common sense

Whew! After 48 hectic hours in transit from Copenhagen, I am back home in sunny San Francisco. I still haven't had the chance to write about half the things I saw in Copenhagen, so I will continue to update this blog every few days. Thanks for following along, and for your support and feedback.
The highlight of my week was a lecture I attended at Klimaforum called "The Future of Climate Policy for Indigenous Peoples of North America," given by two Native American women from the Indigenous Environmental Network and the Black Mesa Water Coalition.
From a very young age, I've been enchanted by Native American culture. I idolize and almost envy the Miwok people who used to live in my home region, for thier ability to live in harmony on a tiny strip of peninsula for more than 8,000 years. And I often ask myself, "What is the secret to such a sustainable society? What sort of ancient wisdom can our 'modern, Western' society learn from the Miwok and other indigenous people?"
The two Native American women at Klimaforum clarified for me: "indigenous wisdom" is simply common sense. Caring for the land you depend on is common sense. Living within the closed-loop cycles of nature, without wastes, is common sense. Working with a community, not every man for himself - that's common sense.
The first speaker was Wahleah Johns, a Navajo woman who lives on the Navajo-Hopi reservation in Black Mesa, Arizona. Since 1965 Peabody Western Coal Company has been operating two strip mines on Black Mesa, which together constitute one of the most extensive strip mining operations in the United States, and which provide power for the entire Southwest. Each year Peabody Coal Company pumps more than 4,500 acre-feet of pristine Navajo and Hopi drinking water from the Black Mesa aquifier, and also dumps chemicals and other byproducts from coal production into the air and groundwater on the reservation. Cancer rates in the region are well above average.
Wahleah and other Navajo and Hopi activists are fighting the coal company in court, but their fight is made difficult by the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency has no jurisdiction over tribal lands. Did you know that? Because I didn't, and I was shocked. Under US law, the coal company may pollute tribal lands, but the EPA does not have the power to protect or regulate tribal lands. You always hear about Native American oppression like it's history, but it's obviously happening today. The indigenous people of Black Mesa are unjustly bearing the devastating effects of coal mining, and few of the benefits - many residents on the reservation do not have power or running water in their homes.
Both Wahleah and the second speaker, a Hidatsa /Arikara / Mandan indian named Kandi Mossett, spoke about the painful reality of carbon offsets and market-based solutions. In Black Mesa, Wahleah said, the coal company has offered to appease the native people by shipping in desalinated ocean water to make up for the depleted aquifier. But of course, that is not a real solution, because shipping and desalinating water takes an enormous amount of energy, and the byproducts of desalinization are environmentally destructive. Not to mention the fact that the Hopi and Navajo people consider the Black Mesa aquifier a sacred entity.
Furthermore, to offset its emissions, Peabody has invested millions of dollars to experiment with carbon sequestration on Black Mesa - yet it has refused to invest in renewable energy. This roundabout approach to reducing emissions simply doesn't make sense.
Kandi Mossett spoke about another roundabout approach - REDD, the program to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation in Developing countries. The basic scheme of REDD is this: developed nations offset thier emissions by paying developing nations not to deforest. Besides the fact that offsetting is a short-term solution, this sounds okay, right? I thought so, before I read into the details of the plan. First of all, REDD does not provide money to developing countries - it provides money to the logging companies within those developing countries. In many cases, the logging companies might not even be based in the developing countries in which they operate. Secondly, in order to "preserve" forests, logging companies kick indigenous people off of thier lands - indigenous people who have been living sustainably in the forests for thousands of years. Logging companies also get money for planting monocultures in former forests, because these qualify as carbon sinks. Meanwhile, developed countries feel they can continue to emit disproportionally high amounts of greenhouse gases, because they are "offsetting" emissions. Indiginous communities accross the globe are calling REDD a false solution.
REDD is part of the new, growing "carbon market" - basically, a system that applies economic value to carbon emissions, and allows such emissions to be bought, sold, and traded. Wahleah said that when her 80-year old Navajo grandmother learned that essentially the air is being bought and sold, she just couldn't understand it. The Navajo believe that nothing in nature can be owned, because every human being is intricately connected to everything in nature. Sounds like common sense to me.

transparency

So, last I left you I was headed out to the "massive" protest organized by the Climate Action Network.  The main point of this protest was to demand transparency from policy makers by breaking into the Bella Center during negotiations.  Of course, protesters did not even get close to breaking into the conference: thousands of police officers formed a blockade with roughly a half-mile radius around the Bella Center, and nobody was allowed to pass without a badge. Bus and Metro lines to the Bella Center were suspended for the day because of "crowd control." 

