Prepare for our role

I am painfully aware of how unprepared I am for being here. But I am aware, too, that we Quakers are generally no better prepared and that there are faith communities that really are prepared. While we focus on needed change we tend to neglect the realities of securing change. I feel particularly neglectful in this respect since I have been involved at the UN level in the past and now it is all new to me. I need to catch up. So there is homework to do simply to be able to engage knowledgably. I offer my understanding that will need to be checked. But here goes.

Some basics:

If you really want to understand what is going on here you need to be fluent in acronymics. I offer a sample. If you don’t want to read all these, do scroll down. I hope to give you a sense of the challenge since all converse is peppered with these and it is hard to keep up if you do not have them clear. Here is a critical sample:

AAU: Assigned Amounts Units.
AOSIS: Association of Small Island States.
AWG-KP: Ad hoc Working Group on Further Commitments from Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol. (Annex 1 Parties = “developed countries”)
CDM: Clean Development Mechanism.
GHG: Green House Gasses. (You knew that didn’t you?)
KP: Kyoto Protocol.
LULUCF: Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry.
QELROS: Quantified Emissions Limitations and Reduction Objectives.
UNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

So what is going on?
There are different streams of discourse: Discussions on implications and requirements under UNFCCC; securing Kyoto 2 commitments (and the form that KP2 takes). In this latter discussion, two Annex 1 countries (Japan, Russia) have made it emphatically clear that they are willing to talk about their pledges to target reductions in a UNFCCC context but not in the context of KP2 commitments. Annex 2 countries (China, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia) speak up strongly seeing this as backsliding—as unwillingness to make binding commitments under a new KP2 binding treaty.

You need to know that the US is not party to KP and contributes with reference only to UNFCCC. Parties not in KP carry white flags in the negotiation plenaries. Parties committed to both UNFCCC and KP carry black flags. China caries a black flag and is advocating strongly for non-conditional (i.e. not dependent on what others are doing), mutually supportive, efforts. China argues that many non-Annex 1 parties offer more ambitious reductions than Annex 1 parties, and that Annex 1 parties have no excuse for requiring conditionality. China’s plea not to put COP at risk by requiring conditionalities evoked applause from observers. China is advocating strongly for proposals adequate for meeting required total emission reductions, pointing out how far short we are of these.
There is discussion of the choice between a new KP treaty (based on Bali and UNFCCC) and an extension with modified targets. The issue here is how KP1 performance should be taken account of in determining target requirements for KP2. It seems that some parties are suspected of aiming to claim, say, a 30% emissions reduction when their emissions are actually rising (i.e. by using a different base). There is also discussion of the year chosen for the base line (from which all reduction should be calculated). Several such years are proposed, each giving an “advantage” to its proposer.
So, while we are quibbling about how to get away with minimum effort, we are not addressing the issue of need and how each might contribute so that the whole need is met. We are still negotiating, not collaborating.
COP has been seen as the beginning of a process. This it clearly is—that is, if the process to continue can be agreed. It is easy to become despondent about the quibbling. But there is clearly a tide running and there is hope that sanity will prevail. We can certainly expect major demonstrations as the COP comes to its end and these might well signify as the process moves forward. We need to become prepared for our role.