Greenpeace climate blog - political updates

Rain in a ski resort - a sad but appropriate G8 start ...

Daniel — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:42:21 PDT

Political head Daniel Mittler reporting from inside the G8 Media Centre at Toyako, Japan

The G8 leaders have been hiding from the people they claim to represent in ever more remote places in recent years. But the summit here at Toyako, Hokkaido, takes the idea of "hiding far, far away" to perfection. Even the media centre is kilometres away from where Bush, Fukuda, Merkel and Co. are meeting. Toyako - and the area around it - is said to be beautiful. It is difficult to judge right now, I have to say, as it is raining cats and dogs. The mountains, said to be magical, are hardly even visible. The mist is not romantic, but really just low-lying rain clouds. As this is a ski area, that has received less and less snow fall in recent years, I guess the weather is fitting. This is what it will be like in Toyako - and other ski areas - even in winter. Unless our leaders act. Will they?
So far, it's looking like even more rain will be the future of Toyako. There is a lot of talk about whether or not the G8 will agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. But that would not be enough (which is why we at least need the word "at least" in there for this not to be a step backwards ...). And what's all this talk about 2050 anyway? We need action now. By these governments, not some future ones. Clear 2020 targets - of at least minus 30% by 2020 - would at least indicate, that governments understand the urgency. But we are very unlikely to see those. Instead, we will likely see lots of flowery words saying that it would be nice to have mid-term targets, and even lovelier if they were ambitious. Politican-talk, that in plain language means - more rain in ski resorts, a loss of the North Pole ice sheet and misery for many millions around the world ....

Sobering. But look on the bright side: This is George W. Bush's last G8. That is the one bit of certain good news to come out of Toyako this week. Bye bye, Bush! May he take one of these special G8 water bottles with him. They are plastic and non-returnable. But they claim to "Love the Planet". They truly are just right for Bush!

Bali outcome

Andrew — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 09:40:07 PST

The Bali meeting was an extra-ordinary one with final decisions being made more than 24 hours after its scheduled ending. The last couple of hours of the meeting were a bit of a drama with countries changing their positions at the very last moment, and the media thinking it was over while there were still some important discussions going on. There for the news that came out of Bali may have been a bit confusing. Allow me to clarify.

1. We have a Bali Mandate! Maybe not as clear and as coherent as we wanted it, but looking at where we were at the start of the COP/MOP, our team in Bali achieved a lot. The language could have been better, and it could all have been more coherent but if we look carefully at what has been decided, we got a lot out of Bali: we have a process and a deadline, we have recognition of ambitious targets (25 to 40 % by 2020), and we have all our major issues on the agenda (deforestation, adaptation, technology transfer and financing). So, in fact we can be proud of what we have achieved.

2. At our site you can find further info on what came out of Bali. For those wanting to see the full set of documents, please go to the UNFCCC site (especially look for the 'Bali Action Plan'). All the documents are there, except for one of the most important ones: the report of the Kyoto AWG. A draft of this one is to be found here.

Please note that in para 3 the second option (though with some changes) has been agreed to.

3. Though it is not listed under the main decisions of the COP/MOP one has to realise that for us the Bali Mandate is a combination of the "Bali Action Plan" and the programme of work of the AWG under the Kyoto Protocol.

4. So the documents might look good, and our team in Bali has done a tremendous job, but there is some frustration and anger. Frustration and anger because of the very difficult process to get to these agreements. Despite the science and the urgency and the public pressure, there were quite a number of countries including the US, but many more such as Japan, Canada and Australia, that really tried to block an ambitious agenda. While seeing that the first small step was so difficult, we now know that we will have a tremendous task before us to get a good agreement in 2009.

Fortunately, we have now a very good team in place, many strong allies in other environmental groups (and even some inside companies and governments). We have the science on our side, and the support of the populous. We are, to quote senior policy advisor Bill Hare, "unstoppable".

Thank you all for your support.

US marginalized - but will it be enough?

Daniel — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 01:14:54 PST

It is now 5pm of Saturday 15th December. The UN Climate Change Conference was scheduled for 3-14 Dec. The conference is still in session! Why are we still sitting here in plenary hearing the debate on the text a full day after what was to be the official end date?

In the face of heartfelt plea from the voices of those at the forefront of the impacts of climate change- namely, Tuvalu; Grenada on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and a few others, this morning the US continued to hold to its stubborn, non-negotiable stance which threatened to bring the meeting to a horrible end - ie. no mandate and a total waste of money, time, effort and the poltical will of industralised nations like member states of the EU. South Africa and PNG then made really strong interventions calling on the US to be the leader its been in other arena; PNG told the US that if it could not be a leader, then to get out of the way and leave the space to others.

Sheepishly, the US fell into line. As the room applauded, I did not want to waste my energy applauding because for me as a Pacific Islander, I ask " what took it so long to get to this point and why did it have to be kicked in the rear end to get in line?" I will wait to see what the US gets up to in the coming 2 years. It is the hope of those of us who witness first hand the impacts of climate change that as the will of the people in Australia changed the arrogant government of Howard; that the same will happen in 2008 in the USA.

