at the international climate change negotiations I experienced American youth trying to explain to Chinese youth on their first trip out of China how exactly lobbying in America worked. This came about because an American youth put up a powerpoint slide showing how the energy industry in the United States was the largest overall contributor to political campaigns. While the presentation was very good, the young person neglected to realize that democratic processes and lobbying was not something that the vast majority of Chinese ever think about. Since the presenter was trying to move quickly through the presentation, to describe lobbying he first said something along the lines of “businesses give money to the government so that they can have laws the way that they want them.” This is the basic American understanding of lobbying, but it is way oversimplified to actually convey the message. So, I started to explain to the Chinese young people around me that the money was actually offered to elected officials in our Congress while they were campaigning so that the candidate could have money to convince the public that they were the best person to vote for. Chinese young people who did not fully grasp the American electoral process who were hearing for the first time about lobbying sort of understood, but they all had perplexed looks on their faces and asked questions to clarify how exactly lobbying worked.

This led to another conversation where I asked whether or not Chinese youth could speak out against their government about climate change. One youth told me that in China, everything had to be framed in a way that went along with the norms and agenda of the Chinese government. My interpretation of this speaking is that in China you are allowed to strongly suggest that something is a good idea for the country, or that you ask the government put more emphasis on its work in some area or another, but that you are not allowed to say anything negative about what the government is doing. I then said that we in America so strongly believe that we can and should criticize the government in America that we have protected our rights to own guns for over two hundred years so that in case the government ever gets to be tyrannical, then we can overthrow it. The response to that was that there were pros and cons to every system of government.

All this was part of a collaborative effort between the Chinese Youth Climate Action Network and Americans from the Cascade Climate Action Network, the Sierra Student Coalition, and SustainUS, the group that accredited me with the U.N. so that I could attend this climate change conference.

I think today was the first time that I have ever spoken to a Chinese person fresh out of China with very little international experience. It made me very grateful that we have so much collaboration among our citizens about so many things not related to government and that if we do disagree with our government, then we have the freedom to say or do so much to actively express our opinions.

A Key Argument of the International Climate Change Negotiations: Total vs. Per Capita Emissions

One key argument necessary to have a good understanding of the international climate negotiations are the Total Emissions versus Per Capita Emissions debate.

Total Emissions versus Per Capita Emissions:

The developed world generally argues along the Total Emissions line of logic. In this argument, the parties that pollute the most total are primarily responsible for the climate change, and so they bear most of the responsibility for fixing the problem. Ever since China passed the U.S. in total CO2 emissions in 2008, this has been an argument that works its way into U.S. climate policies.

Many countries in the developing world argue along the Par Capita Emissions line. In this argument the countries which have the highest per capita emissions are more responsible for climate change. The countries with the highest per capita emissions (or, carbon footprints) are, by and large, the most developed countries. There is an implicit idea here that because we as a species share the atmosphere, then eventually we should roughly be polluting the same amount.

This debate gets into many wider ideas about how our leaders are approaching the climate problem. When the U.S. touts the total emissions argument and demands that China cuts its greenhouse gas emissions because they are the world's number one polluter, China might fire back that each one of their citizens polluted 4 times less than the average U.S. citizen, and that their citizens should have the right to pollute just as much as the citizens in the U.S.

For a visual of the total and per capita numbers, click here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html

These lines of argument are usually not so rigidly one-sided (China this, U.S. that), but they do crop up as major thematic points in the conference in the many policy debates going on in the conference. A big idea is that because the world economy is primarily driven by the combustion of carbon-based fuel, then in order to develop and grow economies and improve standards of living and pull people out of poverty, developing countries must produce more CO2 in order to develop. Developing countries believe that developed countries have no right to try to limit their CO2 emissions because that means essentially limiting their development and economic growth. Developed countries, on the other hand, are worried by the models that suggest if more people in the developing world do reach comparable levels of per capita emissions as they have in the developed world have, then very bad things will start to happen. Connected to all of these arguments are ideas about the links between prosperity and emissions, past emissions (huge for industrialized nations, not so huge for India or China) and future emissions (skyrocketing for India, China, and Brazil), and how to reasonably share the responsibility and liability of climate change.

