What’s the difference between an agreement, a deal and an accord?

An agreement implied that everyone is happy with the outcome, as in: “Are we all in agreement? Yes? Good!”

A deal is generally something that not everyone is necessarily happy with, but it’s the best optimum solution to satisfy an objective, as in: “OK, here’s the deal…”

An accord is neither an agreement, nor a deal, but an acknowledgement, for example: “OK, so we all acknowledge that we’re all unhappy about this proposal, but we’re in accord that it’ll do for now, because we don’t have to agree, or sign anything.”

After two years of negotiations to try and find a new treaty to replace Kyoto – 192 countries, 120 heads of state; plus however many lawyers, officials, climate change experts and the rest – have failed to reach an agreement, couldn’t reach a deal, and instead have settled on an accord.

But while this may have delivered some degree of self-satisfaction to most of those involved in the UN climate change theatre in Copenhagen, the post-performance reviews have been far from favourable.

The main criticisms are that the accord is full of holes, almost inevitable when you patch up something hastily at the last minute. There is no agreement to keep the rise in global temperatures below 2C – which was a main aim of the conference. There are, in fact, no legally binding agreements whatsoever, but at least that made it safe to be in accord about anything, for example that a 2C rise should be probably be recognised as the critical threshold for any kind of climate stability. Crucially, not one nation is forced to make specific cuts.

An accord isn’t an agreement, so you don’t need to overcomplicate things and get everyone involved. Such as a section of the G77 block who were told by President Obama that an accord had been reached – as he announced it on TV.

It’s difficult to be enthusiastic about any small positives that might happen as a result of this summit. There were promises of financial aid – $billions to help developing countries. China did agree to set emissions targets for the first time – even if they will inevitably be totally inadequate (and remember this is an accord, so there’s no legally-binding agreement). But in the end, the accord was reached to do nothing more than prevent Copenhagen being called a shambles and a failure – oops! Even that didn’t work. Other comments to emerge over the weekend, including: ‘Brokenhagen’, ‘disaster’, ‘anger’, ‘condemned’, ‘disgusting’, ‘a suicide-pact for Africa’. The scale of the failure of COP15 should not be underestimated. Success was imperative, not optional.

Shakespeare wrote a line for Marcellus in Hamlet: “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” – spoken after he’d just seen a ghost. You can’t help wondering whether we’re now staring into the faces of ghosts. The consequences of the failure of COP15 in Copenhagen will undoubtedly hang around to haunt our future.

Johann Hari explains some of the loopholes in the proposed Copenhagen treaty.

We’ve finally reached the last day of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, and so far no agreement has been reached. The latest proposal is unlikely to see a drop in the rise of global temperatures below 3C. Despite the general target for most of the developed countries being 2C, and the poorer countries 1.5C, and fears that a 3C limit won’t really make the necessary difference. There has been much talk today of last minute deals, and hastily-arranged meetings, even ‘fresh momentum’ when President Obama arrives later.

But why put so much effort into the last 24 hours? Everybody involved in the Copenhagen summit talks will be seasoned conference negotiators. There are senior representatives from just about every country present, all of whom would have known what was on the table even before the conference began. Surely the amount of effort being put in during this last day should have been invested into every day of the conference?
 

Today sees the final sprint to the finishing line to secure a deal. But it’s more a case now of saving face, rather than saving the planet. Which is why there are fears that any agreement will do in order to declare the conference a success.
 

But this isn’t about the success of the conference. It’s about global warming, emissions, deforestation, drought, floods, homelessness, displacement, global security, life and death.
 

The rumoured option is to call it quits for this year, and pick it all up again in Mexico in 2010. The reasoning being that it’s better to have a good deal then, rather than a bad deal now. But, as discussed in an earlier blog, these aren’t simply a random collection of international officials involved in abstract discussions. They are our representatives negotiating on behalf of all of us. They are making decisions that will affect our lives and environment, and even if not ours, then our children’s. So is it good enough that they can’t reach an agreement? Is it right that they should take a breather until next year, then pick it all up again?
 

You have to ask what good a deferral will do anyway: If a deal can’t be agreed in Copenhagen, then why should we presume that Mexico will be any different. And if an agreement can be reached in Mexico, why can’t that same deal be done now?
 

How about another option: The great and the good at Copenhagen have chosen, or been chosen, to work on our behalf and come up with a solution that will ensure the best possible future for our planet. So why not make them all stay where they are until they’ve done exactly that, regardless of whether it takes another day, another month or more. After all, what else could they have to do that’s more important?
 

Al Gore and Gordon Brown are among those to suggest that if the right deal can’t be reached in Copenhagen, then COP16 in Mexico should be brought forward to summer 2010. But what do the Debatewise Global Youth Panel think? Here you have young people, many from the world’s poorest countries, who are likely to be most affected by the outcomes of Copenhagen. We asked them ‘ Is bringing forward COP16 in Mexico is a better option than a poor deal?’ So far in this ongoing debate, 70% think it isn’t a better option, with comments including: “We need some action now… better to deal with it and make a start today than leave it for later. We can always use COP16 and later conferences to review if required. If a deal somehow happens, I hope it allows for some flexibility as we learn more.”
 