In the last few minutes - the text adopted under the Kyoto Protocol had the ranges Greenpeace has been fighting hard for (25-40% reductions by 2020 compared to 1990 levels). Australia's support was particularly welcomed with rounds of applause. As a Pacific Islander, this gesture on the part of Australia is much welcomed and we look forward to more positive relations.

This session just ended is the start of a 2 year process which will negotiate the work for the second round of commitment under the Kyoto Protocol. What the Pacific islands need is strengthened capacity to be like Tuvalu, in its tenacity, in continuing to raise its flag and voice in the face of bullying tactics by big industrialised nations like the USA. What the Pacific islands need is real action against climate change. Now!

Australia and Canada give in to pressure!

Daniel — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 00:26:30 PST

It's been a tough two weeks pushing the new Australian government to finally accept some clear numbers for action on climate change. At the beggining of the week the Prime Minister said that there was no way that Australia would sign up to the negotiating "range" (of 25-40% by 2020 compared to 1990 levels), but here they are, agreeing to it! We have pushed and pushed, and called out for the government to take a principled position, and now it seems like we will get our wishes. We still have a long way to go to start reducing emissions in Australia, but now we have something to shoot for. We couldn't be more happy!

US isolated, "roadmap" adopted

Daniel — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:47:29 PST

Well, this was fun. After emotional speeches on the need to act - and to act now - against climate change by the likes of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Paula Dobriansky for the Bush White House first objected to the "Bali roadmap", the start of comprehensive negotiations for the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol. She was boo-ed. And many delegations, in stark terms not usual in international diplomacy, objected. South Africa said very clearly, that developing countries, especially rapidly industrializing one, are willing to do more (unlike what the Bush administrations keeps telling the world). And Papua New Guinea put it best. They called on the United States to "get out of the way". Well - they did! A potential action plan, to be agreed in 2009, was adopted. This changes nothing about the fact that the Bush administration is to blame that not more was achieved in Bali. That this agreement is not what the science demands. This agreement does, for example, not commit governments to the vital peak in global emissions by 2015. Still: the minimum for what we came here for, we got. (And we still await further decisions later today, especially from all those countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.)
Today we will sleep when this is finally over in another few hours. But tomorrow we start mobilizing for the fight over the next two years. We now CAN get a strengthened global climate treaty in Copenhagen in 2009. But this is by no means a given. It will take political pressure - like the pressure that made the United States cave here today. Thanks for your support! Keep it up!

Still here - will deal go through?

Daniel — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:01:55 PST

So, we are still here. 9am and governments have just started to meet in plenary. There is a new text - and it is not what the science demands. It lacks clear targets, it lacks the urgency that is needed. The US (supported by Russia last night) seems to have succeeded in destroying a strong agreement, even though the rest if the world was willing to take a giant step forward in Bali. But whether even this deal (which does have some good elements, e.g. on bringing clean technologies to the developing world) will survive the next few hours, we will see. There are still several options on the table. It is unusual to discuss a non-agreed text in plenary. It's a gamble by the Indonesian organizers. Let's see whether it works ...

Good bye to the fossil lobbies ...

Daniel — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:56:46 PST

We are still here at the Convention Centre; and it looks like we will be here all night. The mood is charged. People are nervous, tired, cranky. At midnight, ministers will reconvene and hear back from some sub-groups of negotiators on whether any progress has been made. Then there is likely to be more negotiations. Possibly until 7am. - The main sticking points: - what the United States will commit to - what developing countries commit to - and how ministers will reflect the science of climate change that demands real and drastic cuts. The stakes are getting higher. But the convention centre is also emptying out. The ' carneval of ideas' character of the convention centre corridors is over. Some people are sleeping in chairs. The many booths where organizations from the World Bank to our Solar Generation youth delegation have been ' selling' their ideas to passer-bys over the last two weeks have been dismantled. Which gives the place a bit of a hospital feel now. But at least it also means that some obnoxious people are gone. Like all those fossil fuel and nuclear power lobbyists, that have been pretending to be part of the solution to climate change here for the last two weeks. Like the World Coal Institute.

An institute that loves oxymoron's - like clean coal. An institute that is using the worry of many nations, that they require long term, reliable fuels to sell the most climate-damaging energy-form on planet earth. And, yes, as you might have guessed from the name of the institute. That is coal. Every time I passed the institute's stand, I thought of doing small impromptu "activity". Holding a banner in front of them. Delivering pictures of communities devastated by coal. Covering the stand in coal dust. Ok, that would have been mean. But appropriate ...

EU tells US - no progress no point in Major Emitters Meet

Jo — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:50:21 PST

One thing I had thought about blogging before US attempts to turn the bali roap map into road kill, was how much fun listening to the EU press conference was yesterday. These are ministers; they donât want to have public spats. In particular this is the EU â so itâs all very diplomatic and polite. But the message to the US that weâre not taking any more of your shit, was clear.

Unfortunately, I didnât get into see Gore but watched him on screen âit was perfect timing. Another reason to be positive about the backlash, and the fact that people are telling the Bush administration where to go.

The science, as determined by the worldâs most eminent climate scientists, Nobel Prize winners the IPCC, dictates that we more than halve global emissions by mid-century. Thatâs not so far away, and makes critical the need for 25-40% emission reductions by industrialised countries, that have dominated the discussion.

