A Conflicted Conversation About Climate Change

A Place Defined by Rising Water

2012-01-29T23:32:00.005-07:00

The people of southern Vietnam live with their soils partially submerged under water. For nearly half of every year, the season is termed “wet” and the great Mekong River swells beyond its banks. During this time rice patties glisten, and muddy water ripples beneath the floorboards of houses raised on stilts. Commerce, travel, and daily commuting happens by boat, giving this season a distinct sound of buzzing outboard motors.

The Mekong River Delta was built by flooding waters, which deposit sediment from upstream. 3,000 years of flooding has built the landmass of southern Vietnam, and now it is among the most fertile regions on planet Earth. It’s nutrient rich soils and consistent access to flooding fresh water has allowed Vietnam to become the second leading global exporter of rice. Thus, agriculture (and rice production in particular) has become the fabric that defines so much of Vietnam’s culture and history, and today it is the foundation of one of the world’s fastest growing economies.

Flooding waters have made this place into what it is today—but they will destroy it too.

Global climate change poses an incredible threat to this place and its people. The projected rate of sea level rise that is associated with global climate change will very likely be catastrophic to southern Vietnam because of its low elevation as a coastal delta. The Nobel Prize-winning 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report identifies Southeast Asia as among the most vulnerable regions on Earth. This is due in part to the geography of Vietnam as a low-lying coastal nation. Statistically, the country ranks fourth behind China, India, and Bangladesh in terms of the absolute number of people living in vulnerable, low elevation coastal zones (LECZ), defined as the contiguous area along the coast that is less than 10 m above sea level. About 43 million Vietnamese, or about 55% of the country’s population, are living in this LECZ. That is the highest percentage of all countries worldwide.

Vietnamese researchers predict that a sea-level rise of 100 cm would cause a predicted land loss of 40.000 km or 21.1 % of the Mekong River Delta’s land mass. This level of loss would expose and/or displace 17.1 million people, which is 23.1% of the population. In the words of Michael Waibel: “Although Vietnam has only played a small part in creating the problems of global environmental change and faces many other challenges, it cannot avoid the impacts of climate change. Implementing adaptation policies seems mandatory” (2008).

I believe that the people of the Mekong River Delta will adapt. They have lived much of their cultural history adapting to seasonal changes in water levels, and by their very nature, they are a dynamic people with an incredible ability to respond to changes. This ability lies in the fabric of who they are. However, this belief does not justify inaction by developed nations such as the United States. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

As a developed nation, the U.S. arguably holds the greatest burden of responsibility as we move into an era defined by a changing climate. Our economy has been industrialized for over a century, and today we produce more Greenhouse Gas emissions per capita than any other country in the world. Therefore, we owe a tremendous amount to developing nations like Vietnam, which have done almost nothing to create climate change but nonetheless suffer from its worst consequences.

Vietnam’s vulnerability is due in-part to their status as a developing nation. Adaptation for the coasts of developing countries will be more challenging than for coasts of developed countries, due to constraints on adaptive capacity. According to the 2007 IPCC Report on coastal systems and low-lying areas: “Developing nations may have the political or societal will to protect or relocate people who live in low-lying coastal zones, but without the necessary financial and other resources/capacities, their vulnerability is much greater than that of a developed nation in an identical coastal setting”

Therefore, the U.S needs to provide the most aid to low-lying coastal nations such as Vietnam. Adaptation funds should be provided by the economies with the most historical responsibility, and our country took a great step in this direction two years ago in Copenhagen, when Hilary Clinton announced a commitment to generate $20 billion in adaptation funds between the U.S and other developed nations.

But $20 billion will never be enough. It is simply impossible to quantify what is at stake in southern Vietnam. There is no monetary value that can be placed on the river culture of the Mekong Delta, nor can you quantify the livelihoods of generations upon generations of rice farmers. What’s at stake is more than rice exports or economic growth—more than 40,000km of lost landmass. The fabric of Vietnam’s history, economy, culture, and way of life is truly at risk in the face of global climate change. For Americans, the knowledge of such a threat should be a call to action. For me, this experience in Vietnam has been just that.

Projected climate change imapacts on the Mekong Delta

2012-01-20T15:45:00.008-07:00

This trip to Vietnam has represented one of the most comprehensive and encompassing learning experiences I've ever had. Studying while immersed in a totally foreign culture means that you are always learning. Unless you're asleep, the new experiences and perspective-altering observations never stop. (And even then, new things happened to me as my Malaria medication gave me some really crazy dreams.) It was exhausting on one hand, physically and mentally, but it was also so enriching. This will be one of the high points in my college years, and one of the best classes I have taken at any point during my education.

Our group was given regular assignments to synthesize our learning, and one part of this was completing research-heavy "question sets." To give an example of some of our course work, I will share a few paragraphs from one of my questions sets. This will also give an overview of some projected climate change impacts on the Mekong River Delta in South Vietnam:

Question Set #2: Climate change impacts on Vietnam’s coastal and low-lying areas. Detail current sensitivity and vulnerability, future trends in terms of impacts and vulnerabilities, and adaptation and mitigation options.

Vietnam’s economy is growing quickly and as a result the country is gaining international relevance and influence. Many recent years have resulted with an overall growth rate near 8%, and 11.5% in the Mekong River Delta region (Ninh 2012). That growth, however, has been a relatively recent phenomenon due to the growth of their industrial sector (including a more industrialized agricultural sector). Therefore, the country’s historical contribution to climate change via greenhouse gas emissions has been almost insignificant compared with Western societies like America and Western Europe. Regardless of their historic contribution, Vietnam is likely to suffer the most from the effects because of their position as a low-lying coastal nation. A sea-level rise of 100 cm would cause a predicted land loss of 40.000 km or 21.1 % of the Mekong River Delta’s land mass. This level of loss would expose and/or displace 17.1 million people, which is 23.1% of the population (Ninh 2012). In the words of Michael Waibel: “Although Vietnam has only played a small part in creating the problems of global environmental change and faces many other challenges, it cannot avoid the impacts of climate change. Implementing adaptation policies seems mandatory” (2008).

The Nobel Prize-winning 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report identifies Southeast Asia as among the most vulnerable regions on Earth (Cruz et al., 2007). This is due in part to the geography of Vietnam as a low-lying coastal nation. Statistically, the country ranks fourth behind China, India, and Bangladesh in terms of the absolute number of people living in vulnerable, low elevation coastal zones (LECZ), defined as the contiguous area along the coast that is less than 10 m above sea level. About 43 million Vietnamese, or about 55% of the country’s population, are living in those LECZ. This is the highest percentage of all countries worldwide (Waibel, 2008). However, their vulnerability is also due to their status as a developing nation. Adaptation for the coasts of developing countries will be more challenging than for coasts of developed countries, due to constraints on adaptive capacity. According to the 2007 IPCC Report on coastal systems and low-lying areas: “Developing nations may have the political or societal will to protect or relocate people who live in low-lying coastal zones, but without the necessary financial and other resources/capacities, their vulnerability is much greater than that of a developed nation in an identical coastal setting” (Nicholls and Wong, 2012).

The Mekong River Delta (MRD) is one of the largest and most fertile river deltas in the world. As a result, the agricultural sector has held steady at approximately 20% of Vietnam’s GDP over the last decade, and Vietnam is the world’s second leading exporter of rice. The MRD is Vietnam’s most significant agricultural area, leading in rice production, aquaculture, and fruit products. Rice is the most important crop nationally and is grown on about four-fifths of the cropped land in Vietnam (Ninh 2012), and the MRD specifically accounts for over 80% of the nation’s rice exports (Sanh 2008). All of this agricultural productivity is under threat, however, as global climate change threatens to inundate much of the MRD with rising seawater. “As such, climate change, especially sea-level rise, directly impacts the lives of millions of Vietnamese and the food security of the world” (Phat, 2010).

