|
|
Finding liberal solutions to tackle dangerous climate change. All the latest news, information, opinions and calls from the IFLRY Climate Change Team you can find here.
-
@font-face {
font-family: "Arial";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
By: Andres Fuentes Martinez
The consensus on the deal reached at COP-17 is that it will
not solve the climate crisis, however it remains to be seen whether the results
of the Durban discussions are positive or negative. Though some are pleased
with the survival of the negotiating process, others demand more from the
talks. This year’s discussion focussed on three aspects: the continuation of the
Green Climate Fund (GCF), the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, and the creation of a
post-Kyoto accord.
The GCF is a fund created in Cancun last year meant to
provide $100 billion to developing countries to help deal with the costs of
mitigating and adapting to climate change. The biggest problem with the fund is
the lack of money. This continues to be a problem coming out of Durban, however
the parties agreed on the details of governance for the fund. 
The Kyoto Protocol negotiations focused on extending the
pact into a second commitment period. It was agreed that parties would submit
their commitments in early 2012, with a new period starting January 2013 and
ending in either 2017 or 2020, depending on the implementation of a new
agreement.
Regarding the creation of a post-Kyoto accord, it was agreed
to have a framework developed by 2015 for implementation by 2020. The quality
of the deal will depend on negotiations between now and 2015.
While the agreements represent a collective step forward,
the concern is that far too many pressing issues have been deferred to future
conferences. The nature of climate change confounds this strategy. Waiting
longer only leads to accepting more drastic measures necessitated by the
postponement of action.
Canada’s performance at this round of talks was nothing
short of embarrassing. I had the displeasure of seeing this firsthand during a
break in negotiations. The time-out was meant to give delegates an opportunity
to resolve the issue of binding commitments. Rather than participating in these
crucial deliberations, Canada sat on its own. This immediate refusal to deal
was backed by an obvious lack of foresight, highlighted by the news that we
would be pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.
The issue with stubborn parties like Canada is that they
fail to grasp the urgency of the challenge. Climate change is not slowing down,
and every moment we do not spend fighting it is one moment put towards failure
in mitigating its disastrous effects. In the face of efforts meant to obstruct
action, the planet’s best hope continues to be found in individuals who work to
hold government accountable and who are doing all they can at a local level to
reduce our environmental impact.
|
-
@font-face {
font-family: "Arial";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
Written by Adam Sheldon
A few days ago, members of the International Federaltion of
Liberal Youth (IFLRY) delegation here at the 17th Conference of the Parties
(COP17) in Durban had the opportunity to sit down and speak with Sir Graham
Robert Watson, the Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament for South
West England and Gibraltar.
Watson, a former IFLRY member, acting as vice-president in
1977 and General Sec...retary in 1979, took the opportunity to discuss an
initiative that he has been championing here at COP17 called the Climate
Parliament.
The Climate Parliament is a multi-partisan group of
legislators from democratic nations or states from around the world working
together to combat climate change. In particular, the group is working to
encourage the transition to renewable energy in regions around the world, and to
promote the construction of clean energy supergrids.
It was certainly an engaging conversation and was quite
interesting and rewarding for current IFLRY members to witness the achievements
and efforts of a past member, particularly by way of climate change mitigation.
To find out more information about Climate Parliament, check
out the group’s website.
|
-
@font-face {
font-family: "Arial";
}@font-face {
font-family: "Cambria";
}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }
One of the important initiatives negotiated at the COP is
REDD+, an anti-deforestation plan originating in its current form at COP15
Copenhagen in 2009. REDD+, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation, aims to make conserving forests a better value proposition than
cutti ng them down for lumber, land or agriculture.... The larger goal is to
maximize the role of forests as carbon sinks that decrease the amount of CO2 in
the atmosphere while protecting biodiversity and forest-based livelihoods. REDD+
uses a market approach to price forests and incentivize their conservation and
sustainable management. REDD+ also seeks to incorporate safeguards for
questions of development and protection of indigenous peoples. With most of the
world's largest forests located in the developing world, REDD+ faces many
challenges indeed.