Throughout the UN climate change summit, everyone on the Debatewise Global Youth Panel has remained balanced, open-minded, considerate, concerned and intelligent – perfect qualities for negotiators if there is a COP16 in Mexico.

The Global Youth Panel.

We’ve finally reached the last day of the climate change conference in Copenhagen, and so far no agreement has been reached. The latest proposal is unlikely to see a drop in the rise of global temperatures below 3C. Despite the general target for most of the developed countries being 2C, and the poorer countries 1.5C, and fears that a 3C limit won’t really make the necessary difference. There has been much talk today of last minute deals, and hastily-arranged meetings, even ‘fresh momentum’ when President Obama arrives later.

But why put so much effort into the last 24 hours? Everybody involved in the Copenhagen summit talks will be seasoned conference negotiators. There are senior representatives from just about every country present, all of whom would have known what was on the table even before the conference began. Surely the amount of effort being put in during this last day should have been invested into every day of the conference?

Today sees the final sprint to the finishing line to secure a deal. But it’s more a case now of saving face, rather than saving the planet. Which is why there are fears that any agreement will do in order to declare the conference a success.

But this isn’t about the success of the conference. It’s about global warming, emissions, deforestation, drought, floods, homelessness, displacement, global security, life and death.

The rumoured option is to call it quits for this year, and pick it all up again in Mexico in 2010. The reasoning being that it’s better to
have a good deal then, rather than a bad deal now. But, as discussed in an earlier blog, these aren’t simply a random collection of international officials involved in abstract discussions. They are our representatives negotiating on behalf of all of us. They are making decisions that will affect our lives and environment, and even if not ours, then our children’s. So is it good enough that they can’t reach an agreement? Is it right that they should take a breather until next year, then pick it all up again?

You have to ask what good a deferral will do anyway: If a deal can’t be agreed in Copenhagen, then why should we presume that Mexico will be any different. And if an agreement can be reached in Mexico, why can’t that same deal be done now?

How about another option: The great and the good at Copenhagen have chosen, or been chosen, to work on our behalf and come up with a solution that will ensure the best possible future for our planet. So why not make them all stay where they are until they’ve done exactly that, regardless of whether it takes another day, another month or more. After all, what else could they have to do that’s more important?

Al Gore and Gordon Brown are among those to suggest that if the right deal can’t be reached in Copenhagen, then COP16 in Mexico should be brought forward to summer 2010. But what do the Debatewise Global Youth Panel think? Here you have young people, many from the world’s poorest countries, who are likely to be most affected by the outcomes of Copenhagen. We asked them ‘ Is bringing forward COP16 in Mexico is a better option than a poor deal?’ So far in this ongoing debate, 70% think it isn’t a better option, with comments including: “We need some action now… better to deal with it and make a start today than leave it for later. We can always use COP16 and later conferences to review if required. If a deal somehow happens, I hope it allows for some flexibility as we learn more.”

Throughout the UN climate change summit, everyone on the Debatewise Global Youth Panel has remained balanced, open-minded, considerate, concerned and intelligent – perfect qualities for negotiators if there is a COP16 in Mexico.

The Global Youth Panel.

Maybe it’s because it’s the pantomime season, but the Copenhagen climate change conference is sliding slowly towards farce. The rich countries, major developing countries and the small island states can’t agree on who should cut emissions, how deep those cuts should be, and how much aid should go where – which just about sums up the whole basis of the agreement.

This is despite efforts including Gordon Brown arriving at the summit days earlier than planned to try and sort things out, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying the US was prepared to work with other countries towards mobilising $100bn a year to help meet the needs of developing countries.

Japan has already promised poorer nations $10.6bn over three years, while and a six-member group, of Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK and US will also commit $3.5bn over the same period to combat deforestation. Most of the proposed funding is dependent upon an agreement being signed at Copenhagen. However China has said that, even though it remains committed to negotiations, it sees no possibility of a detailed agreement to tackle global warming coming out of Copenhagen.

The problems seem to be not just about the money and a 2C, 1.5C or even 1C limit, but the fact that the talks have descended into a labyrinth of talks about the talks, rather than about the agreement itself – a point raised by Ed Miliband, the UK Energy and Climate Change Secretary. After more than 12 meetings in 24 hours – and after waiting more than 20 hours for one group of nations to assemble – he voiced his frustration that the main problems were over ‘procedural wrangling’: “It would be a tragedy if we failed to agree because of the substance but it would be a farce if we failed to agree because of the process”, he said. The final two days of the conference should be the part where the agreement is nailed down by heads of state and government.

Some 130 world leaders are due to join the talks today, hoping to sign the climate change agreement tomorrow, when President Obama arrives also. In answer to rumours that he might not attend, Hillary Clinton said: “The President is coming tomorrow. Obviously we hope there will be something to come for”. A non-result would be a major embarrassment for all kinds of reasons. Not the least of which is because of the subject of this conference.

