Trust: Why We're Here in Copenhagen
08/12/09 03:55
Copenhagen is very open city. For instance, it’s really rare to see a bike in a stand that’s been locked. This is amazing, given the actual number of bicycles here in Copenhagen. There are counters at some of the major intersections that show the number of bikes that have passed by that day, and walking past one of these counters around noon I saw that over 10,000 bikes had passed. And this is in weather that has been hovering around freezing, very windy, and extremely wet for the past week.
All of these unlocked bicycles tells me two things. First, the Danes have a profound and implicit trust in the goodness of the world. And second, they are deeply committed to making changes in their daily lives to improve the sustainability of Denmark and the rest of the world.
This setting makes Copenhagen an inspiring place to be for this meeting. And here in the convention, the energy level is very high — even colorful. There are lots of men and women in suits running between meetings, but there are also lots of official “stunts” and activities and events that are meant to demonstrate the longing to reach some kind of strong outcome here.
Most of my time on the first day was spent making connections and focusing on my actions and priorities for the coming two weeks. My particular focus here is on climate adaptation, and especially the role of ecosystems and water resources as cross-cutting issues for adaptation.
However, these are not the main issues here in Copenhagen for the negotiators and delegates. The biggest, most public issue of concern is a new treaty to supersede or improve the greenhouse gas climate mitigation Kyoto Protocols. But adaptation is on the agenda.
Adaptation these two weeks is mostly centered on how to create a way of transferring money to pay for adaptation measures. This money would come from the countries like the US and western Europe that have emitted most of the greenhouse gases over the past 300 years to the most affected countries that also have the fewest resources to facilitate adaptation. Places like the Maldives in the Indian ocean, Vietnam in southeast Asia, and Peru in South America. This issue is called adaptation finance, and most of the debate focuses on creating a pool of money for short-term funding (for countries already feeling dire impacts) and a long-term mechanism for facilitate more gradual change.
I’m here because I’m worried about how that money will be spent. Right now, the language describing adaptation is very vague. As someone who works in many countries on climate adaptation, I’m concerned that adaptation as it is now described doesn’t really describe actions that are environmentally sustainable. And it ignores much of what we know already about the vision for adaptation that is most appropriate: we must be holistic, we must think of people and ecosystems together, and sustainable water management is critical for helping all nations adjust to most of the impacts of climate change we face now and will face in the future.
Perhaps these issues seem very straightforward — most of the time, they seem that way to me. But for most people they’re not. Most countries are hesitant to be told that adaptation must look a certain way. And many nations are afraid that thinking about ecosystems is a distraction when you’re thinking about helping people adapt. Or that you don’t really care about people at all, just plants and other animals.
I fear this is short sighted. We have to somehow carry everything and everyone through these crises together: humans and ecosystems and species. Humans are not separated from ecosystems. This is especially true for water issues. If we don’t manage water in a sustainable way, then we will lost our basis for agriculture, energy production, industrial water uses, and not least domestic water supply and sanitation. And the way that we know we are managing water sustainably is to watch ecosystems and species and see how we’re doing.
The holdups in the debate on these issues has been multifaceted, even in the first 24 hours. The G77 and China — a group of 77 developing nations — has put forward a pretty good proposal for linking adaptation to ecosystems, and there are some useful mentions of water. But they are divided. Saudi Arabia, for instance, wants it’s own special form of adaptation — an economic adaptation to compensate for the loss of economic revenue if less oil is consumed globally. And the “umbrella group” (a set of large industrial economies, like Australia and the US) want a more narrow and limited approach to adaptation. Perhaps this difference is natural. The umbrella group won’t ever be likely to receive any money for adaptation from an adaptation fund. They’ll be donors, even as they cope with impacts. And places like Australia in the Murray-Darling basin are already dealing with very severe droughts and economic restructuring as a result of climate change. Adaptation agreements don’t have a lot to offer these countries. Moreover, most of them are strapped for cash right now the financial crisis. In this sense, their fears are not dissimilar to Saudi Arabia. The costs of adaptation seem complicated, perhaps.