The protest was much smaller than expected - I'd guess roughly 1,500 people participated - and took place on a side street far away from the Bella Center, because it was impossible to get close. As protesters tried to pass the police blockade, they were immediately beaten, tear-gassed, or arrested by the police. (I've heard that Danish law enforcement uses a kind of tear gas that is banned in every other country in the world except Israel, but don't quote me on that.) After about an hour, police broke up the protest completely, declaring that anyone standing in the vicinity would be arrested. So I left, just to be safe.

Later, at Klimaforum (the people's climate summit), I was surprised to hear members of the morning's protest reflecting on how well the protest had turned out - they seemed to think that those who had fought the police were heroic.  Although I empathize with the protesters' desire for political transparency, I disagree with their tactics and their definition of success.  They acted as if the point of protest was to wage war against the police, when in fact they made no progress towards the goal of making the negotiations more accessible. If anything, by fighting the police, they probably alienated themselves even more from the political establishment.

The COP15 negotiators are all high-level politicians, and many of their decisions fail to take into account the needs of less powerful people. NGOs sent thousands of representatives to the conference to observe the negotiations and pressure the politicians to make fair agreements. But on Wednesday, no NGOs were allowed into the Bella Center after noon. By Friday, only 90 NGO reps will be permitted to enter the conference at all.  So I certainly understand the protesters' concerns about diminishing transparency - after all, I am one of those NGO reps who was kicked out of the conference. But I thought the protest was a dismal failure.

Lots more soon,

Natasha

disillusionment

Yesterday I spent half the day in the Bella Center and half the day at the People's Forum, and realized that the COP15 negotiations are not about what I thought they were about. This conference is not intended to solve the environmental and social problems exacerbated by climate change. The negotiators in the Bella Center have no interest in these problems whatsoever. Rather, the conference is simply a massive business meeting, with big-cheeses brainstorming how to generate big profits behind closed doors. 

I know this sounds cynical. Just a few days ago, I believed that our leaders were gathered in Copenhagen to debate solutions to the biggest environmental crisis facing our times. I thought they were trying to decide on a specific number for global emissions targets, and a specific amount of reparations for poor nations. I thought they were working to save future generations from disaster. 

But the more I learn about the proposed "solutions," the more I realize that these negotiations are not about any of those things. Almost every "solution" that is being discussed by the leaders in the Bella Center is a false solution: REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation), CDM (the Clean Development Mechanism), Cap and Trade, Carbon Markets - all of these are destructive programs designed to shuffle money around and give the illusion of environmental protection (not to mention many of the alternative energy proposals, which I am also learning to mistrust: "clean" coal, biofuels, nuclear, hydrogen). 

I'm rushing out to the Bella Center now to join a massive protest, but I will tell you more details about false solutions and my time at the Bella Center as soon as I return. 

yours,

Natasha

climate chaos

Sorry for the delay - the internet connection at our hostel has been sketchy.

Lots of news: First of all, it turns out that the Bella Center has a maximum capacity of around 15,000 - and yet the UN accredited 34,000 observers. This means that more than 15,000 of us stood outside the conference center yesterday morning for over five hours, waiting to get our badges, before we were informed that we would not be allowed to enter the building. It was snowing. The guards were literally holding back the crowd with their outstretched arms. This crowd was composed of NGO reps, students, and journalists, all of whom had been promised accreditation. In an effort to ward off hypothermia, some of us performed frantic aerobic exercises, and huddled together for warmth. After five hours of waiting, someone announced that accreditation had ended for the day - there was simply not enough room to accommodate all of us.

This strikes me as extremely poor organization on the part of Denmark and the UN. According to UCSB professor Bob Wilkinson, who is here in Copenhagen with us, and who has been to many similar conferences before,  this kind of chaos has never occurred at any other COP or similar conference. Since there are too many accredited observers, it seems that the new plan is to assign a quota to each group or NGO - one third of the members of each group will receive secondary passes, which you must now have to enter the center. Our group of twenty-four students received three secondary passes, which we will have to trade off between ourselves. Furthermore, the UN is apparently going to pare down on the number of observers allowed each day - so by Friday, only ninety NGO observers will be represented at the conference. Of course, all of this is merely rumor - no one seems to know exactly what is going on.

