Geesh, Chris, thanks for reminding that I was actually running a blog with you here! My excuse for not posting definitely could not have been the lack of developments in the area of climate change. Just to continue on where you left off. Silver linings. Can we discern a silver lining in the energy policy of Canada’s southern neighbors now, with Double-You calling the Americans “addicted to oil” in the State of the Union address, and planning to reduce dependence on Middle East oil by 75% by 2025? I think one has to be even more optimistic than Chris in his previous post to believe that. But if you look real carefully, you may see it. But before you can see the silver lining, there are some thick clouds to look through:
- First of all, Mr. President only referred to foreign oil, which happens to form only 20% of the US oil consumption. Domestic oil companies are not targeted at all, even though a company like ExxonMobil made the world’s largest profitthis year through promoting the use of fossil fuels.
- Secondly, his speechwriters ensured that any mentioning of climate change did not appear in the address, even though the rationale behind cutting down emissions has to be somehow related to climate change.
- Thirdly, Bush’ aides were veeeery quick to downplay the statement made in the speech.
- Fourth, even if the government wants to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, the substitutes are not always the clean energy that is needed, but rather ‘clean’ coal, nuclear, etc. With the speech, Bush launched the Advanced Energy Initiative, a research program focusing on the development of clean energy technologies. On a more positive note, Bush has emphasized the potential of ethanol as alternative fuel.
- Fifth, even if the dependence on fossil fuels is reduced, there is no incentive for the average American to become more energy-efficient.
So, yes, it is possible to give a positive spin to Bush’ words (if you take into account all the caveats mentioned above): the fact that this is mentioned by in a public speech by one of the persons leading the country that consumes most oil in the world. Energy reform is needed. And although no-one believes that Bush will all of a sudden turn into a concerned environmentalist, he has opened space for debate on energy reform here. Now is the time for proposals that go far beyond what the Bush administration wants to catch the public’s eye.

Whoa whoa whoa! Back up the train! Hey, world did you see what happened last year in Montreal? Did it look like Canada was planning on strangling the life out of the Kyoto Protocol at the UN's Conference on Climate Change?

Okay, granted that Canadians elected a conservative minority last week. A conservative minority that may or may not support Kyoto. And they may or may not accept the view that human emissions of CO2 are contributing to global warming. I agree: that's the bad news.

But there are positive things about the Canadian federal election that might benefit Canada's response to climate change.

Here are the positives:

1. The conservative minority will have to work with the other major Canadian parties, all of whom support honouring our Kyoto commitment.
   
   
2. The fact that Canada currently holds the presidency of the UNFCCC will force the conseratives to weigh in on climate issues early, and with international attention focused on their actions.
   
   At the very least, we'll quickly learn where they stand. However, I'm hoping that this pressure will force the conservatives take a progressive approach on climate change and push for viable cuts to our steadily rising emissions.
   
   
3. Finally, in the end we, the Canadian public, have a chance to make ourselves heard. Particularly, as the conservatives step up into office, we can send a clear message that a majority of the public supports Kyoto and wants to see Canada honour its international commitment!

So that's my optimistic take on the conservatives and Kyoto. Don't count us out yet! The situation is much more nuanced and flexible than the media might protray it.

And don't forget, the United States (under a decidedly anti-Kyoto administration) has done more to cut its greenhouse gas emissions than Canada ever did under the Protocol. Either way you cut it, liberals or conservatives, the simple message is: it's time to get our act together.

My apologies for being a lazy blogger these days. I had to get over a jet lag and total lack of sleep from two and a half weeks in Montreal, and I had some catching up with work to do. But the blog will continue! I changed the title to reflect this.

I have to thank Chris for reporting on the outcomes of the COP and COPMOP. While negotiators were going through their final struggles on Saturday morning, I was stranded at Charles de Gaulle airport for a few hours. In the past week, I’ve been able to let some of the results of the Conference sink in. What I think is one of the most peculiar things this week is the different reactions to the outcomes. The normal situation would be that negotiators, politicians, and policy-makers would be very proud of the results of the Conference, and environmental NGOs would criticize the outcomes because they would not go far enough. This time, the situation is almost reversed! The Dutch State Secretary Van Geel, for example, although recognizing the political importance of the decisions made in Montreal, emphasised that given the urgency of the problem, this was not enough. The media seem to have taken over this view, judging from almost all of the people I spoke to after coming home, who all said something like “nothing much happened there” or “I heard the meeting was a failure”. Not all politicians were pessimistic, however. Tony Blair, for example, sees it as a “vital next step”. But what is maybe most notable, is the almost univocal praise for the outcomes by NGOs such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and WWF WWF.

