December 31, 2009

China: Copenhagen Spoiler or Keen Strategist?

On the 8th day after Copenhagen, the obvious whacked me upside the head...

In recent weeks, I've observed several events that support the theory that China wants to be economically and geopolitically dominant in the coming Low Carbon Economy.

First, China does not want Copenhagen to establish a flat playing field in the low carbon economy and got everything it wanted at the summit; no binding agreement, no targets, no timetable and contention and disarray within the global community.


Second, while spot prices for coal in China have risen steadily during 2009 due to increasing demand, the government has curtailed coal production and now sits on a historically low 12-day supply. It has mandated over 1500 coal mines under 300,000 tons/year output will be closed by the end of 2010. This constrained supply will drive coal and coke prices up further raising the cost of fossil fuel-based energy across their entire manufacturing sector.


Third, on December 28
th, the Chinese government revised its renewable energy laws to mandate that utilities buy 100% of the renewable energy produced and established severe financial penalties for non-compliance. This action will dramatically raise the cost of coal-based energy and incentivize investment in renewables by guaranteeing a market for renewable energy at any/all future production levels.

Further investigation reveals other actions taken by China in 2009:
  • 54 Gigawatts of China’s smallest, most inefficient coal-fired electrical plants were taken offline in 2009. Replaced with new plants, such as the 1 GW Huaneng Power International coal plant in Yuhuan that can generate a kWh with just 283 grams of coal, a 25% improvement on the their industry average efficiency.
  • The central Asian gas pipeline began operations in December. The pipeline will bring 40 billion-cubic-meters/year of natural gas from Turkmenistan, (through Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan) to northwest region of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region and from there to Shanghai, Guangzhou and Hong Kong.
  • In a move to augment its controversial hydro projects, China’s National Energy Administration (NEA) announced it would bring its total wind power capacity to 100 GW by 2020 from the current 12 GW and has planned six 10GW-level wind power bases Inner Mongolia, Gansu, Xinjiang, Hebei and Jiangsu. The first o be built in the Jiuquan will be completed by 2010.
  • Construction started in September on three third-generation, pressurized water reactor, nuclear power projects in Sanmen (Zhejiang), Haiyang (Shandong) and Taishan (Guangdong). The fleet will employ AP1000 technology from Westinghouse. The combined capacity will be almost 4GW with the first plant being on-line in 2012. At the same time, the government also revised its plans for nuclear power production capacity in 2020 from 40GW to 70GW.
  • Effective January 1, 2010, China will move to a market price-based scheme for oil pricing. In addition, taxes on gasoline will be raised 500% while taxes on diesel fuels will be raised 800%. These incrwases will accelerate the move to electrification of the automobile fleet.
Was China a climate spoiler in Copenhagen or a keen strategist? Are these actions the coordinated effort of a nation that is serious about climate change? Or, does it believe the low carbon economy is coming and an opportuntity to establish itself as the economic and geopolitical leader in the coming era?

December 27, 2009

Learning to love multinationals

On the 7th day after Copenhagen a conclusion came to me...

It’s all about leverage.  Who has it?  How do you apply it?

In the fight against climate change, multinational corporations (MNCs) are on the front lines, bringing both scale and scope to the battle.   Wal-Mart is the often-cited example.  With over 2.1 million employees in the U.S.  alone and a global supply chain of  over 60,000 suppliers in 70 countries, the company’s reach is massive and the impact of its strategic decisions rapidly crosses national borders.  The company has discovered sustainability makes strategic and economic sense and it reinventing itself to take advantage of the opportunity. Most of the major consulting firms (AT Kearney and Cap Gemini efforts highlighted below) have brisk business in the supply chain area helping clients implement these high leverage strategies.  Perhaps more importantly there is also a secondary effect, for as Wal-Mart goes, so goes the world.   All of this has been accomplished without the involvement of multilateral institutions, legislative procedure or regulatory mandate.

While historically the daemon in past, MNCs with the right kind of leadership these companies can serve society while also serving their shareholders.    Educating and influencing the strategy of the world largest MNCs may be both more expedient and more effective than the rhetoric of political process.
Gci Capgemini Future Supply Chain 2016 Report

Sustainable Supply Chain Aug 09

Is the U.S. too big to fail?

On the 6th day after Copenhagen a conclusion came to me...

The “failure” to reach a comprehensive and binding agreement on climate charge in Copenhagen was due in some part to two related issues, the scale of nation states and their representative forms of government.

Large nation states are among the largest emitters and play a leading role at the environmental bargaining table. At the same time, they are made up of many entities with conflicting needs across geographic, industries, cultural, demographic and sociological strata. Imagine the difference one finds across a country such as the United States, Australia, China, India, Russia or Brazil and it is easy to see the many conflicts that can arise when discussing what country’s optimum position on various aspects of climate change, environmental protection, trade or economic development. Small nation state’s, particularly island state, issues are more bounded and more easily focused, i.e. Mohamed Nasheed, President of the Maldives is dealing with externally driven sea level rise and salt water infiltration of their ground water without the need to consider issues related to a domestic coal industry or loss of jobs in a major domestic industrial group, such as automotive sector.