But we are in Copenhagen, after all. A city of trust in our fellow global citizens. If the Danes can keep their bikes lock-free, perhaps we can actually find some way to ride into a better future together.
For more live updates, follow me on twitter at #johoma.
This setting makes Copenhagen an inspiring place to be for this meeting. And here in the convention, the energy level is very high — even colorful. There are lots of men and women in suits running between meetings, but there are also lots of official “stunts” and activities and events that are meant to demonstrate the longing to reach some kind of strong outcome here.
Most of my time on the first day was spent making connections and focusing on my actions and priorities for the coming two weeks. My particular focus here is on climate adaptation, and especially the role of ecosystems and water resources as cross-cutting issues for adaptation.
However, these are not the main issues here in Copenhagen for the negotiators and delegates. The biggest, most public issue of concern is a new treaty to supersede or improve the greenhouse gas climate mitigation Kyoto Protocols. But adaptation is on the agenda.
Adaptation these two weeks is mostly centered on how to create a way of transferring money to pay for adaptation measures. This money would come from the countries like the US and western Europe that have emitted most of the greenhouse gases over the past 300 years to the most affected countries that also have the fewest resources to facilitate adaptation. Places like the Maldives in the Indian ocean, Vietnam in southeast Asia, and Peru in South America. This issue is called adaptation finance, and most of the debate focuses on creating a pool of money for short-term funding (for countries already feeling dire impacts) and a long-term mechanism for facilitate more gradual change.
I’m here because I’m worried about how that money will be spent. Right now, the language describing adaptation is very vague. As someone who works in many countries on climate adaptation, I’m concerned that adaptation as it is now described doesn’t really describe actions that are environmentally sustainable. And it ignores much of what we know already about the vision for adaptation that is most appropriate: we must be holistic, we must think of people and ecosystems together, and sustainable water management is critical for helping all nations adjust to most of the impacts of climate change we face now and will face in the future.
Perhaps these issues seem very straightforward — most of the time, they seem that way to me. But for most people they’re not. Most countries are hesitant to be told that adaptation must look a certain way. And many nations are afraid that thinking about ecosystems is a distraction when you’re thinking about helping people adapt. Or that you don’t really care about people at all, just plants and other animals.
I fear this is short sighted. We have to somehow carry everything and everyone through these crises together: humans and ecosystems and species. Humans are not separated from ecosystems. This is especially true for water issues. If we don’t manage water in a sustainable way, then we will lost our basis for agriculture, energy production, industrial water uses, and not least domestic water supply and sanitation. And the way that we know we are managing water sustainably is to watch ecosystems and species and see how we’re doing.
The holdups in the debate on these issues has been multifaceted, even in the first 24 hours. The G77 and China — a group of 77 developing nations — has put forward a pretty good proposal for linking adaptation to ecosystems, and there are some useful mentions of water. But they are divided. Saudi Arabia, for instance, wants it’s own special form of adaptation — an economic adaptation to compensate for the loss of economic revenue if less oil is consumed globally. And the “umbrella group” (a set of large industrial economies, like Australia and the US) want a more narrow and limited approach to adaptation. Perhaps this difference is natural. The umbrella group won’t ever be likely to receive any money for adaptation from an adaptation fund. They’ll be donors, even as they cope with impacts. And places like Australia in the Murray-Darling basin are already dealing with very severe droughts and economic restructuring as a result of climate change. Adaptation agreements don’t have a lot to offer these countries. Moreover, most of them are strapped for cash right now the financial crisis. In this sense, their fears are not dissimilar to Saudi Arabia. The costs of adaptation seem complicated, perhaps.
But we are in Copenhagen, after all. A city of trust in our fellow global citizens. If the Danes can keep their bikes lock-free, perhaps we can actually find some way to ride into a better future together.
For more live updates, follow me on twitter at #johoma.
blog comments powered by Disqus
