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

Although the title of this blog is Climate Action in Montreal, the word ‘action’ can be interpreted in different ways. Will there be decisions that move the climate regime forward this year? I have no doubt about that. However, will this ‘action’ be enough to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference”, as called for Article 2 of the UNFCCC? This is the main question, and it seems to be forgotten oftentimes in the discussions in the COP and COPMOP. The reason why I’m contemplating about this is because of a couple of events yesterday. Yesterday in the morning and afternoon I spent most of my time at ‘Arctic Day’, where people from the Northern regions showed their culture, explained the threats and difficulties that they are already facing or will face in the near future, and basically are wondering why nothing is being done about this. Later that day, Bill Hare, climate scientist with Greenpeace provided a – for me familiar – presentation on dangerous climate impacts, and the massive scientific evidence on the wide range of impacts of climate change on humans and ecosystems. I asked him what kind of warming we are already committed to, as he showed that 2 degrees already has significant adverse impacts on certain sectors or biodiversity. He replied that even if we stopped emitting now, we would still have a warming of 1.4-1.7 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels. Let me repeat that: even if we would cut down all our emissions, there would still be severe impacts! So logically speaking, there would be no need to discuss to what targets we should commit or what timeline needs to be set for negotiations on new commitments for developed countries, because any target less than 100% now would not be enough to prevent adverse impacts. This is a realisation that still needs to kick in with some of the decision-makers, and yesterday evening I got a small sign that this may indeed kick in. We had a meeting with a group of the Youth Delegation with Minister Elliot Morley of the UK. He was very kind and mostly agreed with our concerns (although it was difficult to see whether he was just giving lip service). However, he also mentioned a conference on dangerous climate change, which was held in Exeter, UK, earlier this year. The outcomes of this conference are very much in line with what Bill Hare has been saying for quite a while now, but the conference itself received more attention than, for example, a peer-reviewed article. The point were Morley sounded sincerely concerned is when he referred to the outcomes of this conference, and mentioned that he was afraid of what could happen. However, the actions of most, if not all, countries are not in conformity with this fear. I don’t want to sound to pessimistic or don’t want to suggest that doom-and-gloom talk is the way to go, but in the end there needs to be this realisation with all of us that what we are doing is not enough. I think this realisation on a personal level is the only way to bring about a paradigm shift that would actually help to achieve the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC. In that sense, perhaps the second most provision of the Climate Convention (next to Article 2) is Article 6 on education and awareness raising, because this holds the key to changing people on a personal level.

I hope to get back to the more practical ‘action’ points in one of my next points, but I just needed to write this down.

Luckily, the irony of staging a demonstration against global climate change in frigid, sub-zero temperatures was lost on the 7000 people who attended Saturday's World March in Montreal. The march was held to raise awareness on issues of climate change alongside a two week United Nations Conference on Climate Change currently underway in Montreal.

Pierre Pettigrew, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, bravely marched among protesters, adding his voice to the thousands calling for action on climate change. Members from our youth delegation were invited to march with Mr. Pettigrew, and we followed the mass down to the Guy Favreau complex where the Minister was finally spirited away by his agents.

Personally, I think it was a very sincere gesture from the Minister, and perhaps a positive sign that Canada is serious about pushing for a strong post-Kyoto framework here, despite the fall of the government.

The demonstration seems almost to have catalysed a flurry of activity at the UN Conference this morning, although I'm sure its unrelated. Still, the march over the weekend certainly marked a shift in the momentum of the conference, which is now visibly building in the clogged corridors and meeting rooms of the Palais des Congres.