Growth, pollution, and a brighter future in Vietnam

2012-01-14T10:38:00.006-07:00

My current trek through SE Asia marks my first real and enduring visit to the developing world. (I went on a couple of family trips to Mexico when I was growing up, but those experiences were fairly removed compared what I am doing now.) As an American, I think that I find a lot of issues with my home country, such as the state of our political system, many dynamics of our culture that I see as destructive or shortsighted, and our inability to act collectively as a global leader in addressing climate change. I think that to some degree, it is a common American trait—particularly in young people—to be overly critical of our own country. When I traveled through northern Europe in ’09-’10, these criticisms were reinforced. Scandinavian countries tend to be very critical of American politics and culture, and I often felt as though I was treated differently if I told people I was American. (This was particularly the case at the UN Climate Change meeting in Copenhagen, as many countries resented the U.S. for failing to lead on the global issue.)

Therefore, it has been a significant surprise to me that SE Asian countries, and particularly Vietnam, seem to love Americans. (I wrote a little about this in my last post.) I have been thinking about this a lot, particularly in the context of climate change adaptation and more broad environmental concerns like water pollution and litter. This experience has made me appreciate what we have in America in many ways. It has led to a more conflicted view of American wealth and our place in the global economy.

In my journal writing and emails home, one recurring word has been “perspective.” Poverty is on such a different scale here, with many toilets (or most in some places) just hovering over the river, and slums as a common sight. People throw their trash onto the street or into the river without a second thought, and both are littered with trash. Farmers flood rice patties, inundating area rivers with fertilizer and insecticide chemicals (not to mention human and livestock waste).

But why is it so different here, coming from America where littering has become largely taboo, and water quality is protected with heavy federal and local laws?

One reason is simple: On an income scale, the Vietnamese family I stayed with this past week has to be very well-off contextually in this country. The father is a high-ranking leader in the Vietnamese Army and the mother is a PhD researcher and University Professor, specializing in aquaculture, agronomy, and microbiology. Yet I would guess that every household in my own American family—my parent's, sister's and brother's—has a base income that blows this Vietnamese family's out of the water. I bet that they're not even comparable. Our houses are all on such a different scale to the nice houses here. This family is more educated and prominent in their contextual society than my own, yet we have access to much more wealth and opportunity just because of the country in which we live. It makes me feel so fortunate for what we have in MT, and what has been provided for me by my family and country.

Directly related to income is the ability to maintain a clean environment. The quality of our environment in Montana is immaculate compared with here. Cities along the Mekong River have really trashed it, mostly because poverty levels don't allow them to address collective environmental concerns as we are able to in the U.S. Their government can’t afford to regulate effectively, their industrial sector doesn’t have a large enough profit margin to focus on environmental outcomes, and the local villager is more concerned with how to feed their children and pay for their schooling than the destination of their garbage and sewage. In the U.S. our environmental laws and protections are largely a result of our general affluence as a society, as well as a century-long process of heightened awareness, reclamation, and improving science. Certainly, America’s progress has come with a laundry list of social and environmental costs, but without a doubt I am proud and thankful for most of what the generation before me has left to us.

So it makes sense that Vietnam’s central focus is on economic growth. (And this policy-based focus is proving to be fruitful, with annual growth rates averaging over 8% during the past decade.) Look at what wealth has allowed America to achieve as a country. Why wouldn’t the developing world want that, and who would I be to criticize a country like Vietnam in their pursuit of growth? Even though I see so many approaching limits, such as rising sea levels that are projected to inundate 40,000 sq. km of agricultural land in the low-lying Mekong Delta, I can’t fault Vietnam for their pursuit of wealth. And as a traveling American looking back towards the Western world, I am beginning to appreciate what we have as some of the most fortunate people in all of human history.

After all, if sea levels truly do rise as projected by the IPCC, parts of Florida will be inundated and people will be forced to move to higher elevations. By and large, Florida residents will posses the necessary wealth to relocate (maybe to Montana?)—and those without the resources will almost certainly be aided by the government. But in Vietnam, the same scenario would be catastrophic. A sea level rise of 100cm would expose and/or displace 17.1 million people, which is 23.1% of the population. Where will the poor Mekong River Delta rice farmer go when his only source of income is destroyed?

I think Vietnam needs to continue its growth, and I am beginning to understand why a country like this might envy America. It feels strange saying it, because in discussions about environmental limits and climate change in particular, promoting unrestrained growth is fairly taboo. But Vietnam will not have the proper means to adapt to catastrophic environmental changes without access to wealth.

The Outstretched Hand of Vietnam: Initial Thoughts on U.S.-Vietnam Relations

2012-01-14T04:45:00.007-07:00

My first night here a new Vietnamese friend, the same age as me (21), welcomed me into his home without hesitation. I was a virtual stranger, but we shared a connection to the University of Montana and I displayed an interest in his country. That was all it took to be treated like an honored guest — he and his family made me feel like an old and dear friend with hospitality I had never before experienced.

Yet, this is Vietnam! I carried here the baggage of my country, and had somehow not expected this sort of welcome. Just the name of this country still brings up questions and angst in America, as the history of Vietnam-U.S. relations is dominated by a single connotation: the Vietnam-American War. This was arguably the most controversial war in U.S. history, and it still lingers on the mind of many Americans. It represents a bitter loss to some, and a social and political atrocity to others. Either way, it is a wound in America.

But clearly the story is different here in Vietnam. The people here have turned a new page in their history, and they are proud to be unified. They are proud to share their country with me—an American. And more than proud, they are loving and welcoming.

---

One of our first activities in Ho Chi Minh City (the old “Saigon,” former democratic capital of South Vietnam) was a tour of the “War Remnants Museum.” Right away, a man approached me with an outstretched arm. He was Vietnamese, and he wanted to shake my hand—except that he had no hands. He was a war victim who had lost one eye, and where two hands should have been he had only stunted forearms. I grasped his fleshy limb and said hello.

Suddenly I turned behind me at the sound of a wailing cry and watched an older American woman run out the front doors of the museum and collapse on a bench directly behind me. A friend rubbed her back as she cried into her sunglasses and trembled.

I turned and walked to the exhibits. I read about the South Vietnamese prisons, with detailed descriptions of the torture techniques employed by jailers on their communist prisoners. I then walked through a large room with walls painted orange (appropriately), and looked at gruesome pictures and statistics that detailed the horrible, horrible affects of Agent Orange poisoning.

I trembled myself as I absorbed proof of humanity at its worst.

---

My father was in the U.S. Navy, and in 1965 he visited Nagasaki, Japan—exactly twenty years after the U.S. destroyed 80,000 civilians with an atomic bomb. He told me that the people treated him like a hero or a celebrity when he walked through the city dressed in his American military uniform. Since then, he has said that the Japanese people don’t blame Americans for the tragedy but instead feel a personal sense of shame and responsibility. He said that burn victims, disfigured by the nuclear fallout in 1945, were ostracized from dominant society because they were marked with “shame.” The Japanese shamed themselves instead of the Americans.

When I walk the streets of Vietnam and interact with its people, I am met with incredible graciousness and warm smiles. Vietnamese people are happy and welcoming to Westerners, and they seem to love and welcome Americans in particular. What a surprise this has been!

Yet there is no social parallel to be made between the Vietnamese and the Japanese in their responses to American aggression. I don’t get the sense that Vietnamese people revere Americans, and they certainly don’t internalize shame about a war they now regret. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The Vietnamese are proud of what they achieved in fighting the “American War.” Forty years ago, they defended their own sovereignty and united themselves as a free and independent state for the first time in generations. Today, the economic future of young people in Vietnam is as bright as ever, with the country growing as quickly as any other in the world.

And America?—We are a partner in free trade, and something to admire in terms of economic and societal achievement. I have not seen even a trace of resentment or animosity here, only a desire the better themselves and share the beauty of their land and people with their honored guests. They have moved beyond war, I think, because peace is in their roots. For over 800 years (from the 1010 declaration of independence from China, to the French occupation in the late nineteenth century), Vietnam was called Annam, which simply means, “peaceful land to the south.”

What a difference. And how wonderful it is to be here, in the unified state of Vietnam. These people are proud of their home country and they value their collective good—spiritually and in tangible economic means as well. In this pride they seem to hold a collective graciousness for outsiders, and a desire to share their home with the traveler. It seems safe to say that we are amidst the dawn of new day in U.S-Vietnam relations: one of unprecedented growth, sincere friendship, and an undaunted sense of what the future might hold.