Emerging from all this debating is the general consensus among most nations about the most fair thing to do. Developed countries must 1) reduce their own total and per capita emissions while 2) helping developed countries transition to more sustainable growth paths so that they will not have to pollute more to grow their economies and developed countries must also (3) aid developing countries in adapting to the effects of climate change that they had little to do in bring about. Reducing emissions in developed countries (1) means, among other things, investing in energy efficient infrastructure and in low carbon energy sources such as wind, solar, and biomass. Helping developed countries not pollute so much as they grow their economies (2) means making alternative clean technologies accessible and affordable to these countries through technology transfer and help financing the investments necessary for a lower-carbon economy as they grow. Aiding developing countries in adapting to the effects of climate change (3) means helping people cope with the specific effects of climate change. One specific example of this would be aiding a country in building a dike to keep the ocean from encroaching upon its land as sea-level rise occurs.

So, those are some international climate change basics for you, stated in a very general way to make it accessible. There is a lot more to it than this, of course, but this is one angle to approach understanding everything that will go on in Cancun. Debating specific points of the climate treaty (finance, REDD, technology transfer, mitigation, and adaptation) tends to be immensely complicated because any nation can weigh in on any point being set down into words. It is an immensely complicated and tedious process, but it is also the world's best hope to minimize the effects of climate change.

A Note About Lord Monckton and SustainUS

So, a bit about the events surrounding the video. Some SustainUS youth disrupted Lord Monckton's meeting, then Lord Monckton called SustainUS and a Jewish grandson of someone who escaped from Nazi Germany “Hitler Youth,” then he lied to the Associated Press about it, saying “it was not I who called them Hitler Youth. It was three Germans and a Dane in the Audience.” The BBC got a hold of both videos and played them one after the other. So, Lord Monckton was not only discredited because he acted as an extremist in calling youth “Hitler Youth,” but also because he lied about doing it and then got caught in his own lie on national television in Great Britain.

Sure, maybe he didn't know that someone was the grandson of a Holocaust survivor initially, but after the youth told Lord Monckton that he was the grandson of a Holocaust survivor, Lord Monckton knew this and continued to call the youth a member of the Hitler Youth. He went on to say that “the whole air of the Copenhagen conference has the stink of a Nuremberg rally about it” (http://www.picvi.com/video/get.php?id=29296, 2:20). He turned his “Hitler Youth” outburst upon everyone at the Copenhagen conference, namely, every government in the entire world. Comparing a U.N. conference to a Nazi rally is one of the most extreme position on climate change that I have ever heard.

National Resource Defense Council Recommendations for International Climate Negotiations in Mexico

Important Actions Can be Accomplished at Global Warming Negotiations in Mexico

|

We are not going to get a binding treaty in Cancun, Mexico when 194 countries meet to continue negotiations on international efforts to address climate change. And we are not going to finalize all of the details of new international efforts. So if you think the world only addresses climate change through a binding agreement and when all the details of the global effort are finalized, you’ll be disappointed in Mexico.  But if you believe, as I do, that real action can occur without a “binding” agreement or having all the details completed you’ll be surprised to learn that some key things might actually happen in Cancun.  NRDC has outlined some more detailed perspectives on what should be included in each of those agreements in order to make tangible progress and begin the hard work of implementing real action on the ground (available in English and Spanish).

For more see: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/important_actions_in_cancun.html

Youth and the International Climate Negotiations

Got another long round of insightful comments and criticism from a blogger at the Statesboro Herald that can be accessed here. Here is my equally long response: 

I'll begin with a clarification: this is a United Nations conference that will be attended by representatives from over 170 countries. The COP 16 is the 16^th of such conferences to occur. Only a small portion of the total will be Americans there, and it will be attended by official government negotiators as well as civil society and business representatives. It will receive international media coverage, so keep your eyes and ears alert for it.

Media Buzz and SustainUS:

You assert that “‘youth’ do not wield any substantial political/economic power” to “demand” anything, and you question our effectiveness in using media.

When I write demand, I mean that we will be the continuous backdrop of youth who will be affected by the negotiations amidst the negotiating leaders. We add realistic urgency and humanity to the process and serve as living reminders to the older generation that the “now” of the conference is connected to the future generations. We don't let them forget despite that the constant greenwashing rhetoric of leaders saying and doing to make it appear that they are getting something done. I think that it is better that youth do this than not do this.

We have met with mid-upper level government officials in the past because we generally are not confrontational about the issues even though I did write the word “demand.” We understand what is happening at the negotiations, and we do what we can to help them run more smoothly (for instance, ask specific questions of specific government negotiator at a press conference to get the negotiator to reveal what they were trying to keep hidden and then publicize their admission). Sometimes this means collaborative youth demonstration that gets worldwide media attention for an issue to galvanize domestic support to resolve some certain sticky negotiations point.