It would mean that all the extra energy and CO2 generated by the hundreds of flights to and from the conference, all the commuting, heating the conference and hotels, the food and other consumables, not to mention the amount of waste produced and the paper used – was all generated for nothing more than a load of hot air.

So what do our Debatewise Global Youth Panel debaters think? When it started to become clear that there was a very real threat of the target of the summit not being reached, we posted the debate: ‘Can leaders manage a deal in the last two days?’ And, even after almost two weeks of observing the climate change conference, so far the majority of our GYP (64%) remain optimistic that a deal will be done, against 27% who think it won’t. The last word should then go to one of our ‘Yes’ debaters: “I still have hope, and it’s the hope that will make me go on and keep hoping for a fair climate agreement”.

Global Youth Panel.

Anybody who thought the Copenhagen climate talks would be boring could not be further from wrong. If you could wash CO2 out of the atmosphere – there’s probably enough soap in Copenhagen to do it.

Among the latest twists of drama was the resignation of Connie Hedergaard, the president of the UN climate change conference. Her replacement is the Danish prime minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen. There have also been more arrests today (16 December), 230 to add to the 1000 arrested over the weekend. Today’s arrests were mainly at demonstrations held about the exclusion of NGOs from the conference centre.

Friends of the Earth international, Avaaz, and TckTckTck were among mainstream environmental groups refused entry this morning. No formal explanation was given by conference officials. Further demonstrations are planned for later today to help push the urgency of the need to reach an agreement that will make a difference.

All the NGOs expressed deep concern that by being excluded, the conference was excluding the voices of civil society. Friends of the Earth were offered 12 places later in the day, but declined them.

Throughout the conference, the G77/G8 temperature debate has been about the difference between a 2C or 1.5C rise in global temperatures. Neither of these is acceptable to Bolivian President Evo Morales, who today called for the hold on temperature increases over the next century to be just 1C. He also proposed an international climate court of justice to prosecute countries for climate ‘crimes’.

As if that wasn’t enough for one day – there were side-shows too. US senator John Kerry announced in a side event that the US was prepared to act if an agreement was signed at Copenhagen, but it would not sign an agreement, or pass a climate change deal in Congress unless China and other developing countries meet its demands for accountability on their emissions cuts. This has increased the chance of a US – China showdown over the next couple of days. While in a back-room, British officials were trying to persuade the US to offer high cuts in emissions – when Barack Obama arrives on Friday, even though they admit they don’t stand much of a chance.

Of course no drama would be complete without a knight in shining armour or two. In Copenhagen Street Gordon Brown is one of several informally-appointed ‘lead negotiators’. Since landing in earlier this week he’s been galloping from meeting to meeting, talking to leaders and representatives from Europe, America, China, India, Africa and other developing countries. There’s even a meeting scheduled with Al Gore this evening. It seems like the only person missing is Simon Cowell.

In our blog on Monday (14 December), we asked whether it was worth speculating on whether it is wrong for the entire focus of the conference on reaching a fixed agreement: “What’s the better outcome: the signing of a 1.5C or 2C agreement? Or for each and every country to do what we all need to do: make a genuine commitment to – first of all acknowledging there is an issue of global warming, and secondly doing everything possible to cure it as quickly as possible”.

South Korea is the first developing nation to agree to an absolute reduction in its emissions rather than a reduction based upon the business as usual level which most are thinking about. We posted a topic today to debate: “More industrialised countries should follow South Korea’s lead’. It’s early days yet of course, but so far it’s the only debate that has attracted a unanimous 100% vote: ‘Yes’.

The Global Youth Panel.

The second week of the UN climate change summit kicked off on Monday in more ways than one. With only a few days to go until the end of the conference, the African group, supported by other developing nations stalled talks for five-hours. They were afraid that attempts were being made to kill off the Kyoto Protocol, alongside suggestions that the Danish hosts are biased towards advancing the interests of the developed countries. Many of this group – the G77-China bloc, are countries most vulnerable to climate change.

Talks only resumed when they were split into two, as the G77 group demanded. But five hours is a long time in the highly pressurised arena of this summit, so there are also now worries about the speed of negotiations, and the hopes of reaching any kind of conclusion as leaders start to fly in from around the world.

There is also criticism of the fact that these talks will create more carbon emissions than any previous climate conference: an estimated 46,200 tonnes of CO2 – 40,500 of this from flights by delegates, observers, journalists and activists (Reuters). This is the same amount produced each year by 2,300 Americans (2006 figures), or 660,000 Ethiopians.

The popularity of the conference – about 18,000 visitors per day – has meant that temporary building have had to be put up. These are not well insulated and are being heated by oil heaters. Most of the energy used at the conference is generated by coal-fired power stations. It does make you wonder whether December in a cold climate is the best time and place for a conference on climate change and global warming.

As you can see, there is no shortage of material to debate. ‘Africa was right to walk out over fears the rich won’t renew Kyoto’ was started late on Monday evening and: ‘Delegates and leaders show their disregard for the issue of limiting emissions – by arriving by plane’, kicked-off at midday on Monday.

