Post Mortem

Remember the Earth, kids?

Much has been written of the failure of COP 15 in Copenhagen. Still, there is surprisingly little clarity – or consistency – in the press regarding what actually happened and why.

The implications of what happened are profoundly important, but not – in the short term at least – for climate change nearly as much as for geopolitics.  At Copenhagen, all the global powers (and powerless) we’re thrown into a room together and told, “go get what you want, but please play nice”.  If this “experiment” was run with children, the result couldn’t have been much different.

We witnessed a spectrum of  behaviors and negotiating strategies –  from coalition-building to bullying –  with a wide range of results.  Copenhagen’s significance is that it was the coming-out party for the new, multipolar “cold-tug-of-war”, which is anchored by China and the U.S. but occasionally wobbles when Russia roars, that has been emerging beneath the geopolitical surface for the last 10 years.  This dynamic, which was laid bare under the bright lights in Copenhagen for all to see for the first time, will characterize much of the 21st century.

In summary, several things occured at Copenhagen:

1. The EU was disillusioned that the world shared its key beliefs in a) collective action with a willingness to pool sovereignty, and b) commitment to addressing climate change.
2. The US and Obama revealed a deep insecurity about its power, and it negotiated poorly
3. China negotiated cleverly, but behaved poorly, revealing an internal calculus that eschews credibility to bolster power.  As a result, the EU, US and other international powers could no longer pretend that  China can be trusted to respect international norms or agreements.

Plenary

The U.S. and EU were dramatically outmaneuvered by China.  Europe, in seeing much of the world as a reflection of itself where states negotiate to maximize their benefit but are nonetheless willing to pool their energies for a greater goal, had its faith shattered.  It was shell-shocked; the EU had not believed that major parties such as China would actually rather sabotage the process and take advantage of other participants efforts to compromise for their own gain, than to work for the best possible negotiated settlement.  This was never a possibility in their deliberations – tough negotiators, yes, but not saboteurs.  And the Americans, who begrudgingly came to Copenhagen to ensure their entry into climate change agreements would be slow and dignified,  came with a weak negotiating position that afforded few tactical options, which they misplayed.

Obama Speech at COP15

The shock comes from misguided expectations. In the weeks and months leading up to COP15,  the U.S. was widely assumed to be the most likely cause for any failure at Copenhagen.  A hotly partisan U.S. domestic political situation was already locked in battle over costly financial bailouts and healthcare reform.  Congressional leaders have long feared climate change legislation for the clear and quantifiable costs it would impose on utility ratepayers, who also happen to be their electorate, in return for the uncertain, diffuse and intergenerational benefits it may or may not return.  In addition to the climate change doubters and sundry special interest lobbies that inevitably confuse the debate, strong opposition centered around concerns that climate change legislation would undermine American industrial competitiveness, sending dollars and jobs to developing countries unburdened by the stringent CO2 reductions being demanded.  The expectation that the US would also contribute to significant financial payments to those same emerging economies further salted the wounds.

U.S. at Bella Center

For this reason, it was a clear that the U.S. would never pass legislation, let alone sign up to international commitments, without certaintly that the large emerging economies and specifically China were also committed to significant constraints in accordance with the agreed standard of “common but differentiated action based on national circumstances”.

Unfortunately, this was obvious to China as well.

Nevertheless,  during the high-level negotiations when disturbing signals from China became clearer and clearer, first with diplomatic snubs and then with China methodically striking every objectional item from the agreement, the U.S. failed to play its strongest defense:  walking away.  The U.S. could have made it credible and managed the delicate publicity by demanding  the Chinese demonstrate serious intentions and good faith (such as by sending Hu Jintao to the heads of state meeting).  It would have been a high stakes move, but China forced their hand. Unfortunately, the U.S. failed to demand proper participation by China, undermining their own negotiating power and positioning themselves to be taken advantage of.

In its zeal to grab for the win, China failed to even feign like it was trying to play according the the norms of high-level negotiations.  Like a young child grabbing for the cookies even after promising it wouldn’t, China showed the entire international community gathered around the room – literally-  that it could not be trusted to act in good faith or collective interests.  China is already well-known to schizophrenically demand at times to be treated like a mature power and others like the young poor nation in need of resources and support.  Showing that it cannot be trusted even when the world’s Ministers and Heads of State are negotiating with it means nations will no longer take China at its word in hope for future benefits.  Interests will need to be protected with clear disincentives in negotiations from now on.  As a result, China has provided nations the basis they need to deny China one thing it craves: respect.