And the EU was saying that: this is what we need and weâre not backing down. Dimas, hero of the Anti GMO movement also made some cracking comments to the new Australian government.

Here are some examples from my notes, they may well just sound like diplobabble, which they were, but in reality they were dynamite. One little disclaimer - this is no transcript, just my rough notes:

Q: Whatâs this we hear about the EU boycotting the Major Emitters Meeting?

A: The EU has no intention of a boycott, we cherish the MEM process and believe can be fed into UNFCCC. But if we have failure here, it would be pointless to attend the MEM.

Q. Did you tell the US that unless the 25-40% emissions reductions range was in the text you would not go to MEM?

A: We need substantial agreement here in Bali or MEM is pointless.

Q. (same speaker) â yes but unless did you say 25-40% range or no MEM?

A: Weâre not blackmailing anyone. This is logic, not blackmail.

Q. What is the bottom line of breaking point?

A. Whatever comes out of Bali must rely on science, linking to IPCC findings is fundamental.

AUSTRALIA â get it together!

Q. Where does New Australian government stand on preamble [where the 25-40% ranges are] at the moment?

A. The New PM of Australia has lost an opportunity to commit to range but there is still time, because otherwise signing Kyoto Protocol will not have substance.

Q. Which advisor did you tell that Rudd had missed an opportunity by not supporting 25-40% target?

A. One who has less hair than myself. I have not heard that Australia doesnât support the ranges, but we need to hear from them that they do.

The end game has started ...

Daniel — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:29:03 PST

Everyone is just as tired as yesterday, but the conference centre today is alive with activity and adrenalin. The end game has started. And the shape of the final deal is slowly but surely emerging .... The politics is also getting more interesting: German environment minister Gabriel gave the negotiations a boost by committing to a unilateral, domestic reduction of Germany's emissions by 40% by 2020. I have been working on Germany having such a progressive target for as long as I can remember. (Minus 40% by 2020 was in the position paper I wrote for the climate negotiations in 2000!) Now, finally, we have it! Of course, Germany can only deliver that target, if it stops supporting new coal-fired power plants in Germany ... That's the fight for 2008! - Ministers last night restarted the negotiations on bringing clean technologies to developing countries. (The collapse of which had rightly angered developing countries on Tuesday night. ) We will know soon whether bureaucrats do better this time than on Tuesday ... - Meanwhile, the US is still trying to block everything (and some ministers have been seen looking really depressed, after talking to the US ...). It is clear that they are trying to destroy the United Nations process, something which the rest of the world must simply not allow. Bush does not represent Americans. And whatever comes out of Bali, when government have to sign the dotted line on the future of the Kyoto Protocol in 2009, the President of the United States will NOT be Bush! - So, back to chasing the latest text and fighting like hell that Bali agrees a substantive, real action plan. Wish us luck!

Saving the climate - it's an option. Option 2!

Daniel — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:21:23 PST

New text again (in the Kyoto Protocol part of the negotiations here). And now the crucial targets are back in. But only as an option. Option two of paragraph two. This text will likely be something that ministers will wrangle about here. It will be the test for how many of them are serious. Canada and Japan have opposed moves by the EU and the China on behalf of developing countries to reintroduce these targets outright. Russia seems to also have been problematic - and Australia still does not seem to be actively supporting what science tells us we need. So as ministers arrive in Bali, stopping dangerous climate change is still an option - option 2!

Key targets gone from key text!

Daniel — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 23:36:46 PST

New text on the negotiations, that all those who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol are involved in. And it is bad news. The key targets - peaking global emissions in the next 10-15 years; reducing emissions in industrialzied countries by 25-40% by 2020; getting global emissions well below 50% by 2050 - they are all gone! There is a reference to a previous decision that includes these targets. But this is still unacceptable. We need clear words and clear signal from Bali. Nothing less. Period.

Greenwash bikes

Daniel — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 23:10:10 PST

There has been a lot of talk about the carbon footprint of the Bali climate talks. Questioning the carbon footprint of big events like this is justified. And clearly not everybody who is on Bali needs to be here. Take the stuck in the rut climate sceptics, for example! But let's also keep in mind, that this conference emits only as much CO2 as running the planned new coal power plant at Neurath for a mere 20 hours or so. Neurath was one of the places where the global day of action took place yesterday. (To all of you who took part a bit thank you!) IF governments get their act together and agree a credible action plan here, it will have been carbon well spent - unlike at Neurath!. - The hosts have also done what they can to reduce the transport emissions locally. Free bikes are available everywhere. And though it seems to be getting more and more humid by the minute, lots of people can be seen rushing around on the bikes. I once got lost with one, cycling around in circles for half an hour (the closest I have gotten to exercise this week. But also to swimming - I was that wet ...!). So the bikes are a good thing as well as a fast and convenient - if sweaty - alternative to taxis. That said, some of them are also a form of greenwash. Medco energi are sponsoring the free bikes that have "Stop global warming" written all over them (see picture). Sadly, stopping global warming is not Medco energi's core business, to put it mildly. Rather, they produce oil - and are also the company behind a planned nuclear power plant in Jepara, Central Java. Those nuclear power plans are not popular. The local muslim council has declared a very reasonable fatwa against the project. And last week, some 1200 people joined us for a protest on the proposed site of the nuclear power facility. I have to think of those communities every time I dash off - carbon-free - to another meeting on a Medco energi-sponsored bike.

