Reflections on a Cool Copenhagen Climate Conference

Copenhagen, Hopenhagen or Brokenhagen? …….Your choice

Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark, is a beautiful old city with fantastic biking lanes alongside every road, a very good metro system and an alternative lifestyle village called Christiania, right in the heart of the metropolis (Christiania bikes are said to be the best in Denmark). And, unless you were hibernating through December, 2009, you will be well aware that the city hosted the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15).

It was apparent that COP 15 fever had overtaken the whole city from the moment of stepping off the plane and being confronted with ads from Coca-Cola, Mercedes and a plethora of other corporate interests, letting travellers know how green they have all become lately. Every city square was taken over by such things as massive earth balls, portable trailers with eco-exhibits or billboards proclaiming how happy the Danish were to be hosts and their hopes for a solid, binding agreement at COP 15.

The main conference was held in a large complex called the Bella Center which has a capacity of 15,000 with a very appropriate wind turbine right behind it. Unfortunately for many the organizers made a huge blooper when they invited 45,000 people to the event. Thousands of us waited hours in very cold conditions trying to get in, but to no avail. When it became apparent that the leaders or ministers of 193 countries were attending, entry was restricted even further. No one was actually turned away, but after waiting for 5 hours with freezing hands and sore hips, plus another potential 2 to 3 hours before actually getting a badge I, for one, gave up.

During the long wait I found out about an alternative conference called KilmatForum in downtown Copenhagen and headed there to find it. I have to speculate that this gathering was better than the real one – speculate, since I never again tried to get into the Bella Center. Some very well known figures came to the KilmatForum including author Naomi Klein, Guardian Journalist George Monbiot, and www.350.org founder Bill McKibben, to name only the ones I saw. I believe Desmond Tutu and Al Gore were there during the first week.

Two enormous screens beamed in live coverage of the real conference so no one need have missed any highlights. One very enjoyable hit - for myself anyway - was watching a news conference with Venezuelan president, Hugo Chaves and Bolivian president, Evo Morales just before they walked out in disgust. It became very obvious to most developing countries that the show was really about the big polluters (China, USA, Europe, India, Brazil and South Africa) and what they decided was what was going to happen. Both of these Latin American leaders, along with other notables like Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives, spoke without any diplomatic colouring and jargon. Under-developed country leaders generally gave some version of the unvarnished truth: Mother Earth (Pachamama to Latin American indigenous people) is at her limits, whether it be from over fishing, deforestation, water shortages, excessive carbon in the atmosphere or………. select the route way by which to go to the devil.

Another major highlight that was held at the KlimatForum was the declaration of Fossil of the Year Award and, guess what - Canada won again, hands down. We consistently win the Fossil of the Day at COPs, so getting the one for the Year is a slam dunk for us. Mayor David Miller of Toronto caused a furor after accepting one Fossil of the Day on behalf of the absent (of course) Canadian government and his acceptance was repeatedly beamed to a screen adjacent to the line up to get into the Bella Center. For anyone who seriously believes that Canada has been playing the role of honest broker on the world stage, as it consistently used to do in decades past, forget it. After using up excuses like ‘it will destroy our industrial base’ or ‘it will destroy our standard of living’ or ‘we only produce 2% of the world’s GHGs’, we have fallen back on ‘climate change is the most intractable crisis humanity has ever faced, but we have to follow the US lead’ - Quite pathetic really from a G8 country that is as highly respected and wealthy as this one is.

There has been much speculation regarding who actually sabotaged the outcome. Some say it was China, whose leader didn’t actually attend and had to be called repeatedly to say “no” as negotiations crawled ahead through the night. Others blamed Barak Obama who should have placed all his substantial political capital on the table. Even before the talks began most experts were saying that no result was better than a bad result and that the momentum created by COP 15 would lead to an agreement with ‘binding targets’ in 2010 in Mexico. The problem there though is the same as what was said about the Doha round of economic talks which bogged down about 10 years ago and, in spite of repeated promises, have never amounted to anything since.

The scientific community is now saying that a temperature rise of 20C is the point beyond which humanity must not go. There are “tipping points” or positive feedback mechanisms that will start up, it is believed, if we exceed this limit. No one knows with very much certainty whether 20C is that limit, but it is a best guess. If the tipping points are exceeded humanity then loses control and climate change takes on a will of it’s own – it cannot then be reversed. It should be noted that the developing countries, and most scientists, think 20C is too large and insist on 1.50C. The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain and the stakes are very high if we get it wrong.

I personally am not surprised at the “three steps forward, two steps back” nature of climate change action. Consider what is being asked of the economic paradigm of the entire world: nothing less than a complete reversal of the direction in which we have been going since the industrial revolution began. Everyone knows that economic growth with no limits is a complete non-starter, but no one has a clue how to change it. Many experts and futurists are saying that we can have a steady state economy, with zero growth, whilst maintaining a good standard of living. However, this will require nothing less than a total revamp of the entire industrial base - which will eventually happen. The major question is: will it be via planning and regulation or via economic and ecological collapse? This is the question of the 21st century.

At NAIT (the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology) we could be playing a leading role in the necessary transition to a society reliant on different and sustainable technology. Thus far initiatives have been few and have mostly come from individuals. A great and exemplary example is the work many NAIT staffers have done on the Riverdale Net-Zero House. If we hope to become known as an institution renowned for expertise in sustainable technology then the impetus has to come from a policy change. Does NAIT have the courage for such an uncertain and progressive path? The Chinese symbol for crisis is made up of both danger and opportunity - let’s hope we can seize the second option in spite of the first.

The Obama Administration is pushing a Green Economy as the major driver for an economic recovery. Does anyone else have a better idea? Albert Einstein said that, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.