These two debates are still ongoing at the time of writing, however on the Africa walkout votes are currently split evenly – 35% each for ‘Yes’ and ‘No’. On the travelling by plane topic, most of our debaters don’t think that delegates and leaders have shown a disregard for limiting emissions – so far 78% have voted ‘No’, and 18% have voted ‘Yes’.

Comments in the travelling by plane debate include: Yes – “Many nations are sending large amounts of delegates. Australia for example is sending 95 delegates, Australian delegates undoubtedly need to fly to get to Copenhagen but does it really need all of them? could they not have a few negotiators - say 10 and then have most things handled back in Australia?” While on the ‘No’ side: “Delegates from Asia, Africa, Oceana and the Americas can't be expected to find greener means of travelling, they have come too far for there to be other realistic options. For a big meeting such as this there is no way they could be connected in by videolink and still keep abreast of all developments that affect their delegation”.

The question of why technology can’t play more of a part in the climate change summits must have crossed the minds of many of us. It’s something that must happen eventually – if not for the entire summit, then for the largest part of the initial period of negotiations. Who knows – in a couple of years we might even see them happening on Google Wave.

The Global Youth Panel

If there’s one thing that’s clear about the UN Climate Change Summit, it’s that nothing is clear. As 110 heads of state start packing their bags ready to travel to Copenhagen for the last 24 hours of negotiations at the end of the week, there is the customary split between rich and poor countries.

The proposed agreement aims to set the limit of global temperature rise to 2C, and set the amount of money pledged to help poorer countries adapt to climate change. But many countries don’t want to be pressurised into signing an agreement by the end of the week deadline.

It’s worth speculating on whether a target is wrong. Not the proposed temperature target. Nor the target of billions to spend on adaptation. But the entire focus of the conference on reaching a fixed agreement.

The facts about climate change and global warming are hard to pin down. We know the planet is getting warmer, and it’s fairly clear that human interference has played some part in that. We also know that many parts of the world will suffer catastrophically. But the nature of the problem (and because it’s a problem with nature) means it’s impossible to state precisely by how much temperatures will rise over a given period, what exactly the sources of that temperature rise are, and where, when and how large those catastrophes will be.

If we did have this information as unequivocal scientific fact, then undoubtedly the UN summit would have been a completely different conference. The firmer the facts, the less room there is for disagreement.

The absence of concrete facts means that everything is open to interpretation – which can be shaped in some way to suit just about any agenda. That’s what’s been happened in Copenhagen over the past week, and that’s what will continue to happen this week. The G77 countries want a 2C limit; the AoSIS is pushing for 1.5C, and some African countries are indicating they might refuse to take part because they don’t want to be pushed into a deal they believe won’t help them. And then there’s the scale of financial help to consider – how much, who pays, and where it goes. The aim is to try and negotiate an agreement that satisfies all of these agendas without any party feeling as if it’s been over-compromised.

But is it necessarily a bad thing if an agreement is not signed? Will the summit have been a failure? Or will it be a failure if an agreement is signed?

The other issue to consider is that of responsibility. The fact that there are representatives of so many countries taking part in talks in Copenhagen runs the risk of distancing the responsibility of the climate problem from each of us. It’s all-too-easy to think that because it’s a global problem it’s a national problem – one our governments should be solving for us. All too easy to wait until advice is issued, or legislation is passed, before any of us takes action minimise our use of energy and resources. It’s easy to blame multinational industries and specific countries for warming the planet, but who buys the things they manufacture? Who uses the energy they produce? Is the solution to global warming and climate change the responsibility of our governments, or each of us as individuals?

Is there any reasons why the UN summit should be any different. What’s the better outcome: the signing of a 1.5C or 2C agreement? Or for each and every country to do what we all need to do: make a genuine commitment to – first of all acknowledging there is an issue of global warming, and secondly doing everything possible to cure it as quickly as possible.

Ideally it shouldn’t matter whether an agreement is reached between countries or not in Copenhagen. A ‘country’ is not an abstract concept, it is a place populated by people. Isn’t this one of those very rare occasions when we all have the power to make a difference?

We’ve been using Google Wave as our debating environment. This is an open source package that’s free to use for anyone with access to a computer connected to the Internet. We have more than 1000 young people from more than 100 countries signed up to use it to debate climate change. Many are from the world’s poorest countries, some have come from circumstances it’s difficult to imagine surviving in. Twenty years ago there is no way many of these voices could, or would have been heard.

It is all too easy to take the Internet, and tools such as social networking for granted, and forget how amazing it is and what a social revolution it has created. For example – through our GYP debates, people are gaining first-hand accounts about exactly what climate change means to named individuals around the world. Ultimately, this kind of technology could by more effective in driving home the message about reducing global warming that any decision reached in Copenhagen.

All the Global Youth Panel debates are here.

On Friday an EU summit in Brussels pledged to raise €2.4bn from January to help the world’s poor countries cope with rising seas floods and famine. This is part of an estimated annual €7bn package from industrialised nations around the world. On 4 December, it was announced that public sector support for the UK bank bailout was £850bn (€945bn).