We'll also be present to hear every word we can that officially comes from our negotiator Jon Pershing and his State Department team (we know several of them), and we'll write about it and let people know what they are saying. There will only be a few journalists doing the same thing, and a lot of journalists in the states will get information from us, so we will be acting as informers.

I can give you a specific example about how SustainUS related media buzz changed the dynamic. Because an avid British climate change denier named Lord Monckton got frustrated with us at the last conference, he told some youth that they were “Hitler Youth.” One of those young people was Jewish and the grandson of someone who successfully escaped Nazi Germany. The BBC got a hold of this and repeated the footage, and now Lord Monckton, once a lead voice for the “climate change isn't real” crowd, has been thoroughly discredited as an old kook. YouTube it if you're interested.

We have a deliberate media strategy with young people who have been involved in communications and media campaigns in the past, and we leverage the connections that we have made with reporters over the years of sending people to the climate negotiations to maximize our exposure.

Also, for the record, I know that SustainUS is not well known and I am making a conscious effort to build the brand. I appreciate what they're about: an issue, not a party or an ideology. The people within the organization inspire me and give me hope that my generation can make America a better place regardless of their personal political beliefs.

International Law:

You suggest that international law may be ineffective in bringing about an effective international treaty.

I agree with you that international law as a process is imperfect and that it is certainly not the ideal way to do things. People have suggested other ways of doing it, but that would take years and years more of international negotiations (it's been 19 years already) to start over again and try something new. I am not personally suggesting that it is the best way, but realistically, a treaty composed of binding agreements that are monitored and enforced by the U.N. and international law is the best hope we have to get this done before we cross over the climate threshold of no return. It really doesn't matter what our personal opinions are about it if it does end up being mostly effective.

The most realistic alternative proposed has been a series of multi-lateral or a boatload of bi-lateral agreements among/between nations. In order to undertake this, however, 19 years of negotiating work would probably have to go out the window. There are a few who think that this is the most expedient way of having it happen, but I am not among them.

You bring up an interesting point about China and international law and there is a relevant international lawsuit pending between American union organizations United Steelworkers and China. The Chinese have been breaking the WTO treaty by illegally subsidizing their green business to become the world leader in manufacturing green energy technology, and our American industries don't like it. http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/10/13/steelworkers-push-obama-on-china-trade.html

Forest Policy:

I did oversimplify it: it's called REDD policy, or reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation. And, I think you misunderstood me when you wrote about forest and indigenous policy and suggested that my description of “Forest and Indigenous Policy: figuring out how we should manage our forests and help indigenous people adapt to climate change ” and concluded that your interpretation of my personal stance on indigenous policy“is the purest form of arrogance, IMHO.” I was only trying to explain the five major veins of policy negotiations happening at the conference with brief descriptions, not trying to advocate for a specific policy.

Further, I agree with you that it is a hugely complex issue and probably the most complex being negotiated at the conference. I also agree with you about your indigenous policy bit...there's a great introduction to a book called Ancient Futures that is spot on about this. It says that although a lot of people lament the cultural loss of people moving into modern society, they must be allowed the opportunity to take advantage of the benefits of education, medical care, and all the other good stuff.

SustainUS does have a policy platform, but I honestly have not read it all and I think that it hasn't been updated yet for the COP16. If you'd like to take a look, here it is: http://wiki.sustainus.org.

The Language and The Message:

I normally don't use the language or the tone that I did in my last entry, and I also usually don't go posting everywhere about what I think about things, but we are headed to a decision point in the next few days that will help set us up for some substantial global agreement to be made at the COP17 or the COP18 in 2011 or 2012. The more people that know about this in our democracy, the better.

I will ask: when does it get to be okay to step out of line and start using tough language? Right now, the best that our civilization's epistemological system can muster tells us that the planet is warming due to human causes, and that if it continues, then the chemical balance that has allowed life to flourish for millenia will be disrupted, and the ecology upon which our economy is built upon will be severely harmed. For humans, this means more drought in dry places, more floods in wet places, famine, and the mass migration of climate refugees. Our leaders have not done anything substantial to stop this process, and to change our path towards the future our best science predicts, we need some type of international effort to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

To me ignoring the future while being aware of what it will hold and bumbling on with short sighted goals is the definition of stupid. It is anti-rational not to get out of the way of a truck headed straight towards you. To stretch this metaphor a bit...we've got a truck coming our way in the next 50 years, but in order to really be out of it's path, we have to start moving everyone in the world out of its way ASAP. To get people moving, I think we need tough language that spurs people to action.