In a panel on these challenges, I learned more about these
first hand. Questions of implementation are at the centre of issues facing
REDD+. Many REDD+ countries lack the capacity to successfully implement the
program. This ranges from the human capacity of a sufficient number
well-trained, equipped and mobile monitors, law enforcement personnel, and
prosecutors to the institutional, legal, and financial capacity to monitor
forestry indicators and prosecute illegal logging.
Agency among local populations is also an important
challenge. On the one hand, mechanisms must exist where a woman gathering
firewood for her family is not treated in the same manner as a large-scale and
internationally-financed illegal logging operation. REDD+ must involve all
stakeholders throughout both the policy development and implementation
processes. The risks posed by illegal land grabs for their carbon credit value
represent real threats that proper policy and more importantly proper
enforcement can counter. The question remains of whether this is possible in
countries that lack the institutional, financial, legal or human capabilities
to deal with a mechanism as complex as REDD+, but with the level of international
best-practice sharing that exists at the COP, there remains hope for
improvement in the coming years.
|
-
-
When you try to unpack all of what goes into these UNFCCC negotiations it can be overwhelming (to say the least). Often you hear people say, what it really comes down to is…. oil, population growth, money, human rights…. etc. We all have our areas of focus, we all approach things in different ways – it makes sense, we are from different places, with different experiences and expertise, and differing needs and pressures. Of course there is going to be debate. But why does that have to be bad? Do we need to be against each other, don’t we (mostly) have the same goal, a better world, one that will last for future generations? So my, “what it comes down to” line is this: Cooperation. Working together is the only way forward. It is the only way we are going to come to any sort of agreement that is inclusive and enduring. That means shutting the door to some is not an option. It means that hyper-partisanship is not an option. It means that openness and willingness to hear from and understand others is a requirement. And it means that respect for others is necessary. Cooperation also means trying to move forward. It means when it seems like you have hit a wall in discussions regrouping and finding a new path. It means holding others to account but it also means taking their concerns seriously and working with them to find a better way. Cooperation requires collaboration of many, conveniently, innovative problem solving (what we clearly need on the climate change front) also requires collaboration of many and debate. New and great ideas come from people overlapping areas of knowledge in a new way that changes the face of a problem and makes it an opportunity. These discussions do not have to be about how to “deal” with the problem of climate change and how to avoid losses. These discussions can be about how to benefit from an opportunity. An opportunity to re-imagine cities, to become a leader in technology or energy production, to become less dependent on oil, to engage on the world stage in a new way or any multitude of possibilities. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think ignoring problems is going to serve anyone in the long run. But those who find a way to conceive of those problems as potential benefits will surly come out of this process a whole lot happier and if we can find a way to share those insights we just might come to an agreement a whole lot faster. Elizabeth Dubois, IFLRY and YLC Climate Change Conference Delegation Leader 2010
|
-
(linked from: http://ylcjlcclimate.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good) Yesterday I attended a briefing by the UNFCCC secretariat, which was given by Executive Secretariat Christina Figueres. Ms. Figueres made it clear that our briefing would be more of a conversation, and she would be talking frankly, which I both liked, and do hope that all meetings would be conducted in such manner. When the question “what do you think will happen/want to happen at COP16?” was asked to Christina she was very honest with her answer stating that “perfect is the enemy of good.” She was referring that aiming towards perfection or a perfect agreement would not get us far, and that rigid expectations that aim too high without being holistic would probably ruin any work that was or is being done. Another reference Ms. Figueres made was that one cannot build without a foundation, and this should be the foundation that we start. If we build something without a foundation we would be lucky if it lasts for a day or two. What we need to do is have a solid foundation that we can build something that is grounded, solid and realistic; aiming for what is beyond reach is admirable but flexibility is crucial for success. Taking one step at a time on that strong foundation with great ideas, great commitment and some flexibility will help keep us on the right path and right track and eventually an agreement that works for everybody and respects our environment and the coming generations. Being hasty and vocally aiming for a perfect agreement without a solid foundation and lacking a plan is in essence our enemy making the perfect indeed the enemy of a good outcome for COP16; and hearing that message from the Executive Secretariat does really make one think that we need to be realistic and aim for something achievable instead of being rigid and losing both a good agreement that works for all as well as losing confidence to actually affect and effect the negotiations and the outcomes. Fadi El Masry, IFLRY and YLC Climate Change Conference Delegate 2009, 2010
|
-