One explanation for this is despite China’s long-term view of its own interests, it has achieved great success by highly discounting reputational value (ie. future benefits from current compromises, in repeated-game theory parlance)  for the very real benefits extracted today from external parties (countries and companies).  This translates into a well-known lack of respect for intellectual property rights.  While I’m no China analyst, often cited sources for this behavior are Chinese insecurities from (and sense of entitlement because of) their colonial past, and pragmatic calculations about internal demographics and the speed of development required to catch up to the world, which can be summarized in terms of greater long-run gains through sheer economic and physical might.

Some commentators have said the biggest failure at Copenhagen was China’s failure to pin the blame squarely on the U.S., which it was in an excellent position to do had it not acted so openly to scuttle the accords.

The reason China busted the Accord is astoundingly simple. China’s strength comes from two sources – cheap labor (demographics) and cheap, dirty coal.  In the evening of  Friday 18 December, as the talks were winding down, in addition to the 2°C limit on climate change nations had tentatively agreed to a global 50% reduction in emissions, which is based on the widely agreed upon target of 80-95% reduction for industrial countries and continued growth in emerging markets. The Copenhagen Accord would also record in Appendix I industrialized countries’ unilateral, already-announced “Quantified economy-wide emissions targets for 2020”, such as the U.S. 17% reduction.  Yet by Saturday morning when the Accord was released, China had managed, through exasperating negotiations (detailed here by Mark Lynas of the UK Guardian) to remove any reference to the 50% target OR countries own plans!  Why? Because the next logical step after the industrials countries commit to a target is for the largest emitters  – China – to limit theirs.  China’s economy grows at roughly 7-10% p.a., which means it doubles every 8-10 years.  Buying themselves 3-5 years while the world regroups and signs up to an agreement is immensely valuable to China.

The near-absence of press about the Accords since COP15 ended illustrates how profoundly disappointing Copenhagen was.  However, unlike Mark Lynas of the Guardian and so many others, I’m neither convinced that climate doom nor China’s 21st centrury dominance were sealed in Copenhagen.

As far as the climate goes, for the first time all leading industrialized countries were willing to commit to carbon reductions.  They have already agreed to $100 billion in long term funding flows and pledged $30 billion of fast-start financing.  They have also agreed in principle to all major stumbling blocks with developing countries, and tracks have been established to work out the details of several key focal areas, such as forestry and agriculture, where progress should be easier when only the most relevant parties are involved.  And climate change policy has become a cornerstone of economic development policy at the highest levels in countries such as Germany, the U.S. and U.K.

As for China’s role, the world had a wake up call. As a result, nations are no longer unwilling to confront the Asian dragon as it is clear appeasement earns nothing.  This is already evident in the U.S. rhetoric and politics, for example having just authorized stalled sales of weap0ns to Taiwan. China has undermined its own quest for trust and credibility based on its calculation that a few years of unfetterd growth are adequate compensation. They could be right, but governments across the globe are reevaluating their approach to China.

As countries also search for ways to recover from the economic slowdown, climate change is being reincarnated in green growth policies and targeted areas for job creation. So, while Copenhagen was a disorganized mess and the Accord a joke, I still believe it represented a critical step in advancing climate change and low carbon growth as an irreversible fact of life, and Copenhagen will be regarded as a seminal moment in 21st century geopolitics.

COP15 - Closed

D(ecision) Day Observations

It is the afternoon of Friday December 18th and inside the Bella Center the atmosphere is filled with stale hope, mingling with pungent despair and exhaustion.

Mostly there is a lot of waiting, occasionally puctuated by a rush of delegates walking through the halls or a poignant speech worthy of chatter.

Nearly everyone – which essentially means national delegations and press, since today and yesterday there were only 300 NGO and BiNGO observers allowed in the facility of 20,000 -is sitting around watching the CC-TV screens located throughout the facility and particularly at the large ones in certain areas such as the US Center and EU Pavillion.