*This was written originally for our class blogsite, which we are keeping while in Vietnam. This is a re-post for my own site, but here is the link to the original post on our class blog: Deep in the Delta: Stories from Vietnam

Two years later, with more complicated perspectives

2012-01-07T07:08:00.002-07:00

Two years ago, I created this blog to communicate about the issue of climate change. It was part class assignment, and part attempt to contribute to the conversation about climate change in America. I felt very strongly about the issue as a 19-year-old environmentalist, and these feelings are still the foundation of what drives me today.

I only kept this blog for one month, creating 19 entries—a diary, really, about my experiences at an United Nations meeting in Denmark. When the meeting ended I stopped updating the site, because the initial reason for its creation was finished.

But now, two years later, I can see that the reason for my writing will never expire. This is a process of growth for me as a young person. Refining my ideas and presenting them on a public forum (whether anyone reads them or not) is an intellectual exercise that I relish. And on a broader scale, I think an open dialogue about an issue as relevant as climate change is very healthy and even necessary in a democratic society. (Yes, climate change is relevant—whether you think it is human-caused, a natural process, or complete scientific and intellectual fiction—because it has, as a concept, entered human consciousness enough to have changed human systems already. And it will continue to do so moving into the future.) So in the name of democratic discussion, intellectual growth (remember that growth, physical or intellectual, involves inherent moments of pain), and societal relevance, I will restart this process and start writing again.

So, since it has been two years since I’ve last written, let me re-introduce myself and tell you about some things about me that have changed with time:

I am a young Montanan with a deep and personal conservation ethic. As a current student at the University of Montana, I am enrolled in the Environmental Studies and Climate Change Studies programs. In 2009, I was funded by the University of Montana to attend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Copenhagen, Denmark. In many ways, this was the beginning of an experiential and intellectual journey that has involved a lot of social, intellectual, scientific, and political engagement with the issue of global climate change.

While I have my own personal convictions and emotions regarding environmental issues, I have also experienced enough over the last two years to know that my personal beliefs have many of their own logical and practical limits. I have experienced the political process—local, state, federal, and international—and I know that everything there is weighted by countless opposite (and valid) interests. Everything in American politics is slowed by the burden (and beauty!) of compromise. Therefore, I no longer work for some vision of a sustainable utopia. I work only for continued progress and a better world.

I now make a concerted effort to avoid actions as an ideologue or a purist. I believe in compromise and complicated contradictions in the social, intellectual, and political spheres. I only offer my thoughts and ideas for what they are—the developing worldview of a twenty-something-year-old thinker and active citizen.

In the words of Montana historian and intellectual K. Ross Toole:

"This place [the University, and the process of intellectual growth], this unique context, this system is designed only as a beginning. It is designed to open minds a little, not to produce a final product, educated men and women. That takes the rest of their lives. It is designed to create intelligent skepticism, not to turn out cynics or doctrinaire dogmatists. It's job is to create a respect for complexities, not to render complexities simple. It is supposed to point up the worthiness of the pursuit of truth, not to serve up, neatly wrapped, the truth itself. And, the student himself is the key to whether it succeeds or fails."

I hope that my diverse experiences within the environmental movement over the last few years have instilled within me this "respect for complexities." For I am not a cynic, and I hope to never become a rigid ideologue. So take my words with a grain of salt, and feel free to chime in where you see fit. I am so enjoying this journey, so I hope that you too enjoy some of what I am able to share.

A couple of links to feast upon

2009-12-27T09:23:00.002-07:00

I have come across a couple of very interesting articles pertaining to the last few days of the COP15 negotiations. The first is an AP report, which gives a detailed report of President Obama's frenzied 15 hours in Copenhagen: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ge2OqwkoIhobJajPjIvUmAToARJgD9CMLVD00

The second is written by a columnist for the UK's Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas. The writer named his article, "How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room." He offers up his opinion after observing some last minunte negotiating as a "fly-on-the-wall."

Enjoy the articles, and Happy New Year from Norway!

Survival: a different mindset

2009-12-23T05:43:00.005-07:00

Yesterday, I toured the streets of Copenhagen with three fellow American climate activists. All had come to initiate change and help to make history here in Copenhagen. And although they seemed very eager to socialize, relax and explore, there was also an underlying tension in my new found friends. As the result and impact of the conference is still in many ways up in the air, there was no defined consensus on how we felt about the conference. These folks had undoubtedly put vast amounts of energy and passion into Copenhagen, so I think that in itself is a disappointment--the unknown. But there was more than that--a sense of frustration, I think. Maybe even betrayal. (Read this Jessy Tolkan article in the Huffington Post. She is a leading climate activist in America, and was one of the NGO participants here in Copenhagen.)

Those American youth who made the trip to Copenhagen, did so loudly. And the message was clear: we need to find a way to solve the climate change crisis, and America MUST lead the way.

Many here saw Superman potential in President Barack Obama. Many hoped that he would find a way to overcome his domestic politics, and lead the way on this issue. Many, including my friends from yesterday, saw the potential for Obama to rewrite history and "save our generation" by using his executive power and visionary leadership potential. I voiced my skepticism on this point, citing the political uncertainties and lack of supporting legislation back home. I said that using an Executive Order would be "political suicide". My thought was that such a demonstration of power would be counterproductive anyway, as it could turn the American people against him, and the entire issue of climate change.

The response was clear: It is too late for politics. It is too late for the same old methods, too late for the process. Our planet is at a tipping point NOW, and we don't have time to wait. This is clearly the voice from the activists of my age group. There is a sense of betrayal; a sense of passionate urgency.

And that is a new perspective to me. Coming from Montana, I have always felt terribly conscious and passionate in regards to the problem and its solutions, but when your surrounded by people who don't necessarily care about the problem--or even acknowledge its existence--it is hard to understand and to feel that sense of urgency. When you're still trying to convince your neighbor on the truth behind the science, it is hard to be thinking about the big picture. It's hard to conceptualize climate change as a life or death catastrophe.

And here in Copenhagen, that is exactly the mindset: life or death. Maybe not so for some politicians, and maybe not so for some privileged, disconnected Americans back home, who wont get hit hard by the effects of this problem. But it is a simple matter of survival when you talk to people who inhabit the Maldives. It is life or death when you talk to people from southern Africa, who are already feeling the effects of historic drought. When you talk with the delegate from Tuvalu, he is worried about the existence of his country in fifty years, not his country's economic future. Bangladesh? West Africa? Ask them about the science. We're talking floods, crop failure, famine, mass displacement, genocide, wars fought over natural resources. This is also the position of my peers--my fellow activists who are devoting their lives to fighting climate change.

It is simply a different mindset--one based on urgency and survival, not luxury or financial freedom.

Now I accept this position. I sympathize with this viewpoint. I think that we are driving towards the cliff, and we haven't even taken our foot from the accelerator, let alone hit the brakes. I feel for this mindset. But is it realistic? Is it realistic to ask President Obama to sacrifice his Presidency for this cause? Is more good going to be done than bad, if he truly chose to rise against climate change without backing? Is it even possible for him to change things without the support from his own Congress? These are all questions that I have, questions without answers. "Because what is the alternative?" ask my peers. "Let climate change take effect? Sit back and watch people die?"

How do you fight something like this when the stakes are so high, but the support is not enough--the political evolutionary process is too slow? My reaction has always been, "We need to educate America. We need to find ways to make people care about the environment." That has always been my approach, but yesterday I was told that education is not enough anymore--we are past that point.

Do you start a movement?--a revolution?

Well, I would say that the movement has already begun. Bring out the pitchforks...

A little reflection, writing from the Danish countryside

2009-12-20T10:50:00.005-07:00

So now we have the anti-climactic resolution to all of this madness: “The Copenhagen Accord.” Some have called the deal a great success, some an utter failure, but most agree that “it is a good starting point.” Huh. After all of that—“119 heads of state and government are participating in the climate summit in Copenhagen, ranking the summit among the world's largest ever, and the largest outside New York. The 119 heads of state and government represent countries that account for 89% of the world's GDP, 82% of the world's population and 86% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Included in the 119 countries are the 20 largest economies and the top 15 greenhouse gas emitters in the world.”—after all of that, after one of the largest political gatherings ever, we can say that Copenhagen was “a good start?” Whew! Politics are truly inspiring, wouldn’t you say?

