I concur with Dale that geoengineering's stock is on the rise, and I think that the trend toward climate policymaking being made by a small faction of States is foreboding in this context because many of the potential side-effects of geoengineering proposals may be visited upon States outside of this decision-making framework. As Maria Ivanova said recently in Nature Geoscience, this could become the quintessential governance issue over the next few decades.
Incidentally, I'm planning to do an edited volume on geoengineering for Cambridge University Press and would like to invite members of the list interested in the topic to send me proposals for chapters. wil Dr. Wil Burns, Editor in Chief Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy 1702 Arlington Blvd. El Cerrito, CA 94530 USA Ph: 650.281.9126 Fax: 510.779.5361 [email protected] http://www.jiwlp.com SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348 Skype ID: Wil.Burns -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dale W Jamieson Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 6:59 AM To: Matthew Paterson Cc: Maria Ivanova; [email protected] Subject: Re: Copenhagen result i think it's misleading to view the outcome of copenhagen as having been produced by any single actor. this leads us away from a more complex analysis that takes seriously the domestic politics and international positions of all the key players, as well as the collective actions problems that are at the heart of this problelm. it also leads to exaggeration and caricature, perhaps bordering on demonization (e.g., "China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower," "China wrecked the Copenhagen deal"). as i said in an earlier post, i think the most interesting question is what happens next, and i do think that in the us, the fallout from copenhagen will be a big boost to geoengineering (esp now among environmentalists), whose stock has been rising anyway. ********************** Dale Jamieson Director of Environmental Studies Professor of Environmental Studies and Philosophy Affiliated Professor of Law Environmental Studies Program New York University 285 Mercer Street, 901 New York NY 10003-6653 Voice 212-998-5429 Fax 212-995-4157 http://philosophy.fas.nyu.edu/object/dalejamieson.html "Deliberate cruelty is not forgivable. It is the one unforgivable thing...--Blanche DuBois ----- Original Message ----- From: Matthew Paterson <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 8:48 pm Subject: Re: Copenhagen result To: Maria Ivanova <[email protected]>, [email protected] > A really interesting comment on china¹s strategy here: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change- > mark-lynas > > Supports Dan¹s interpretation earlier on in this thread and undermines > mine! > > Mat > > -- > Matthew Paterson > École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa > Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 > tel: +1 613 562-5800 x1716 > > Web site: > http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/pol/eng/profdetails.asp?ID=123 > And http://matpaterson.wordpress.com/ > Co-editor, Global Environmental Politics: > http://www.mitpressjournals.org/loi/glep > Latest books "Climate capitalism: global warming and the > transformation of > the global economy" (with Peter Newell) > http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=0521194857 > And "Cultural Political Economy" (edited, with Jacqueline Best) > http://www.routledgepolitics.com/books/Cultural-Political-Economy-isbn978041 > 5489324 > > > > > From: Maria Ivanova <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:31:38 -0500 > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Copenhagen result > > I also recommend Bill McKibben¹s analysis at > http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2225 > Maria > > > > > > > > > < Maria Ivanova, Ph.D. > > Fellow, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars > One Woodrow Wilson Plaza, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW > Washington, DC 20004 > Tel +1 202 691 4007 Cell +1 203 606 4640 > [email protected] < > > Director, Global Environmental Governance Project > Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy > [email protected] > < > http://www.environmentalgovernance.org > < > > Assistant Professor of Government and Environmental Policy > College of William and Mary > [email protected] < > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of CARLARNE, > CINNAMON > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:17 PM > To: Pam Chasek; VanDeveer, Stacy; Sebastian Oberthür; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: Copenhagen result > > I would also recommend David Doniger¹s assessment: > http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddoniger/the_copenhagen_accord_a_big_st.ht > ml > > Best, > Cinnamon > > > Cinnamon P Carlarne > Assistant Professor > School of Law & School of the Environment > University of South Carolina > 701 S. Main Street > Columbia, South Carolina 29208 > 803-777-3611 > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pam Chasek > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 4:52 PM > To: VanDeveer, Stacy; 'Sebastian Oberthür'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Copenhagen result > > For a different take on this, Stacy, look at http://blogs.nwf.org/nwf_view/ > and read the December 18th post. > > The ENB analysis of this will be ready later tonight. > > Pam > > > Pamela S. Chasek, Ph.D. > Executive Editor, Earth Negotiations Bulletin > IISD Reporting Services > > 300 East 56th Street #11A New York, NY 10022 USA > Tel: +1 212-888-2737- Fax: +1 646 219 0955 > E-mail: [email protected] > International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) > www.iisd.org > <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pam\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Inte > rnet%20Files\www.iisd.org> > IISD Reporting Services - Earth Negotiations Bulletin > www.iisd.ca > <file:///C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pam\Local%20Settings\Temporary%20Inte > rnet%20Files\www.iisd.ca> > Subscribe for free to our publications > http://www.iisd.ca/email/subscribe.htm > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of VanDeveer, > Stacy > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 4:30 PM > To: 'Sebastian Oberthür'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: Copenhagen result > > I have read much of this exchange with interest. > However, I am having trouble understanding some of the various contributors¹ > reluctance to simply say that the summit was a near total and complete > disaster: The outcome nearly totally meaningless with a complete lack > of > serious progress on even a single one of the major issues on the table > in > the years and months before the summit. I must say I was pessimistic > going > in, as were most people of course, but the near complete lack of progress > stuns even me. I thought we would at least be assessing how far major > states and groups of states had moved in the last days or hours. No. > I > think I assumed that, In other words, having a summit would at least force > the parties closer together and closer to some sort of set of goals > or > produce even one interesting idea in a mad panic to salvage something. > No. > In my view, this simply did not happen. It strikes me as the worst of > all > possible outcomes: total failure, but without a general media and public > knowledge that their leaders failed them completely. In fact (in my view), > the summit has dramatically lowered expectations of future climate change > cooperation in nearly every way. Where once major states at least aspired > rhetorically to a functioning global regime, even this goal is gone. > This > GEP-ED stream has confirmed this view, rather than moderated it, for me. > Things in the exchange noted as ³progress² are, well, stunningly > insubstantial. The world remains on an accelerating emissions track > and an > accelerating climate change trend. There is not a single decision > taken in > Copenhagen much less in the totally empty ³accord² that alters > this even > in the least. Not even one of the vague promises made even bends those > curves, much less reverses their direction at any point in the future. > > Occasionally on this list we have discussed the need to give our students > hope and positive examples other (allegedly) empowering optimistic > frames. I > wonder what the value is in suggesting, to 20 year olds in 2009, anything > besides the fact that their leaders have failed them in truly catastrophic > fashion. > > I would truly love for someone to convince me that the more dire and > negative assessment possible is the wrong one, but the coverage of the > summit and this GEP-ED exchange (to date) have not done so. > > --Stacy > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sebastian > Oberthür > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 3:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Copenhagen result > > Like Dan I somehow did not manage to get this to the list earlier - so, > sorry for lagging behind in the discussion with these comments: > > > > Two comments from somebody who just returned traumatised from CPH: > > > > 1. It is amazing how lack of knowledge about the Kyoto Protocol and its > implementation transpires even into political circles. President Obama > even > mentioned at his press briefing before leaving Copenhagen (commenting > on the > Copenhagen Accord that was still negotiated...) that many/most > countries did > not meet their Kyoto targets. As already pointed out, this is not true. > While the Kyoto commitment period 2008-2012 is still running, most Kyoto > Parties are on track or can still make it (Canada being the exception > - > unless they still decide to buy international offsets/hot air). > > > > 2. Whatever the pros of the contents of the Copenhagen Accord may be > (it is > incredibly weak, but may still represent progress in some areas), opponents > managed in the long final discussions in the COP plenary to strip it > off any > official status under the UNFCCC. Any guidelines to be elaborated do not > have a basis. The Accord states that they would be elaborated by the > COP - > but the COP as such refused to give status to the document. Also, it is > difficult to see how the Copenhagen Climate Fund could be > operationalised on > this basis. Etc., etc. So, the Accord very much hangs somewhere in > thin air. > It is completely uncertain what will happen to it. It was disgusting > to see > that even the countries who were participating in the small group who > negotiated the Accord and had invested their best efforts to make the > Accord > as weak as it is, slowly retreated from it in the COP plenary (especially > Saudi Arabia; but also China seemed to be far from giving full support). > > > > Perhaps the Accord will be rescued by political support next year - > for the > time being its future seems very much uncertain. > > > > Best, > > > > Sebastian > > > > On 21 Dec 2009, at 21:07, Marc Levy wrote: > > > For what it's worth, I posted some of my thoughts at this location: > > http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/blog/2009/12/21/the-welcome-end-of-unanimity/ > > (The title isn't mine -- an editor assigned it.) > > - Marc > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Hirsch, Leonard <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the weeks of reporting. > > > > One of the elements which this group, I think, should focus a bit > more on, is > > the US internal political angle. The President was quite clear, and > the > > Chinese President certainly heard, that he did not want a Kyoto-II result--ie, > > the international community agreeing to something the US Senate > would not > > agree to. > > > > Prior to Copenhagen it was quite clear to anyone who listened to the > US > > negotiators that there would not be a binding agreement until the US > knew what > > it could agree to. And it does not. There are too many competing > bills on > > Capitol Hill. When they come together, the successful rounds of negotations > > internationally will commence. If it is before Mexico City, there > could be > > something by then, most folks think it will be 2 years. > > > > Did the system fail--messier than we would like. But unreasonable > > expectations are just that--unreasonable and expectations. This > does not mean > > that it shouldn't be done--please do not attack the messenger--just > that the > > necessary pieces for an agreement that can stand the test of time > have not yet > > been fully articulated and developed. > > > > Watch for the development of carbon accounting methodologies and > proposals for > > verification (both remotely sensed with on-the-ground truthing). > This is > > where the major real fights will be, and probably many of the > solutions will > > come from. > > > > We need to remember that in 1992, carbon markets were developed so > that the > > developed world would not have to put lots of ODA forward. The > sizable (not > > sufficient) $/euro/yen put forward last week will have lots of strings, > > conditions, and funnels included. > > > > Yes it is x number of years since the seriousness of this issue was > beginning > > to be addressed (I first lectured about climate issues in 1978, look > at > > Holdren's 1980s article on No Regrets). We are in a particularly negative > > moment as corporations are fighting tooth and nail not to have to > change too > > much, being aided by over-zealous scientists and activists who have > played > > into the agnotological traps set for them, all leading to a confused > and wary > > public and thus an ever warier political establishment. > > > > As analysts, let's be clear. As teachers, this could be a teachable > moment > > about law, policy, aspirations, process, and inflection points. As citizens, > > we clearly have lots to do. And as scientists, we have to work > harder to be > > fact-based, wary of all assumptions--others and our own, and clear > about the > > scientific process. > > > > ========================================================== > > "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power > of our > > example than by the example of our power" (B. Clinton, 2008). > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Leonard P. Hirsch > > Smithsonian Institution > > > > New mailing address: > > 1100 Jefferson Drive SW #3123 > > PO Box 37012 > > Q-3123 MRC 705 > > Washington, DC 20013-7012 > > > > 1.202.633.4788 > > 1.202.312.2888 fax > > [email protected] > > ________________________________________ > > From: [email protected] > > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde > > [[email protected]] > > Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM > > To: Lorraine Elliott > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Copenhagen result > > > > Well put, Lorraine. I have exactly the same problem standing in front > > of my classes. And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu > > and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor > > people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says, > > what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how > > broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at > > least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform > > rather than in state-based solutions. And while I've been reluctant > > to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they > > may be right. But of course that does little or nothing to address > > the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world.... > > > > Just my 2 cents. > > > > Steve > > > > Stephen Van Holde > > Departments of Political Science and International Studies > > Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA > > [email protected] > > > > Quoting Lorraine Elliott <[email protected]>: > > > >> But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two > >> decades since the Toronto conference at which participating > >> governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to reduce emissions > >> by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a > >> decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC > >> assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've probably > >> killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to > >> the 'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in > >> the time that all this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen > >> is a good first step? Somehow I don't think my students will be > >> persuaded. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of people at > >> Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who worked > >> non-stop to try to retrieve something. I know a lot of those people. > >> But I've just been in Southeast Asia where the livelihoods (and in > >> some cases lives) of millions of people are under threat a result of > >> the impacts of climate change. I have students from Bangladesh and > >> the Pacific. Despite the rhetoric and spin coming from world > >> 'leaders', they want someone to stand in front of them and tell them > >> why their homes, their livelihoods are under threat and no-one is > >> doing much about it. I no longer have an answer for them. Sorry, bit > >> of a rant, but I feel pretty dispirited by the whole process at the > >> moment. > >> > >> Lorraine > >> > >> Original Message ----- > >> From: Daniel Bodansky <[email protected]> > >> Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm > >> Subject: Re: Copenhagen result > >> To: Heike Schroeder <[email protected]> > >> Cc: Daniel Bodansky <[email protected]>, > >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > >> > >>> But countries did move beyond position in significant ways. > >>> China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US > >>> agreed to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, > >>> plus personal commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was > >>> far from easy - people sweated blood to get it! > >>> > >>> __________________ > >>> Daniel Bodansky > >>> Associate Dean for Faculty Development > >>> Woodruff Professor of