Day 1: Opening and plenaries

Day 1 COP15: Monday, December 7 11:47 pm


Today was a whirlwind including my body's inability to figure out what time it was and when to go to sleep - insomnia solved by Benadryl. Then an early morning over to the Bella Center via the bus which I now figured out, and then the eternal search for coffee. With my fellow League of Women Voters delegates, we headed off to the Opening Plenary.

Security here has been very tight. To get into the plenaries with heads of states, you needed tickets and no bags. Which means that folks like me (non-governmental organization delegate and lugging a bag with a laptop) went to the overflow room. Sitting on the floor, we were absolutely inspired by the opening movie short produced by our host country and the Danish Girls Choir.

The Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, began the opening speeches simply noting that "we have to change." The Mayor of Copenhagen, Her Excellency Ritt Bjerregård, noted during the Opening Plenary that cities contribute 75% of emissions and attribute to 50% of the population - they must be part of the solution. "Mayors from the largest cities are ready..." Copenhagen's goal is to the first carbon neutral city by 2025. She implored delegates to "seal the deal" while delegates were in her city dubbed "Hopenhagen" for the Conference. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urged action by delegates. We have "eight days to get ready with a  package...The time for formal statements is over. Turn the work that has been done into action."

During the day we visited booths, attended side events and got the lay out of the beautiful Bella Center.We heard from some really wonderful speakers. We attended briefings for Women’s Environment & Development Organization, Carbon Action Network International and the Third World Network. Overall, the briefings covered ground established in previous meetings. But several notable items really struck me.

• Bernaditas de Castro Muller, Lead negotiator, G77 countries plus China, made me think in a new way today (making my lawyer pea brain work). She asked a reporter, "If sea levels rise, who do you sue? We can only evaluate obligations of nations - to measure, report and verify emission commitments." She brings up the ongoing issue of making a legal document (an update of the Kyoto Protocol) verses a political agreement. I also wonder without trade sanctions whether these agreements have any incentive at all for compliance - but that is my age old discussion of international law as gentlemens' agreements and not binding law. Side discussion for another post.
  

• Martin Khor, Executive Director of South Centre, an intergovernmental think tank of developing countries, noted that for developing countries to have the ability to have sustainable economies - Annex I countries (Kyoto parties) will have to reduce their emissions 300%. Otherwise, a 80% commitment (that is made today) equates to a 60-70% reduction by developing countries while they are trying to improve their infrastructure. His full paper is available at the Third World Network site. Mr. Khor continued about how the conference needs to return to the Bali Action Plan as the fundamental basis for this discusison instead of making new issues up by questioning whether one comprehensive new international legal document should be made and the role of developing countries. I want to learn more about this aspect (IB1 and IB2 issues)...more later.
  

Today's Fossil of the Day, a series of awards that are given out by Carbon Action Network International each day of the negotiation, was given to the Annex I countries for their continued lack of ambition to set climate emission targets that are in line with the outlined scientific targets identified by IPCC. First runners up were Austria, Finland and Sweden for their attempts to hide carbon emissions from the timber industry. Second runner up was Canada for sticking with their 3% reduction target. The door prize was given to Saudi Arabia for questioning the validity of climate science on the plenary floor.

Overall, the first day was incredibly encouraging but also highlights the chasm that the negotiations need to overcome between Annex I countries and developing countries. Today was a level setting day bringing together negotiators and reminding them where they left off after Barcelona (last negotiation). But today also included hints of ongoing debate over the climate scientists email leak/hack and whether the science is questionable, in addition to developed country efforts to modify how carbon emissions and offsets will be counted. Simply, the position of most NGOs that attended was that developed countries cannot have their cake and eat it too. But that doesn't mean that the developed world won't try.