But all is certainly not lost. After the five hour ordeal yesterday morning, I headed over to Klimaforum  - "the people's forum on climate change." This is a huge event happening in the city center, comprised of hundreds of lectures, exhibits, panels, and workshops. I went to a panel called "Indigenous Voices on Climate Change," in which indigenous people from Guatemala, Kenya, the Philippines, Australia, and the US spoke about how climate change impacts their communities. Since indigenous communities are so closely engaged with the natural environment, to destroy that environment is to destroy their homes, their gods, their livelihoods. But though indigenous people are now disproportionally bearing the effects of climate change, they reminded us that we are all connected, and all effected, in the long run. The panel was very inspiring, and I have a lot more revelations about it to share with you later.

Next at Klimaforum, I saw Bill McKibben and the president of the Maldives speak about how we need to work immediately to reduce CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million. 350 is the number that many scientists have agreed is "safe". We are currently at around 394 ppm. Bill McKibben is the founder of 350.org, an campaign to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The president of the Maldives has a vested interest in this campaign because the Maldives lies only 5 meters above sea level, and will soon be underwater if climate change continues at its current rate. The president is a sort of Nelson Mandela-like character - once imprisoned for political protesting against an authoritarian regime, he is now the first democratically elected leader in the Maldives. His speech was  inspiring - it was refreshing to hear a political leader speak so frankly and logically about climate issues. He also reminded us that politicians are reactionaries, not activists - they must eventually respond to their constituents - and so he encouraged us to continue lobbying and protesting for stricter climate reform, citing his own success with democratic protests in the Maldives.

Last night, our entire UCSB delegation met up to swap stories and information from the day. Some of  my peers who had registered early got into the conference yesterday, and reported some big news: the G-77, an alliance of developing nations including China and India, walked out of the negotiations. According to Professor Wilkinson, the walkout was spurred by disagreements over whether or not the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCC legislation that is partially set to expire in two years) should be preserved and revised, or scrapped and completely reframed. 

In somewhat better news, the US agreed to put up 80 million dollars to assist developing nations with sustainable, "green" development, and China agreed to stop insisting on reparations. 

This morning, I got up at five, rushed to the Bella Center in the cold darkness, and stood in line for over two hours - but I finally made it inside!!! Right now I'm sitting in a conference room with the Archbishop Desmond Tutu, waiting for the Oxfam International Climate Hearing to start. I'll report more in a few hours.

From the Bella Center in Copenhagen (at last!),

Natasha

it's one in the morning in Copenhagen

12/12/09

I'm here! I arrived in Copenhagen at three in the afternoon, just as the sun was beginning to set. It's now one in the morning, and I've already decided that this is probably the best city I've ever been to, and that socialism rocks. There are exactly zero Starbucks Coffee Houses here - instead, there are plenty of adorable, distinctive cafes and pubs. Actually, "adorable" is a good word to describe pretty much everything here in Denmark: the narrow cobblestone streets, the sleek bicycles with baskets attached, the pervasive holiday decorations, the street musicians, etcetera. In other exciting news, it is legal for me to walk into an above-mentioned adorable establishment and order a hot mug of "glog" - an incredible spiced cider/wine brew made specially for the holidays. The bad news: the glog costs 39 kroners, or about seven USDs. And everything else is just as expensive - even water, when you order it at a restaurant, costs about 35 kroners per jug. So I guess I'm going to be living off crackers and peanut butter for the rest of the week. Either that or I'll be very irresponsible and squander all my savings on more adorable, delectable Danish fare. We'll see. 