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): Intends to do two things: 1) help developed countries (such as Canada) in achieving sustainable development and 2) help developed countries meet their emissions reduction targets. These goals are achieved by allowing developed countries to invest in reduction projects that exist in developing countries. It basically allows developed countries to achieve emissions reductions wherever it is cheapest for them to do so. Even though these projects don’t take place in the country that is seeking emissions reductions, the projects act to provide credits. Most of these projects are in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fuel switching. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) The basic idea behind CCS is to capture carbon dioxide that is emited through sources such as fossil fuel plants and store it so that it is not emitted into the atmosphere. The storage is often done in large underground reservoirs. CCS is currently not recognized under the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism framework, yet a number of countries yesterday are strongly pushing for this to change. For example if CCS was considered a mechanism under CDM, Canada could develop the CCS technology in another country and count the results seen in this project towards its own emissions reduction goals. This issue of including CCS was raised at COP15 and was postponed until this meeting in Cancun where the issue was expected to re-emerge. Several countries including Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Qatar, UAE, Jordan, Grenada, and othersyesterday urged for CCS to be included in the CDM. CCS appears to be a controversial issue and it will be interesting to see how it continues to develop over the final week of the conference. The countries advocating for this were also successful in winning first place for fossil of the day yesterday given out by CAN International (Climate Action Network) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeCtzZLsFMo), so it’s obvious that many environmental groups feel strongly that carbon capture and storage is not the correct approach to be taking in emissions reductions.
|
-
 After more than 30 years of reform and upon opening its doors, China has achieved immense success. China is the second largest economy in the world, the most populated sovereign nation on earth with 1.3 billion people and has experienced unprecedented economic growth over the past decade. China has come from a land of rural farming communities to a land of high tech, mega cities, unstoppable economic engine power and of large influence on the international stage. China is really a model for economic success yet, the country continually faces evolving conditions at home and abroad, such as decelerating growth rates, issues of increased of energy consumption and high pollution ratios, environmental and resource constraints, international trade frictions as well as deepening socioeconomic divides. Human development should be the ultimate objective for all economies and societies. Human development is in regards to safe medical access, education, freedom and individual rights as well as host of many other developmental processes. There is also economic development which allows for a higher standard of living due to more money in peoples pockets. Let me be clear that human development and economic development are not the same thing. Economic development i s a means of creating human development but only if done correctly. Climate change threatens human development not only in China but around the world through droughts, flooding, crop yield numbers and a host of other impacts which intern cause mass migrations, potential health risks, food security issues and economic instability. So where does China stand on climate change? China is nearly the largest economy in the world and with all engines running full steam ahead anything that hinders economic growth is considered a negative kink in the wheel which must be corrected immediately. China acknowledged that climate change poses a large threat to it’s people as well as its continuous economic growth. China sees that mitigating climate change is a careful balancing act between ecological stability and economic growth. China wants to address climate change in a way that will allow economic growth all while helping to combat climate change. Is it possible to have economic growth and reduce their carbo n emissions as the same time? The answer is simple, yes and no. China has adopted a carbon based intensity form of carbon output measurement. This carbon based intensity mechanism will be used to base their future reductions in output as a form of measurement. Carbon based intensity measurements are based as a percentage on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) output. For example, if China through all of it’s economic activity produces 100 widgets annually all while producing 200 Tonnes of CO2 annually then a percentage is formed. The percentage is based on the amount of CO2 emitted compared to how many widgets China produced. China currently wants to bring its efficiency up by producing more widgets all while producing less CO2 per widget. So if China produces 200 widgets next year a 100% increase but only produces 300 tons of CO2 per year a 50% increase then they would decrease the percentage of carbon it took to make each individual widget. This sounds great as each widget is being made with less CO2 emissions per unit. Under this scheme emission levels will appear to go down. The problem lies in the fact that China as a nation would still produce more CO2 than it did in the previous year. This means an increase in CO2 production and a negative environmental impact every year. While China is actively working to increase its efficiency and reduce its CO2 output with carbon based intensity as a CO2 measurement, China will continue to pollute more every year as long as there is economic growth. China’s plan with Carbon based intensity measurement forecasts for the