I have to agree with Lorraine, too. At some point we have to admit that the latest 'first step' toward solving this problem is far too little far too late, and then look for alternatives. Many people on this list have written about them (and I think a combination is the only answer), but perhaps most fundamentally we have to admit that the biggest problem may be 'international environmental politics' (international meaning 'interstate'). That's why I have turned my attention to alternatives (which have also been addressed by Lorraine and some others on the list) that attempt to look beyond states to solve this problem. (See my book, for which I have written a short learning guide to help our students consider the real problems and a package of credible alternatives: http://www.euppublishing.com/book/0-7486-3910-1)
All best, Paul -- P.G. Harris Department of Social Sciences Hong Kong Institute of Education 10 Lo Ping Road Tai Po, HONG KONG General Office Tel.: +852 2948 7707 Direct Tel.: +852 2948 6763 Fax: +852 2948 8047 Email: pharris @ ied.edu.hk http://www.ied.edu.hk/ssc/ -----Original Message----- From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu on behalf of Stephen Van Holde Sent: Tue 12/22/2009 1:16 AM To: Lorraine Elliott Cc: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu Subject: Re: Copenhagen result Well put, Lorraine. I have exactly the same problem standing in front of my classes. And I cannot imagine how reps from places like Tuvalu and Bangladesh must feel at this point. What do they say to poor people whose lives and livelihoods are threatened? Like Dale says, what happened (and didn't) at Copenhagen is sadly indicative of how broke the whole system is. My students more and more say that, at least in the developed world, the solutions lie in sectoral reform rather than in state-based solutions. And while I've been reluctant to agree, the magnitude of the failure at Kyoto has me thinking they may be right. But of course that does little or nothing to address the damage we are beginning to visit on the developing world.... Just my 2 cents. Steve Stephen Van Holde Departments of Political Science and International Studies Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022 USA vanho...@kenyon.edu Quoting Lorraine Elliott <lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au>: > But when one puts this in the context of time ...? It's over two > decades since the Toronto conference at which participating > governments committed, voluntarily it is true, to reduce emissions > by 20% by 2005; it's 17 years since the FCCC was adopted, over a > decade since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; we've had four IPCC > assessment reports ... and so many other reports that we've probably > killed numerous forests in publishing them all. What do we say to > the 'next generation', those who have grown to be 20 years old in > the time that all this hot air has been expended - that Copenhagen > is a good first step? Somehow I don't think my students will be > persuaded. I have no doubt that there were hundreds of people at > Copenhagen, on official delegations and elsewhere, who worked > non-stop to try to retrieve something. I know a lot of those people. > But I've just been in Southeast Asia where the livelihoods (and in > some cases lives) of millions of people are under threat a result of > the impacts of climate change. I have students from Bangladesh and > the Pacific. Despite the rhetoric and spin coming from world > 'leaders', they want someone to stand in front of them and tell them > why their homes, their livelihoods are under threat and no-one is > doing much about it. I no longer have an answer for them. Sorry, bit > of a rant, but I feel pretty dispirited by the whole process at the > moment. > > Lorraine > > Original Message ----- > From: Daniel Bodansky <danbodan...@gmail.com> > Date: Monday, December 21, 2009 8:48 pm > Subject: Re: Copenhagen result > To: Heike Schroeder <heike.schroe...@ouce.ox.ac.uk> > Cc: Daniel Bodansky <bodan...@uga.edu>, > "gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu" <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu> > >> But countries did move beyond position in significant ways. >> China agreed to international listing and review of pledge. US >> agreed to $100 billion annual funding and short term finance, >> plus personal commitment by Obama to minus 17%. Agreement was >> far from easy - people sweated blood to get it! >> >> __________________ >> Daniel Bodansky >> Associate Dean for Faculty Development >> Woodruff Professor of International Law >> School of Law >> University of Georgia >> Athens, GA 30602 >> Tel: 706-542-7052 >> >> On Dec 21, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Heike Schroeder >> <heike.schroe...@ouce.