Global Day of Action is exactly what is needed

Andrew — Sat, 08 Dec 2007 06:49:20 PST

We're almost at the half-way point in this marathon of climate negotiations here in Bali, but the first week's progress has been paltry. With recognition of climate change as the single biggest threat to this planet at an all-time high, with scientists being more sure than ever as to the drivers of climate change, and with solutions all around us, one would think that the difficult work has already been done. Not so, based on my observations at Bali this week.

In fact, after a week of discussions by more than 100 governments, all we really have is bureaucrats revealing their negotiating positions, plus lots of posturing.

On whether industrialized countries should set emissions targets in line with the science (a substantial 30% reduction in emissions by 2020), there's no consensus.

On whether developing countries should set binding targets for things like energy efficiency and renewable energy, again there's no consensus.

On whether emissions from deforestation should be tackled, there is much murmuring, but thereâs no consensus on whether this should be done without undermining emissions reductions from fossil fuel burning (itâs not an either or: we need both!).

On whether the west will give access to the funds needed to adapt to a changing climate and provide easy access to clean technology for developing countries, there is consensus from developing countries. But the developed countries who have caused most of the problem of climate change to date donât yet agree.

Add all this up and what we essentially have is little progress in week one, and a massive homework assignment for ministers when they arrive in week two. If I was a minister Iâd be wondering what the hell my top bureaucrats have been doing all week.

It's not all bad though. China has been more constructive than most. Small Island states (the ones most threatened by climate change) are getting understandably very impatient. But the nonsense we hear from countries like the US, Canada & Japan more than cancels this out.

Itâs not good enough. Not by a long way.

Unlike bureaucrats, the Ministers arriving in the next days are more answerable to the public for climate change. The latest election result in Australia is proof that inaction on climate costs valuable votes.

So today, a Global Day of Action is underway in dozens of countries, with people around the world taking the streets to demand results. I myself joined a rally in Denpasar, where hundreds of Balinese and Indonesian NGO's and their volunteers along with people attending the climate negotiations rallied in the centre of town.

We were joined by the crew of the Rainbow Warrior, who'd recently stopped off in the Sunderban Islands in India on their way to Bali. There they met community leaders to discuss the very real impacts of their low-lying, weather-prone islands in the face of climate change. The captain and crew also spent the day alongside islanders planting mangrove forests to try and protect them from future extreme weather. The islanders also left their handprints on a large banner, and so the crew bought that banner to Bali, along with the islanders' message.

It's time for climate action now, and for the ministers who will arrive to show the kind of urgency that the people of the Sunderbanâs feel. Anything less than is simply unthinkable.

With Temperatures High in Bali, the US Blows more Hot Air

Daniel — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 20:14:22 PST

Day four from the Bali UN Climate Conference brought an announcement from the United States delegation. Was it that they had decided to join Australia and become the final industrialized country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol? No. Was it that they were prepared to agree to targets and timelines for emissions reductions and join the Europeans and others in support of a 25% to 40% reduction target by 2020? I am afraid not. Their big announcement was that they have invited the worldâs 17 largest greenhouse gas emitters to the second in their series of Major Economies Meetings, or as we like to call it, âThe Big Emittersâ.

It doesnât come as a shock that their announcement was process and not substance, but to add insult to injury, they have made clear the meetings WILL NOT lead to country specific reduction targets. It is simply a process to run out the clock on the Bush administrations final year in office. We understand that as of now, while the caterers and hotel rooms have been booked, none of the countries have yet RSVPâd.

The second in the series of the Big Emitters meetings, this time scheduled for Hawaii, distracts from the process that will begin here in Bali. By the end of next week, in order for the Bali meeting to be considered a success, delegates must agree upon nothing short of a strong Bali Mandate. That Mandate must create a clear negotiation process that leads to an agreement for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol by no later than 2009, This mandate must ultimately produce an agreement that with reduction levels for industrialized countries of at least 25% to 40% and broaden the number of willing to take on targets. President Bushâs Major Emitters meeting is simply a distraction from the process that will be required to produce this post 2012 Kyoto agreement.

Perhaps countries should consider sending low-level staff to the Major Emitters Meeting in January. Hawaii in January is a lovely place, and the lower level staff deserve a trip once in a while. But high level staff should stay home and work towards delivering the Bali Mandate. Time is short, and we cannot afford to waste it with meetings that blow nothing but hot air.

Chasing rumours and meetings, meetings, meetings. Is that really all we do?

Daniel — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 19:45:14 PST

Almost a full working week is over at these climate talks. In another week, the end game will start. We will start to have an inkling of whether our efforts here have been worth it. Itâs not easy to explain plainly what I and other civil society reps have actually been doing for all the long hours we have spent here at the Convention centre all week. The world of global climate talks is a world of rumour chasing, coffee drinking, constant huddles and meetings â with country delegations, with other NGOs, with the rest of the Greenpeace crowd. Press releases need to be discussed, drafted and then often enough redrafted as the negotiations have already moved on. People who are not at the talks but in national Greenpeace offices need to be kept informed of whatâs going on â and motivated to do something, if it happens to be their government that is acting up. There is a fair amount of sitting in big windowless rooms listening to boring speeches, as well. The challenge is to wake up again when something really outrageous happens â and to then react. Countries that are particularly in the way of progress are nominated for the Fossil of the Day awards at the daily Climate Action Network meeting (have a look at the winners so far this week here). A fun way to remind governments that they are being watched. That they will not get away with cooking the climate. That they will take the blame for their (in)actions.