At the same time, leaders of large nations with representative forms of government are torn between the conflicting needs of their many constituents, leaving them without a clear mandate. In essence, this leaves them powerless to demonstrate the leadership demanded by many or to take strong positions on issues that may, in the short term, negatively impact significant elements of their constituency. As an example, Australia and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had been leading voices for bold legislative change, Emissions Trading Schemes (ETS) and aggressive GHG emission targets in the run up to COP15 and was planning to attend COP15 with signed legislation in hand. That is until Tony Abbott, a stanch climate skeptic ascend to the leadership of the leadership opposition (Liberal) party immediately prior to the summit. In preparing to attend COP15, Rudd is quoted in the "Now that Tony Abbot and the extreme right have taken over the opposition it's difficult to see legislation passing the Australian parliament." In contrast, China with its centralized form of government had significant advantages at the bargaining table in Copenhagen as a result.

Are we treating the large, industrialized nation states as we have the large global financial institutions of the recent financial crisis, i.e. too big to fail? Will climate change reforms require a new approach governance and implementation, in essence a break from Kyoto? I think yes. As we are seeing in the case of California in climate/environmental legislation and the broader global trade regime, regionalization and cross-border coalitions with tighter alignment around political, strategic resource and economic factors will evolve to fill the governance gap. It has been said political boundaries that historically have been arbitrarily set for a variety of reasons, would be better aligned according to the ecosystems boundaries and subdivisions of the natural watersheds. This is a unique point of view that triggers interesting thinking around the issues of climate change and governance.


















Map Description
This map shows the location of 106 major watersheds of the world. It includes the world’s
 largest transboundary watersheds and other small basins that are representative of a particular geographic area. Omitted regions, shown in white, are primarily smaller coastal drainage basins or regions with no permanent rivers.

Source: Earth Trends Institute

Sustainable Thinking - Smarter, Cleaner, Cheaper

On the fifth day after Copenhagen (Christmas Day), a new mantra came to me...

Design thinking is all the rage these days in executive suites and product planning sessions these days. The 1.4 million Google hits for the phrase and in over 1,000 scholarly publications in 2009 are a testament to the attention being given this creative process that attempts to apply empathy and “out of the box” thinking to meet user needs better and drive business success. This emphasis makes sense in markets where commoditization combined with years of focus on six sigma, supply chain management, lean manufacturing, outsourcing and low cost production have both raised quality and squeezed the margins out of many product categories. This design thinking philosophy feels like an improvement while being regressive at the same time. I recall the Volkswagen ad from the 1960’s, where the jingle “longer... lower... wider... the ’49 Hudson is the car for yoooOOOoooOOOuuuu” has stuck in my head all these years. In this ad, VW contrasts “marketing thinking” of Hudson, Studebaker and Packard with its own more sustainable (in the micro-economic theory of the firm sense) “value thinking”. In the 1980s with the microelectronics, quality and globalization revolutions, the pendulum swung to “better, faster, cheaper”, a value-based philosophy that has led to too many bland, look-alike products. I see design thinking trying to bring these two opposing forces, “marketing thinking” and “value thinking” together to drive business success (revenues), as well as benefit of users. The challenge is related to the classic Porter-ian question of profits, “Does the uniqueness of the product or service create enough value such that the firm can charge a premium and that the higher price covers the incurred in offering the unique features?”. In many cases, perhaps not.

At the same time, the emerging sustainability trend will impact this balance moving forward. Macro-level environmental and sustainability demands are shifting the value proposition from product/service features of “better, faster, cheaper” to those of “smarter, cleaner, cheaper”; smarter use of scarce natural resources, cleaner (less wasteful) products/processes and lower costs that will accelerate adoption and allow penetration of Bottom of Pyramid (BOP) markets. William McDonough among other has been a proponent the life-cycle based design for many years which has seen growing adoption a number of corporations and industries. Now with the advent of the Low Carbon Economy, sustainability thinking, i.e. smarter, cleaner, cheaper has reached a tipping point and will be the mantra the permeates every element of every product, service and industry form here forward.

December 24, 2009

Would we act differently if GHG emissions were as threatening to civilization as nuclear weapons?

On the forth day after Copenhagen a conclusion came to me…

There is discussion of the successes of Copenhagen, the important first step, getting all the major emitters to the table, the rain forest agreements, the financing mechanisms, the importance in reporting and validation (transparency). But, there is has been much more talk of what failed in Copenhagen. The UN let us down. Our leaders let us down. So much has slipped through our fingers, been left undone. Others suggest, as written in this week’s Time Magazine, “The very struggle to reach agreement at Copenhagen (…) that 113 heads of state attended (…) is a sign that global climate talks have moved beyond symbolic rhetoric.” Looking ahead, it will only get tougher at COP16 in Mexico City in 2010, as the stakes get higher.

It was neither the science nor the leadership that failed at Copenhagen. It was the process that failed. The process used by the UNFCC calls to mind the two familiar stories about herding both and allowing the 800-pound gorilla (China) sleep anywhere it wants to. It is the direct result of the open and democratic process being used, where one country gets one vote and the vote must be unanimous. One hundred ninety two countries involved in the negotiation process, each with veto power. This approach treats climate as a common good and thus we are at risk of suffering Garrett Hardin’s tragedy of the commons.

Rather than treat climate as a common good, what if we treated climate change as a threat to international security (which it is on many level) where the proliferation of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions need to be collectively controlled as is done with that other major threats to international security, nuclear weapons. This shift in the paradigm gives one great freedom to think differently about the process of GHG emissions proliferation while remaining within the auspices and consistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

The purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be:

1. to further international peace and security;
2. to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
3. to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and
4. to ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80.