year 2020 to have 5.6 tonne’s of CO2 emissions per person with a further reduction by the year 2050 down to 3.7 tonnes of CO2 emissions per person. This is a good number however the problem lies in the fact that while emissions on an individual bases are reduced the actual amount of CO2 emitted as a nation would still climb pending increased economic growth. As the economy continues to grow into the 10% and 20% range larger it will be producing more CO2 as an entire country than it is today which essentially destroys the whole first intention which is to reduce CO2 output. China is currently expanding roughly 8% a year which means even if this carbon based intensity policy is instituted immediately in as little as 1-2 years Chinas output will already be more than the national rate today. China will become the worlds lar gest economy in the world within the next one to two decades and if it is to act as a true world leader it should have hard concrete targets of absolute CO2 reductions. China can not afford to create fancy ways of showing CO2 reductions as percentage of GDP and growth. China needs to step up to the plate and be a strong world leader by providing hard targets on absolute reductions. China is still experiencing unprecedented economic growth and has not yet reached economic maturity. Lets hope China corrects its fault based policy and proves to the world that they are ready to lead through environmentally friendly economic growth and long term sustainability. Ryan Sullivan, IFLRY and YLC Climate Change Conference Delegate 2009, 2010
|
-
Here are some quick highlights from one of the side session: Patents Technological Knowledge and Access to Climate Change Mitigation Technology This session was hosted by the European Patent Office (EPO) and provided some interesting information on clean energy patents and how and why they fit into the climate negotiations. The presentation also presented a new search functionality that they developed to make it much easier to find patents relating to climate change mitigation technology. But first, why is Intellectual Property (IP) something being talked about as part of a climate deal? To put it simply developing countries want access to technology that will help them mitigate the effects of climate change and most of this technology is being developed in developed countries and by private companies. Now a little more about clean technology and patents. To begin with their is no specific class in the International Patent Classification (IPC) for clean energy technology, something that had made it harder to speak with certainty on this topic. Fortunately the EPO has taken it upon themselves to create a way to identify climate change mitigation technology patents in the system. They created a new search utility that allows you to search for green technology by pre-determined categories within the existing system. According to the presenter research that used to take months now takes 5 sec thanks to their new system. There are several reasons that making patents easier to find is important, first of all there are 60 million patent documents for 2 million patents worldwide which contain 60% of the worlds technical knowledge. So clearly easier access to this knowledge is beneficial for society. In addition easier identification of these patents also allows for us to get a better picture of what is at stake at these discussions, countries can better see who holds patents that might be covered if IP is included in any accord and a better informed discussion can be had. One interesting fact that was mentioned at the presentation is that clean energy patents have skyrocketed since 1997, they have grown approximately 20% per annum since that date. So what happened in 1997 that could have encouraged this growth? The Kyoto protocol was created. So to finish off with the practical let me mention some things about licensing. Currently the BRIC countries are the highest users of licensing of clean technology however it is not at a very high level. So what affects licensing? well according to a survey conducted by the EPO the main factors are: protection of IP, scientific capabilities, market conditions, and the investment climate. The survey also found that 70% of companies would give more flexible terms to developing countries; it also found that it was the small and medium sized companies as well as universities and public institutes that were more willing to offer the flexible terms. So licensing might present one way to allow the spread of technology to mitigate climate change to third wold countries and guidelines could be created that would seek to facilitate this process All in all something interesting to discuss and an option to keep in mind. What are your thoughts? Andres Fuentes, IFLRY and YLC Climate Change Conference Delegate 2009, 2010
|
-
Break it Down Now: What Happened on Day 1? (linked from: http://ylcjlcclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/break-it-down-now-what-happened-on-day-1) Helllloo Cancun! We have arrived on the ground in Cancun bright eyed and ready to go, and have now spent the first day at the convention centre for COP16. We’ve begun preparations for our booth that we will be running for the International Federation of Liberal Youth. This year, as I’ve been told is a bit different than last year’s set up since the centre where the booths are located is separate from where the main discussion session are held – the main discussions are called plenary sessions. I was able to watch two plenary sessions yesterday where major leaders met to discuss further commitments for developing countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Here are my first impressions: First impressions - leaders gave opening remarks, commented on the outcomes they wish to see out of this meeting at Cancun - majority of countries that spoke were developing countries or small island states/the least developed countries (the last two are specific