Herr Gorißen, KII 1 Referat Abteilungs Leiterer, watching and waiting

Interestingly this includes many of the key negotiators central to the efforts of the last weeks, months and years who are now left idle, waiting for their phones to ring calling them back to work on draft texts as a result of their Ministerial and Head of State meetings. Mostly everyone is idle, with large TV News cameras pointed at the CC-TV, since even most of  the press was not allowed for security reasons into the informal Heads of State meetings.

As widely reported, the high-level delegations were hard at work well into the night.  Leaders and Ministers were at bilaterals and group working dinners trying to coax, plead and cajole through the impasses.  A draft text was circulated, but it wasn’t even available at the document center this morning, with only Wednesday’s useless draft in print leaving the document center staff idle and confused.

Thursday night there was some progress on financial achitecture – conceptually – and key MRV (Measurement, Reporting and Verification) elements around financing that are required by industrialized countries before funds will flow. Nevertheless, today in the speechs we have seen the posturing continue by emerging countries, like Brazil, G-77 and China who want the funds without accountibility (or targets) on the basis of 1) it interferes with sovereignty, 2.) its the rich countries fault so they should pay.

The truth here is that you can see the chasm in positions in the way some of the national delegations act and react to the news that spreads.   The German delegation offices are near the Chinese, who have a large screen tv set up next to a press room, all of which is central to the entire section of delegation offices. When important speeches are beign shown on the CCTV, the Chinese large-screen tv area is where many delegates gather for a moment.   It is often like standing in the visiting team section of a World Cup qualifier; they cheer when others wince. While many Europeans were surprised and disappoitned by  President Obama’s terse “shit of get off the pot” speech – as an American I thought it was pragmatic and prudent – the sneers and dismissals from the Chinese were unlike any treatment of a U.S. president I had witnessed save for Bush.

The expectations here were that the U.S. would be the great obstacle to an agreement, with some hard pushing from China and minor irritants from Saudi Arabia and a few others. However, the growing chorus of whispers among delegations and increasingly senior negotiators is that China is not only the largest roadblock, it is intentional and premeditated.

Germany’s Side Event: A Green Industrial Revolution (if only we can get inside)

My main responsibility at Copenhagen was Germany’s official UNFCCC Side Event.  I developed the concept, identified the potential private sector speakers and was ultimately jointly responsible  for the event’s organization with my colleague from the Ministry, Lars Andersen.  

The aim of the side event was to hold a serious and productive discussion between key political leaders, private sector executives and accomplished global investors about what each requires to make low-carbon growth happen.  (See invitation here) The real value would come from getting people together to exchange views who don’t often communicate but whose collaboration is essential to achieving climate change solutions on a grand scale. That would prove to be a major hassle.  

The panel was to include the German Environment Minister (Bundesminister, or BM) Norbert Röttgen, the Indian Minister of the Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh, Siemens Chief Sustainibility Officer and Board Member Barbara Kux, and the Founder of Hudson Clean Energy Partners (and former Goldman Partner) Neil Auerbach.  The moderator was to be Kevin Parker, Head of Deutsche Bank Asset Management, Board Member, and Chair of DB Climate Change Advisors.  

German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen

  

Indian Minister Jairam Ramesh

  

Hudson CEP Founder Neil Auerbach

  

Siemens Chief Sustainability Officer Barbara Kux

  

The trouble with bringing together private sector people not usually at such meeting is that they are not prepared for the arcane protocols that must be navigated.  The awkward UNFCCC restrictions meant that Mr. Auerbach and Ms. Kux needed to be on accredited delegations.  There is no such thing as a speaker or 1-day pass. If there were, in an instant the entire access mess, which stemmed from over-registration relative to building capacity, would have disappeared.  But then from where would we get our fun?  

Mr. Parker and the team from Deutsche Bank’s Climate Change Advisors were an exception and already on a U.S. based BiNGO delegation.  Logical that they would be plugged in given their focus and the importance of being at Copenhagen to their efforts.  However, for the few weeks leading up to COP15, one of my greatest stressors was that Mr. Auerbach, although now invited by the German Environment Minister, would not be able to get into the building for the panel.  Adding him to the German delegation touched the same sensitivities as having me on the list, but even more so given he was unknown to them.  