One model to follow in moving forward beyond Copenhagen is that of the UN Security Council, whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and security. The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permanent rotating members. The Presidency of the Security Council is held in turn by the members of the Security with each President holds office for one calendar month. Ten non-permanent members, elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms and not eligible for immediate re-election.

Each Council member has one vote. Decisions on procedural matters are made by an affirmative vote of at least nine of the 15 members. Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members. This is the rule of "great Power unanimity", often referred to as the "veto" power.

Under the Charter, all Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. While other organizations of the United Nations make recommendations to Governments, the Council alone has the power to take decisions that Member States are obligated under the Charter to carry out.

A climate Council could mirror this structure and purpose. This would build on the actions of the Copenhagen “Basic Five”, the US, China, India, Brazil and South Africa, who structured the Copenhagen Accord, This smaller group of this design would be more nimble, action-oriented and while being consistent with the overall UN charter.

This “Climate Council” could have functions and powers similar to that of the Security Council:

• to maintain international “climate equity” in accordance with the principles and purposes of the United Nations;
• to investigate any dispute or situation which might threaten the climate security of member nations and lead to international friction;
• to recommend methods of adjusting such disputes or the terms of settlement;
• to formulate plans for the establishment of a system of emissions targets and measurement, monitoring and validation of regulate emissions;
• to determine the existence of a threat to the global climate action should be taken;
• to call on Members to apply economic sanctions and other measures not involving the use of force to prevent or stop emissions violations;
• to take collective military action against an aggressor;
• to recommend the admission of new Members;
• to exercise the trusteeship functions of the United Nations in "strategic areas";
• to recommend to the General Assembly the appointment of the Secretary-General and, together with the Assembly, to elect the Judges of the International Court of Climate Justice.

Indeed, a conclusion after a dew days of reflection and undoubtedly an oversimplification of what needs to be done. This approach does address many of the areas seen as flaws in the current process and provides a path moving forward: leadership by a smaller groups, representative and faster decision making and majority rule, clearly defined goals, targets, measurement and independent validation, as well as the ability to impose economic sanctions and other actions on violators. Without a movement toward a more effective process, we are destined to have a repeat experience in Mexico City in 2010 and another year lost.

December 23, 2009

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

On the third day after Copenhagen I became aware of a deafening silence…

Battling climate change is a global challenge where technology will play a central role, in many ways analogous to that of vaccines and pharmaceuticals in fight for global health. Most fundamental research and technology development will occur in the developed world with a need to be transferred and deployed, whether in its original or locally modified form, in many third world countries. As with the intellectual property issues of pharmaceuticals in global trade environments, I expected to learn about IP issues being central to the discussion in Copenhagen. What I heard related to IP issues over the five days I spent at COP15 was…..nothing.

As with the curious incident of the dog in the night-time in the Sherlock Holmes classic “Silver Blaze”, this silence piqued my interest and warranted further investigation. Are issues of IP a non-issue in the fight against global warming? Have they already been resolved? Or perhaps is it the purview of another forum, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).

My subsequent investigation uncovered IP issues are in fact central to the work of the UNFCC with much emphasis placed on the topic in the preparatory meetings leading up to COP15. This work was captured in a paper interestingly called “Non-Paper 47,” which was developed in the Barcelona meeting of November 2009 under the Ad Hoc Working Group On Long-Term Cooperative Action (AGWG-LTC), with some follow-on work performed during week one of COP15.

Non-Paper 47 contains a number of IP-solution suggestions ranging from developed countries having no patent protection on green technology, to setting up a patent pools for green technology, to ensuring that developing countries can make full use of the flexibilities found in the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) - including compulsory licensing - and cooperation on future research and development of green technology.

As with pharmaceuticals, the Parties are far apart of the issue of IP protection of green technologies. Developed nations are adamant that a strong IP protection framework is essential to innovation, while the G77 group of developing countries and others take the position IP is a barrier adoption and must be removed. Much of the debate focuses on trade rules, and what has been learned from TRIPS. For example, patents on some green technology could be removed for developing countries and compulsory licensing could also be considered. Today compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals is allowed under TRIPS, but each technology has a lot of patents and the developing countries have to go to each country and company and apply for a license, which does not make sense when technologies must be deployed are rapidly as possible.

New technologies will be at the core of new solutions that address climate change. It is important that the right IP framework is put in place the to foster innovation without creating barriers to timely and successful deployments.

Economics 1, Climate-Change 0

On the second day after Copenhagen, a conclusion came to me…

COP15 may have been titled the United Nations Climate Conference, but the agenda was economics under the guise of global warming; developed countries protecting jobs and avoiding taxation, emerging economies protecting sovereign rights to unconstrained growth and poor countries seeking to protect prior commitments of financial support for development with no strings attached. Yes, there were impassioned pleas for action against climate change and global warming. Citizens of low lying island nations such as Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Maldives are especially vulnerable to sea-level rise and spoke eloquently of the immediacy of this threat and near-term loss of their homelands and extinction of their cultures. While others voiced acknowledgment of challenges to be faced, the future consequences to be endured ny all and the need to act collectively, but without a true sense of a clear and present danger, this was a case of language of climate debate being used to frame the economic discussion.

The Copenhagen Accord, akin to a non-binding letter-of-intent, recognizes the need to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees centigrade by 2050, provides a means for protecting current rain forests and establishes a $100B fund to support poor countries in the future but does not establish emissions targets for individual countries, does not specify what developing countries will do, nor defines how the financing is to be raised and distributed to poor countries; an important first step, but much less than many hoped for.

