The New Nation - Internet Edition

James Russell

Day five. Friday's here, but the work at the UN climate conference in Bali continues tomorrow.

I woke to the shrill ring of my hotel-room phone. Following a moment of confusion as to how it could possibly be time to get up, I remembered it was my shift for editing ECO, the Climate Action Network's widely read daily publication that gives a voice to the environmental NGOs here. I splashed water on my face, slipped on some sandals, and walked through the darkened corridors to the room that ECO calls home. Having gone to bed at around 1 AM, I winced when I caught sight of the clock from the corner of my eye: 5 AM.

To say I'm not a morning person would be an understatement. Nonetheless, walking into the ECO room and finding the editor-in-chief, Nithi, who'd been at it all night, I realized I was in no position to complain. And once I'd coaxed my brain into interpreting the text my blurry eyes were seeing on the page, it really wasn't so bad.

Fortunately, I finished up with ECO in time for a shower and some breakfast before heading to a meeting that the EU delegation had requested with the Climate Action Network's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) group. I'd rank it as the most productive meeting I've been to all week (though that's a pretty low bar). Both sides of the table were well versed on the issues and spoke frankly about their views as to how the mechanism might evolve in the future.

While there was disagreement on some issues in the meeting, at this point I simply find the open acknowledgment of disagreement to be a breath of fresh air. It's certainly a refreshing change from the some of the tactics of delegates from certain enormous, non-Kyoto countries, who've shown a penchant for making loud proclamations about climate solutions whilst quietly pulling the rug out from under negotiations.

I'm not actually THAT cynical about the proceedings here. Perhaps it's just the heat getting to me. Following the EU meeting, I attended a formal session (though in conference parlance labeled an 'informal group') around midday on the CDM. It had a more productive feel than previous meetings, in part because the chair arrived with a proposed text that gave delegations something concrete to react to.

The venue may also have contributed. The session was hosted in a large temporary building. With perhaps eight large air-conditioning units working at full-blast, the environment quite literally hummed with energy-climate implications. Despite the energy expenditure, about an hour into the session I was surprised that people weren't passing out-the co-chairs were fanning themselves and people started walking out. The temperature must have reached 40°C in there. I suspect this was someone's clever strategy to quell debate. Not a bad idea, really, and appropriate. Get things moving or we'll turn up the heat!

In my 'free time,' I continue to attend side events. Recently, I've attended some very insightful presentations on such topics as: regional approaches to climate-change adaptation in Africa, the capacity of market mechanisms to mitigate climate change, and means of incorporating the transportation sector into a climate-stabilization strategy.

I admit that I'm a bit stretched to soak up all of the information. However, all the topics are very relevant to the present and future work of Worldwatch, so I'm trying to take it all in and digest it later with the help of the Worldwatch team.

In the interest of full disclosure, there is another good reason to attend the side events: tasty snacks. Most people don't take the time for a proper meal during the day, so many of the side events generously host a reception at the tail end. I feel a bit like a student again, holding out for the food at the end of a seminar. But in the end, I happily join the crowd enjoying the free eats (see photo, right).

I'm going to take a break from the blog for the weekend, but the conference continues. You can be sure that when I come back online on Monday, the energy level here will be heading toward new heights.

Day eight. One thing about industry, they know how to party.

I've just arrived back from a reception at the UN climate conference in Bali hosted by the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). If I've figured my diagram correctly, IETA falls in the circle of BINGOs (business and industry non-governmental organizations). However, in the realm of carbon markets, the border separating BINGO from ENGO (environmental non-governmental organization) is often friendly and also porous. In fact, this reception was co-hosted by Environmental Defense-though I suspect it's IETA we have to thank for the open bar.

The event brought together a group of people that in the context of this conference is quite diverse, but among whom the distinction would probably be virtually indecipherable in another setting. Cataloguing a handful of the people I conversed with, we had:

· Officials from U.S. state agencies

· Congressional staffers, Republican and Democrat

· Environmental NGO staff

· Government delegates

· Electric power sector lobbyists

· Carbon traders

· Consultants

· Former classmates and teaching assistants of mine

What all these people had in common was that they spend a majority of their professional time trying to navigate and/or define the emerging carbon markets. They also appear to have spent a bit of time moving from one of these categories to another. I was quite surprised to cross paths with a former teaching assistant turned congressional staffer, a past grad-school classmate turned ENGO staff, and finally, a long-lost college classmate turned carbon trader. Is the world of carbon markets really so small that I should be running into college classmates?

At Worldwatch, we recently calculated that worldwide carbon emissions due to fossil fuel combustion reached 8 billion tons in 2006. The responsibility of U.S. citizens amounted to an average of 5.3 tons of carbon per capita-just a few Volkswagens more than a person would want to carry on his or her back. The magnitude of emissions that must be eliminated to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius is daunting, to say the least. In this context, the caucus seeking out emissions reductions can appear relatively small.