It’s impossible to calculate the financial cost of dealing with climate change – both to control global warming, and to pay for the effects of catastrophes – because nobody knows for sure to what extent the temperature will rise and over what period. Predicted outcomes vary from inconvenient to apocalyptic depending on how high the thermometer climbs. However, it’s estimated that averting catastrophe could cost as little as 1% of global output – as long as that amount is invested in well designed policies. The cost of saving the world’s banks was 5% of global output.

The topic: ‘Is the EU contributing its “fair share” to combating climate change?’ was introduced on Friday into our GYP climate change debates. The debate is still ongoing at the time of writing, but views being posted, include: ‘…the EU countries are doing much more than any other nation’, and: ‘No matter how much the EU agrees to contribute, some will always claim that it is not enough’.

Many people raise the point that it’s not simply a question of how much money is contributed, but what nations also do themselves to combat climate change, such as pledging to cut CO2 emissions and tackling deforestation. Current results are Yes: 62%; No: 23%; Maybe: 15%

The day’s other hot topic was: ‘Climate change is a security issue’ – introduced following President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech in Oslo, during which he said:


Climate change as a security problem is slowly gaining political ground. In our own debate more than 68% agree that it is a problem. If the US truly believes that it is, then it remains to be seen whether it will shift its position from investing heavily in combating the effects – the security issue, to investing heavily in solving the cause – the climate issue.

Of course there is the vague, intensely-remote chance, that one-day somebody in a dusty corner of the White House or Whitehall might link climate change to the banking crisis – then we’ll see how quickly the problem gets solved, and how much money gets thrown at it…

More than 1,400 journalists currently report from the Bella Center to the whole world from what is the biggest temporary media set-up ever in Denmark. Next week activity will skyrocket, when all of the approximately 3500 journalists accredited to the conference are expected to be on the spot, reporting round the clock. Danish TV2|Denmark A/S is contracted as host broadcaster to provide the entire media set-up. This includes a total of 54 cameras, 300 kilometers of cables and 160 temporary cubicles for media to work from. In addition to this there are 2400 microphones and 2000 spotlights at the Bella Center. Video from the Danish government.

The problem with climate change, is that it only affects those it affects. This is not as cryptic as it sounds. For many of us who go about our lives in the so-called ‘developed’ world, climate change is too often a distant issue. So – the earth is a couple of degrees warmer. So – the summers/winters are a bit wetter/dryer. So – there’s the odd flood here and there. That’s just the weather isn’t it?

In a way, it is. But weather’s what you get – as in here and now; and climate is what you expect – in the sense of the state of the climate system. And many of us are too comfortable for the effects of climate change to really hit home. But at some point for many of us, it is our homes that will be hit. It’s only when that comfort has been taken away, and we realise that we can expect the same thing to happen year after year, that the difference between weather and climate gets fully appreciated. But that could be next week, next year, or in five or ten years time. So we change our lightbulbs, don’t leave the TV on standby, recycle our wine bottles, maybe think about buying a hybrid car…

Many people around the world don’t have the luxuries of time and space – in places such as Bangladesh, Tuvalu and the Maldives. For them climate change is a here and now issue.

It’s all-too-easy to condemn the power of the developed nations over the developing – G77 v AOSIS, but looking deeper into the each of their issues reveals the essence of this UN Summit – two sides driven by almost equal intensity, but with very different motivations.

Most of our climate change debaters live in developing countries, so you might expect them to take any opportunity to knock the G77. If you do, you’d be wrong. As the first week of Global Youth Panel Climate Change debating slips into a weekend of debating, browsing back through our week online reveals balanced views, intelligent comments, and genuine understandings of all sides of global politics and economy; as well as a realisation that deals have to be made and why.

A good example of this was our Bangladesh topic: ‘Bangladesh should get at least 15% of any climate fund’. We pitched our Bangladesh group against the rest of the world on this issue. Almost 60% disagreed, almost 27% agreed, the rest were undecided.

While the Bangladesh group may not have won the debate, they did gain the opportunity to passionately voice their predicament, for example:


While on the ‘Against’ side:

You have to admire the sense of balance delivered by many of our debaters. How many of us would maintain a sense of reason if we found
ourselves and our families, one morning, up to our knees in water, with no home, no work to go to, no food and nowhere to go. And if we lived under the threat of this happening tomorrow, what what we do about it today?

All the debates

What strikes me about the voting results so far is just how optimistic our panel is. Over 60% still think the conference will be a success, almost 60% believe the G77 split can be papered over and a whopping 75% think the EPA’s ruling allows the USA to be more ambitious.

However, fears about Climategate are a concern with 61% saying it might scupper a deal.

Our panel are also very fair. Over two-thirds say that big countries should take the needs of small countries into consideration when
coming up with a deal, take that all those who criticised Tuvalu, and a small minority believe Bangladesh should get 15% of a climate fund.

What’s more they’re reasonable too. Whilst a small majority think the so called ‘Danish Text’ indicates Denmark are more interested in a
treaty with their name on it than a good one delivered later a significant majority the nos and neutrals aren’t too far behind (and catching up if voting patterns continue). In addition, 61% think that mutually acceptable emissions targets are better than tough, legally-binding, ones. Perhaps indicating their optimism is tempered by realism and an overriding desire to get a deal done.