Could the outcome have been much different? Could the world leaders really achieve what was hoped for going into COP15? In a word, no. As powerful as they are, the majority of world leaders, had neither the autonomy nor the mandate to act in a way that would give climate change priority over the economy?

Meanwhile the scientists remind us the clock is still ticking toward that environmental tipping point that will ultimately define that clear and present danger that will eventually drive us to consensus and coordinated action.

If you are one to keep score, at the end of the first inning, it is Economics 1 and Climate-Change 0.

December 21, 2009

We have it backwards – Managing Symptoms versus Investing in Cures

I’ve returned from Copenhagen, had some time to reflect on what transpired, how it has affected my thinking and begun to draw some conclusions about what’s next. All this will be fodder for a series of 12 essays that will take us from today to the end of the year and serve as the basis of discussion of what now lies beyond Copenhagen.

On the First Day After Copenhagen

On the first day after Copenhagen, a conclusion came to me…

We are going about this climate change thing all wrong for three reasons. First, as was predicted by many before the UN’s summit in Copenhagen, no one party will want to concede more than other parties, therefore any negotiated agreement will be minimal and certainly not the at the level the scientists suggest are necessary to avoid global warming and dramatic climate change. Second, the UN process will just take too long. We have been working on Kyoto since 1997, and it will take several more years to get a definite and binding agreement and the resulting timetables for implementation will be too long to achieve the goals set. More simply, it’s a case of too little too late. My third point is the UNFCC process and the Kyoto Protocol are attempting to manage, control and regulate the symptoms of the climate change rather than root cause of the problem itself. This approach is fraught with fundamental problems; from the collective process of setting equitable emission limits, to rules for measuring and monitoring of emissions, to validation and compliance.

The Copenhagen Accord is a step forward in the process but was ultimately developed outside the UN process by a small handful of nations and, as predicted, is much weaker than the treaty that has been in development for the past two years. Many are calling into question the UN’s process and its role in climate change moving forward. The U.N.'s own Yvo de Boer said in an interview with Reuters after the conference, "You could argue that it would be far more effective to just address climate change in the G20, whose members account for most carbon emissions… (But) it's not correct from an equity or from an environmental point of view because that would exclude many countries already on the front lines of impacts of climate change." Another suggestion, the Major Economies Forum might be the correct venue.

At the same time, there’s good news. We know technologies can advance and be deployed very rapidly with the right investments and consumer behavior can change just as rapidly with the right incentives. Case in point, in the last two years in the US coal use has dropped 11 percent while an estimated 190 new wind farms with over 16,000 megawatts of generating capacity have come online, all without legislative or institutional mandate. An argument in favor of directly investing in cures rather than managing the symptoms.

To this point, I draw the reader's attention to a recently published report from the Stockholm Environmental Institute:

"Analyses at the global level and in regions, both in poor and rich nations, clearly show that energy transformations towards a low-carbon future are technologically possible, even over the short term, and that they are socially desirable, and to a large extent economically profitable. Recent energy scenarios show that the EU can achieve 40 per cent emission reductions by 2020 with current technologies, and that India and China can bend their emission trajectories while increasing energy access and securing their economic and development goals over the coming decades."1

The clock is ticking. The environmental tipping point, the point of no return, lies somewhere ahead with the most recent scientific data suggesting it will occur sooner than we previously thought. For example, recent studies predict the polar ice cap could be gone in summertime as early as 2015 compared to previous model predictions of 2025. It might just be that if we get the economics right, a market driven strategy of investment and deployment of new technologies along with market interventions/incentives could trigger independent or small scale collective action that will turn the tide on carbon emissions and reverse global warming before the multilateral negotiation process completes the initial step of developing a definite and binding agreement that can be ratified for the 192 member nations.

1 A Copenhagen Prognosis: Towards a Safe Climate Future

December 20, 2009

It was 3 AM and I'm not referring to the Matchbox 20 song

After a 12 hour delay, the last 4 of which Party delegates waited patiently on station in the plenary room, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called the session to order at 3AM on Saturday morning. Then taking less than a minute, the Secretary General made a short statement to the effect that UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) would recognize the "Copenhagen Accord" and brought down his gavel to close the session to seal "A Deal" if not "The Deal" that many had hoped for.

Copenhagen Accord

December 18, 2009

The wait is over at least for me, for now

Eleven o'clock has come and gone. So has twelve. And one. While the plenary room is full of people waiting for the speaker to arrive, I will wait no longer. Any significant news will be on Twitter in the morning

Dazed and Confused in Limboland

More cold. More snow.  More closed door bilateral meetings.  More speeches about the need to act.  More speeches about capitalism at the root of all our problems. More he said. More she said.  More proclamations that a deal is eminent.  More acknowledgments a deal is not possible.  More leaked copies of “The Draft”, distributed along with other documents, also called “The Draft”.  Is it an agreement? An Accord? Or perhaps just a Policy?  No one can agree on what to call it.  More people with more experience than me asking each other, “Do you have any idea what’s going on?”. More waiting, and waiting….and waiting.   Ombama is still trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat. At least I think so, the process is not very transparent. The next plenary is to begin at 11:00pm, 2 mins from now. The agenda has just been posted. Good magic takes time. I guess we should give it a few more minutes.

A frustrated and angry Obama opens with "Our ability to take collective action is in doubt" then lays out a framework. How will China respond?