However, the unfortunate reality of all of this is that Copenhagen was a success, in its relative political context. To get 119 heads of state to tentatively agree on something, is in many ways a success in itself. Of course, this deal is not going to save the climate—it is non-binding and has no teeth. The biggest polluters, the US and China, really haven’t done anything courageous yet. What does all of this say about mankind? What does this say about the international political process (or even national, in the case of America) that we, as human beings, have created? If you had high expectations, and expected someone to swoop in and save the day, then you must feel a bit deflated at the moment. Humanity expected and needed a watershed environmental moment, something bold, heroic and courageous and all we got is “a good start.” That is simply uninspiring.

Lucky for me, I have always been a cynic, and I am actually feeling as hopeful and inspired as ever. Not in the politics, mind you, because there is no inspiration to be found there. What inspired me was this event in its entirety. Putting an environmental cause on the international stage, and getting our political leaders talking about preserving the environment—this has never happened before at this magnitude. And you what that signifies?—the game is changing, and human beings are evolving. We learned to burn fossil fuels because it made our lives easier, and it was a perfectly natural evolution—but now we are seeing the negative effects of our habits, and we are finding ways to react. Maybe the politics are too slow (I hope not), but the fact is: things are changing. People around the world are waking up, and millions are working to save the planet. If any of you could have met all of the people that I met at this conference—20 year-olds who have dedicated their lives to the environment—people with indescribable passion. If you could have heard them speak, watched them cry and chant and yell, then you too would have hope for the future. Many people don’t care about altering the course of humanity and changing things for the better, but those people don’t have much effect on the course anyway—they are along for the ride. The people who show up and change things—the people who effect change and change the course of this world are the people with passion—the people who are here, making their voice heard. Oh man, do they give me hope. This environmental movement gives me hope. Politics... not so much. But even there en lies some potential: if politicians keep their word, then this deal will be legally binding by the end of next year. So, as always, there is hope to be found.

Read here and here to read about the "Copenhagen Accord" in more detail.

Waiting for Obama... a Deadlock

2009-12-18T12:25:00.002-07:00

In many ways, Friday has resulted in a political deadlock. The fact that the US, EU, and China have not brought anything new to the table today, has in many ways resulted in a lack of political will to come up with an ambitous, binding agreement. Things are being extended, as the United Nations facilitator has asked leaders to stay the night. Negotiations will continue into the weekend, as a result. In response to this, Obama has set up a second meeting with the Chinese delegation to attempt tp break the deadlock. It seems so obvious to me that Obama wants these nogotiations to work, but unfortunetly he has been forced to work with targets set by Congress. I truly believe that he is doing his best.

The three leaders--the US, EU, and China-- are all saying, "we will up our offer if you do so first." They are all waiting on one of the others to step up and take the lead. If one does so, I think that the others will follow, and an ambitous deal will be reached. I think that Obama would like to take on this role, but again, he is incapacitated by the American political system that is behind him. WE NEED A LEADER. The outcome of these negotiations hinge on someone taking on a leadership role. I don't think that America can do this, given our politics. Who will step up?

Population Control Question

2009-12-18T10:01:00.003-07:00

Zach,
Obviously, the ever-increasing population results in higher production (more emissions/pollution), depletion of natural resources, and mass consumption, among other things. What, if any, new methods have been proposed at the conference to hinder the growth (other than the usual government mandate and endorsement of contraceptives)? Any contemporary propositions that are realistic and will result in an extension of our health and the health of our planet? Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,Kelsey McMullen

One method that stands out, for sure, is gender equality. This is becoming a one of the main solutions to our planets over-population problem, and I personally find this to be the solution to many problems facing contemporary society. Educating and empowering women in all societies is of undeniable benefit, but especially so in the third world--the women become educated, and in turn, their children are educated as well, reciprocating the benefit. Also, more educated women have less children, and are more productive members of their society. Raising education levels has been directly linked to stablizing populations. This is a climate solution, a poverty solution, an over-population solution, and a societal productivity solution. (I also think that women have better leadership tendencies. This is kind of a separate argument, but read this Christian Science Monitor article if you're interested. I read it last spring when it was published, and I found the argument to be very intriguing.) This is an approach that has received a fair amount of attention at the conference (at least by the observing, feminist NGO groups who set up booths and distribute literature), but it is really becoming more and more mainstream in America as well. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel laureate from Bozeman, has done a lot of work creating schools for girls in the third world. He wrote a book about his efforts called Three Cups of Tea, and it is a New York Times best-seller. He was also the winner of a Nobel Peace Price.

Do you, as a reader, think that this is a viable strategy in only the third world, or should it be a world-wide effort? Is the leadership tendency argument linked, or was that an irrelevant, unrelated point?

Snowed in

2009-12-17T03:47:00.004-07:00

Things are getting desperate here in Copenhagen. All of this momentum, all of this urgency, all of these incredibly impassioned people crying for a deal-- and we are getting a stalemate. (Or so it seems.) At least, that is the impression I am getting sifting through my email inbox. "Negotiations are breaking down!" "Copenhagen is failing!" These are some reactions (among many) that I am receiving from fellow NGO's and some activist organizations. I think that, in many ways, they are right-- Copenhagen is not on track to save the climate. However, some truly wonderful things are going to come out of all of this. Japan is pledging $15 billion towards a climate fund for developing countries, the EU is pledging $12 billion, the US is also “prepared to work together with other countries” to raise 100 billion US dollars annually by 2020, and all countries have officially acknowledged climate change as an incredibly pressing problem facing human society. Although the politics may be slow, good will come out of this--governments and people are coming around. Tens of millions are signing petitions, hundreds of thousands are marching in the streets. The world is calling for a solution to this problem. And the markets are changing, however slowly, to provide for this change. Investments in renewable energies are only becoming more profitable, and as governments invest in stronger policies in these areas, this will only improve. Things are changing. Something new is on its way--even if these negotiations fail.

However, I can't imagine these talks bringing nothing at all. I mean, can you imagine 120+ leaders all conglomerating in the same spot and saying, "Oh... Well I guess this was a waste of time." I can't see it. Even if the deal doesn't save the climate completely, it should limit deforestation, start to slow emissions and pollution, and create momentum towards a new, clean energy economy. Something should happen. I guess we will know by tomorrow night...

As for me, I spent the day at the house of my host family. It snowed last night, so I sat around the house, read my book, and went for some walks. (Biking into the train station on my road bike gets a little trickier with the snow and ice.) A beautiful day in Denmark. The forest is covered in snow.

Remaining optimistic

2009-12-16T12:00:00.003-07:00

On Monday morning, I linked readers to a short Bill McKibben article on the Mother Jones website. McKibben wrote, “I've done everything I can think of, and millions of people around the world have joined us at 350.org in the most international campaign there ever was. But I just sat there thinking: It's not enough. We didn't do enough. I should have started earlier. People are dying already; people are sitting tonight in their small homes trying to figure out how they're going to make the maize meal they have stretch far enough to fill the tummies of the kids sitting there waiting for dinner. And that's with 390 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere. The latest numbers from the computer jockeys at Climate Interactive—a collaboration of Sustainability Institute, Sloan School of Management at MIT, and Ventana Systems, is that if all the national plans now on the table were adopted the planet in 2100 would have an atmosphere with 770 parts per million CO2. What then for coral, for glaciers, for corn. I didn't do enough.”

The science is looking grim, and it seems to me that we may be beyond effective and comprehensive mitigation. We are likely going to double our carbon dioxide parts-per-million (ppm) in the next 50-100 years. The signs of slowing that growth are encouraging, and there is so much momentum going towards more reductions and new green development, but we are likely going to do some significant damage to our planet by changing the atmospheric chemistry so much. (On this note, I am dumbfounded that some still argue that adding this much CO2 to the atmosphere is not going to have any effect at all. It would seem to me that doubling the concentration of any gas within the atmosphere would have some profound consequences—or at least certainly change some things. But people will start to come around as the effects come into fruition—of this I have little doubt.)

