What I Want For COP17 (& Christmas)

As I pack my bags to attend Conference of the Parties (COP) 17 (yes, I am attending, no, I will not be quaffing overpriced organic champagne with the amazing eco-celebs, financiers and politicians, as I am more of a worker bee type and will be working during COP17). I started thinking about what I would like to the outcome of COP17 to be.

Recently all one hears about in the media and COP related meetings are:

• which politicians and celebs will be attending
• what are the best side events to attend (heaven forbid i don’t get seen at the right event)
• what events have you been invited to …(best make sure I get onto the rights lists! )
• who to network with
• do you have enough business cards…(hopefully printed on recycled paper)
• the astronomical cost of flights and accomodation
• who will be using public transport…. (will some people actually do this? )
• where will you be staying
• what will the weather be like
• … blahblahblah.

One doesn’t really hear about the reality of climate change, the impacts that global temperature rise has as on vulnerable rural and coastal communities, what the impacts of having annual COPs have been or what the ideal outcome of this COP should be. Maybe its time someone did an evaluation of COP to determine if it is really helping with climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Reuters

I am getting ahead of myself… anyway….

I thought that maybe a some information the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the desired outcome of COP17 would be a good idea to refresh my memory and also provide a background to the negations that will be starting in Durban on 28 November 2011.

• The UNFCCC entered into force in 1995. SInce 1995 the  Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC have been meeting annually to assess progress in dealing with climate change. The COP adopts successive decisions and resolutions  the aim of which is make up a detailed set of rules for practical and effective implementation of the Convention.
• The COP serves as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which adopts decisions and resolutions on the implementation of its provisions.
• The COP adopts decisions and resolutions, published in reports of the COP with the aim of making up a detailed set of rules for practical and effective implementation of the Convention.
• Parties to the Convention that are not Parties to the Protocol are able to participate in the CMP as observers, but without the right to take decisions.
• South Africa (SA) will be hosting the 17th COP in Durban.
• as the host SA holds the responsibility of being the incoming COP leadership, “this is a strategic and important task as SA will be required to coordinate and steer the COP17 process towards the reaching of an agreement.” (KZN: Department of Environmental Affairs, 2011) 

I hope at COP 17 that we do not experience a repeat of events of previous COPs with lots of talk and very few concrete actions taken that will reduce and mitigate climate change risks and vulnerabilities. Currently the politics around climate change is not aligned with the scientific evidence. this is primarily due to a lack of political will and, in my opinion, due to much emphasis being placed on “low hanging fruit” and greenwashing. despite the signs of climate change and environmental degradation we still have countries (Japan, Russia, Canada and the US) that are not willing to commit to a 2nd commitment period.

Given the history of the UNFCC COPs a good outcome would be something along the following lines:

• An agreement that is inclusive, fair, effective and legally binding and that  operationalizes the agreements reached at Cancun while also enabling a 2nd commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol.
• A 2nd commitment period that takes forward the issues of climate change, climate resilience, climate adaptation and also enables equitable growth and development.
• Indications/ actions relating to the implementation of a 3rd commitment period(2018) that is also a legally binding agreement for all parties.
• A Green Climate Fund. One that actually contains funds as opposed to one that will one day have funds.
• An adaptation committee aimed at assisting Africa, the less developed countries and the small island states.
• The determination of a Global Peak Year of 2015 and a 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target of 80%.
• The protection of biodiversity and forest ecosystems.

I guess I should just get used to not getting what I want!

Do you think COP17 will help us move towards a safer and more sustainable world… or do you think it is an opportunity for politicians and eco-celebs to have their egos stroked while they pretend to be working for the greater good? take poll and give us your thoughts! 

Some COP17 links:

COP 17 – Going nowhere slowly

Durban COP17 

Greenpeace and COP

Advertisements

Climate Change, COP17 & Champagne Environmentalists

Pop the Champers for COP17!

Days away from COP 17 and the media is abuzz with which celebs will be making an appearance in support of COP17. Apparently  Leonardo DiCaprio, Angelina Jolie, Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger and probably a score of others are scheduled to attend COP 17 in Durban.  This got me thinking…

1. Is the celeb support helping fight climate change
2. Is the support worth the GHG emissions
3. Do the celebs make a difference to the people most affected by climate change and environmental degradation?
4. Is celeb support of climate and environmental issues simply perpetuating the consumerist model (the you can have it all mentality) that has helped to get us to this position of ecological debt, climate change and environmental degradation that we are tying to solve…. think greenwash, the eco-fashion bandwagon, environment as advertising and publicity stunts, inequality in resource use etc….
5. Will the celebs be flying economy class (first class=more emissions)? will they (and their entourage) be using public transport? will they walk to all their public appearances? or maybe they will offset their emissions by planting a tree or two… or three (hopefully indigenous to the environment that they plant it in….)

Please do not for a minute think that am totally against celebrities helping out with a “good cause”. I do however believe that quite a few celebs are rather involved with greenwash and publicity as opposed to actually making a difference…… they need to really look at the impact of their lifestyles, the cause that they are promoting and the actual message that they are communicating. Some reading about the contradictions in celeb champagne lifestyles and their environmental messages….

Hypocrisy of champagne environmentalists is deceitful and distracting

Enviro-celebs attending COP17

Luxury brands must wake up to ethical and environmental responsibilities

This also brings us back to the question of whether COP17 is worth all the carbon miles?… could we not have the same or a better result through just agreeing on what needs to be done and doing it instead to flying around the world year after year and going through the same arguments again and again….