Paradigm shift or not?

When I set out on this ‘journey’ Iike many others I hoped that we, as the international community, could demonstrate that we could pull together and overcome out differences. Yes mainly – ‘my glass is half full’ and somewhere I trust in the innate goodness of us, the human race.  We came to Copenhagen with the expectation that we would get an agreement and that we would bridge the three key issues:

• Emissions reductions for developed countries;
• Adaptation funding;
• Commitments by the developing countries that are responsible for the fastest growth in GHG emissions – not targets but what we had already seen from China and others about reducing their CO₂ intensity.

From a marine perspective we were also expecting a pragmatic approach to bunker fuels that left the responsibility with IMO via the Conference of the Parties as well as left the IMO with the ‘right’ to develop the approach to regulating GHG emissions in the international bunker fuel area.

A number of us saw the outcome from Copenhagen as setting the stage for the paradigm shift that is barely visible as yet but which energy issues (see Sean’s blog on ‘peak everything’) as well as other emerging challenges with our climate is beginning to push. Paradigm shifts are normal, we have dealt with them many times before. For example the marine industry has in propulsion terms seen the shift from sail to steam to diesel in the last 250 years, just looking at Lloyd's Register rules. But Ian in his blog explained why we resist ‘paradigm shifts’ as humans. But they happen anyway, just think about the growth in mobile communications and systems arena over the last 20 years.

The memory from the last few days has been one of media hype, major political leaders on our television screens, arguments about which texts to use and little focus on the myriads of national negotiators working through the night the last few days to get something there for the final moment (note some political leaders also worked long hours in Bella Centre or in bilateral or multilateral talks). And from a number of us serious concerns that we may miss some vital pieces of the ‘Lego brick’ tower we are constructing because we are now rushing. Although without the pressure to get a ‘deal’ we may not even have started to construct our ‘Lego brick’ tower (I hope it is not going to be like the ‘tower of Babylon’).

So is the outcome setting the stage? and what did we get?

So where are we today, after we have all got some sleep, in terms of the aims outlined above. Well not where we wanted to be, no indication that we may get a paradigm shift and the ‘Lego brick’ tower seems like the ‘tower of Babylon’ to have collapsed at the end. So what we have had is:

• No agreement and hence a political question ‘can we as the human race reach an international agreement across the whole world?’ Be fascinating to see what the ‘Copenhagen Outcome’ will result in and where the discussion goes in Bonn in June and Mexico in December 2010.
• No incentives for us as human to recognise what is happening (note none of the leaders here [in total 119] disagreed with the climate change science)
• No clear signal to business to continue to invest in:
• clean operations and technologies;
• market mechanism to help find the money we need for adaptation.

On the international bunker fuel discussions we got no decision. Although we need to remember that we have the existing Kyoto Protocol (Article 2.2) and we have uncertainty on what regional developments we may see as a potential product of the ‘Copenhagen Outcome’.

On a human level, it has been a fascinating journey. Covering, as I suspected two weeks ago ‘…the whole gamut of emotions and energy from exhaustion to exhilaration. As well as generating not a few headaches (real and virtual) and a large amount of words (spoken, written and images).’ Although I was not envisaging the 27 hours marathon discussion that occurred on Saturday, after we had been told we had a ‘deal’.

I started my blog on day 1 with noting that this meeting came just as all of us were preparing for the festive season (and for some it meant breaking their festive season early to join the throng at Bella Centre). So let me finish by wishing us all a relaxing break from climate negotiations and hope that 2010 will allow us all to finish what we started here in Bella Centre.

NGO's Shipping and an organisation turning 250 years old

Dr Anne-Marie Warris' blog today is also an audio blog as she called us from outside of the Bella Centre last night to update us on the latest COP 15 happenings. Here is the audio file to listen to or download and below is the transcript of her phone in.

Lost the plot or?

Start of week 2 and reports indicate the waiting times at Bella centre have been getting longer. Late afternoon indications are that they have closed registration and will reduce NGO’s to 7000 individual max tomorrow, so the queues should be interesting…as of Thursday only about 100 NGO individuals will get in. Add to that the rumour that they are anticipating the high level segment will last until Sunday! So we continue to see pressure (both G77 and Annex I countries walked out of different meetings today but they have all reconvened behind closed doors) and focus but also an increasing sense of frustrating and confusion.

Shipping, Sustainability and COP 15

Question - is this about the sustainability (read survival) of the shipping industry? - Or about how to implement sustainability in shipping?  The latter...whatever that means....
Thursday and Friday's events reminded me yet again that the shipping industry (whichever part we mean, have to wait for my illustration later in this blog) face a paradigm shift and a shift in understanding.

COP 15 Day One - The Great Divide - America and Climate Change

As we approach COP15, the United States remains a polarized and split society on climate change. The factions are still strongly divided in their views on whether climate change is real, and if they accept that it is, many do not agree that the cause could possibly be anthropogenic. The impacts are so far away, both in time and space – even though they are getting closer by the day!
We have made progress in the House, but the Senate has many members that are still plagued with insecurities about making decisions related to climate change mitigation, when the changes will undoubtedly affect our society.

Verification and Polar Bears - a tour of COP15 news and Blogs

Today's post will take a look at some of the most interesting and insightful blogs and news items that are out there on the weekend leading up to the COP 15 global climate change conference. 

1) The World Resources Institute's blog today, On Global Warming: Trust But Verify compares the Copenhagen negotiations between China and US to the SALT talks between Russia and the US in the 1980's. The principle of trust through verification goes beyond nations and into corporate claims and actions and consumer trust. If we are serious about reducing GHG emissions, then it will take a unified effort between governments, organisations and consumers.

The Marine sector and COP 15 - what are the issues?

So what are the discussions on marine?
I am frequently asked about what are the issues in relation to ship emissions and why are they on the table. This blog is not the place for a detailed discussion but here are some hints on the background and data.

It is worth remembering that shipping is on the agenda but is fairly low down on the list of topics that will have to be agreed in Copenhagen. Following the debate is important for me as the negotiations on adaptation finance may veer off in one direction and the sector debate in another so shipping may find itself required to pay a tax to the adaptation fund as well as being in a sectoral agreement (so required to also hit specific emission reduction targets).

Climate Change - It's not easy to be optimistic

Watching the news and trying to predict an unpredictable outcome I am stuck by a dichotomy and a challenge. And yes they are linked.

The dichotomy first – science, IPCC and Lord Stern among many are clear climate change is real and is a challenge; on the other side of the coin we have the general public – which do not believe climate change is real or of serious concern. How will the dichotomy between those two play out in our politicians minds and aims as they sit down to negotiate in Copenhagen. Which way will the ‘tug of war’ go?

I am concerned that we the public are confused by the science and its argument and the dream of increasing affluence and freedom.

One week left to go and lots to do

As I prepare for the two weeks of watching and participating in the COP 15 negotiations, one question keeps coming my way: What do I think will happen in Copenhagen?

Watching the daily reports from the around the world – as until we all get to COP 15 that remains our best source of information – it feels like watching a poker game without being able to see the cards. Well that is not quite true, I do have some sense of where the issues might be headed and where the most pressure is being applied. Take the China story last week, with a pledge to cut their 2005 baseline emissions by up to 45% by 2020.