So I tried everything, nearly begging  BiNGO delegations the might have some affiliation with him or his company. Several were receptive, but the lists were already closed and, in the days approaching COP15, the restrictions and issues unfolding became clear.  Finally, as the first week of Copenhagen concluded and the upcoming restrictions on Observer delegations were announced, Germany included Mr. Auerbach in the delegation, but not before I grayed a few of my hairs and deepened some wrinkles.  However, Mr. Auerbach, who initially seemed to be the most tenuous panelist as far as access was concerned, would ultimately prove to be our most secure.  

  

Coming into this week, the other panelists seemed unproblematic. Ms. Kux, as a leader of German industry had access to many industry delegations, and was on one of them at least. Mr. Parker and his team were sponsored by a BiNGO via the U.S., had a high-level event sponsored  by DB and the UN Foundation the night before our side event and had a  full team devoted to making sure Deutsche Bank activities in Copenhagen went smoothly. Unfortunately, the increasingly tight access restrictions soon ensnared both. The night before the event, Deutsche Bank, already stressed about access to the Bella Center, informed me that Mr. Parker suddenly fell ill and had to return to the States.  Although others on their team were qualified to fill in, none had access. We needed a new moderator.  At the same time, the German delegation had worked to get Ms. Kux on their delegation and developed a plan to try to usher her through the mandatory lines.  However, in the morning of the event, she cancelled, citing too much difficulty and uncertainty to get to the event on time given her other engagements. Another one down.  

Fortunately, we were able to recruit the help of Dr. Felix Matthes, a senior scientist at the Öko-Institut (Institute for Applied Ecology) and a leading international expert on emissions trading and energy policy, to serve as our moderator. M.s Kux’s seat would remain empty.  

Waiting for the BM - Lars and Annika

  

At 1pm on Wednesday December 16th, the room filled with guests and some media, and we all waited for the BM to arrive.  

At 1:05 the BM and his entourage arrived. There was about 5 minutes of greeting the press and participants, and then, finally we were underway, but short 2 of 4 panelists.  

Bundesminister Norbert Röttgen

  

BM and media prior to Side Event start

  

If  Minister Ramesh would show or not was still quite uncertain given his role and the intensity of the Ministerial level negotiations underway (which also would limit the BMs participation and force him to hand over his seat to Staatssekretärin Katherina Reiche, one of the two parliamentarians with political responsibility for the Ministry). We had been informed, however, that he would "stop by" around 1:30.  

After a brief introduction by Dr. Matthes, the BM gave a short speech. Almost unnoticed by the audience was what was supposed to be a breakthrough announcement by the BM of a new,  innovative structured fund he had just authorized that would provide first-loss public capital and involve private investors to finance low-carbon investments in emerging markets. The fund will be managed by the KfW, Germany’s state-owned development bank. The media also seems to have missed what under more normal situations would have been a key announcement, as it is a landmark effort intended to demonstrate ways public funds can promote "additionality", i.e. leverage private funds on a large scale.  

Like so many things at Copenhagen, important items were lost in a blizzard of activity and news, and shadowed by the bigger drama of the talks.  

The panel got underway after the statements and soon Minister Ramesh bounded in as well. Mr. Auerbach highlighted the research Deutsche Bank had done on the elements of effective policy support for investment: "TLC" – Transparency, Longevity and Clarity.  Paying homage to Germany’s flexible feed-in tariffs and the EEG, Germany’s hallmark renewable energy law, Mr. Auerbach cited these as examples of balanced policy support  investors need more of, particularly in emerging markets, to put greater capital to work.  

Panel with Staatssekretärin

  

Germany's Official Side Event

  

Germany's Official Side Event

  

Discussion among Ministers and investor

  

Germany's Official Side Event

  

Echoing the theme, Minister Ramesh highlighted that India favored policies that allowed markets to determine the appropriate technologies rather than central planners trying to find the best solutions and underscoring that low-carbon growth requires investments in many solutions. Ramesh also repeated comments he made throughout Copenhagen, that if developed nations invested in projects in India it could help them cut their emissions by some further 10 percent, a reminder that  

India sees themselves as a major potential beneficiary of a global carbon trading market. To Mr. Auerbachs comments he noted that India had developed a National Action Plan and implemented an effective and transparent MRV (monitoring, reporting and  

verification) process, among several other progress steps, such as establishing an independent environmental protection agency and a network of scientific and technological researchers evaluating domestic climate change circumstances.  