Another way in which we react to the follies of our governments at these international negotiations is through producing our own newsletter â ECO. ECO has a proud tradition â ECO was first produced at the first Earth Summit in Stockholm in 1972. It is produced overnight for delegates to read in the morning â and a remarkable number of them can be seen doing just that. As ECO is for delegates, the language is not that of the tabloids. Itâs techy, policy wonkish -but it is always also tongue in cheek â¦ Editing ECO is a licence to be sarcastic.

ECO is hard work. The one nights this week that I helped editing it, I got to bed at 3am. But ECO is also therapy. ECO means sitting around with like-minded people from around the world, trying to find witty ways in which to put across our outrage and anger â and our hopes for what the negotiations could deliver. Editing ECO is a team effort and one that often involves a lot of laughs (as well as, sometimes, beer). ECO has already been sighted by Japan this week in the official meetings. Japan reacted to being attacked in ECO by clarifying that they do not want to trash the Kyoto Protocol. Good. We just wish they would contribute to moving things forward here as well. That, they are decidedly not!

Other countries that are being very unhelpful here are the US and Canada. And the EU as well as Australia, New Zealand and others could do way more than they are to show leadership. Yet another good reason for all of you out there in those countries to participate in the global day of action tomorrow. Please, give us a little hand - as we head to another meeting!

Kids in virtual world call out for real world action on climate change

Andrew — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:38:01 PST

If you're over the age of 30 there's a safe bet you don't understand Habbo - the largest virtual world for teens. In fact, no one over 30 I've talked to had even heard of it. But the teens in Habbo it's clear that the teens in Habbo do know about climate change, and they get it.

A new survey found that 74 percent of these teens believe global warming is a serious problem and are more concerned about it than any other issue including drugs, violence or war. As one of them said on the US Habbo discussion board:

Our parents and our parents parents have messed this world up for us now we are the ones who have to fix it.

The parents still have time to make a good start though. Let's see that they do in Bali.

Read the survey here, our press release here.

You a Habbo? Wear a green shirt on December 8th, and connect on the "Habbos against climate change discussion boards". Find yours.

Habbo is a (free) virtual community for teens. There are already Habbos against climate change groups in these hotels:

Australia - http://www.habbo.com.au/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Brazil - http://www.habbo.com.br/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Canada - http://www.habbo.ca/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Denmark - http://www.habbo.dk/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Finland - http://www.habbo.fi/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Denmark - http://www.habbo.de/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Italy - http://www.habbo.it/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Netherlands - http://www.habbo.nl/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Norway - http://www.habbo.no/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Russia - http://www.habbo.ru/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Spain - http://www.habbo.es/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Sweden - http://www.habbo.se/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Switzerland - http://www.habbo.ch/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

UK - http://www.habbo.co.uk/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

USA - http://www.habbo.com/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Singapore - http://www.habbo.com.sg/groups/habbos_against_climate_change

Learnings - forests and climate change

Andrew — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 11:06:27 PST

The scene was like that of a first day class at an open university taught by a nobel laurate. It was a full house, standing room only, with lines outside the door. Those who were able to make it got an incredible lesson on climate change and forests. This is my first COP/MOP and the first side event I ever helped organizeâ¦ and i felt lucky to be among those in attendance. Class was most definitely in session.

The Governor of Papua, home of Indonesia's largest remaining tropical rainforests, spoke passionately about his people, the forests they depend on, and the need to protect the climate. He said he âstood with Greenpeace in the effort to protect the earth.â and pledged to protect his forests if the world would only help him do so. Next came Paulo Adario, a Greenpeace legend in the forest campaign and head of our Amazon office. Paulo described the many problems of forest destruction in Brazil as well as Greenpeaceâs efforts to end all deforestation in the Amazon by 2015. He concluded his statement with the call: No money, no forests, no climate, no future.

Then came Bill Hare, Greenpeaceâs chief climate negotiator and another legend in the organization. Deforestation accounts for an astonishing 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions(!), and Bill unveiled Greenpeaceâs proposal on saving forests to protect the climate. We need to protect the forests to save the climateâ¦ and protect the climate to save the forests.

All things considered, it was one of the best lessons Iâve ever been a part of.

Day 2 - polar bears and bicycles

Andrew — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:46:50 PST

I canât believe today was only the second day of the conference, but then I couldnât believe yesterday was the first. With over 2,000 journalists, 10,000 delegates, hundreds of side events, press conferences, meetings and stalls- thereâs plenty going on all the time.

And itâs seriously hot. I am extremely grateful that I donât have to wear a suit. And even more so that Iâm not a Polar Bear risking his life to be here. P. Bear has been a huge hit, from a star turn at the Solar Festival to unveiling our thermometer yesterday and asking delegates today what is happening to his home, heâs by far the most popular member of the Greenpeace delegation.

