This post originally appeared on ChinaFAQs.
By Angel Hsu, Max Song, and Jonathan Smith
Interview with China energy expert Jiang Kejun, Energy Research Institute, NDRC
As the first week of the UN climate negotiations in Durban are underway, one of the most persistent themes has been how to bridge gaps – the divide between the developed and developing countries, many of whom disagree about whether the Kyoto Protocol should be extended into a second commitment period; the hole in climate finance pledges from developed countries; and the ambition or emissions gap between the Copenhagen pledges and the stabilization of global temperatures below a 2 degrees Celsius increase from pre-industrial levels.
These three major gaps must be addressed in Durban. One major question
We’ve launched a website to make our game Humans vs Mosquitoes more widely available! The game was developed in Fall 2011 by a team of graduate students and faculty at Yale University and Parsons The New School for Design for the Red Cross Red Crescent to use in the field to educate children about dengue risk factors and climate change. This game showcases innovative teaching tools in the field. Playing the game will allow children and policy makers alike to understand and engage on an emotional level with complex and abstract concepts of climate change and dengue transmission. The game was played in Durban and was focused on dengue but we are hoping to expand the game beyond Durban to include other vector-borne diseases like malaria and yellow-fever…
At the CIFOR (Center for international Forestry Research) Forest day 5 ysterday, Tony La Vinã who facilitates the REDD+(Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) negotiations in the LCA (Long-term Cooperative Action) track gave updates on the state of the negotiations. He pointed out that there is developing a new breed of negotiators who believe in full transparency and participation of stakeholders in negotiations this is reflected in the SBSTA(Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) text agreed on December 4 2011.
On negotiations at the COP concerning REDD+ are the 3 pillars of REDD+, which are:
- MRV (Monitoring Reporting and Verification) systems, National reference levels and emission levels and a good technical bases for assessing national performances
- Robust systems of safeguards and informing each other on how we
We all procrastinate, not just students, which means that a deadline can have powerful impact. This fact is true in the climate change negotiations. Much of the detailed text for the negotiations needed to be completed last week for the discussion in the plenary meetings that are happening this week.
Starting with meetings on Monday, discussions on REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and land Degradation) were opened. The chair introduced some potential draft text and negotiations took off from there. Moving slowly countries shared their objections and desired changes. Everything in these processes takes time and has to be seen as inclusive and consensus-driven (or very close to it). If you’ve ever tried to edit text in a big group, you will know how challenging this process is. Add in the fact that countries are looking for precision in the ambiguity of text to match their national positions. These are discussions where ‘a’ vs. ‘the’ matters. For those of us new to the negotiations, this arguing over details can be frustrating to say the least. I realized, however, that they are designing and developing the rules and organization of entire programs – details matter.
In South Africa, amazingly big and colorful birds that would be captured and looked after in the zoo are flying in the open, standing on the roof and singing in the morning; monkeys are chasing each other right outside the fence of our hotel; there also lies a Karaoke. This genius Japanese invention serves to warm up our night after a long day in the ICC. It is also probably the closest thing to Japan here. No doubt why some people don’t regard Durban a right place for an eternal settling down of Kyoto Protocol.
It all started with a bean…
The Red Cross team (Kanchan Shrestha, Vanessa Lamers, Sophia Colantonio and Lauren Graham) in International Organizations & Conferences has been working with Pablo Suarez of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre this semester. A scientist by training, he has been using games to communicate messages about climate change in a fun, interactive and informative way. They have been geared towards decision makers and other high-level officials who need to grasp the complexity of the climate challenges they need to address, but often lack first-hand experience to understand the nuances of the problem. He designs his games to require as few props as possible so that they are not cost-prohibitive to play. He often uses beans.
Following up on my previous post, here’s some more about diplomat-speak.
What language to speak
Like the United Nations, COP17 participants may speak in plenary meetings (where the most are in attendance and the least gets done) in six official languages: Arabic, Mandarin Chinese, Russian, English, Spanish, and French. Headsets are made available to let delegates tune in to whichever one they please. In theory, a delegate could speak in another language, but would be required to provide for interpretation.
Some country delegations nearly always speak in their own language, while others only rarely, depending on a wide…
Since 1990, Latvia has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by almost 60%. However, among the many successes of different sectors in Latvia in becoming more energy efficient, transportation was left behind. In Latvia and throughout the world, car ownership has been consistently growing, and with it fuel consumption and ghg emissions. As the world is becoming rapidly and dominantly urbanized, sustainable transport solutions are in dire need if we want to reduce CO2 emissions, as well as other airborne pollutants. Reaction to concern over this sector came in the form of many side events by the international transport community at COP17. In an attempt to discover the latest in the field, I took upon myself to be what one of the speakers defined in a panel “that Yale student who comes to all the transportation events”. I try.
Time and timing is an ever-present actor in the climate negotiations. Should we discuss a long term cooperative agreement before we know what happens with Kyoto? How can we discuss Kyoto without knowing whether all member states are on board with a legally binding long term agreement? Should we reach an agreement by 2015 in order to have a chance to peak emissions by 2020 and thus avoid a two degrees warming (according to a recent UNEP report), or should we wait with any new regime until 2020 and concentrate on implementing what has been achieved in Cancun? And most importantly – how can we finish discussing this text in the hour and a half that was allocated to our working group by the secretariat?