I am aware of my limitations and my lack of power as a young person in this process, but I'm still going to go to the conference with confidence (not hubris—hard to maintain any hubris in the service industry, but I'll take that as a compliment to my youthful enthusiasm) and a genuine intention to do everything that I can (through informing and engaging people, asking questions of leaders, getting media attention, and collaborative youth action) to press for a climate treaty. This SustainUS process of sending young people to the negotiations has been going on for about 10 years now, and the international youth climate movement has mushroomed over the last five years. Some of the things we do are kind of activisty. I have not done much of that until now, but I am willing to go out on a limb and risk criticism because climate change threatens the future of humanity and nothing substantial has been done to stop it. We as a species need to begin reducing our emissions now, but that will not happen until there is a binding international agreement to do so.

We as Georgian...well, we could oppose that new coal-fired plant that they're trying to put up in Sandersville.

Finally, if more Americans in your generation really could give me “a little history lesson about how WE all arrived here, about how WE all contribute to the problem, and about how WE all need to fix it,” then I would have no need to write this blog. I will, by the way, be offering that history lesson as it relates to major arguments in the international climate change negotiations in a future blog entry. Or, you could offer it.

Thank you again for your engagement and instructive criticism. I also hope that I was not harsh in my opposition of some of your points. I'll keep the messaging advice in my while I write...I'm just beginning so it is useful now. And, I was thinking of contacting REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection) to ask them to speak out about the international climate change negotiations to the people in their party who do not believe that climate change is real. Moderate, future and business-oriented Republicans are in my opinion the most effective advocates for the changes that America needs right now, but they are not too popular nowadays.

Really just trying to care, do the best I can, be something that I love and understand.

Dinner bell's ringing in the stomach now...

If you like what you read,

then please crowdrise me.

Goals of the International Climate Change Negotiations

I got a good comment from a post on the Statesboro Herald Community Blogs from Charles and Angie Howell (but, not Angie...she doesn't blog anymore because of the troll geists according to Charles). The post is below:

Charles_and_Angie_Howell commented on Wednesday, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:51 AM

So what exactly are the goals of the conference?
What do you hope to accomplish?
How will you accomplish it?
Since this is apparently a global effort, what strategies would you recommend to ensure compliance by all?

So what exactly are the goals of the UNFCCC's COP16 in Cancun?

The what!?! is the logical answer to that question. The UNFCCC stands for the United Nations Framework Conventions on Climate Change and the COP16 refers to the 16th Conference of Parties that has occurred annually for 16 years. The UNFCCC is a treaty stating that the world should achieve ""stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmospher at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." This was signed by 194 countries in 1992. Since 1995 (the first Conference of Parties), countries have been meeting annually at the COP to discuss how exactly this was to be done. So, then, the purpose of the UNFCCC is to get the world to cooperate on the long-term implementation of climate change solutions.

To learn more about the UNFCCC, you could check out their official website here: http://unfccc.int/2860.php or you could take a look at the About section of the COP16's website here: http://cc2010.mx/en/. The latter is the better one.

What do you hope to accomplish?And, writes Chales, how will you accomplish it?

My primary goal is to collaborate with other youth to demand a fair, ambitious, binding climate deal for the good of our generation and the generations to come. International youth will be present at all of the official negotiating sessions and side events put on by governments, businesses, and NGOs and we're all going to be saying: hey, this deal affects our generation, not yours, so you had better make it good.

Another thing I hope to accomplish is to inform more people about the international negotiations process and offer them ways to contribute at home. SustainUS will have a Rapid Response network where we link up specific policy  being negotiated with calls to the elected officials or bureaucratic offices to promote a specific policy. Here is a link with more information about the Rapid Response Network: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dDNOVEgwcktCREp1X0haVkVTdVQ1U3c6MQ.

Another thing we do is hold the negotiator's feet to the fire when they need it. If you think Washington is bad, imagine politicians from all over the world converging at one place at the same time. The absurdity that escapes from some of these leaders is...well, it's something. So we call them out on it and publicize it and often times it causes them to change their ways. 

We also create a media buzz though youth demonstrations, talk to reporters, and attend U.S. State Department briefings. We're all ambitious, well-educated young people from all over the U.S. and we're not so vested in any one way of thinking just yet, so when we say, "hey, we're here to talk about not passing the climate buck to our generation" then we get at least some attention.