All the debates here

The World Meteorological Organisation has announced that 2009 is likely to be one of the 10 warmest years since records began in 1850.

Although the temperatures for November and December are not in yet, the WMO says the combined sea surface and land surface air temperature for 2009 is currently estimated at 0.44 degrees C above the 1961-1999 average of 14.00 degrees.

“The current nominal ranking of 2009, which does not account for uncertainties in the annual averages, places it as the fifth-warmest year,” says a statement from the UN agency. “The decade of the 2000s was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s, which in turn was warmer than the 1980s.”

Meanwhile, in Copenhagen, temperatures at the summit are also rising. Wednesday's revelations included the leaked ‘Danish text’ draft agreement that, if implemented, would hand more power to rich nations, deliver financial control of climate change finance to the World Bank, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol.

Of course we couldn’t help but add this to our Global Youth Panel debate topics for the day (9 December), as: ‘The 'Danish text' shows that the Danish Government is failing in their duty to be an unbiased host’. The results so far indicate that 58% agree and 25% disagree, with good points being put by both sides, including: “while I do not think that Denmark, nor any other country, should be trying to force any treaty upon anyone, I do not feel that this entails failure in its duties as host” (against), and: “this piece of news will most probably cause the developing countries to lose trust in the hosts, and US/UK especially” (for). A key concern raised, is whether Denmark is so keen to see an agreement signed, that it will try and drive through any agreement rather than a good agreement.

Simultaneously, Wednesday saw a lively debate on: ‘ Should Bangladesh get 15% of any climate fund'. This topic was added following an announcement at a press conference on Tuesday (8 December) by Hasan Mahmud Khondoker, the state minister for the environment. He said it was entitled to the 15%, because at least 20 million Bangladeshis would be displaced if sea levels rose by 1 metre. He added that the country couldn’t itself afford adaptation. Currently 61% agree and 31% disagree.

On the subject of adapting: all of this debating is being held on Google Wave, which was launched in April this year (2009) and so is still a very new tool. It’s also a real innovation, demanding a slightly different approach to communicating, especially as it operates in real-time. For example this means that as you type, others can read (and reply if they want to). So all credit to our Global Youth Panel, who have rapidly grasped and embraced the concept of Google Wave as the platform for our debates.

The two main debates of the first day of debating for the Debatewise Global Youth Panel were: ‘Is the Copenhagen conference going to be a success?’ and: ‘Will “Climategate” threaten the deal at Copenhagen?’

The success question floats on defining what success is. The aim of the Copenhagen conference is to create a binding treaty that will commit the nations of the world to cutting CO2 emissions to slow global warming. However since the US congress will not pass a climate change bill in time this is unlikely to happen. So what is success?

The detail of a treaty worked out and being made legal only when the US climate change bill is introduced sometime next year? Commitments on transferring technology? Setting up an adaptation fund?

100s of people from the 1000-strong Debatewise Global Youth Panel joined the first day of climate change debating – which attracted some
eloquently-put arguments from many different perspectives. The result overall view on whether the Copenhagen conference will be a success was upbeat, with 60% believing it would be.

The ‘Climategate’ debate centred around events during the last week, when it was alleged that the head of University of East Anglia's climatic research unit had attempted to suppress contradictory data on rising temperatures, while systematically ignoring any contradictory
data the unit had collected. This research unit is one of the most respected around the world, so this story was grabbed by sceptics, who are now demanding the whole climate change/temperature rise issue debate be reopened.

The Climategate issue led to some very feisty and emotive debates on all sides by the Global Youth Panel. In the end, 64% thought it could in some way affect the outcome of the UN summit.


Committed debaters overcome obstacles to contribute. There have also been some remarkable demonstrations of commitment by members of the Global Youth Panel to the climate change debates.

On Monday, as the UN summit opened, there were the largest anti-government demonstrations in months in Iran, as tens-of-thousands of students took to the streets. This led to a crackdown by riot police and pro-government militia. There was also a crackdown on communications, particularly the Internet. Nevertheless the Iranian team battled all kinds of obstacles to find a way of accessing Monday’s debates.

In Bhutan, the team persuaded their Internet service providers to let them have extra bandwidth for free to allow them to take part in the debate.

You may already have read in our earlier blog about Cambodia. Their country coordinator Michael collected about 30 kids together, held practice debates, found an IT person to help and got the Phnom Post to cover the story. What’s more, these kids were, in his words “some of the poorest, most destitute families in Cambodia” and until a few years ago were working in the rubbish-dump in Phnom Penh.

All of which shows just how important climate change issues are, and how much people want their voices to be heard.

China and the United States have now put their opening bids for Copenhagen on the table. The US is offering a 17% reduction on its 2005 emissions subject to the passage of climate legislation by the Congress. China is offering a 45% reduction in the carbon intensity of its economy by 2020. While both are significant advances on their previous positions, neither is good enough to set the world on course to limit the rise in temperature below the two degree threshold of dangerous climate change. As a result, there is a serious risk that when President Obama and other world leaders come together in Copenhagen next week they will end up sealing a weak deal that falls short of Europe’s objectives and undermines momentum for global action.