  

Minister Röttgen reiterated Germany’s focus on maintaining leadership in climate change technologies and policies and before leaving underscored his country’s significant financial commitment to low carbon investment in less developed countries through the International Climate Initiative (ICI), which allocates funds from Germany’s share of the EU carbon market proceeds to projects in emerging markets.  

Anna Lehmann, Carbon Markets Investors Association

  

Dr. Matthes took questions from the audience, which were primarily fielded by Mr. Auerbach and Staatssekretärin Katherina Reiche after both Ministers Rottgen and Ramesh had to return to the negotiations.  The questions touched upon concerns over ways funds are allocated inconsistently from programs already established,  problems with the CDM system underlying the carbon markets and the urgency for action.    Norbet Gorissen. the head of the department responsible for Strategic Aspects of International Cooperation within the Ministry, supported Staatssekretärin Reiche with  some more details about the ICI program and other funding sources.   

All in all the event was successful in its core objective of bringing together key policy makers and a leading investor and providing clear signals to each 0ther about how to better attract capital with scarce public resources and effective policy instruments.  The hope of a more robust dialogue had to be tempered by the reality that we had two instrumental environment ministers in a  room together away from their core responsibilities during some of the most challenging moments of climate-related negotiations in history.  

  

Under the circumstances, having 90 minutes of undistracted Ministerial debate with industry and investors was a dream, getting them in the same room for 30 minutes was a huge success.  And, perhaps most importantly for real climate change action, the introductions between the Ministers and Mr. Auerbach were made, serving as a basis for future contact between these key political leaders and one of the most respected renewable energy investors with a fund of more than $1 billion equity capital under management.  

For Lars, me and the rest of the BMU team involved, it was time to finally enjoy the hors d’ oeuvres and mingle with the guests.  Now we could all claim at least one of our efforts in Copenhagen was successful.

Inside the Big Tent

COP15 is a rather bizarre world of contrasts.  It is more than a little ironic that one of the first  things you see on the train from the Airport towards the climate change negotiations is a large gas-fired power plant.
Then, my monday began with 11 hours of feeling like a UN refugee rather than UN delegate, and ended at private dinner inside Tivoli Gardens with the German Environment Minister, parliamentarians and high-level delegates from Germany.

Walking around the Bella Center, particularly early in the week, is like walking among a surreal “global village” of people from every corner of the planet, all meandering somewhat aimlessly through a circus of world-renowned personalities and organizations at every glance.  The growing build-up of media inside the main areas  and the increasing crescendo of NGO cries for action from their booths and ubiquitous blogging add to the frenzied feel.

My former offices at 299 Park Avenue are surrounded, blockaded and occasionally even protested every year when the UN General assembly meets. This event however is many multiples greater in magnitude, scope and scale. Walking from the main entry point to the delegation offices requires traversing several halls, each a universe with its own culture, theme and feel. 

It starts with the frenetic youthful grassroots feel of Hall H  where the NGO stands and side event rooms are located – think college job fair – past the crowed document center and blogging spots into the vast central public area overflowing with people on laptops at every table and step. 

Here, one end is bounded with the main plenary auditorium entrance.   The far end, marked by the raised wood-paneled platform and 1-story high globe where events and interviews occur,  leads through hangar-like hallways past copiers and turn-offs to official working group rooms and the large open computing area, towards the EU and US pavilions and eventually the delegation offices. All along the way one encounters camera crews interviewing participants, NGO publicity stunts, and many leading climate change thinkers and leaders.

So many, in fact, any one is almost unremarkable. For example, I only noticed the lively debate underway between Thomas Friedman, the Danish Development Minister, and the Group CEO of Maersk shipping  after I saw the free appetizer buffet waiting to be opened.

Day 2 – Welcome to the Jungle, almost

Connie Hedegaard and Xie Zhenhua

As noted already, logistics and access have become a part of what happens within the actual negotiations. That is because not only persons tangential to the substance of the negotiations – like me, zum beispiel – but also central figures have had difficulty accessing the facilities. Take the Chinese head of delegation, who was refused entrance and reportedly de-credentials 3 days in a row. In some cultures, say China’s for example, this is not only upsetting, it is a personal and national insult. As a result, we have seen the Chinese find solidarity with the otherwise fractious G-77 on their claims of an attempt by Denmark, the Swedish EU Presidency and industrial nations to force less developed nations (LDCs) into a shoddy deal by way of a process that lacks transparency, fairness and access. These claims also resonate with nearly every delegation to some degree as all have been affected by the difficulty in accessing the center, as key members or guests have been stuck in the frigid cold for hours without access or even information.