I personally will be trying to keep a record of what is happening and engage with people at home through my writing and any other means I can. Ah, and besides being concerned about climate change and the future of my generation and learning more about international climate policy, I am also just really curious to see what it is like to have representatives from all over the world walking around the same area trying to come to an agreement about something.

Since this is an apparently global effort, what strategies would you recommend to ensure compliance by all?

That is a big cahuna of a question and one that has been debated for years at these UNFCCC climate change negotiations.

We young people want, as I stated above, a fair, ambitious, binding climate deal. Specifically, that means limiting CO2 to 350 parts per million in the atmosphere through legally binding commitments by all nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We're already over 350 parts per million now (somewhere around 380 ppm), but that is the scientific standard that would keep temperatures from rising no more than 4 degrees centigrade (edit..it's actually 2 degrees centigrade, or around 4 degrees Fahrenheit), which in turn would prevent what scientists call "catastrophic" damage to our planet. So, according to our best knowledge, my generation is headed towards a future with catastrophic ecological damage unless we (like big WE, the whole world WE) change how we are doing things.

Binding is also a key word. Right now there are no binding agreements, but countries have made pledges to reduce their CO2 emissions. Most people think that pledges are pretty useless and that binding goals backed up by international law are necessary. We were pretty close to a binding agreement in Copenhagen last year (the COP15), but then everybody started to argue and we came out with the Copenhagen Accord, which is a bunch of pledges that we hope to make binding. One key strategy to ensure compliance to binding agreements is international CO2 monitoring. China, the world's number one polluter (don't worry, we're still no.1 per capita, which forms the basis of the total emissions vs. per capita emissions arguments) was at one point willing to agree to binding agreements but refused to be monitored, which, in the opinion of the U.S. State Department, wouldn't work.

The five key areas of debate include are

1.  Forest and Indigenous Policy: figuring out how we should manage our forests and help indigenous people adapt to climate change
2. Finance: the international finance of climate solutions
3. Mitigation: mitigating climate change with CO2 emissions technology
4. Adaptation: adapting to a world with climate change through infrastructure investments
5. Technology Transfer: allowing affordable access to mitigation and adaptation technologies to countries while respecting intellectual property laws.

One final note: it is not likely that any binding agreements will come out of the COP16, but there can still be significant progress made in trying to solve these problems.

Savannah Morning News Cross-posting

I'll also be cross-posting my writing on the Savannah Morning New website here: http://savannahnow.com/users/climegeist.

Call-In Teleconference: A Guide to Youth Engagement at UN Climate Talks

SUSTAINUS AND CASCADE CLIMATE NETWORK

Call-In Teleconference: A Guide to Youth Engagement at UN Climate Talks

Nov. 17, 2010 –- Media are invited to a teleconference with youth climate
advocates attending the upcoming United Nations negotiations in Cancun,
Mexico. Youth experts will discuss key issues for Cancun and plans for
U.S.-Chinese youth collaboration during the talks.

The teleconference will be 10:30 a.m. EST Monday, Nov. 22. Media can join
via phone or skype. Call-in instructions listed below.

WHAT: What to Expect in Cancun: A Guide to Youth Engagement at the Climate
Change Talks

The first international climate summit since Copenhagen begins Nov. 29, in
Cancun, Mexico. Experts from two U.S.-based youth climate advocacy
organizations will discuss the status of the negotiations, highlighting
policy topics important to youth. Drawing from the recent Tianjin
negotiations, experts will comment on youth strategies to re-invigorate the
18-year-old UN system that has the grave responsibility of deciding the
fate of the world’s two billion young people. This year’s Conference of the
Parties (COP-16) will also see renewed interest among youth to collaborate,
particularly through a new partnership between U.S. and Chinese young
people.

WHO: Scheduled speakers are:

Abigail Borah, Youth Delegate to COP16, SustainUS (Middlebury, VT)
Reed Aronow, Youth Delegate to COP16, SustainUS (St. Paul, MN)
Marcie Smith, Chair, SustainUS (Raleigh, N.C.)
Jared Schy, Youth Delegate to COP16, Cascade Climate Network (Portland,
OR)

HOW TO JOIN:

Conference Room Number: 9320516

By Phone:

From United States: +1 (201) 793-9022

 From Canada: +1 (201) 793-9022
 From Austria: +43 (0) 82040115470
 From Belgium: +32 (0) 7 0357134
 From France: +33 (0) 826109071
 From Germany: +49 01805009527
 From Ireland: +353 (0) 818270968
 From Italy: +39 848390177
 From Spain: +34 (9) 02885791
 From Switzerland: +41 (0) 8 48560397
 From United Kingdom: +44 (0) 8454018081

By Skype:
Participants: +9900827049320516

Please dial-in 10-15 minutes in advance.