I know this is not actually the case (and not simply because some very concerned advocates decided to avoid the massive carbon footprint that a flight to Bali incurs). Many people are quietly working to reduce global carbon emissions without all the fanfare of this conference. Utilities are running programs to swap out old, energy-wasting appliances; energy services companies are aggressively and profitably seeking energy efficiency; and communities in the developing world are leapfrogging inefficient, centralized fossil fuel power stations to adopt local power solutions, including wind and solar.

The proof of the breadth of the coalition of climate change combatants was illustrated by another event I attended today: the 'Cool Energy' exhibit hosted by the United Nations Development Programme. There, representatives of the Indonesian Railways and Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture showed my colleague Jordan and me some of their projects to improve transportation efficiency and promote sustainable forestry (see photos).

Of course, despite the broad-based mitigation efforts, global carbon emissions continue to rise. This suggests that the field of actors must continue to increase and their carbon-eliminating efforts be redoubled-feats that the post-2012 climate pact must accomplish. With this in mind, I'll return tomorrow to consideration of the state of the Bali Roadmap. Preparatory meetings are wrapping up and the Ministers will soon be arriving. Important questions pertaining to the level of ambition incorporated in the Roadmap and the process of future negotiations remain on the table as we draw down to the wire.

Day nine. When sea level is rising and there's no common ground in sight,

"tthe second review of the Kyoto Protocol…shall aim to enhance [implementation][the effectiveness][the effectiveness and implementation] of the Kyoto Protocol…"

This is the kind of sentence that appears after 16 hours of debate at the UN climate conference yields no consensus. Instead of letting the contentious text stall the entire process, negotiators just put the options in brackets and deal with it later, when it's more convenient [hopefully]. Brackets represent roadblocks that could stall negotiations indefinitely, but they also represent hope.

Confronted today by so much bracketed text, I find myself wondering: When, precisely, over the next three days is likely to be more "convenient"? When are Parties likely to be more agreeable?

Thus far, I haven't noticed a great deal of mind-changing on the part of Parties. Determining whether to allow new hydro-chlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) facilities to apply for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects has been on the technical body's agenda for two years. The decision to allow carbon capture and storage in the CDM has been pending for even longer. Actually, on these less-pressing issues, negotiations have now arrived at a fate worse than brackets. Talks have concluded simply with statements that no agreement was reached and the issue will be taken up again at the next meeting. No brackets.

So having some of the more critical issues of the day safely tucked away in their brackets is not the worst place they could be. Brackets mean there's still hope for finding compromise language, or that one Party will set aside its demands in deference to the greater goals at hand. In addition to the bracketed text referred to above, key issues popping into and out of brackets include [with some interpretation on my part]:

· Whether a process to add emission-reduction commitments for developing countries will be on the negotiating agenda; and

· Whether a range of industrial countries' emission-reduction commitments will be referred to in the text.

The persistence of these two, particularly contentious issues is probably no coincidence. The United States delegation has made no secret of the fact that they see no place for talk of targets at this stage, and in this reticence they appear to have found a friend in Canada. At the same time, major emerging economies are quick to decry any reference to a process by which they might adopt binding reductions. So when one of these issues rears its ugly head, the other is likely to follow-tit for tat. Brackets.

When the high-level event begins tomorrow, finding common ground where it [seldom] exists, softening language, and setting aside the most contentious issues are the tools likely to be deployed for removing the bracketed text.

One thing is for sure a lack of people engaged in this debate is not the problem. Today, there were lines of people everywhere-lines to go through security, lines to get into the conference center, lines for food, and lines to obtain documents. Frankly, I'm hoping that the crowds have reached their apex, because if they grow much more, I'm likely to pass on the squeezing through doors and seek out a surfboard followed by a beer on the beach. I sampled the latter option on Sunday and it ain't half bad!

Of course, the upside of the crowds is that issues are beginning to get the attention they merit. I attended two side events today, one focused on the activities of indigenous peoples to cope with climate change and the other making the economic case for greater funding of climate change adaptation programs. Both of these events exceeded the room capacity.

Day nine. It starts innocently enough. "You know science isn't a consensus process." Sure, I'm following you. Then, the waters are tested. "You know Mr. Gore made some mistakes in his film." Okay, sure, Nobel Laureate Gore made some simplifications. Then, bam! "This whole global warming business is sure a crock of #@$!"

Whoa! Stop the train; we just sailed past my stop.

Really? A climate change skeptic? Here? It's so novel that I find the sensation growing within me is not outrage but glee. It's like finding the last item on a scavenger hunt. It doesn't matter that the item isn't particularly desirable. It's simply the last one on the list. The experience is complete. With so few skeptics left, I'm lucky I found one. So please excuse me if, after this chance encounter at the breakfast buffet, the rest of the events of my day were a bit lackluster.

The high-level portion of the Bali conference began today, with a flood of "your excellencies" and "esteemed ladies and gentlemen." If guns and speeches were the answer to climate change, then we'd be well on our way to a solution. The quantity of both of these has risen dramatically today. Yet somehow, I'm less than comforted.