This climate leadership vacuum presents European leaders with an exceptional opportunity as they gather for this week’s Summit in Brussels. On no other issue is it so clear that Brussels can deliver more for Europe’s citizens than could possibly be delivered from any one of its capitals. Even in Euro-sceptic Britain polls show that most people want action on the climate to be European in scale.

Europe has led the global drive to tackle climate change from the beginning. British diplomacy was instrumental in securing US participation in the first climate treaty in 1992. Initiatives launched in Europe transformed the global debate on climate science in 2005, on its economics in 2007 and on financing the necessary transformation in 2009. The EU’s unilateral commitment to reduce its own emissions by 20% by 2020, to increase its energy efficiency by 20% by the same date and to derive 20% of its energy from renewables set a clear benchmark for serious intent by the industrialised countries responsible for most of today’s carbon burden.

But it is the promise to go further and cut its emissions by 30% if a deal is done in Copenhagen that creates an exceptional opportunity. The world has changed profoundly since this commitment was first made. China is now investing heavily in low carbon technologies. The new Japanese government has promised a 25% reduction. Brazil has put 39% on the table and other economies are taking actions on climate that seemed out of reach two years ago. All but one country in the EU is now on target to meet its Kyoto commitments.

Furthermore, emissions have fallen so far as a result of the recession that the EU-27 is already half way towards achieving the 20% target. This could weaken the impact of the EU Emissions Trading System by creating an over-supply of permits and a weak carbon price. The UK’s Independent Climate Change Committee has slashed its forecast of the carbon price in 2020 to €22 per tonne, down from €56 per tonne in December 2008. Power companies and industries covered by the EU ETS have already accumulated surplus allowances which could lead to additional windfall profits for industry of €5.4 billion by 2013.

This presents two big problems. First, without a strong incentive to deploy clean, efficient technologies Europe risks being left behind in the race to create the low carbon industries of the future. Investment in renewable energy and electric cars is growing rapidly in China and elsewhere, with governments playing a strong role through regulation, concessional financing, carbon taxes and other policy instruments. To keep pace with these countries Europe needs a stronger and more reliable carbon price signal from the ETS.

The second problem is larger European budget deficits. From 2013 a growing number of companies covered by the ETS must purchase their allowances rather than receiving them for free. A fall in the carbon price from €40 to €20 will lower the amount of action revenue available to governments from 2012 onwards, with losses reaching €20 billion per year by 2020.

The EU should seize the moment and raise its unilateral emissions reduction target to 30% immediately. Because of the recession, a 30% target would cost substantially less now than 20% was expected to cost in 2008. Failing to move to a 30% trajectory will allow another generation of polluting infrastructure to be built as Europe emerges from recessions; investment which will be costly to remove as Europe moves to a zero carbon energy system in 2050.

A unilateral move to 30% reductions is in the EU’s domestic interest. But the EU should also commit to move to 40% as part of a fair, ambitious and binding global deal. This would boost confidence in the international carbon market and incentivise the investment needed to drive transformational change in the power, industry and transportation sectors. It could also be the key to unlocking the more ambitious moves needed from the US, China and other major economies if we are to achieve a two degrees deal at Copenhagen.

The last few years has seen many ask the question of what Europe is for in the 21st Century? The most pressing problems we face, from global terrorism to mass migrations, from organised crime to failing states, from pandemics to climate change all have one feature in common: no nation can solve them by acting on its own. The EU is the world’s largest, most sustained and successful example of the triumph of cooperation over rivalry. Seizing the opportunity to make a bold move to restore momentum towards a meaningful Copenhagen agreement that would provide climate security for world - including 450 million Europeans - would be a fitting answer to that question.



Tom Burke is a Founding Director of E3G. Third Generation Environmentalism. Nick Mabey is the CEO of E3G and also a Founding Director

'Things Talk' is a worldwide climate change educational project for children between 10-12 years old. School classes throughout the world will be invited to work with the subject of climate change for one to two weeks. 'Things Talk' creates a global platform where children can voice their ideas, worries and future dreams with regard to how climate changes affect the world they live in both globally and locally. A selection of the children's waste sculptures will be presented to the participants of COP15 as a part of the planned "Children's Creative ClimateCamp" which will take place in Ballerup and Rødovre from December 2-6 2009.


Video package from the Danish government.

With less than five months to go until the Carbon Reduction Commitment Energy Efficiency Scheme (CRC) gets underway there are significant financial and reputational implications for UK organisations.

From April next year, the cap and trade scheme will impact around 5,000 large public and private sector businesses including banks and professional services, the retail and leisure industries and many other large services businesses. If they are not doing so already, it is time for UK organisations to prepare.

Conduct a self diagnosis
From April to September next year all businesses that will be affected by the scheme must register. Companies must gather data on energy consumption in 2008 to determine whether they qualify and start preparing for future obligations to report energy use, purchase carbon allowances and improve their performance in carbon reduction. Those that are not registered by September will incur penalties of up to £5000 plus £500 per day.