distinctions in the united nations framework convention on climate change) - These countries spoke about how they are already feeling the adverse effects of climate change and urge a legally binding treaty at the end of Cancun - Papa New Guinea spoke on behalf of the Coalition for Rainforest Nations and urged an agreement on REDD saying “it is impossible to delay another year” (referring to next year’s meeting in South Africa) - Rainforest countries are looking for an FULL agreement for REDD+ in Cancun - Australian represented the “umbrella group” of countries that include Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, US and Kazakhstan (loosely formed group) - The EU spoke twice representing their 27 member states - Most developed country umbrellas and some developing delayed reaching a legally binding document to next year’s meetings in Durban South Africa The majority of language used during the first day’s afternoon plenary sessions was about reaching a fair and legally binding agreement and financing for the least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS). These two general goals were to be expected as they continue to be on the table from last year’s meetings in Copenhagen. I was not expecting Canada to be speaking so it was not shocking that Australia was representing them, but I and the other delegates were pleasantly surprised to see a few people sitting in for Canada. We were not sure who exactly they were, but in one of the plenary sessions there were two gentlemen and the other were three women (assume they are high level public servants). Overall it was an interesting first day for me who has never been to a UNFCCC conference in the past. I hope to see some concrete discussions take place over the next 11 days. Over and out! Julia Hawthornthwaite, IFLRY and YLC Climate Change Conference Delegate 2010
|
-
|
NOVEMBER 29, 2010
(linked from: http://ylcjlcclimate.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/day-1-united-nations-climate-change-conference-16-in-mexico)
Today is the first day of the 16th meeting of the Conference of Parties COP16. The United Nations has come a long way since COP1 which was held in Berlin in 1995. A look back at that first conference of parties allows us to see what targets we have made and kept and what targets we have fell short of and could use improving.
In order to understand COP1 and the foreground for all future climate change meetings including this one in Mexico, we need to go back a few years prior. In 1992 the United Nations held its first "Climate Change Conference". It was actually called "United Nations Conference and on the Environment and Development" better known as the Earth Summit. There were four main functions of this conference and they were
Systematic scrutiny of patterns of production - particularly the production of toxic components, such as lead in gasoline or poisonous waste including radioactive chemicals
Alternative sources of energy to replace the use of fossil fuels which are linked to global climate change
Increase reliance on public transportation in order to reduce vehicle emissions, congestion in cities and the health problems caused by polluted air and smog
The growing scarcity of water
The conference did not produce any concrete targets or legally binding measures however it was a great start. It raised the issue of climate change and its potential ramifications down the road if ignored. The conference laid the groundwork for the COP1 and the Kyoto Protocol which came later in 1997.
COP 1 main discussion points were that it voiced concerns about the adequacy of countries' abilities to meet commitments under the Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI).
There were many conferences in-between to both further other climate change issues such as deforestation, green house gas inventories, alternative energy as viable options, as well as another host of different environment related topics. The last conference that IFLRY attended was in Copenhagen Denmark in 2009. The result of the conference was the creation of the "Copenhagen Accord".
The 2009 Copenhagen Accord deals with the following
Endorses the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol
Underlines that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time and emphasis's a "strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities"
To prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, recognizes "the scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius", in a context of sustainable development to combat climate change.
Recognizes "the critical impacts of climate change and the potential impacts of response measures on countries particularly vulnerable to its adverse effects" and stresses "the need to establish a comprehensive adaptation program including international support"
Recognizes that "deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science and agrees cooperation in peaking (stopping from rising) global and national greenhouse gas emissions "as soon as possible" and that "a low-emission development strategy is indispensable to sustainable development"
States that "enhanced action and international cooperation on adaptation is urgently required to reduce vulnerability and build resilience in developing countries, especially in those that are particularly vulnerable, especially least developed countries, small island developing states and Africa" and agrees that "developed countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and capacity building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries"
About mitigation agrees that developed countries (Annex I Parties) would "commit to economy-wide emissions targets for 2020″ to be submitted by 31 January 2010 and agrees that these Parties to the Kyoto Protocol would strengthen their existing targets. Delivery of reductions and finance by developed countries will be measured, reported and verified (MRV) in accordance with COP guidelines.