The climate may be beyond preserving in its current state—the momentum is so great. However, (and this may be hard to believe) I remain optimistic. We have a great opportunity to change our ways now, and I think this is happening all around us. Societies will stop emitting at such a high level, and as a result, our planet will stop having to deal with so much pollution. Things will recover, people and ecosystems will adapt (I hope), and we’ll figure out how to do things better. This is something that I truly believe. We, as a species, will learn from this in the end, and be better for it. I just wish that we could have avoided this situation, but maybe the problem was just created on too large a scale to truly avoid.

My host Ebbe and I had a similar conversation a few nights ago. (By the way, one of the absolute best things about this trip has been my good fortune in being hosted by this family. They are absolutely incredible.) Ebbe said that he has been thinking about how humans aren’t so different from other animals. When other species create a detrimental problem for themselves and their own well-being, they aren’t able to fix things—they simply are forced to adapt to the effects that have been caused. I think that he is very right in this. My obvious initial response was that human beings—Homo Sapiens— certainly have a better chance than any other animal before us to correct our own mistakes, given our ability to reason and think critically. But can we do it in this situation?—only time will tell, and things may be looking grim. After bringing up this point, Ebbe apologized for being a pessimist and making me sad. I laughed and told him not to worry—I am often a cynic. However, I think that I am able to effectively balance my cynicism with hope and optimism most of the time, otherwise I wouldn’t be so active as an environmentalist. Maybe I am not always good at this, but I hope that I am always improving and gaining a more mature, productive outlook on things. Plus, what could be more liberating than fighting for something that may very well be doomed for failure?—to love something enough to do that is a very beautiful thing (in my opinion), and certainly no waste of time.

Radio Interview

2009-12-16T11:51:00.003-07:00

Also, I did a telephone interview with Montana Public Radio that aired this Monday back home. It gives a fairly good overview of my impressions of the experience so far. My interview is about 2/3 of the way through. Here is the link: Montana Evening Edition

My Last Day in the Bella, and an Address to Civil Society

2009-12-16T11:45:00.004-07:00

It looks as though Monday may have been my last day inside of the Bella Center. We got an email from the head of SustainUS, and observer organizations are getting even fewer badges for this week than expected. For the next couple of days, security will allow 1,000 NGO observers in at a time. On Friday, when all of the heads of State arrive, such as Obama, they will only allow 90 NGO observers into the Bella Center. Just to give you an idea of the significance of that number, there are over 90 NGO organizations, and many have close to 100 accredited members. I’m sure that overall, there are close to 10,000 (or maybe many more) accredited NGO members. There is no way I will get in on Friday, and to get in on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, I would have to feign importance that doesn’t really exist—SustainUS is taking applications from members, and will allocate secondary badges based on the importance and necessity of our presence at the conference. We were told that folks with important meeting dates or press conferences would get priority, and unless I am able to organize a pretend press conference between now and then, I will probably be out of luck. That being said, I probably could wiggle into receiving a badge. However, I think that Yaicha had a great point on this—there are people who really need to be in there to influence negotiations, people who will do more than just observe and write about the proceedings. I may change my mind and try to squeeze back into the conference once more, but as of now, I think that I may be done. I might have to take a dive into the cultural side of things now. This city is alive with climate change-themed events—it’s only a matter of finding them.

Also, at the end of the day on Monday, Melissa and I sat in on an "address to civil society" and Q/A session with COP15 President Connie Hedegaard. I really am coming to like her, and I feel that the negotiations are in good hands. She sounded mostly optimistic, and answered questions very ably. One thing that she really emphasized was her feeling that a strong, legally binding deal is necessary now. She said that she feels the political momentum is as high as it will ever be (given the pending gathering of 112+ political leaders from around the world), and we need to take advantage of the opportunity at hand. She reiterated other leaders’ feelings that “there is still a lot of work to be done” but she remains optimistic. She was quoted by Recharge News as saying, “I have never seen anything like it when it comes to political willingness. This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we get a better one—if we ever do.” Her optimism stems from the magnitude of the international political momentum calling for an ambitious deal. Have you ever heard of over 100 Presidents and Prime Ministers conglomerating in the same building, talking about the same subject? Maybe I am young and naïve, but I certainly haven’t. I think that the magnitude of this event is unprecedented—and this momentum is currently peaking at the perfect time. Still, however, the likelihood of completely and effectively mitigating climate change is looking like a lost cause. Part of this is undoubtedly due to the lack of American leadership on this (we have little to offer in terms of substantial reductions as of yet, mostly, I think, because of the sluggish nature of our political process), but also because of the inevitable complexity of finding political consensus among all the nations of the world.

"Reason and Faith in Copenhagen"

2009-12-14T07:32:00.002-07:00

Today has been a very slow day for me, thus far. I am inside of the Bella Center, but the interesting meetings are closed to NGO's for some reason. I am sitting in the center lobby area, watching others mill around like myself.

I did get a chance to read a very interesting and sad article by Bill McKibben. His words echo my fears in all of this. The article is very sad. Please take a moment and read his commentary: http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/reason-and-faith-copenhagen
I was lucky enough to hear McKibben speak last week. He is a powerful example for environmental activists everywhere. He is the founder of 350.org, one of the largest international activist movements ever. His actions have been nothing less than inspiring. Please take a moment and hear his words.

Some other thoughts and experiences from the weekend

2009-12-13T15:06:00.004-07:00

The COP Plenary session on Saturday morning was very interesting in itself. It was a unique point in the negotiations, as it was officially the midway point and the COP15 President, Connie Hedegaard, asked the delegations to take a step back from specifics and evaluate the body’s collective progress thus far. Immediately after finishing this lead in, the delegate from Tuvalu took the floor.

*Tuvalu has been an interesting and high profile topic of these negotiations, even though it is a really tiny country that many participants had never even heard of prior to the talks, myself included. The country is significant in the context of climate change because it is a small island nation whose entire population lives below 2m of elevation—the country’s highest point is 4m above sea level. The most current IPCC report predicts a minimum 2m rise in sea level unless we drastically reduce our emissions right now—which probably isn’t going to happen. If the predictions prove to be correct, the entire inhabited area of the country will be submerged my rising sea levels.

Anyway, the delegate from Tuvalu took the floor and gave his brief assessment. He made sure to clearly state that he appreciated the efforts of President Connie Hedegaard (as I believe there was some kind of heated comment thrown towards her by Tuvalu, on some specific point that he believed to be crucial in its inclusion in the treaty). He said that he was mostly pleased with the progress made by the body, however, he made clear that he was not convinced that enough was being done. He said that he was thoroughly convinced that the fate of these negotiations rests in the hands of the United States Congress—and he found that idea to be very “ironic.” He concluded with a plea to the rest of the countries in attendance. He begged them to act appropriately, and think of the people of Tuvalu as they make their decisions. As he said this, he began to cry. He said, through tears, that the fate of his nation and its people is directly tied to the result of the COP15 negotiations. He said that it was hard to get out of bed this morning, facing that fact. He said that he had been crying all morning.

It was, without question, the most emotionally stirring moment of the negotiations thus far. The delegate received a strong round of applause from us in the observing NGO section which spread to the rest of the room. It made me feel like standing up and apologizing on behalf of my country. “I am sorry that we are failing you, Tuvalu…”

One more random note: on Friday, Julie’s sister came to stay with us at the house. She is a high school (Gymnasium) teacher in northern Denmark. Talking at dinner (which was the most incredible stew I think I’ve ever had—made by Julie with Lamb meat, taken from the neck), we discussed climate change. Being a science teacher (biology and chemistry), she said she was almost sick of talking about climate change. It is a subject that the Danish people have completely integrated into their science curriculum, nation-wide. This is incredibly foreign to Americans, I imagine, as the science is still somewhat of a debate (as I addressed below, in my second blog). Here in Denmark, however, it is taken for what it is—science. And thus, it is taught in the school system. I mentioned that only about 60% of Americans believe in climate change being human-caused. Naturally, this reminded me of evolution, and I commented on the mystifying cultural dynamics in America—I told her that less than 40% of Americans “believe” in the concept of evolution. She gave me quite a look—one of sincere confusion. “Believe?” she said. “In Denmark, evolution is not ever referred to as a belief. It’s science—it’s the way it is.”