We wait...

The morning is spent with Obama and the heads of 23 nations behind closed doors.  Sarkoszy reports the US is ready to close the deal leaving China as the sole roadblock.

Rather than mill about aimlessly like an expectant father, I decide to use the time to finish grading my fall courses. I never imagined a time when I thought grading papers would ever sound like a way to relax and recharge the batteries. :-)

Day 11 is a roller coaster - The Drama alone is exhausting

Morning dawns with the Parties hopelessly deadlocked as the major players standing their ground, eyeing each other’s moves, as if playing a high stakes game of “chicken”.   The G77 showing strength in solidarity hold fast to the Kyoto protocol as the best legally binding framework for coordinated global action.  The balks. Both procedural as well a substantive issues creating delays.  Everyone back peddles.   Gordon Brown the British PM signals of impending failure at COP15. China says a deal is out of reach. The Danish Presidency issues statement that a comprehensive framework may be unachievable and may have to wait until Mexico City in 2010.  Perhaps we will only get a policy statement after two weeks of talking.

At noon, deliberations are broken into two tracks, one each in line with Kyoto and UN Climate Change Convention, each to draft a proposal and come together later in the day, a procedural move to break the log jam. The US is not in favor of Kyoto stonewalls and pushes China hard on transparency and validation, China pushes back staunchly protecting its sovereignty.  India shares the Chinese position. Reports of near riots on the floor ensue, perhaps better described in UN terms as “heated discussion”.  Late in the afternoon the decision is made, Kyoto is the path.  The US falls in line, the G77 get one of the things they came for.

Targets are discussed and the 2 deg C goal in upheld, although current commitments won’t get us to 3 deg accroding to the scientific models.  The summit remains in crisis.

Hillary Clinton now leading the US delegation, gives strong speech that injects energy into the talks, making a commitment to support a $100B global “fast track”. This is seen a breakthrough on the issue of mitigation financing for LDCs.   Momentum builds.   China and India then make overtures they will open up to independent validation.  A sliver of hope spreads across the city of Copenhagen, perhaps the world. The night wears on.

There is a growing sentiment here at COP15, perhaps more aptly describe as frustration.  Where is the US leadership?  As it appears, it is only they (the US) who can bring the Parties together and exact the compromise needed.

With Obama's arrival, the day ends on thread of hope.

December 16, 2009

“Difficult negotiations following a most difficult path”


That is how UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon characterized the efforts of the Parties during Cop15 this evening in a panel session at the Bella Center in Copenhagen. “The eyes of the world are upon us.  The world expects much of us.”    The audience could feel the weight of his words.  He went on to say how this is an unprecedented summit the largest every outside NYC, with 113 heads of state representing 89% of the world's GDP, 82% of the world's population and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions expected to be in attendance by week’s end.  Arrivals began on Tuesday night and already sixteen heads of state are already onsite, including Gordon Brown and Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela.

Today marked the beginning of the second/final “High Level Phase" of the summit and started off differently than the previous days.  Upon arrival at the Bella Center, I noticed the security perimeter was now two blocks from the Center.  Security was doubled every you looked and supported by armored vehicles at the checkpoints.  But, with most logistical issues now cleared up I breezed through security in on 30 minutes.  Inside the number of media crews were almost doubled with many teams finding it difficult to get a clear shot without another competitive crew in the background most resorted to doing the spots standing on tabletops to get above the crowds.   Big athletic types in black suits working their way through the crowds barking commands into their wrists in hushed tones.  Curious-er and curious-er.

There was much buzz of Governor Schwarzenegger’s speech from Tuesday living proof you can have both tough environmental protection and economic growth at the same time, a reference that was cited in many deletes speeches on this morning.  Soon, news quickly spread the talks had completely stalled again with negotiators at an impasse on several big issues.  Although the G77 (the less developed nations) were softening on financing issues, the negotiations were at a standstill.  News of clashes outside ended up with 600 arrested. The Danish President of COP15 abruptly resigned and his role taken over by the Danish Prime Minister. 

In the highlight of the morning, Chavez addressed the delegation right before lunch with an eloquent but fiery speech, stating the climate change was the most devastating problem in history of mankind and how the destructive forces of capitalism are virtually eradicating life from the planet.  “We will not sit idly by with our arms folded waiting for humanity to die!”  He then reached out to other delegates, extolling the virtues of collaboration and collective human effort in dealing with challenges of this nature. Citing capitalism as the agent of destruction wielded by the imperialist, industrialized north, he offered socialism as the only solution to the world’s climate woes, encouraging nations to adopt socialism as the only path to salvation.  In closing, Chavez thanked the UN and the Parties in attendance and hoped they had a good lunch.

Phase 2 of the summit signifies the arrival of “the Ministers”. Arrive they did, in red carpet fashion with staff in tow, around noontime.  With the junior teams now handing negotiations over to the high-level decision makers there was new hope for rapid progress.

John Kerry, who has been embroiled in the negotiations for the last 24 hours, made a forceful speech on the US position and role moving forward, before returning to the US to cast his vote on healthcare tomorrow on the Hill. The same vote the will keep the Republican delegation home as well.   It was a good speech that will serve a good platform and setup for the Obama speech on Friday.