Agrees that developing nations (non-Annex I Parties) would "implement mitigation actions" to slow growth in their carbon emissions, submitting these by 31 January 2010. LDS and SIDS may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of (international) support.
Agrees that developing countries would report those actions once every two years via the U.N. climate change secretariat, subjected to their domestic MRV. NAMAs seeking international support will be subject to international MRV
Recognizes "the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest degradation and the need to enhance removals of greenhouse gas emission by forests", and the need to establish a mechanism (including REDD) to enable the mobilization of financial resources from developed countries to help achieve this
Decides pursue opportunities to use markets to enhance the cost-effectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions.
Developing countries, specially these with low-emitting economies should be provided incentives to continue to develop on a low-emission pathway
States that "scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding as well as improved access shall be provided to developing countries... to enable and support enhanced action"
Agrees that developed countries would raise funds of $30 billion from 2010-2012 of new and additional resources
Agrees a "goal" for the world to raise $100 billion per year by 2020, from "a wide variety of sources", to help developing countries cut carbon emissions (mitigation). New multilateral funding for adaptation will be delivered, with a governance structure.
Establishes a Copenhagen Green Climate Fund, as an operating entity of the financial mechanism, "to support projects, program, policies and other activities in developing countries related to mitigation". To this end, creates a High Level Panel
Establishes a Technology Mechanism "to accelerate technology development and transfer...guided by a country-driven approach"
Calls for "an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015... This would include consideration of strengthening the long-term goal", for example to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees
So we can see that from the first Earth Summit in Rio De Janeiro to COP1 and last years COP15 that tremendous progress, knowledge of climate change and how to solve it have come forth.
This leads us to COP 16 and what we plan to do here in Mexico. The purpose of COP16 is to discuss future commitments for industrialized countries under the Kyoto Protocol and to find an effective and sustainable implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now, up to and beyond 2010, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at its fifteenth session in Copenhagen.
The Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012 and we are working to have a completely global protocol to replace it by then which listens to each voice and takes into consideration each countries individual issue. It takes a lot of work to have every country agree upon an effective way to deal with climate change. We are however very close and if not this year then before 2012 I have tremendous hope that we will be able to have every country sign to the most proactive and environmentally friendly international agreement ever seen which would put us on the right track towards a more environmentally friendly future.
Ryan Sullivan
IFLRY and YLC Climate Change Conference Delegate 2009,2010
|
-
Dear friends,
The IFLRY Climate Change Team is assembling a delegation for the upcoming United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP-16).
The conference will be taking place in Cancun, Mexico from November 29 to December 10, 2010
All IFLRY Member Organizations are eligible to nominate delegates for this conference. Latin American organizations that are not members of IFLRY are also permitted to nominate delegates but must provide a separate letter of intent and statement of values.
Nominations must be submitted by midnight UTC on September 24th to climatechange@iflry.org by an official representative (President, Secretary General or International Officer).
For further information, please consult the following documents: INVITATION LETTER NOMINATION FORM
We are looking forward to seeing you in Mexico.
Regards,
The IFLRY Climate Change Team
|
-
Maybe I’m being a little too cynical…I just don’t think that Brad Pitt is saving the world. Bill Gates on the other hand, is a different story. While a friend of a friend of mine has chosen to label Mr. Gates as a ‘socialist’ (yes that’s right a socialist…America’s richest man, and corporate icon in the most capitalistic way possible) for his new stance on a different way of looking at energy, I see that Gates might actually be on the cutting edge of a new way of viewing what environmentalists have talked about for years. In Gates’ most recent TED talk, entitled innovating to zero, the multimillionaire lays out energy and climate in a clear way through a simple balance equation: CO2=PxSxExC P: People S: Services E: Energy C: Carbon Dioxide/unit energy. He endeavors to help the poorest of the world live better lives, which is an honorable mission, however, one that doesn’t bode well for reducing emissions to stop what scientists call climate change. Naomi Klein talks about the concept of luxury emissions versus survival emissions, and the concept makes sense. In order to achieve Bill Gates’ goal of helping the poorest of the world live better lives, therefore, increasing ‘survival’ emissions, richer