Friday and Saturday: marching with 100,000

2009-12-13T14:28:00.004-07:00

Sorry it has been a few days since my last entry—(Mother all is well, please stop worrying). I took the day off on Friday, and I never stopped going on Saturday. I never got the opportunity to sit down and write.

On Friday, I slept in a bit, spent some time making myself homesick via Facebook, and then biked to the train station in Hvalsoe, stopping by a pizza parlor to burn the roof of my mouth on the way. After pizza, I jumped on my train and headed into central Copenhagen, which is about a 50 minute train ride from my host family’s house. I spent the train ride reading my book, Black Elk Speaks. Once I got into Copenhagen, I spent a couple of hours exploring the downtown area of the city, and walking through the various side-event exhibits and demonstration tents. In the main city square is the main “Hopenhagen Live” set up, most obviously marked by a massive globe that displays news, climate change facts, and pictures. All around it are temporary buildings and tents filled with renewable technology demonstrations and climate change information booths. In the middle of the square, there is a huge Christmas tree whose lights are powered entirely by stationary bikes set up around it. A few blocks away, WWF had a large area set up with climate change exhibits, the most interesting of which being a Polar Bear skeleton which had ice frozen around it like a body. Slowly, over the two weeks of COP15, the ice is melting and eventually there will be only a skeleton—this all being symbolic of the potential, predicted extinction of the species over the next 50-100 years. There was also a really incredible photography exhibit, profiling indigenous peoples around the world who are being affected by climate change.

Then on Saturday I got up early and commuted into Copenhagen, arriving at the Bella Center around 8:45 or 9. (My commute consists of the aforementioned 50 minute train ride, then a 5 minute walk to the Metro—which is essentially a subway—which takes me directly to the Belle Center in 10 minutes.) Once I finally made it through security and checked my bag and coat, I sat down to eat my day-old chicken sandwich and checked the daily schedule. There was a Conference of the Parties meeting in the main Plenary hall right off the bat, so I got in there early and secured my spot—(the observer seats fill up quickly, so it can be hard to get a seat).

After sitting through most of the COP meeting, I left around noon and headed for Christians borg, the castle in central Copenhagen where the Danish Parliament works. This was the meeting point for the climate change march organized by Greenpeace International. It is impossible to tell how people marched for sure—the organizers planned for 20,000, hoped for 60,000, but told us right before we started walking that Danish Police had estimated 100,000. Newspapers have written all sorts of numbers, ranging from 25,000 to 100,000, but regardless, it was reported to be the largest climate change rally ever. It was quite an experience, needless to say, and it was really quite peaceful. The 100-or-so people who were arrested really asked for it—they were reportedly smashing out the windows of a building and attempting to fight with the police. I was never near any of this, and everyone that I saw was being very civil. It was incredibly cold, at the end of the 5-km march, I was ready to get back inside of the Bella Center. However, it was really an incredible experience for me, again as a small-town Montana boy. I have never been part of a group that was near the size of this one, so the noise and activity of it all was quite a lot to take in. The energy of the crowd was wonderful, and I was pretty much inspired by the whole thing. As a cynical environmentalist, I can’t tell you how wonderful it was seeing 100,000 people organize and rally for an environmental cause. There were signs like “Nature Doesn’t Compromise” and “Change the Politics, Not the Climate.” Even if these negotiations fail to bring about anything meaningful as far as treaty, I will leave Denmark inspired. To see the environmental movement grow in momentum, and to experience first-hand the peak of all that energy (and it will continue to grow—this is only the high-point thus far), has been, and will continue to be an incredibly moving experience. And the wonderful thing about it, to me, is the basis of it all—this conference is based around preserving the integrity and functionality of our world’s natural environment. And those of us who are here to fight for it—we are fighting for something that is very real and meaningful, and that fact unites us. I keep thinking about how different things would be if we were holding a conference based on banking (or something related to finance)—would there be this sincere energy of passion and survival? Would there be this innate feeling of brotherhood between all of us young people? Fighting for financial freedom or security would be based around the pretext of money, which is not a real thing at its core—it is a fabricated societal construct, made real only by our perception. However, the natural world—the environment—is something that we cannot live without. It is the very basis of life, and human survival and well-being. That is real. That realness creates an intangible dimension to all of this that truly stirs me.

After the march, I met up with Melissa and Yaicha, and went back to their flat. We ate dinner, and took the train to a night club called VEGA, which was rented out for a COP15 NGO party. So I got to have another culture shock-moment, as I had never been inside of a night club before. We stayed out late and danced, and I crashed out on a couch in their flat early this morning. As I said, it was a long day (and night), and I never got a chance to sit down and write.

Salazar and Coal

2009-12-10T14:10:00.003-07:00

Today I sat in on a speech/Q&A session with the US Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Salazar gave a long winded speech to start things off, and although he is not the best speaker in the world, he did inspire some shivers with the contents of his speech—I really enjoyed what he had to say. He spoke of the energy transition America is currently embarking upon, and he said that momentum is building to effectively combat climate change. He said that since the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, climate change mitigation has not been of any priority to American leadership—in fact, the problem itself was hardly acknowledged during the Bush administration, let alone enacted upon. He said that this is no longer the case, and America is now finding ways to address the issue, and develop and implement clean energy technology. He finished his speech with a Native American proverb, saying that “we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.” Overall, his speech reinforced my feeling that the Obama administration truly holds international diplomacy and climate change action as a high priority. Even though the US has little to offer the negotiations in the form of specific reduction targets (because congress has failed to completely pass anything as of yet), he wants to contribute to these negotiations in the most positive and constructive manner that’s possible.

Following his speech, Salazar took some questions from the crowd. For the majority of the questions, I thought that he did a fine job, and my personal buzz (for lack of a better term) from his speech was maintained. Then, the last public question was asked, and it was in regards to Appalachia and the abuse the natural environment has taken from mountain-top removal coal mining (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F2Hvi1yDLY). He said some nice things about strategizing about recovery from this problem and finding ways to revamp the suffering regional economies in these areas. However, right at the end of his answer he interjected, “but let me clarify something about coal…” He subsequently went on a tangent about how coal is an absolutely necessary part of our energy future, as it is one of our most abundant resources in America. He recognized that coal is a very controversial topic from an environmental standpoint, and that it does not burn cleanly. However, he said that as long as it is available, it needs to be utilized: “It is not a matter of whether or not coal will be utilized as an energy source, but instead a matter of finding ways to clean up or sequester the emissions” (or something very close to that—that was a slight paraphrase). To me, this was a very problematic way to end his presentation. He ended by advocating for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) technology, and advocating for the use of coal. This stance is similar to that of Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries—it’s just that he is talking about coal instead of oil, as both are carbon-emitting fossil fuels. In my opinion, CCS is the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gushing wound. It is a way to allow our societies to continue to burn fossil fuels (business as usual), while pretending that we are addressing the problem.

But let’s address this issue while putting climate change aside for a moment. Without taking carbon dioxide into account, coal offers up some other very nasty ingredients, and holds extremely problematic implications. For instance, burning coal for electricity generation emits several very nasty substances into the air, the most famous of the two being mercury and cyanide. In fact, coal-fired power plants in Montana are the leading source of mercury pollution in our fine state—“The Last Best Place”. To me, this presents a problem in itself, as mercury is a neurotoxin (poisonous to the brain). It can be extremely dangerous and damaging to small children and pregnant females. However, beside the fact that I don’t like the idea of a neurotoxin being freely emitted into our skies, I am particularly disturbed by one well documented side-effect of this mercury pollution. In August, the United States Geological Survey released the results from a widespread, nine-year study that they led across the US, measuring mercury levels in our waterways. (Please read about the study here.) The study found that mercury pollution in American waterways is far more widespread than previously thought, and every fish sampled—every fish—was found to contain traces of mercury within its system. The study also cited coal-fired power plants as the leading source of mercury pollution in the United States, as air-borne mercury dissolves into water, creating methylmercury. Eventually, the methylmercury makes its way up the food chain and concentrates in fish (biomagnification). As a native Montanan, this is absolutely an abomination to me. I grew up fly-fishing the rivers and streams in the Gallatin Valley, and my personal feelings and values that lean towards environmentalism are absolutely a direct result of this upbringing. I learned to love the rivers, love the fish, and love being a part of these pristine natural places. I remember distinctly when I caught my first good-sized trout (about a 14-inch Brown) out of the Gallatin River on a Caddis Fly imitation. To celebrate the catch, my father killed the fish (although we are normally catch-and-release fishermen), and we took it home and ate it. It was this experience, among many others, that established within me a deep connection to the natural and beautiful places of Montana—those are the experiences that developed my passions in environmentalism, and eventually led me here, to Copenhagen, Denmark.