(We’ll revist the irony of these claims at another point.)

This sets the tone for Tuesday 15 December, the day when the UNFCCC implemented further restrictions on registered Observer Organization delegations (ie. NGOs).

Obviously, it doesn’t take a great deal of negotiations expertise to understand that restricting civil society from “observing” and having their voice registered in negotiations among governments to determine the course of th world, as they see it, is not a great way to build the domestic support needed among stakeholders to ratify any agreements or support resulting policies. However, sometimes a simple understanding of basic economic concepts can make these situations comically clear.

What has happened here is a natural outcome of participants playing by the rules of the ‘game’ – the COP15 Meeting – that were set ex ante and then the UNFCCC and their Danish organizers change the rules ex post. Once they changes the rules after the game had already begun, all the accepted practices of bending the rules became apparent, creating a chaotic domino effect of unintended consequences of the changes were flushed out suddenly. Under the intense pressure negotiations of this scale demand for a highly choreographed logistical operations, this further broke an already bungling logistical operation.

What happened, in a nutshell, was most government delegations had put members of delegations, consultants, invited speakers and panelists for formal events on NGO and Business NGO (aka BiNGO) delegations. Since those lists we’re set by Nov 6, the organizers knew how many people were coming and could account. However they allowed more people than they already were prepared to handle. Additionally, the national delegations continued to grow, and with the ministerial and head of state participants expected in the second week, the UNFCCC decided to restrict the number of NGO delegates allowed in. The problem was many of those delegates were actually participating in official events sponsored by the Parties (national delegations) so it became a vicious cycle as national delegations scrambled to add key individuals to their delegations, and the organizers then needed to further curtail access of NGOs.

Coming back to the day’s events, this meant that I woke up on Tuesday morning, still thawing from the day priors’ 9 hours wait outside to register on an NGO delegation, to learn I was now, belatedly, added to the German delegation. Could I please return at once and re-register. Uhhhh, ok.

So I arrived again at the Bella Center and once again got in the line to register. Although I had an NGO badge, today began the additional restrictions on NGOs, so I couldn’t get past the front gates without a newly-issued secondary pass, which were provided to NGO delegations in severly restricted numbers.

The scene in front of the Bella Center was dramatically improved over the prior day, with baricades forming orderly lines and teams of police officers dispensing warm drinks to waiting registrants.

Clearly the UNFCCC and the Danish hosts had felt thw wrath of the media, UN members and NGOs. Still, as a result of the ongoing debacle, Connie Hedegaard, Danish Environment Minister would resign her post as President of the COP15 meeting before the day was done. In the meantime, we waited outside in the cold and snow, I in good spirits after my endurance test from the prior day.

Getting through the front gates went efficiently enough, but as we neared the entrance of the hangar with security screening and warmth, we again grinded to a halt, with the UNFCCC and Danes once again restricting entrance to the building. Again standing crowded in the freezing cold, now just feet from the entrance to the warmth of the security hangar, which we refused please to wait inside of, the crowd grew rowdier. One of the NGO staffers broke out her quitar and started protest songs, with a few Brazilians around her shoiuting chants.

After almost 2 hours without movement, I realized I had a card to play, so I jumped out of line and flashed my NGO badge to the police who had just changed shifts and were more relaxed, which got me into the the warm building and through the security screen. I still wouldn’t have been able to enter the main halls without the secondary pass, but now I was passed the halted line of would-be-registrants and inside the sceurity screen. I went over to the very short line for Party registrations, only to find another bottleneck – there was only one person working.

After more than 3 hours of moslty-cold queueing, it was finally done: I had the Party delegation access required for full access to all but the most sensitive negotiations for the rest of the week.

So it ACCESS TO THE BELLA CENTER where the story really STARTS.

Now, by mid-Tuesday I had ironed out my situation, but as co-coordinator of Germany’s official UNFCCC side event, scheduled for Wed, ACCESS TO THE BELLA CENTER would continue to dominate not only my activities, but also shape the conference itself.

