It's Started, Be What May

Well, it’s started. It is November and there is something undefinable but unmistakable in the air. A collective breathlessness. The edge of anticipation. As I enter the large doors and go up the escalators I recognize the slightly frantic glaze in everybody’s eyes because I have it too. Its almost here and there is still so much to do.

I am, of course, talking about COP17 of the UNFCCC. COP17 is the seventeenth ‘Conference of the Parties’ of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A small band of negotiators work on developing some semblance of international climate policy year-round, but this is the crucial annual event designed to formalize and implement the global political response to climate change. Within days thousands of people will board airplanes destined for Durban, South Africa where two weeks of networking and negotiation in sprawling convention centres and non-descript hotel boardrooms await them. For bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, academics, journalists, heads of state, and civil society leaders the pace of life is rapidly accelerating. There are strategies to clarify. Predictions to be made. Reports to be released.

There are only two remotely notable features about the meeting room I walk into on this November afternoon. The first is the assortment of people balancing gummy white bread sandwiches on paper plates. There are 15 wooden chairs around the table. I count representatives from the embassies of three powerful countries, four internationally recognized academics, and several senior negotiators from the wealthy developed country that is hosting the meeting. An assistant discreetly stands at the ready between the door and the coffee.

The second notable thing is me. My gender, my youth and my unimportance prevent me from blending in. I am one of only two women; the other is the wife of the chair of the meeting. In my green wool dress, I am the only person not wearing a grey or black power suit. There appears to be only one other person under the age of 40, and I am the only one whom everyone else does not already know. The chair mentions that he and several others in the room have been attending COPs since COP3. This represents 14 years of climate change negotiating at the highest level.

We have gathered today to hear what opening stance this specific wealthy developed country has decided it will take. I imagine identical meetings are happening in equally bland meeting rooms around the globe. This is the chance for negotiators to test their arguments, fish for support and delineate areas of mutual interest with other players that might emerge.

The stage is carefully set to allow us to see the logic, indeed the natural evolution, of their central stance. It starts with a consideration of what I expect is the single-most referenced piece of the UNFCCC, Article 3. This crucial text begins thus:

"The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities."

The initial Kyoto Protocol, birthed in the fateful COP3 of the UNFCCC, used this text to draw a razor-sharp line in the sand between developed and developing countries. Developed countries made legally binding promises to reduce greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions. Developing countries faced no obligations. It was felt that developed countries could charge ahead, bear the initial costs for the GHGs they had historically emitted, and that developing countries could eventually contribute as they were able, buoyed by unceasing economic growth and steadily decreasing costs of emission reductions through technological innovation.

Fast-forward 14 years and the landscape has changed. Emissions have skyrocketed worldwide. Developed countries found it far harder than expected to reduce emissions for a variety of political, economic and technical reasons and few have met their obligations. Meanwhile several developing countries, most notably China, have experienced explosions of growth and emissions.

Like developed countries around the world, our host developed country is not particularly keen to commit itself to deep reductions of GHGs unless countries like India and China do as well. The negotiators meticulously point us to the last two words of the article, respective capabilities. The argument is neither complicated nor new. It could be paraphrased like this; “In the UNFCCC we all agreed to do our part based on what we could do. Many developing countries are now able to carry part of the burden, so we, as a developed country, are not willing to move forward on any further emission reductions until they do too”. Paraphrase it a little further and you get something like, “I won’t go until you go first”.

A number of those in the room shift uncomfortably at this aggressive play. The argument we have just been presented is deeply contentious because it suggests a complete overhaul of long-standing global obligations and their associated costs. India and several other developing countries are completely committed to maintaining the Kyoto divisions. Several academics and an embassy representative suggest softening the stance to minimize the alienation it will necessarily cause in India, China and other developing countries.

Another academic, one who has never attended a COP but who is an internationally recognized energy economist, attacks it more directly, stressing that this line of argument could unravel the already threadbare global commitment to reduce emissions. Surely, he argues, some cooperation would reap maximum emission reductions at a minimum cost.

The lead negotiator, a kindly looking gentleman who has clearly thought this through and seen it all in his years of service, leans forward and gives the academic a bemused smile. “But this is political reality”, he says, “this is how the game is played”.

We break for tea and biscuits and the room swells with muted chatter. I find myself in a small cluster with two of the academics discussing Durban and its possible outcomes. The younger but more experienced one sagely dips his stale shortbread into his tea. “I’m worried”, he states, “I think Durban could be a very dangerous COP. Sometimes it is better not to talk than to talk. Maybe we need to stop talking”.

Riding the tube on my way home I reflect on what he has said. He is not the first person I have heard expressing deep ambivalence about the utility of continuing to meet for the UNFCCC. If I am correct, and meetings like the one I just attended are being held around the world, and if negotiating stances elsewhere are crystallizing in fundamentally irresolvable ways, then he might be right. Durban could simply dig a deeper hole for a global stalemate.

I check my email when I get home. My e-ticket has arrived. I leave for Durban in a few days. Whether the UNFCCC should meet or not is moot. We are committed now, be what may.