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
lhir...@si.edu
From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu
[owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Holde
[vanho...@kenyon.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 12:16 PM
To: Lorraine Elliott
Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu
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
vanho...@kenyon.edu
Quoting Lorraine Elliott :
> 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 w