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> >Hi All, >> >Thought I'd put my 2 cents in as well... >> >On Wil's 1st point: I agree that anything but a political >> framework was off the table well before 43,000 registered COP15 >> attendees (and some 100,000 protesters) gathered in Copenhagen. >> But given that 120 or so heads of state were coming to town >> (including Obama himself) gave people like Ivo de Boer hope to >> publicly state (as he did at Forest Day) that heads of state >> don't come for failure. It nurtured a sense of optimism among >> attendees that Obama, Wen (the Chinese premier) and also EU reps >> would not come empty-handed but move beyond their positions in >> at least some way, either by more concrete pledging of finance >> or stronger unilateral targets. None of this happened, except >> the 2 degrees inclusion in the final version of the Accord. To >> me, this is where the disappointment lies. >> >Best, Heike >> > >> >-- >> >Dr. Heike Schroeder >> >Tyndall Senior Research Fellow >> >Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research >> >James Martin 21st Century School Research Fellow >> >Environmental Change Institute >> >University of Oxford >> >South Parks Road >> >Oxford OX1 3QY >> > >> >Tel: 01865 275894 >> >Fax: 01865 275850 >> >________________________________________ >> >From: owner-gep...@listserve1.allegheny.edu [owner-gep- >> e...@listserve1.allegheny.edu] On Behalf Of Daniel Bodansky >> [bodan...@uga.edu]>Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 5:19 AM >> >To: gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu >> >Subject: Fwd: Re: Copenhagen result >> > >> >Hi all, >> > >> >I sent the message below last night from an email account not >> registered with GEPED, so it bounced. It doesn't take >> account of the subsequent discussion from others. For >> those who are interested, I've been blogging about the >> Copenhagen meeting on the international law blog, >> opiniojuris.org. I plan to post some preliminary thoughts >> on the Copenhagen Accord on Monday. >> > >> >Dan >> > >> >Earlier email message: >> > >> >Hi Radoslav, Wil and Mat, >> > >> >Just wanted to chime in with a few points: >> > >> >First, just a clarifications regarding Radoslav's email: >> > >> >-- Although the Copenhagen Accord wasn't adopted as a COP >> decision, it was agreed by 20+ countries. Saudi Arabia >> didn't oppose the Accord, only its adoption as a COP >> decision. (Sudan was also among the countries that agreed >> to the Accord, although don't count on it to associate itself >> with the Accord formally.) The Accord was reportedly >> endorsed by all of the regional groups, and in the COP plenary >> the spokepeople for both AOSIS and the African group supported >> its adoption as a COP decision. >> > >> >-- Second, the US did support a mandate for the AWG-LCA to >> negotiate a legally-binding agreement for adoption in Mexico >> City (along with the EU, AOSIS and others). The proposal >> was killed by China and India. >> > >> >-- Third, the position articulated by South Africa about >> adoption of a KP second commitment period amendment reflects the >> view of the G-77 generally. >> > >> >With respect to Wil's comments, and Matt's responses: >> > >> >1. I agree with Wil on this point. Pretty much >> everybody had given up on a legal agreement in Copenhagen by the >> end of the Barcelona meeting in November, and many had seen the >> writing on the wall much earlier. I have to strongly >> disagree with Mat's view that the Copenhagen Accord was >> easy. Given the total opposition by China (and to a lesser >> degree India) to any form of listing of their intensity target >> or any form of international review, getting agreement on the >> Copenhagen Accord was a huge stretch -- so if one regards the >> Accord as a pretty modest outcome, just imagine what getting a >> legal agreement will be like!! >> > >> >2. Generally agree with Wil on this too, although I agree >> with Mat that the legal nature of the KP has been significant. >> > >> >3. Nothing to add here. >> > >> >4. The Copenhagen Accord may well be the high water >> mark for climate agreements anytime soon, so let's hope it >> proves to be significant!! >> > >> >Finally a few additional comments: >> > >> >-- The Copenhagen meeting proves the utter dysfunctionality of >> the UNFCCC process. The final night, a handful of >> essentially rogue states, led by Sudan, blocked a COP decision >> adopting a political agreement by the Heads of State/Government >> of all of the major world powers. >> > >> >-- The Copenhagen meeting also revealed the complete breakdown >> of the G-77 as a negotiating group. In the closing >> plenary, some developing countries openly criticized their G-77 >> "brethren" (read China) for preventing inclusion of more >> ambitious emission reduction numbers in the Copenhagen Accord. >> > >> >Best Dan >> > > > Dr Lorraine Elliott > Senior Fellow in International Relations > Department of International Relations > Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies > College of Asia and the Pacific > The Australian National University > Canberra, ACT 0200 > AUSTRALIA > > e: lorraine.elli...@anu.edu.au > t: +61 2 61250589 > f: +61 2 61258010 > > > > >