At this point, the speeches sound quite similar. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon calls climate change the "defining challenge of our age." Dr. Pachauri, head of the IPCC, points out that the costs of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at 450 parts per million are manageable, akin to delaying the economic growth realized in 2030 by a mere one year. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer describes the three necessary outcomes from this conference: a formal negotiation process, an ambitious agenda, and a 2009 deadline. Everybody points to the need for immediate action.

Midway through the day, I retreated to more constructive arenas. The European Union hosted a discussion of the future of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) in which government officials, researchers, and business representatives jointly acknowledged the successes of the EU-ETS. I met with a working group to brainstorm on options for a post-2012 Clean Development Mechanism. And I rounded off the day at a reception attended by members of the California delegation-the avant garde of U.S. climate action-and the Centre for Social Markets-a new Worldwatch partner and thought leader on India's climate action. It was a nice way to end a day that began with so much skepticism.

Day eleven. The tension between massive, immediate action and effective actiont

If I were to rank the events of my day in order of pragmatism, from greatest to least, I'd say: the biofuels roundtable, Mayor Bloomberg's speech, a high-level technology transfer discussion, and finally Al Gore's speech. However, ranked from most to least inspirational, you could pretty well reverse that order. To deal with climate change, I'd say both inspiration and pragmatism are required in vast quantities. But I struggle with the fact that sometimes the two seem to be in conflict.

The biofuels roundtable today provides a good example. The recent enthusiasm for biofuels on the part of the United States and Europe is driven largely by the need to lower the carbon-intensity of the transportation sector. However, now that the U.S. is knee-deep in corn ethanol, we're asking what good that's done us and whether we'll truly be better off when we're neck-deep. Similarly, as palm oil plantations change the face of Malaysian and Indonesian landscapes, we're recognizing that biofuels produced from deforested lands offer no mitigation benefits (and could, in fact, make climate change worse) while simultaneously discovering that local communities sometimes suffer for the low-carbon fuels. Each ill-conceived climate mitigation strategy locks in some investment and infrastructure that may obstruct subsequent effective action. To move forward with the rapid mitigation strategies that are needed, we cannot be paralyzed into inaction. But good action is at least as important as fast action. I reckon that at least 80 percent of the human energy at this conference is directed at determining the appropriate way to act. Biofuels are one example, carbon markets are another. The private sector has leapt into carbon markets, but now many groups are questioning the climate value of their investments, not to mention the social impacts. Reducing emissions from deforestation, nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage, etc.… In all these areas, well-informed and well-intentioned people often have greatly differing views as to what is the appropriate course of action.

It's all very well and good to say we must act now, but it strikes me that how to act is really the question of the hour. To be fair to Mr. Gore, in the official portion of this event the basic commitment to action is really all that is sought. And getting this macro-policy environment right will aid all subsequent measures. But as the international climate pact is sorted out over the next two years, careful weighing and testing of mitigation options will prevent us from running off in an uncoordinated and ultimately wasteful melee when the call to ACT NOW is made. Fortunately, most attendees of this conference are already committed to action and are struggling to make sure the actions we choose will address climate change effectively without hurting the vulnerable populations that this global effort is most imminently required to aid.

While Mr. Gore is unfortunately saddled with the task of dragging the laggards along, his efforts can allow not only conference-goers, but also some policymakers, to run ahead and figure out what approaches will achieve the rapid and effective changes required. Thus, while it was far less well attended than Gore's talk, I think Mayor Bloomberg's discussion today of the actions that New York City is taking under PlaNYC was at least as useful in moving us nearer the end game of a stable and hospitable climate.

The final Bali Mandate should be agreed to tomorrow. In my next and final post, I'll give you a rundown of the roadmap that gets the final sign-off.

Day twelve. It's 12:30 in the morning here in Bali. I've just returned to my hotel.

When I left the conference a few minutes back, the word was that agreement on critical elements of the roadmap was nowhere in sight. Through the rumor mill-which spins more furiously here than I've ever before witnessed-I hear that even at this late hour the United States delegation is introducing new language that it knows has no chance of being accepted.

As I left the conference hall, our Indonesian hosts were preparing for discussion to continue through the night. A crowd of people continued to mill about outside the room where negotiations are taking place. I sat patiently by for most of the day, expecting that at any moment the chair might call me in to bring resolution. Unfortunately for the struggling negotiators, they seem to be too stubborn to ask for help. So, I'll just have to let them wallow all night in the mess they've made. On the way back to my hotel, my taxi driver asked me if the meetings were still going on. When I said yes, he sounded frustrated and said, "This very stupid. Everybody get tired and they not think good. Then what happens."

Yes, Mr. Sumerta, I can't argue with that. This very stupid.

If you want details on how it all wraps up tomorrow, check your local media outlet. I'm going to the beach.

(James Russell, fellow of the Worldwatch Institute, gave a day to day account of the Bali Climate Conference that ultimately ended on an optimistic note. His account gives a reader an idea of the twists and turns of the event that was designed to find a way out of the greatest danger that mankind is facing because of human-induced changes to the global environment. We did publish dispatches on the first four days of the conference before.)