So you’re telling me that if someday, I take my son to the Gallatin River and attempt to recreate that moment with him—you’re telling me that if I eat a trout caught out of Montana waters with my son, that I will be feeding him a neurotoxin? The thought makes my stomach turn. What could be more sacred than clean water? What could be more sacred than someday sharing a freshwater trout with my son? I would like to think nothing, but I am proven wrong every day.

Coal cannot have a place as part of our energy future. I understand that it needs to be part of the transition process and can’t be fazed out immediately, but America needs to find a way to replace it as an energy source—permanently.

I apologize if that was a bit long-winded for a blog. It’s just that this subject is something that is very personal and important to me, and I felt like giving it some time. Please, keep the feedback coming. I enjoy the comments—good or bad, in agreement or dissent.

Responding to a question...

2009-12-10T03:55:00.003-07:00

"Hey Zach, thanks for giving the presentation yesterday for 101. I just thought I would ask if you would have any advice from Copenhagen for Senator Baucus regarding the Senate Climate Bill. As you might know he was the only one who voted against it in the Environment and Public Works Committee (though no Republicans were present). Even though his nay vote had more to do with his disapproval of the legislative process (he felt he was unable to properly work on and amend the bill due to the strict timeframe) he is still a pivotal player in the bills future, sitting on the agriculture committee and chairing the finance committee. As of right now he is pushing for a 17% decrease in emissions from 2005 standards, and supports amendments to roll that up to 20% if the international community were to follow. I am writing a letter as part of a research paper advising him on the best course of action for getting Climate Change Legislation passed. He fully supports having climate change legislation pass, it just now comes down to the numbers and amendments, and I would love to have any advice you might have straight from Copenhagen to include. Thanks!"

FR: Myke Hermsmyer

Well the first thing to point out about Baucus and this whole Boxer Climate Bill business, in my opinion, is the fact that America’s proposed reduction standards are based off of 2005 emission levels. Climate scientists, including the IPCC, site the need for 80% emissions by 2050—and those reductions are compared to 2000 levels. Furthermore, most countries are using 1990 emission levels as a baseline—not 2005, which are much higher. With this in mind, realize that a 17% emission reduction from 2005 levels only equates to 1-3% reductions from 1990 levels. So, what we are currently proposing does not correlate much at all in regards to climate science. That being said, this bill would be historic for the US, and it needs to pass. Hopefully it will give our administration (and the environmental movement in general) some much needed momentum to move forward more effectively in the future.

Now on to Baucus: first of all, he needs to support the bill in all its strength. As the numbers are already fairly weak, we cannot afford to compromise the integrity of this bill any further (from the climate science perspective). As Montanans, we have the lowest constituent-to-representative ratio of any other state in America. That translates to greater access and a stronger voice from each individual Montanan, so we all need to be calling Baucus and writing letters often if this is something we care about. Emphasizing this point further, Baucus is truly a powerful man in Washington, and he will undoubtedly have quite a lot of influence on the future of this bill—he already has, in fact, as Myke pointed out.

Secondly, and more importantly, we need to find a way for Montana to transition from burning coal to generating wind power. The reason our politicians, and Baucus in particular, are so reluctant to support this legislation is because Montana as a state makes such a large revenue off of coal generation, (which is also one of our largest emission sources). Somehow, we must find a way to transition our states investments and revenue generation from coal to wind power. This seems like it makes sense both politically and economically, as wind would be a source of constant, long term revenue generation, as it will never cease to exist. We have to convince our politicians that long-term and far-sighted is the way to go. How can this be done, readers?

Plenary 1: Tycho Brahe

2009-12-09T16:12:00.002-07:00

Today's highlight came in the form of a Conference Of the Parties (COP) meeting, held in the main Plenary room (Tycho Brahe room). This is the main facility in which the official delegation holds their negotiations, led by COP15 President Connie Hedegaard (the Danish Minister of the Environment). This meeting was framed around the Kyoto Protocol, and sought to amend certain points of the 12-year-old treaty. It was my first time in the main hall, and it certainly left an impression.

Many of the discussion points by different countries centered around Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM's). Saudi Arabia's delegate, for instance, started off the meeting by addressing these mechanisms and subsequently going off on a tangent about how the list of CDM mechanisms NEEDS to include Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technology as an option. He was very adamant about this point, and said that for oil exporting countries, that CCS was the only available option. He said, "The most important Greenhouse Gas-reduction technique is Carbon Capture and Storage." This comment provoked quite a lot of scoffing and sighs from the audience. Saudi Arabia was supported with similar comments from many other smaller oil-exporting countries. The trend was obvious: countries with an invested interest in oil extraction and consumption made comments about how CCS technology needed to be funded by any deal. Other countries without this conflict of interest, such as Brazil and Zambia, made comments questioning the effectiveness and subsequent validity of CCS.

This made things very transparent: Carbon Capture and Storage is a way to try and address climate change while continuing business as usual (ie. burning fossil fuels at a very high level). This way, these oil-exporting countries can continue to get rich at the expense of everyone else. If we are to effectively address this problem of climate change, and mitigate its advances, we cannot continue with business as usual. We must wean ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels.

Another really interesting part of this Plenary session was the speech by the Chinese delegation. This male delegate gave a very long, drawn out speech that put on display some harsh feelings towards this whole negotiating process. His tone conveyed some distrust, as he kept repeating three words again and again and again—at least nine to ten times. He kept saying that this whole process was lacking “transparency and fairness, and consistency.” He said that his delegation felt some discrimination in this whole process, and they needed to see “transparency and fairness and consistency.” I can’t overemphasize how many times he belted those words out—it was actually a bit ridiculous. His words certainly came off to me, the observer, as abrasive and contemptuous. Additionally, he spoke for close to ten minutes, and all delegates were requested to keep their speeches under three. About three-fourths of the way through the speech, an African man who was sitting next to me and Melissa dropped his head back and started snoring very loudly. It was so loud, in fact, that I thought for sure that he was trying to somehow protest the speech and its contents. Many people turned their heads. However, it turned out that he had actually just fallen asleep. I thought (personally) that his dozing off and snoring was actually very appropriate and symbolic of the Chinese delegation’s contribution to this particular discussion, even if it was not meant to be so.

One last event that may prove to be a bit frustrating later on:

As the Plenary session was waiting to get underway, a bunch of AVAAZ protesters stormed the door to the room and were chanting and yelling a bunch of things—some intelligible, some not (see image at top-right). The chanting caused quite a stir in the room, and many people stopped what they were doing to check it out (myself included). As a result, Police blocked the doors for the rest of the session and only let in party members. Melissa and I were lucky enough to already be inside, but we were told that if we left, we wouldn’t be allowed back in.

Afterwards, there was talk that eventually, most of the rooms and Plenary sessions might be blocked off to observers and NGO’s—especially if the ruckus continues. That would be incredibly frustrating to me, personally, as someone who traveled a long ways to attend these negotiations (and as someone who has not done any protesting…yet). We talked about this with another observer from Sweden today, and he thought that next week, the negotiators might not let us into the main halls at all. It makes me question the role of protesting in this setting. Normally, I am a big advocate for such measures, but if someone else’s protesting gets me shut out of the negotiations, I will be pretty upset. I will start protesting, probably. That’s ironic…

Day 2 Video Blog

2009-12-08T06:01:00.004-07:00

This video was filmed in the Karen Blixen Plenary room inside the Belle Center in Copenhagen. The video got cut off right at the end, but I had finished my final point anyway, so it was not worth re-filming. (If the video does not work on this site for some reason, I also uploaded it onto YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=188kBTF4ilU)

I will conclude with a quote from Albert Einstein. I came across it reading an article riding the train this afternoon:

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Hopenhagen: Day 1

2009-12-07T13:28:00.007-07:00

Day one of the COP15 conference was ripe with promise. The day started with opening ceremonies, in which a stirring video was played before some 2,000 delegates *here*, and the rest of us without tickets watched from other conference rooms around the Belle Center. The video was followed by a performance by the Danish National Girls Choir *here*. Speeches followed the performances, and the conference participants were inundated with messages of hope by conference hosts, such as Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Yvo De Boer, Chairman of the IPCC Rajenda K. Pachauri and COP15 President Connie Hedegaard. Delegates, participants, and observers were told to open our hearts and focus not on what separates us on this issue, but the overall cause which unites us in this fight against climate change catastrophe. Soon, the hammer was struck, and the negotiations had officially begun.