The conference is spread across big distances, and the heat makes what should be easy 15 minute walks extremely painful. The UNFCCC have put on free bikes, which is fantastic. Ok, cycling for a long time would be more sweat inducing than walking, and I donât fancy P. Bearâs chances on a bike, but they turn the walking distances into no time at all. And itâs great to see so many suits biking around.

[Photo: P. Bear with friend. Copyright Greenpeace/Paul Hilton]

Back inside the centre, one of my jobs includes going to press conferences. Yesterday I went to listen to what the US had to say. Nothing. No surprises there I guess, but despite knowing perfectly well the Bush administrationâs position on climate change â it was the first time I had ever seen a live show of such incredible waffle. It was crazy â in the midst of the most important climate negotiations since Kyoto was agreed - to hear delusional beliefs in non-existent miracle technologies and assertions that voluntary targets are more effective than mandatory ones and blah, blah, blah.

I was actually impressed with the ability of chief US climate negotiator Harlan Watson, to say nothing when asked awkward questions. Which was all of them, given their pariah status. A status fully exposed by the laughter when he was asked if the US was feeling the isolation, now that Australia is all set to join Kyoto.

Our fantastic side event today, where we launched our proposal to reduce, and ultimately end tropical forest destruction, was the perfect antidote to the USâs posturing. The room was absolutely jam packed with people wanting to hear about real solutions. Iâll leave the details up to the team that made it happen.

Fossil fuels are not the future, Yvo!

Daniel — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:20:15 PST

Yvo de Boer, the head of the UNFCCC has done a lot to move the global climate negotiations forward. No questions about that. But yesterday he shocked me by - at the opening ceremony of all places - strongly endorsing fossil fuels and putting a lot of hope in making dirty fuels a little cleaner (you can listen to his speech here). This, to put it midly, is unhelpful. The fossil fuel industry, which made record profits in recent years, hardly needs de Boer's pity. It is the industry, that caused the problem we are dealing with here in the first place (as you all know, but Yvo seemed to have forgotten for a moment). Fossil fuels will not be gone tomorrow, true. But if we want to fight climate change, we need to move beyond them. At Bali governments should commit to ending all subsidies for fossil fuels - which are still massive. Institutions like the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank like to talk about how much money they spend on renewables. But they also still fund the climate problem - with much bigger sums! If we are serious about climate change, we must do all we can to invest in energy efficiency and sustainable renewable energies. If we do that, we can cut emissions from the power sector by 50%. Without unproven technologies such as 'Carbon Capture and Storage' for coal plants (CCS basically amounts to sticking emissions under a rock and hoping they will stay there). Without nuclear power. So, come on Yvo. Clear your head and endorse an energy revolution.

Cooking the climate

tomD — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:18:28 PST

It's day one of the climate negotiations here in Bali, and time for world governments to stop posturing and start putting major solutions to climate change in place.

One of the key outcomes that we need to see from this meeting is that governments have to set much stronger targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol was a good start in laying the basis for governments to get to grips with measuring and reducing emissions. But it must be strengthened going forward. This is because efforts to combat climate change need to keep the planet below two degrees Celsius in order to prevent dangerous climate change. And that means halving emissions globally by 2050. Therefore industrialized countries must agree to begin negotiations for a cut in their emissions by 30 percent by 2020 in order to shoulder their fair share of the responsibility. These numbers are big, but our research shows that they are possible with the right political will.

Enter P-Bear. He's our Polar Bear mascot for the meeting, and an icon of one of the many species around the world whose future is threatened if governments don't act on climate change. Today, as delegates arrived at the negotiations, he unveiled a 7 metre high thermometer which stands at the entrance to the meeting. The thermometer serves as a daily reminder that 2 degrees is more than the planet can handle, and that fast action and clear targets are needed to cut emissions.

In the next two weeks world governments must show leadership there is no greater threat to the planet than climate change. Now is the time for strong climate action. P-Bear, the thermometer, and our team of experts from developed and developing countries will be here to work towards this outcome, and blow the whistle on those that stand in the way of real action.

Negotiations need to speed up!

Daniel — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:35:07 PST

The music was pretty cheesy. But when it was over, the UN climate negotiations were formally started. At last. The most important two weeks in (climate) diplomacy over the last decade are now under way. David Mwiraria, Kenya's environment minister, found the right words. Climate action is not as strong and fast as the emergency we face demands, he said, and appealed to delegates that "negotiations need to speed up." Indeed, they must. So why, you wonder, do we have to sit through minutes and minutes of Bali tourism advertising in the opening session (though the movie did apparently relate to a Bali event against climate change)? It reminded us of what we will not see - as we sit in a huge, window-less room, sweating ... This ain't no holiday and now the Head of the UNFCCC is speaking - so I better listen. You can listen to him too - here.

Finally, Bali ... so how did we get here?