My day ended with the UN High Level session to describe their unified climate management strategy and initiatives with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and 20 of his most senior direct reports, from organizations such as UNDP, the World Bank, the IMF and others. The Secretary General was to give the keynote but could attend due to his involvement in the negotiations. It was an interesting session because every few minutes an attendant with a cell phone to their ear would whisk one of the panelists out of the room with cell phone to their ear, supposedly to attend to some important issue that had arisen. Only to have Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appear about an hour into the session.  The Secretary General listened patiently for a few minutes then took the podium to give us an update on the talks.


“These are difficult negotiations, following a most difficult path” going on to say the global crisis demands global solutions and while everyone agrees in principal there is much disagreement on the details on two main sticking points. He is pushing hard on aggressive targets below the 1990 baseline.  The Less Developed Countries, in his words, are leading here by setting aggressive targets.  The second point is the financial and tech transfer support that will be provided to the Less Developed Countries by the industrialized nations.  Here he is pushing for a $50B fund to be established, but the support is not there yet.  He closed his remarks by saying, “These are the most complicated, most complex, and most difficult negotiations the I, the UN or anyone else has ever undertaken…. The future of the world is our hands… The people are depending on us and have high expectations for the delegates… and for the UN itself.”

Whether a part of a formal delegation or just an invited observer attendees at COP15 have a profound sense that history being written at here and the eyes of the world are indeed upon them.  

December 15, 2009

Today's Tweet Stream....


The action today was fast and furious as the 12 ring circus called COP15 gets into high gear.  So today's update includes the day's twitter stream with little thoughtful observations or insight.  Al Gore, Ban Ki-moon, President of South Korea Lee Myung-bak, Senator John Kerry, Mayor Bloomberg, Governor Arnold Schwatezenegger, Bianca Jager, Tom Friedman and Prince Charles were headliners on the day.   More summary to come in the following days. Stay tuned in real time via twitter at PMcManus for news updates as they happen.

1) RT @cop15: Carbon capture is put on hold http://bit.ly/5cJ2hp #cop15 #copenhagen #climate 39 minutes ago from bit.ly

2) RT @cop15: UN conference gearing up for make-or-break finale http://bit.ly/6UEiHt #cop15 #climate #copenhagen 40 minutes ago from bit.ly

3) RT @cop15: Developing world threatens battle on drafts http://bit.ly/92nQj3 #cop15 #climate #copenhagen 40 minutes ago from bit.ly

4) RT @cop15: Four world leaders discuss climate negotiations http://bit.ly/7ZTxRE #cop15 #climate #copenhagen 41 minutes ago from bit.ly

5) RT @cop15: South Korea to bridge rich and poor nations http://bit.ly/6qESKm #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 5 hours ago from bit.ly

6) RT @cop15: China: Poor countries are first in line for funding http://bit.ly/7hDulg #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 5 hours ago from bit.ly

7) RT @cop15: Pope calls for action on climate change http://bit.ly/4rsNyp #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 5 hours ago from bit.ly

8 ) RT @cop15: Merkel concerned over Copenhagen pac http://bit.ly/4tsNsu #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 5 hours ago from bit.ly

9) PMcManus: Prince Charles is in the house. about 6 hours ago from UberTwitter


10) PMcManus: Tom Friedman is on a roll in the panel session in the Danish pavillion about 7 hours ago from UberTwitter

11) RT @cop15: Forest negotiations are making headway http://bit.ly/91A6fO #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 7 hours ago from UberTwitter

12) RT @cop15: Forest negotiations are making headway http://bit.ly/91A6fO #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 8 hours ago from bit.ly

13) RT @cop15: Schwarzenegger says go carefully on climate change http://bit.ly/7L38Oe #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 8 hours ago from UberTwitter

14) RT @cop15: 'Jaw-dropping' queue for climate summit - our Environment Correspondent reports: http://bit.ly/8wR59O #cop15 #copenhagen about 9 hours ago from web

15) PMcManus: JOhn Kerry & US delegaiton Press confernece at 9:30am Al Gore speaking at 12:30pm (Boston time). See them live on the C0P15 webstream. about 9 hours ago from UberTwitter

16) RT @cop15: Japan to unveil 10 billion dollars in climate aid http://bit.ly/8jArfU #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 10 hours ago from UberTwitter

17) RT @cop15: Japan to unveil 10 billion dollars in climate aid http://bit.ly/8jArfU #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 10 hours ago from bit.ly

18) RT @cop15: Australian PM warns of failure http://bit.ly/55HkAS #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 12 hours ago from bit.ly

19) RT @cop15: Schwarzenegger says states key to climate fight http://bit.ly/8m8e3w #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 12 hours ago from bit.ly

20) RT @cop15: US long-term climate aid unlikely to be disclosed http://bit.ly/8SnPKh #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 12 hours ago from bit.ly

21) RT @cop15: China accuses developed countries on climate http://bit.ly/7XTGzI #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 13 hours ago from UberTwitter

22) RT @cop15: China accuses developed countries on climate http://bit.ly/7XTGzI #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 14 hours ago from bit.ly

23) RT @cop15: COP15 quietly addressing other half of the emissions problem http://bit.ly/4w1scV #cop15 #copenhagen #climate about 16 hours ago from bit.ly

24) RT @cop15: France promotes plan to fight deforestation http://bit.ly/5AlZM2 #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 16 hours ago from bit.ly

25) RT @cop15: Rich countries behind green technology fund http://bit.ly/5WWiYm #cop15 #copenhagen #climate about 16 hours ago from bit.ly

26) RT @cop15: India sets Tuesday night deadline http://bit.ly/5qOATg #cop15 #climate #copenhagen about 16 hours ago from bit.ly

December 14, 2009

Moday's News - Day 7

Polar Ice

Today in a side event at the Bella Center, Al Gore updates recent studies by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program and Norwegian Polar Institute suggesting that the northern polar sea ice has been retreating dramatically and may be gone in the summertime by 2014, much earlier than foreseen by a US government agency just eight months ago. Although there is wide consensus that this will occur by 2025, many scientists take the position that this newly developed  scenario is a possible, but not probable in their minds.