International Law > >>> School of Law > >>> University of Georgia > >>> Athens, GA 30602 > >>> Tel: 706-542-7052 > >>> > >>> On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well... > >>>> On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political > >>> framework was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 > >>> attendees (and some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. > >>> But given that 120 or so heads of state were coming to town > >>> (including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to > >>> publicly state (as he did at Forest Day) that heads of state > >>> don't come for failure. It nurtured a sense of optimism among > >>> attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese premier) and also EU reps > >>> would not come empty-handed but move beyond their positions in > >>> at least some way, either by more concrete pledging of finance > >>> or stronger unilateral targets. None of this happened, except > >>> the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the Accord. To > >>> me, this is where the disappointment lies. > >>>> Best, Heike > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dr. Heike Schroeder > >>>> Tyndall Senior Research Fellow > >>>> Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research > >>>> James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow > >>>> Environmental Change Institute > >>>> University of Oxford > >>>> South Parks Road > >>>> Oxford OX1 3QY > >>>> > >>>> Tel: 01865 275894 > >>>> Fax: 01865 275850 > >>>> ________________________________________ > >>>> From: [email protected] [owner-gep- > >>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky > >>> [[email protected]]>Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result > >>>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> I sent the message below last night from an email account not > >>> registered with GEPED, so it bounced. It doesn't take > >>> account of the subsequent discussion from others. For > >>> those who are interested, I've been blogging about the > >>> Copenhagen meeting on the international law blog, > >>> opiniojuris.org. I plan to post some preliminary thoughts > >>> on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday. > >>>> > >>>> Dan > >>>> > >>>> Earlier email message: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat, > >>>> > >>>> Just wanted to chime in with a few points: > >>>> > >>>> First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email: > >>>> > >>>> -- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP > >>> decision, it was agreed by 20+ countries. Saudi Arabia > >>> didn't oppose the Accord, only its adoption as a COP > >>> decision. (Sudan was also among the countries that agreed > >>> to the Accord, although don't count on it to associate itself > >>> with the Accord formally.) The Accord was reportedly > >>> endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP plenary > >>> the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group supported > >>> its adoption as a COP decision. > >>>> > >>>> -- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to > >>> negotiate a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico > >>> City (along with the EU, AOSIS and others). The proposal > >>> was killed by China and India. > >>>> > >>>> -- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about > >>> adoption of a KP second commitment period amendment reflects the > >>> view of the G-77 generally. > >>>> > >>>> With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses: > >>>> > >>>> 1. I agree with Wil on this point. Pretty much > >>> everybody had given up on a legal agreement in Copenhagen by the > >>> end of the Barcelona meeting in November, and many had seen the > >>> writing on the wall much earlier. I have to strongly > >>> disagree with Mat's view that the Copenhagen Accord was > >>> easy. Given the total opposition by China (and to a lesser > >>> degree India) to any form of listing of their intensity target > >>> or any form of international review, getting agreement on the > >>> Copenhagen Accord was a huge stretch -- so if one regards the > >>> Accord as a pretty modest outcome, just imagine what getting a > >>> legal agreement will be like!! > >>>> > >>>> 2. Generally agree with Wil on this too, although I agree > >>> with Mat that the legal nature of the KP has been significant. > >>>> > >>>> 3. Nothing to add here. > >>>> > >>>> 4. The Copenhagen Accord may well be the high water > >>> mark for climate agreements anytime soon, so let's hope it > >>> proves to be significant!! > >>>> > >>>> Finally a few additional comments: > >>>> > >>>> -- The Copenhagen meeting proves the utter dysfunctionality of > >>> the UNFCCC process. The final night, a handful of > >>> essentially rogue states, led by Sudan, blocked a COP decision > >>> adopting a political agreement by the Heads of State/Government > >>> of all of the major world powers. > >>>> > >>>> -- The Copenhagen meeting also revealed the complete breakdown > >>> of the G-77 as a negotiating group. In the closing > >>> plenary, some developing countries openly criticized their G-77 > >>> "brethren" (read China) for preventing inclusion of more > >>> ambitious emission reduction numbers in the Copenhagen Accord. > >>>> > >>>> Best Dan > >>>> > >> > >> Dr Lorraine Elliott > >> Senior Fellow in International Relations > >> Department of International Relations > >> Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies > >> College of Asia and the Pacific > >> The Australian National University > >> Canberra, ACT 0200 > >> AUSTRALIA > >> > >> e: [email protected] > >> t: +61 2 61250589 > >> f: +61 2 61258010 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Prof. Dr. Sebastian Oberthür > > Academic Director > > Institute for European Studies > > Vrije Universiteit Brussel > > > > OFFICE: MAIL: > > Pleinlaan 15 Pleinlaan 2 > > 1050 Brussels 1050 Brussels > > T: +32-2-6291805 > > Mobile: +32-477-841654 > > F: +32-2-6291809 > > Email: [email protected] > > WWW: www.ies.be < > > > > > >