Anyway, on to the important stuff: COP15, and the pending fate of our warming planet. The intensity of the climate change negotiations is tangible throughout the city. Every cafe and metro car is filled with delegates and activists from all over the world, and police and emergency personnel are swarming in the streets. In every public square, there are exhibits and art installations addressing climate change. People are handing out literature, and walking around in costumes. Protestors nearly shut down the entire city this afternoon, marching towards the Bella Center (the main convention center for the conference) carrying signs that said "climate action now" and "there is no planet B." City authorities had anticipated the protest to be 60,000 strong, but by the end of the day, rumor had it that more than 100,000 demonstrators showed up. By the time my group joined the protest, it was dark and freezing outside, so most remaining protestors were starting fires in the middle of the streets to gather around, and singing and dancing and making music.  It was exhilarating to be there, in the middle of all of it, but I also felt the urgency of the situation: 100,000 people gathered to demand immediate, drastic, change on a global scale. That's indicative of just how drastic our current situation is.

We had dinner at a cozy Italian restaurant, and of course the two men at the table next to ours were heatedly discussing the climate conference. It turned out that they were delegates from the USA Environmental Protection Agency, whose job it is to unite all the international, environmental NGOs involved in climate issues. Their job is not going smoothly. Apparently, all the NGOs sharply disagree about how climate change should be solved. As if disputes between all the nations of the world weren't enough.

"Networking" had begun: the delegates filled us in on some of the latest developments of the conference:

- the G-77, (the alliance of "developing" nations) is breaking apart, due to differences between poor island nations and rising superpowers like India and China. The poor island nations, most notably Tuvalu, are calling for a strictly enforced ceiling for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. China, India, and Saudia Arabia don't want to commit to such a limit, fearing that it will stunt their economic growths.  If greenhouse gas emissions are not sharply reduced in the very near future, many of the island nations will sink under rising seas, displacing millions of their inhabitants. 

- at the same time, no climate policy can be effective unless the US is completely committed to it. And right now, it looks like the US will not commit to anything concrete by the end of the summit. The American negotiators say they are willing to accept much of the blame for climate change on behalf of the United States, but they will not accept the punishment - the payment of reparations to underdeveloped and developing nations. China says they will not commit to any concrete agreement unless the US pays reparations. US Congressmen say they will not ratify a climate treaty unless China is also on board. Etcetera, etcetera: you see the difficulty. 

Meanwhile, I get the impression that much of the international community is disgusted with the US right now. At the protest tonight, I saw a giant model of the statue of liberty, hung with a sign that read: "freedom to destroy the world." 

But I have hope for these negotiations. I bet you many good things will come out of them - maybe not the big, great thing we need, but progress. There are so many hopeful, passionate people here, gathering together, that I know they can't fail. 

Also, on the flight over here, I finished reading a book called "The Transition Handbook: From Oil Dependancy to Local Resilience," and it was all about how local communities have incredible power to change society. It reminded me that the fate of our planet is not entirely dependent on big-cheese politicians - that you and me, too,  have the power to "make a difference," if we join together. 

Okay, I have to go recover from jet lag. More soon!

yours,

Natasha Joyce Weidner

I invite you to follow me to Denmark.

Do you want up-to-the-minute news on climate change, international political negotiations, and environmentally friendly dance parties? Then follow me to Denmark!

On Saturday, December 12th, 2009, I will arrive in Copenhagen to observe COP15 - the 15th United Nations Conference of the Parties. At this conference, world leaders will attempt to negotiate an international treaty to address the problems of climate change.  Thousands of activists, NGO representatives, and student observers like me will also gather in Copenhagen to pressure politicians, discuss solutions, and learn more about the international politics of climate change. 

The two-week conference begins today, December 7th, and ends December 18th, and I will be there from the 12th to the 18th. Over the course of the week, I will have the opportunity to observe political negotiations, panel discussions, and some presumably massive civilian protests. I will also most likely get to meet with the California Delegation to the conference, and possibly the US Delegation. I've also been told that there is an ocean protection-themed dance party called "Ocean Motion" that I can't miss. I will keep you updated on all these events as they happen.  

My focus in Copenhagen will be on feminism and indigenous cultures as they relate to climate change. I plan to attend panels such as "Using Inuit Knowledge in Climate Change Decision Making," hosted by the Inuit Delegation, and "Women as Agents of Change," hosted by the Iceland Delegation. I will infuse this blog with all the information I gather. 

I am attending COP15 with twenty-three fellow UCSB students, representing the UCSB Environmental Affairs Board (EAB)  and the Earth Island Institute.  You can check out the EAB blog at http://eabatcop.blogspot.com to see posts from our entire delegation. 

More info coming soon! Thanks for reading, and please contact me with any questions or recommendations.

- Natasha