I must say that as an observer in this conference, my first day was fairly exhausting. Every way I turned there was a new person, a new pamphlet, and a different perspective on the issue of climate change. It would be beyond impossible for one person to take in all of this information, let alone hear all of these perspectives and attend meetings and plenary sessions. It was a lot to take in- especially for a small-town Montana boy. However, much was gained in only one day, and I am optimistic that this conference will accomplish something historic- or at least build some legitimate momentum for historic measures.

It would be impossible to relay all of my experiences in one blog, but I will highlight a few meetings and impressions that stood out from the rest:

At 15:00 I attended a Plenary meeting between delegates (national representatives from every country in attendance) called the "Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action." Here, I was able to hear the opening statements from every negotiating group participating within the conference. After hearing these groups introduce their perspectives and intentions, it was made clear that most undeveloped or developing countries were extremely wary of the industrialized countries and their intentions. Sudan's delegate, who spoke on behalf of the G-77 and China (a negotiating group made up of developing countries from all around the world), made this notion clear, stating that they will reject any attempts of developed countries to shift climate change responsibility onto their (the G-77's) shoulders. This theme of paranoia stayed true throughout the rest of the Plenary session, certainly making it seem as though the developed countries, the United States included, have become the bad guys.

One more than constant theme which was addressed again and again was leaders calling the conference Hopenhagen instead of Copenhagen. If you are unfamiliar with the Hopenhagen campaign, please visit their site. Almost every delegate or chairperson who referred to the conference, called it "Hopenhagen." This idea of "hope" inspiring action reminds me very much of a Derek Jensen article my seminar class read this semester at UM: "Beyond Hope."
When I first read this article, I really bought into his idea that having "hope" is a comfort which stimulates inaction. However, I think that this conference has the potential to prove Jensen's argument wrong. There is an awful lot of hope surrounding the negotiations that are taking place, and it seems that there might be some political teeth by the end of the conference to allow this "hope" for legitimate climate change mitigation to come into fruition. I have "hope" that something meaningful will come out of COP15, and I am still actively participating in the process. Maybe we are proving Jensen wrong. What do you think as a reader? Do you like Jensen's argument?

One last thought. The momentum surrounding this conference is undeniable. There is so much political and social hype in this town right now. Aside from being a gathering of political leaders, it is also an enormous gathering of activists and protesters. The energy in this town is calling desperately for a legally-binding treaty which would cap CO2 emissions. It is quite a feeling and an energy, and its presence is truly undeniable. Even Canada, who has very weak intentions and is one of the stagnate members of this gathering, has referred to the energy in Copenhagen as "hype." Maybe something will come out of all this after all. I can't think of any other event that has attracted the leaders of 110 countries, all to convene at the same event. This is huge. The world is watching.

If I don't get to bed, I wont make it for a full day tomorrow. Cheers!

Arrival in Copenhagen, and some first impressions

2009-12-06T15:30:00.004-07:00

I was picked up at the train station yesterday evening by Ebbe, my gracious host. He drove me back to his family’s house, which is on a small farm in the middle of a forest, about an hour train ride outside of Copenhagen. He was the only one home, as his wife Julie, and kids, Birk and Frederikke, spent the weekend staying with Grandparents. Ebbe showed me my room, cooked a nice dinner, and we talked for a few hours touching on subjects ranging from environmental issues to politics to bee-hives (he has some bees and makes all his own honey). It was an absolutely wonderful evening for the two of us, and I finally was able to catch up on my sleep last night after spending the last week not getting any trying to finish up my classes. Today, Julie and the kids came home and I was able to meet all of them. The whole family is so incredibly nice and interesting, and they are very gracious. I am incredibly lucky. I figure that they are saving me around $1,000 by letting me stay with them (as compared with renting a hotel room or an apartment). However, I’m pretty sure that I would pay rent to live with them over having my own place anyway—that is how great they are. This could not have worked out any better.

Today, an article was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle about my trip to Copenhagen, and my participation within COP15 http://bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2009/12/06/news/300 brown.txt. I have a couple of reactions that I would like address:
• Firstly, it is a bit strange suddenly being politically controversial on a somewhat higher profile. Although I have always been politically active and vocal about my beliefs, I have also always been a people-pleaser (which may or may not be a good thing, as the merits of trying to please everyone can be questionable). Either way, this is new for me.
• On the Chronicle’s website, there is already a comment by a reader who accused me of being a hypocrite for claiming to believe in climate change, yet getting on a plane and flying to Europe (as my travels will end up emitting about 5,000 lbs of carbon dioxide). The person writing the comment says that this fact makes him or her think that I do not actually believe in human-caused climate change, because if I did, I wouldn’t make the trip. The person went on to say that they do not believe in human-caused climate change, and believe it to be a political movement of subversive motives. However, I think that his comment sheds some light on the importance of this conference, and my participation within it. America needs to be thinking about this subject, and talking about it often. There is a lack of political will in the United States to effectively mitigate climate change, and this is a direct result of most Americans’ lack of interest and/or lack of belief that climate change is human-caused. If we are to effectively combat this problem—this potential epidemic—then we have to educate and engage the people of the United States. Our country’s lack of interest is not only hindering progress in America’s mitigation process, but also the entire global process as we are a leader in international politics. We must get the American people on board, and stimulating some discussion and thinking is a good place to start.

Also, I would like to thank Nicky and Len for making comments on my first blog. I would like to encourage any or all of my readers to do so. Please, involve yourself in this discussion: pose questions, add your thoughts, give me a piece of your mind—whatever. I would love to hear from any or all of you.

Finally, I would like to state an impression of mine. It seems that America is the only country on Earth where climate change science is a controversial topic. It seems that every other country has accepted the science as, well, science. Even our political leaders in America agree on the fact that climate change is happening and human-caused (with the exception of a few, like that Oklahoma Congressman who has been very high-profile with his disbelief). The problem with Congress is that our representatives are wary of how politically controversial climate legislation would be with American voters. Of course, specific mitigation strategies are controversial everywhere, but I am tempted to contend that America is the only place where people would commonly refer to the science behind climate change as a “hoax” (a reference to a comment below the Bozeman Daily Chronicle’s article about me). And it seems that other countries lagging behind with us either have valid economic or social excuses (such as poverty being of greater concern in Africa and India, or China simply housing the developed world’s exported factories). We really don't seem to have much of an excuse in our country, other than "it's not real" and "we don't like taxes". Is this a valid impression? If so, why do you, as an American reader, think that this is the case?

Heading off....

2009-12-03T21:45:00.002-07:00

I am preparing to leave for Copenhagen. I drove home to Bozeman this afternoon, presented to the Montana State University Senate about my trip, and now I am frantically packing. This last week has been an absolute blur, but I wouldn't have it any other way. I am thrilled to have this opportunity. Thank you SO very much to everyone who helped me to make this happen. You all are incredible. And by "you" I mean the Office of the Provost at UM, the Environmental Studies program at UM (especially Dan Spencer who was my mentor and advocate through this entire process, Len Broberg, and Karen Hurd), EVERYBODY at MYE, Nicky Phear, and lastly, my parents. Although they weren't too keen on the idea of me spending 40 days in Europe alone over the holidays (I will travel after the conference until January 13th), they have come to accept my stubbornness and have given me loads of support. I am very lucky to have them behind me.

In the last week, those of us going to Copenhagen have received some support from various media sources in the region. Check out the links below under "Media Coverage at Home". If you listen to the Montana Public Radio clip, our interview starts at the 12:49 mark.