Day 1 Disaster

Funny how quickly objectives get sacrificed to reality:  Instead of sharing insights into the nuances of investors perspectives on carbon taxes versus cap and trade, or my impressions of Al Gore’s side event, the registration of already-accredited individuals like myself became the story of the day. It unfortunately also reflected a complete failure of the UNFCCC to display any of the transparency, humanity or obvious logic that these talks, and such a body, must possess.

Waiting...

What happened? Several thousand accredited participants spent as much as 10 hours outside in Copenhagen’s December cold before only a lucky or crafty few were admitted.

...and waiting...

Many who arrived when registration opened at 8am gave up after 2 or 3 pm, when the only announcement made was that registration had closed and the building was full.

However, since the following morning, Tuesday, the UNFCCC announced that it would severely restrict the number of NGO participants let in – transparent, yes? – to accomodate   delegations.

...still waiting...

Keep in mind however that accreditation lists for NGO’s were closed on Nov 6, and of course the officials have known how many people fit in the Bella Center since before it was built.  Add to this the understaffing and the lack of coordination between Danish Police, Military, Swedish Police (helping out) and UNFCCC security, and it looked like a protest, EXCEPT THE CROWD WAS OF PARTICIPANTS. People fainted, but there were no medical crews on alert, just some kind Danish Police officers who passed water to the hurting.

Crushed against the fence

Yet, all the while those who already had their badges from registering previously, could come and go as they pleased. So despite many senior delegates coming to assist the second critical week of negotiations, only those there from the first week could get in.  In one poignant example, I was standing next to the deputy director – ie #2 – of UNEP, the UN Environment Program. It took 2 hours before her staff could get her a badge and find her, and she is an executive of the organizer! Few others had such privilege either, and it did not matter whether you were on a government (ie. Party) or NGO (ie Observer) delegation. You just couldn’t get to the registration to get your badge.

The worst part was spending the last 5 or 6 hours only 3-5 meters from the gate.

Almost there - looking through gates into facility

Just in front, for 9 hours...

...yet only feet from the gate...

In the end, at 4:30 pm, the police announced that National delegation members could enter.  I, like so many people in government positions, including EU Members of Parliament and their Staff, was on an NGO list, which would be restricted the following day. Nevertheless, like others, I talked my way past the security showing my Ministry identity card and got in to register, which took another 2 hours and still required 45 minutes more waiting outside the warm heated building in the frigid cold.

So close, just feet from the gate

Getting dark, haven't moved...

So if you’re doing the tally, that was 9 + hours in weather, without food, drink, bathroom or much movement. (see here and here).  The irony is that after all of this, since I am an organizer of the official side event and will need access on the restricted NGO days, my team now has added me to the German delegation. This means after I publish this note, I will get dressed and go back, and try and force my way in again, to re-register under Germany. Still, this time I will have help on the inside, which we will test, becasue tomorrow, I will need to do the same life-saving rescue for our not-yet registered side event panelists

FINALLY!

Here’s hoping for a better Day 2 (week 2).

Dan

Over the hills and through the woods…

…to Copenhagen we go. 

The open question is not really whether the nearly-200 nations will emerge from the “dark forest of despair”, as many commentators would suggest, but rather which direction will we be facing and wether we – the citizen, industries, investors and entrepreneurs – will have the tools needed to help us all land on the necessary mark?

On Sunday I’m off to the circus called COP 15,Conference of Parties (to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, 15th meeting) in Copenhagen, Denmark.  I will do my best to post some short, pointed insights via my participation in the events and related activities. As a Visiting Fellow with the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety I have been fortunate – and grateful – for the first-hand perspective into the political process I have been afforded.   As a banker and consultant, my capitalist perspective on the matter has been forged in the trenches of serving the carbon intensive energy and infrastucture industries as well as renewable energy efforts.  I’m certainly no expert.  However, to complement rather than repeat the abundance of press and blogs describing the going-ons in Copenhagen, this modest forum here will be used during brief pauses to share my own insights as one of the few individuals with a background that spans the many spheres – finance, ecology, energy, entrepreneurship and now public sector – of the climate change debate. 

 I hope you will join me on this strange adventure.