Poor Nations in Day Long Boycott

African nations joined by 135 other countries including India and China boycotted today’s talks in Copenhagen charging that developed nations were conspiring to reduce their commitments to greenhouse gas emission reductions. Informal talks resolved the impasse and negotiations resumed in the late afternoon.

Monday morning buzz: China

China is giving signals that it will back off on its demand for funding from developed nations to combat CO2 emissions.  This is a big concession by a major player at the talks and seen a very positives sign and will accelerate the talks on emerging economy financing..

Stay tuned.

December 13, 2009

Living the Talk & Finding the Leverage

In planning my trip to COP15, I spent a lot of time researching the events, press meetings, side events and venues to get some idea of a game plan for the visit. When our full delegation is here on Tuesday we will have planning session to compare notes and ensure we cover as much territory as we can. Upon arrival, I found the atmosphere to be what I expected; from the airline pilot welcoming COP-15 visitors on the approach into Copenhagen, to the promotional booths and helpful guides directing sleep deprived travelers at the airport to the bustling streets the atmosphere is electric and carnival-like. What I wasn’t really prepared for was the experience of being immersed in one of the most sustainable urban environments that can be found.



As business travelers often do, I sit at the end of the day to catch up on email and other daily chores and start to acknowledge there is something different about this hotel stay at one of the Scandic hotels in Malmo, Sweden. Yes, linens are only replaced when necessary and lighting it controlled by your key card. Rehydrating after a long day, I sip tap water, yes tap water, out of a glass that is actually made from glass. I work on a small desk and wooden task chair (locally sourced), lit by a single, small compact fluorescent task light. Next to the desk on the oak flooring (recycle material) sits a waste management system, a wastebasket compartmentalized for organics, recyclables and other materials. The hotel’s brochure on sustainability lies nearby and I read the hotel chain is a Nordic Swan Award (sustainability) winner. It has developed its own water treatment capability that leaves important salts and minerals in the water and has eliminated the sale of 1.6 million liters of bottled water (3.5 million bottles) per year, in additional to 160 tons of carbon dioxide emission in transportation of that water to its hotels. Waste water streams are managed and treated separately. I even went on line to calculate the environmental impact of my stay. Seems they’ve taken this sustainability thing pretty far.


Dinner was taken tonight in the hotel restaurant and consisted of a menu of locally grown foods and fair trade coffee. In the hotel lobby, across from the restaurant, is a “small farmers market” of fruits along with locally made breads and cheeses (note to self: breakfast or at least "road food"). Typical of lone travelers, I read during dinner and learned that Malmo has been aggressively pursuing sustainable development since 2001. Its rehabilitated harbor front built since that time has been powered by renewable energy, employs green roofing, and reuses its storm runoff among other strategies.. Given the success of this effort, the entire city of Malmo is committed to be carbon neutral by 2017 and 100% powered by renewables by 2030.


Lessons learned from all this: 1) living a more sustainable lifestyle will be easier than we think and won’t require any noticeable sacrifices. 2) consumer behavior can change, if change is made easy. (it was easy to put the right trash into the right receptacle), and, 3) this experience supports my belief that there are two big leverage points for sustainable development: Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and urban development. I wasn't planning for this to occur, but it has been one of the most insightful discoveries on my visit here. 

In 2008, for the first time in human history, more people lived in urban environments than rural settings. This trend is projected to grow in coming years to almost 2/3rds . Copenhagen and Malmo are not Upopia in the Thomas Moore sense, but are rather living examples of what this future might look like.

December 09, 2009

US Republican Opposition Heading to Copenhagen

Representative James Sensenbrenner will lead a delegation of Republican House lawmakers critical to the President Obama’s position on climate change to Copenhagen next week to show public opposition to the policy. Citing information included in the “Danish text” the group will to draw attention to the leaked emails from leading climate scientists (dubbed “Climategate”) which they said backed their suspicions that the global warming threat was overblown and too costly to act on. Representative Darrell Issa, the top Republican on the House committee is said to be preparing to conduct any congressional investigation into the leaked emails. Republican opposition also plans to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) in regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Also reported, all seven Republicans on the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are planning to boycott this week's work session on a domestic climate-change bill (the Kerry-Boxer Bill) , an aide said on Saturday.

More info:

Yahoo News: US Republicans vow to rain on Copenhagen parade

Reuters: Republicans Move to Delay Climate Bill Progress

New York Times, Dot Earth: Update on Copenhagen and the Climate Files

Developing Nations in an Uproar

As noted in comment on previous posts, a central issue in the UN negotiations in Copenhagen is whether or not certain developing countries should make financial commitments toward mitigation. This question is based on both precedent and practicality. The Kyoto Protocol sets the precedent in that all developing countries are exempted from obligations, while in the practical sense, developing countries have very limited capacity to address mitigation and other critical issues such as poverty relief, education, healthcare, national security simultaneously. Industrialized countries have stressed that this is not feasible in the future during the preparations for the Copenhagen meeting.