Daniel — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 00:35:54 PST

Here we are again - the globalization bubble of hotels, hotels and western chain stores that is the very southern tip of the island of Bali. The military is also already here - cruising along the beach for our "security". Like many who will be heading to the global climate negotiations, I have been here before. Five years ago, the World Summit on Sustainable Development was being prepared here. A statistic that scares me. We have only little more than 5 years - around 7 - left to make global emissions peak. If I think about how little has yet happened on the commitments - meagre as they were - governments made at Johannesburg - I despair. But, hopefully, 2007 and climate change is different. Hopefully we can build on the momentum that has been built over the last few months. Hopefully, we can build on the science, the public pressure, the UN leadership and the fact that Australia is now joining the club of supporters of the Kyoto Protocol - the only legally binding international agreement to cut emissions we have.

It has been a busy year - even by the standards of the Greenpeace climate campaign. The road to Bali has been pretty torturous and long. Whether it was worth it, we will see in the next two weeks. We will see if governments agree more than a wish-list here. If they agree the action plan we need to save the climate.

We started the year with a positive message. First, we launched our energy revolution - a blueprint to cut emissions in the energy sector by 50% by 2050 through using energy more efficiently and massively investing in renewable energy. As the first report by the Noble Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change was negotiated, we warned the world against cynicism. We reminded them that "It is not too late" - if they act - and act now - to start an energy revolution. In April, the IPCC released the strongest warnings yet on the impacts climate change will have. In May, the IPCC caught up with our positive mesage from February and showed how we have to technologies and resources to prevent cooking the climate - if, and it is a big if, we have the political will. That all this science was starting to scare people, we could witness at the G8 summit in June. Climate change, which late last year was downgraded as an agenda item, dominated. The G8 - who are responbsible for over 80% of the emissions in the atmosphere today - produced mainly empty rhetoric. But they did clear the road for Bali - by affirming the United Nations as the place where climate deals need to be made and committing all countries to work constructively at Bali. Well, we shall see.

In August, the last formal climate negotiations took place in Vienna. We reminded bureaucrats there that you - concerned citizens - are watching . And, after some countries had taken really bad positions for the whole week, we did get a - relatively - positive outcome. Industrialized countries acknowledged that they will have to drastically cut emssions by 2020. There is a big difference between acknowledgment and action, I know. But it's a start.

September was another busy month. First, Australia was Pushing Export Coal at the APEC summit - resulting in nothing but a Sydney Distraction. Luckily, this was the last distraction from Howard - before he got voted out.

Then, the UN Secretary General took the initiative and brought more than 80 world leaders to New York to talk climate change. This was unprecedented and a big show featuring Arnie Schwarzenegger and all. Many of the speeches were mere rhetoric again, of course. But the meeting helped show that the UN is the place to negotiate climate agreements. Not the club of countries that Bush asked to come to Washington a few days later. Bush failed to invited countries like the Pacific islands - who will be hardest hit by climate change. What Bush did want at his "Big Emitters Meeting" was to set up a new, parallel process. He wanted working groups, a schedule of meetings, the whole shebang. He got nothing - just another protest and many, especially European leaders, confirming to the world's media that only binding emission cuts for industrialized countries work. Bush's "voluntary targets" approach is a road to climate hell.

In October, we launched our Forest Defender Camp in Indonesia. Forests are responsible for some 20% of global emissions - and deforestation is responsible for 85% of most Indonesian emissions. Which is why we are calling for a mechanism to end deforestation under the Kyoto Protocol. November, finally, the IPCC issued a final stark warning on what will happen if governments fail to act. Since then, we have been hitting the most polluting energy source - coal - all over the world. In Australia, and - yesterday in Indonesia, for example. So here we are. Near the beach - but stuck in meetings for the next two weeks. Waiting to see if governments will act - here. Please help by joining the global day of action next Saturday! We will keep you posted.

Setting Sail for Bali

Andrew — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:48:57 PST

We left the quayside in Jakarta yesterday onboard the Rainbow Warrior, destined for the international UN climate negotiations in Bali beginning early December. Before leaving, we undertook a small press briefing to launch our Indonesian Energy Revolution. Our research provides a vision and roadmap for how Indonesia can provide 2.5 times more energy to the country by 2050 without contributing to dangerous climate change.

The report itself outlines how a combination of biomass (such as burning of agricultural waste), geothermal power and solar power can deliver energy that is badly needed here. This coupled with ambitious energy efficiency targets and some natural gas can keep Indonesia powered for the next decades as the population increases and people slowly lift themselves out of poverty. Along with tackling greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation, this will help Indonesia to play its part in tackling climate change.

Our energy roadmap for Indonesia is vastly different than plans put forward by the Indonesian government. They currently propose 10,000 megawatts of coal-fired power (approx. 10 power stations) to be built in the next decade, and are also actively pursuing nuclear power.

The situation is not without hope though. Indonesia Environment Minister Ir. Rachmat Witoelar welcomed our vision, and our campaign team in Jakarta will be working hard to ensure that our research is taken onboard.

Once out on the Java Sea the crew hoisted sails as we turned due east. The rainbow warrior is sporting a brand new jib designed by our in-house creative guru Elaine in Amsterdam. Five wind turbines gracefully rise up the sail as it billows out in the wind. They also drive home the message that wind power can deliver, and is part of the solution to climate change. Quite inspiring.