societies will have to reduce their ‘luxury emissions’. Perhaps this means less of using Hummers to get groceries, and maybe even more local food production. Now, Gates doesn’t touch on this in his talk. He unpacks an alternative when it comes to energy. By explaining his idea of how in order to stop climate change, one of the variables on the right side of the equation has to get to zero, he highlights the need for more energy with less planetary impact. This idea isn’t new, however, the technology and the mindset involved is. Environmentalists have talked for years about using the resources that are available on earth in abundance (Wind, Sun, Tides, Atoms etc). The difference in this new eco conscious view of alternative energy, is that it doesn’t encompass that whole touchy feely ‘lets-save-polar-bears-and-mother-earth’ type conversation on what powers our societies. Now it’s about the future of life as we know it, living comfortably and expanding a new and growing industry of alternative energy. Everyone’s got a different view on the ‘isms’ at play in societies and politics. Some people identify with socialism, others with liberalism, and here in the global north, even more with capitalism. So far, the attempts by youth to impact environmental policy by talking about the ‘future generations’ haven’t worked, neither have those talking about moral responsibility to preserve the land for the health of people today, so I’m thinking that maybe we should give this whole system of capitalism a try in regards to the current environmental crises the world is facing. Bill Gates just put a face on alternative energy (I’m not going into the debate on nuclear energy right now) and in doing so, opened up room for discussion on environment that is innately integrated with modern commerce. So if we talk about the ‘climate crisis’ maybe Gordon Campbell’s idea of carbon trading isn’t such a bad one, considering other attempts to influence governments about climate change haven’t worked. Maybe the use of market mechanisms can make the difference. At the end of the day, political leaders don’t seem to be doing a lot on the climate front (there are many exceptions) and COP 15 failed: perhaps free enterprise and our capitalistic society of businesses and corporations will be the ones leading what some call the ‘environmental revolution’ or simply what I see as a global shift towards technologies that are a little gentler on planet earth, and methods of governing that take into consideration the environment as an irreplaceable asset instead of recording it as negligible aspect of a profit and loss account . We’ll see what happens in the coming years. Yes, Bill Gates may in fact be the one who should be on the side of the billboard being credited with saving the world.
|
-
 This image was captured after IFLRY’s recent EC/GA in St. Petersburg. It shows the Neva River enveloped in smoke from nearby peat and forest fires. What we experienced in St. Petersburg was thankfully very minor in comparison to the smog that has blanketed Moscow since mid-July as a result of record-breaking temperatures. Several thousand of the city’s dwellers are believed to have died from heat and respiratory illnesses as a result of these weather conditions. The crisis is also estimated to have wiped out a third of Russia’s grain crops and caused $7-15 billion in economic losses.
Scientists are still studying the meteorological causes of this catastrophic heat wave. While no single weather event can be reliably attributed to climate change, there is a large body of scientific evidence to suggest that it increases heat waves’ occurrence and severity. In the last hundred years, the frequency of extremely hot days across Europe has nearly tripled. Heat waves’ length has also doubled.
Many are now wondering whether this experience will cause Russia’s government to make more aggressive efforts in combating climate change. If anything, Russia’s heat wave has dimmed prospects that northern countries will benefit from climate change thanks to longer growing seasons or fewer deaths from winter cold. Indeed, it has demonstrated the urgency of confronting climate change and the extent to which it qualifies as both an economic and human rights issue.
(Thanks to Ksenia from Yabloko Youth for this photo)
|
-
|
The IFLRY Climate Change Team is excited to launch this blog. We hope that it will serve as an interactive forum for sharing ideas and information on climate change. We will also use this space to keep you updated on our activities and to advertise your member organization’s climate change campaigns.
With COP-16 around the corner and extreme weather events causing havoc around the world, concerns over climate are re-emerging at the top of many governments’ agendas. It is essential that we mobilize as young liberals to ensure that this agenda is framed in a manner that reflects our principles and recognizes the importance of inter-generational responsibility.
We invite you to use this forum to discuss different approaches to climate change mitigation and to share information on climate change policies in your country and the progress of international climate change negotiations. We similarly want to hear about your experiences with the effects of climate change and upcoming activities as environmentally conscious young liberals.
Please send your blog posts, pictures, documents, and campaign advertisements to stephan@iflry.org or mateusz@iflry.org, and keep checking this page for updates.
Thank you on behalf of the IFLRY Climate Change Team.
|
|
|
|