Risks and Opportunities
The CRC has significant financial and reputational implications for business so it is vital that they understand fully how it will impact them and how they can profit from early action to reduce the cost of compliance and minimise risk. Until 2013, organisations that are part of the scheme must buy carbon allowances to cover their emissions at a cost of £12/tCO2, after this the price will float and trading will begin in earnest. This money will be paid back to businesses in October of each year, but how much is dependent on how high they are ranked in the CRC league table; poor performers stand to lose 10% of their payments in the first year to those who are doing well, rising to +/-50% in year 5. In 2011 the league table is determined solely on the basis of whether the organisation has taken ‘early action’ in advance of the CRC.

Take early action
The CRC rewards businesses that take early action to reduce emissions in advance of the 2010 start date. The Carbon Trust Standard is awarded to organisations that measure, manage and reduce their carbon footprint and, along with those companies that voluntarily use automatic meter readings (AMR), has been officially recognised as one of the key early action metrics for the CRC.

To date, 150 organisations have already taken early action to achieve the Carbon Trust Standard collectively cutting their annual emissions by 600,000 tonnes of CO2, the equivalent of an £84million electricity bill.

While climate change and the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme continue to rise higher up the Government’s agenda, leading businesses should look beyond compliance to win new customers and boost their reputation by taking a lead on carbon reduction.

For more information on how best to prepare for the CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, First Direct, the first bank to achieve the Carbon Trust Standard, is holding a webinar with key industry figures on Monday 7th December at 12.30pm. For more information, visit: www.cutcarbon.biz.or visit www.carbontruststandard.com.

Harry Morrison, General Manager at the Carbon Trust Standard Company takes a look at who will be affected and how UK organisations can best prepare.

Outcomes from the COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which begins today, will be closely scrutinised and debated by more than 1,000 members of the Debatewise Global Youth Panel. The group of 15–25 year-olds from 140 different countries will raise their arguments about the pros and cons of the Conference using Google Wave, the new real-time communication and collaboration tool launched earlier this year.

The Debatewise Global Youth Panel delivers the views of those who will be most affected by the outcomes of COP15. The panel is motivated, not by global economic and politics, but by real fears and concerns about how climate change is affecting their lives and futures. Their debate will represent a unique perspective on what the Danish government describes as ‘The Crucial Conference – the last chance to reach an agreement that can be approved and ratified in time to come into force when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012’.

The Panel is being locally coordinated in each of the 140 countries involved. The Panel covers just about every ethnic and social group, and consists of a mix including those who have registered out of self-motivated concern, and invited participants who are already active on climate change issues. The debate will also give voice to a vital age group in some of the world’s poorest countries.

Debatewise will organise a series of online debates to coincide with the conference. As moderators of the debates, Debatewise will table the motions while various pro and con arguments for each debate will be created by volunteers from our 1,000 strong Global Youth Panel. Some members of the panel will create the debates, others will vote on the debates. In this way we will provide a measure of how young people around the world think about events from the conference.

After the conference we will contact group panel members by country and ask them to debate how they will be impacted by the decisions the conference comes to. Brazil, for example, may wish to make a case against deforestation restrictions whilst the rest of the world may argue that they should suffer for the greater good. In this way, the decisions taken at Copenhagen will be given a personal and truly local context which we believe no-one else is providing.

In the next two weeks the world has the chance to come together as a truly global community to take decisive action against climate change. We must reach a collective decision to effect a profound historical transformation: to take a new road to economic growth from the one on which we have travelled for two centuries.

Over that time, our prosperity has been rooted in enormous levels of consumption of natural resources; on burning fossil fuels and cutting down trees. Now we must radically reverse our behaviour and base economic progress and quality of life not on putting carbon into the atmosphere - but on taking it out. And by harnessing the expertise of engineers and scientists - and the ambition of entrepreneurs – we can build a sustainable low carbon economy; not just at home but across the planet.

Our aim in Copenhagen is a comprehensive and global agreement which is then converted to an international legally-binding treaty in no more than six months. The deal must also provide help to the poorest and most vulnerable countries. And no one should be in any doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence which underpins the conference. In fact, the recent anti-scientific backlash which has been unleashed has exposed just what is at stake. So a strong deal in Copenhagen is essential.

It will not be easy, of course. Agreement will be hard won. But if we fail, the window of opportunity we have now may close. With more than 100 world leaders, including President Obama and Premier Wen Jiabao of China, attending the talks I am optimistic about what can be achieved. If we act, and act together with vision and resolve, success is within our grasp.

Home Green Home is an experimental house in which everything is as environmentally sustainable and green as possible – from the floorboards to the clothes in the closet. The whole family can go exploring in the climate conference's green house. Adults can discover environment-friendly gizmos, sustainable furniture, and 100 other products and materials. 'It's actually easy to live sustainably.

It is not something for tomorrow or in two months or three years. It's about what you as a consumer can do today', says Morten Husted Brodde from FSC Denmark, who is behind the exhibit Home Green Home.