The uproar in on this issue, revolves around the so-called “Danish text” published on the Guardian website. The confidentially sourced documents is describe as a draft of upcoming, says that “developing countries, except the least developed which may contribute at their own discretion, commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions.” These commitments are suggested to be given as a percentage – to be negotiated next week – which should be achieved by 2020. However, the percentage should not be compared to present levels, rather to a business-as-usual scenario.”

Another point of concern is the draft’s suggestion to transfer more control over the enforcement of the Copenhagen agreement from the UN to the World Bank. A move would shift more control over to the industrialized world.

According to The Guardian’s sources, developing countries are infelicitous about the new proposed division between the “least developed” and other developing nations.

Perspective on the issue is provided by Kim Carstensen, head of conservation group WWF's global climate initiative, wwho said in the NYT piece cited below "Focus on the Danish text right now is a distraction from the negotiations," adding “the text did not lay out what would happen to the Kyoto Protocol.”

For further info, readers may refer to these news sites:

The Guardian, “The Danish Text”

COP15: “Danish text” raises furor”

Financial Times: “The leaked ‘Danish draft’ text of a Copenhagen agreement: an NGO-created storm that will not benefit poor countries?”


New York Tmes: “China Demands More From Rich to Unlock Climate Talks”

December 07, 2009

COP-15 Opening Day News

Latest news going into the conference:

President Obama ups the ante and changes plans to attend conference on closing day, a move viewed by many as confirming a binding agreement may be within reach.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India makes his decision and commits to attend the conference.

The UK and 52 other Commonwealth Nations commit $10B for a “Fast Start” climate fund to support developing nations in dealing with climate change, while EU is preparing to make 53B Euro commitment.


Opening Day News:

192 nations including Iraq and Somalia are represented as 15,000 were in attendance in Copenhagen on opening day, while an additional 19,000 registered would-be attendees were turned away. Copenhagen declared a UN site and falls under UN security

“A deal is within our reach,” Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Danish Prime Minister in his conference opening speech

“The EU is ready to raise its commitments from 20 to 30 percent, but this would require others to bring something to the table.”, Andreas Carlgren, Swedish Minister for Environment and current EU President

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama of Japan (#5 emitter) recommits to that countries 2020 target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent from 1990 levels if all major emitters, such as China and the United States, agree with ambitious targets.

"The final stage is here with us. Rather than describing it in optimistic or pessimistic terms, we need to focus on the substantive work before us.“, YU QINGTAI, CHINA'S CLIMATE CHANGE AMBASSADOR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labels carbon dioxide along with five other greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. As such, the six substances can be subject to regulation under the U.S. Clean Air Act and gives President Obama the tool he needs in Copenhagen.

December 01, 2009

The Door is Open

As heads of state have respond to their official invitations to attend COP15 issued on Nov 13 and we are starting to see the lineup of participants. Along with commitments to participate, carbon emission reduction pledges are being offered by these leaders toward the conference’s overall goal of developing the global framework for the treaty to replace Kyoto 97.

Most notable in recent weeks are the commitments by the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest emitters of CO2. (See table below) Although there is criticism that the pledges made by these two countries are inadequate based on the science as well as commitments made by other nations, these pledges are a significant advance, unlocking the last door and building momentum toward a consensus on emissions targets.

Chinese Prime Minister, Wen Jiabao, will attend the Copenhagen climate talks and has pledged China will cut “emission intensity” relative to economic growth by 40% to 45% by 2020 compared with 2005 levels. President Obama will also attend on December 9th with a pledge of at 17% reduction in emissions in the same time period from the same 2005 level. This is a historic precedent for the U.S. as it traditionally likes to have formal legislative policy in place before agreeing to commitments of this nature. But, with the Kerry-Boxer Bill still in the Senate and unlikely to be voted on before February 2010, bipartisan leaders in Washington have agreed to the 17% reduction goal so to support U.S. negotiators at the Copenhagen bargaining table.

The complexity arises form the fact that other countries use 1990 as their base year not 2005, and not tying the target to “economic growth” as is China. In 1990 terms, the 17% reduction for the U.S. translates into roughly a 4 percent reduction relative to 1990, and China's pledge to cut carbon intensity means an actual increase in emissions. Given the projected expansion of the Chinese economy, emissions will continue to rise for at least the next ten years despite the promise to decrease “emissions intensity. Estimates are that the 40 to 45% cut in carbon intensity amounts to between zero and 12% reductions in actual emissions levels, but translating into a 40% increase in emissions due to overall growth of their economy.

Emission Reduction Pledges By Top 5 Emitters*

Country, Reduction, Baseline Year**

US, 17%, 2005
China*, 40-45%, 2005
Russia, 25%, 1990
Japan, 25%, 1990
India, No Pledge

* Comparison of 2020 Targets & Ranges
** Emission Intensity

While the door is now open to move towards a consensus on targets. large questions still remain, including the financial framework for credits, choice of the baseline year against which specific reduction targets will be measured; the duration of the emissions reductions commitment period; whether or not to call for curbs on deforestation, especially in developing countries’ tropical rainforests; and whether or not to tighten rules governing the methods used to reduce emissions.


The Carbon 20 (C-20)

Total Emissions (excluding land-use)
Units: thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide


SOURCE: World Resources Institute. 2003. Carbon Emissions from energy use and cement manufacturing, 1850 to 2000. Available on-line through the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) at Washington, DC: World Resources Institute