What to make of this? Should we hoist the flag for the Montreal decisions, or should we fear for our future? Going back to a couple of posts ago, I said that I felt positive vibes at the Montreal meeting. I am sticking to this opinion, for a couple of reasons:
- As called for in the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I countries agreed to start talking. about follow-up commitments immediately through an ad hoc working group, and to ensure a new regime is in place before the end of the Kyoto commitment period.
- For the first time, developing countries have shown their willingness in the FCCC process to start talking about future commitments for all countries (whatever form this may take), by putting Article 9 of the Kyoto Protocol on the agenda for next year. Furthermore developing countries showed initiative to combat deforestation, which has potential huge benefits for the environment;
- The US delegation got more and more isolated during these two weeks. In the end, they budged and reluctantly signed up to a dialogue on a future climate regime in the UNFCCC COP. More than this, however, the US government is increasingly facing multiple pressures: other countries calling upon them to take on binding targets; public opinion slowly but surely shifting after Katrina; States and municipalities taking action; business complaining about its climate policy, to name but a few;
- The Marrakesh Accords were adopted without a negative sound. Even one of the potential difficult issues, how to adopt the compliance regime, was solved.
- And finally, a more personal victory: municipal leaders and mayors from all over the world adopted the targets that we put in the Youth Declaration. I can recall quite well where those targets came from J

These are the main points that justify my positive mood. Many more decisions deserve more detailed examination, however. Developments with regard to the CDM, for example, may be seen as positive (funding for the CDM Executive Board increased) but should also be followed closely (e.g. the next COPMOP will discuss whether carbon capture and storage should be included in the CDM; it is doubtful that these projects will contribute to sustainable development in developing countries).

In sum, there is sufficient reason to be content with the outcomes of COP11/COPMOP1. But, most certainly, we are not there yet. Only a few days after the Conference, we already get alarming messages about occurring climate impacts http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Science/story?id=1407585
We are nowhere near avoiding dangerous climate change impacts yet. But that does not mean that we should downplay progress made in the UNFCCC. No, it rather means that we should do our very best to ensure that the speed of this progress increases.

The United Nations Climate Change Conference closed early this morning as President Stephan Dion dropped his gavel for the final time on an action plan for the future of the Kyoto Protocol.

It was a dramatic closing session--at least, as far as international negotiations go. With most of the agenda items out of the way, the plenary session adjourned early Friday evening. This was to allow for information negoitations to continue on the one significant item which still remained on the agenda: a decision on Article 3, paragraph 9 of the Kyoto Protocol--the critical section which addresses future emission reduction commitments for parties who have signed on to the Protocol.

A decision on Article 3 paragraph 9 was seen as one of the main outcomes of this conference from the outset. The need for further emission reduction commitments beyond the current deadline of 2012 is necessary to ensure that the Protocol remains binding into the future. Future commitments are also important in order to send a clear message to investors that market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism will provide long-term financial structures beyond the 2012 deadline.

A lot was at stake, so the mood was tense when the plenary finally reconvened nearly nine hours later at 2:30 in the morning. Delegates knew that an attempt to stymie negotiations at this point could seriously compromise the relevance of the Kyoto Protocol.

Initially, it appeared as though these fears might be realised. Russia signalled its opposition to the proposed text, calling for a mechanism of voluntary commitments. Intervening parties were unable to resolve the issue, but there were signs of progress towards a compromise. Sensing an opportuntity to break the stonewall, the President broke the plenary and called a final contact group to address the issue.

After thirty arduous minutes, the plenary reconvened. Visibly exhausted, the President presented a compromise: the Russian intervention could be addressed through separate consultations over the next year. There were no objections. The proposal was gaveled through. Through the plenary, weary delegates rose to their feet and thundered applause.

A process will be initated to discuss further emission reduction commitments. The protocol will have a future!

This is a poem, written by one of the other Youth delegates, Jessica Thiessen, who is from the Yukon, northern Canada. It was part of one of the youth expression events at the COP this week. Hope you like it!

Yukon Spring


The sun hums to herself
Trying to sleep
Slow to wake
Reclaiming the winter sky


The midnight light
Leaks through cracks in the wall
The moon fights for place in the heat
Battling mosquitoes


(seeking blood)


Snow lingers,
Holding forcefully its intermittent ground
pathetic patches
Wetness squelched by the victorious sun
Attacks aimed at earth's viscosity
Dries the blood under withering skin


Nutrition trapped
Under icy mirrors
Reflect the ache
Of a hungry caribou belly


Snow lingers,
Holding forcefully its intermittent ground
Pathetic patches
Holding life