Under sail, we were quickly joined by an Indonesian navy frigate following us. Weâll look forward to keeping them company on the way to Bali. And maybe they can join us when we stop tomorrow in the town of Jepara in central Java, where weâll work with community members and leaders in opposition to a proposed nuclear power plant.

The site of the plant is on a fault line, at the base of the dormant Mount Muria volcano, and also in a tsunami zone. One could not think of a more irresponsible place to propose a nuclear power plant. The Islamic Religious Council of Central Java agree, and have declared the idea âHaraamâ, meaning forbidden, which is very good news. Weâll join together with religious and community leaders to further build opposition to such a foolish idea. Our message will be clear: itâs time to kick-start an Energy Revolution.

What the Oz election outcome means for the election

Andrew — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:41:11 PST

The Australian election was a comprehensive thumping for the conservative parties. And one of the things that hurt them most was their (non) position on climate change - in particular the refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Former environment minister, and now frontrunner for the Liberal leadership, Malcolm Turnbull, was unequivocal the Monday after the election that not ratifying Kyoto had hurt the conservative Coalition. It was Turnbull who, about 6 weeks before the election, had tried to convince Federal Cabinet to ratify Kyoto, but was blocked by then Prime Minister John Howard. That wonât happen again. Whoever ends up leading the conservatives in the next few years, it seems clear that Australiaâs holiday from history on climate change is over.

What does this mean for the rest of the world, and for the Bali talks? Firstly, the number of major developed countries refusing to ratify Kyoto has just dropped from 2 to 1. The only holdout is the US, where President George Bush has made non-ratification almost an article of faith - a position of blind recalcitrance which largely informed Howardâs. While the new situation down under will not lead to Bush ratifying Kyoto - stand by for hell to freeze over if it does - it increases pressure on the US, and the next President, to rejoin international efforts to deal with climate change.

And that leads us to Bali. Australia has always played a wrecker role on climate in the international sphere. Be it obstructing progress through non-ratification of Kyoto, or throwing up the reddest of red herrings like the AP6. Now, with a government in power who professes to take climate change seriously, that should end. What is not clear, though, is how progressive the new government will be. Australia is still the worldâs largest coal exporter and our local industry is heavily dependent on coal-fired electricity. The Labor party is close to coal mining unions, and has made it clear that it sees coal as an essential part of Australiaâs, and the worldâs, energy future. A new government doesnât change basic political economy.

On the other hand, Australia is a hot, dry country that is already suffering water shortages. All of which will get worse if climate change is not dealt with. And given that Australia is the âsunburnt countryâ which also has some of the worldâs best wind resources, weâve got what we need to make the switch from coal to clean energy.

So, weâll be toasting Australiaâs long-overdue ratification of Kyoto when it happens. But the celebrations will have to be short lived. After 11 years of denial and inaction, thereâs a lot of work to do, and very little time in which to do it. Australiaâs emissions needs to peak by 2010 and fall to at least 30% below 1990 levels by 2020 if we are to play our part in the global effort to avoid climate change. That will be a big job, but one that is achievable. And, ultimately, absolutely necessary if we are to avoid the catatrophic consequences of unchecked climate change.

Over to you Prime Minister Ruddâ¦â¦.

Official: climate change destroys development

Daniel — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:34:59 PST

Received wisdom, however wrong, is something difficult to change. So one of the most common knee jerk reactions to environmentalists going on about the need to act against climate change is still: "Yeah, but what about development? Don't the poor have a right to live too?" Sure.

But as it turns out, development, especially development is being undermined by climate change. It is the poor that are most vulnerable to climate change. It is they who are already hardest hit. It is "developing countries", that will suffer the worst impacts of climate change. In the period between 2000 and 2004, for example, over 98 per cent of the 262 million people affected by climate-related disasters were in developing countries. Whichever way you look at it, climate change is a threat to development. At the same time, climate-friendly technologies - such as off grid solar installations - are often the best way to deliver key development objectives - such as access to electricity for all.

All this has been true for years. But even though development organizations have joined us 'greenies' in saying it increasingly loudly, this message has still not gotten through. Certainly not to the people I meet on trains, in bars or at dinner parties. May be the United Nations' body tasked with global development - UNDP - will be believed more than me!

In their new Human Development Report - published today - they have confirmed that climate change threatens development.

"We must see the fight against poverty and the fight against the effects of climate change as interrelated efforts" they conclude. UNDP warns that if we fail to address climate change, we will consign 40 per cent of the worldâs population to a future of âdiminished opportunityâ. Such strong words a few days before the next global climate negotiations start in Bali, Indonesia, are very welcome.

What a shame, therefore, that UNDP spoils its good report by endorsing unproven, dirty coal technologies - such as 'carbon capture and storage'. UNDP is, in fact, calling for further subsidies for the most climate damaging of all energy forms: coal.

That is absurd - especially given that it is again the poor in developing countries that are often devastated by coal mines or power plants - not to mention the later impacts of climate change. There is also no need to believe in the world's most glaring oxymoron: "clean coal".

It seems that even UNDP seems to not believe its own message, that development and climate protection need to go together. They seem to somehow think that we need some magic new technologies to make this true. But: We do not! We can have development and climate protection - now. We can meet energy demand with existing, market-ready technologies - if we go for an energy revolution based on energy efficiency and renewable energy! So - let's!