#####

Media Contacts:

Louise Yeung, SustainUS Media Relations Coordinator, 847-778-0293,
louise.yeung@sustainus.org
Michael R. Davidson, SustainUS COP-16 Delegation, 703-357-5429,
michael.davidson@sustainus.org

About SustainUS: SustainUS is a national volunteer-based youth
organization that empowers young people to create a more sustainable world
through involvement in international summits and grassroots activities.
Through its Agents of Change program, U.S. youth have the opportunity to
participate in several UN conferences, including the Framework Convention
on Climate Change, the Commission on Sustainable Development and the
Commission on Social Development. Learn more at www.sustainus.org.

About Cascade Climate Network: The Cascade Climate Network is an
organization committed to building a sustainable, just, and prosperous
future through the empowerment of youth leaders across the Pacific
Northwest. The CCN unites more than 400 students from fifteen campuses in
Oregon and Washington through quarterly gatherings, campaign support, and
organizational trainings. We support many youth-led campaigns that
encompass a broad spectrum of environmental issues, from energy policy
campaigns to community retrofitting projects and bottled water bans.

Headed to the COP16

Hello.

I'm writing to let you know that I'm headed to the U.N.'s international climate change negotiations in Cancun, Mexico at the end of the month and I'll be using this blog to share the experience with people who live in the place where I have spent the vast majority of my life (Statesboro born and raised).

I'm headed to the negotiations with SustainUS, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of young people advancing sustainable development and youth empowerment in the United States. Through proactive education, research, and advocacy at the policy-making and grassroots levels, we are building a future in which all people recognize the inherent equality and interdependence of social, economic, and environmental sustainability. So that's the copy/paste of it.

All of the items I post on this blog will be cross-posted from this one: http://climegeist.blogspot.com. I will be posting photos and coverage of the UNFCCC process in accessible and grammatically correct English (thank you Mrs. Brannen), and I would love to publish in the Herald, but I would appreciate it if I am asked first.

Well how did someone who was born above that empty lot off of Donehoo Street where the old hospital used to be get interested in this, you might be asking yourself, if you are still reading this. Well, I left town for my college education and studied abroad in India, where, among other things, I studied environmental economics. Demographics + Peak Oil + Climate Change + experiencing pervasive poverty for the first time convinced me that the future I would live and that the future my kids (they're not here yet) would live in does not look good numbers and science-wise. After I finished up school I went back to India to work for two solar energy companies. There I met some young people who were launching the India Youth Climate Movement that happened to become the first real pan-India (it's a big place) environmental organization. I started volunteering with them because it was inspiring to watch an organization grow from a few thousand to a few hundred thousand, and it was pretty cool when Thomas Friedman wrote an article about them the same day that I had scheduled a business meeting with them on how we could work together to promote solar energy and advertise the solar energy magazine I helped to produce. Through them I got engaged in working towards sensible climate change and energy policies for the good of our generation, which was a cool way to connect with people halfway across the world. And so now after all that solar experience and living in New Delhi for a year and a half, I'm about to head to the international climate negotiations to see a few of them again and work towards similar goals by pressing our American leaders to work out sensible climate policies.

Last year there were more world leaders present at the negotiations than there have been at any meeting since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI. Nobody anticipates that it will be as big this year, but I am still immensely looking forward to participating in a U.N. conference as an official constituent of youth NGOs.

So anyway, I'll be writing about the lead-up to Cancun and the experience of being there on this blog, and I hope that you'll be reading it.

Statesboro Herald Cross-Posting

I'll be cross-posting most of my COP16 writing at the newspaper that first taught me what a newspaper was: The Statesboro Herald. http://community.statesboroherald.com/blogs/detail/8895/

U.S. Army Core of Engineers' Savannah Harbor Report Released

 I read in the Savannah Morning News today about the Army Core of Engineer's environmental assessment of deepening the Savannah Harbor to let bigger ships into the area. The report cites numerous potential environmental hazards in deepening the harbor, from harm to wildlife to aquifer problems to erosion to changing the chemical make-up of the water in the surrounding area. There is also a boatload of federal and state regulations to abide by if this is going to happen.