Outreach at COP17 - 1 December 2011

inside: A shift in the negotiations approach: bottom-up.

A group hug around the White House to stop a pipeline

a multi-stakeholder magazine on climate change and sustainable development

COP 17 | DAY 4 1 december 2011

contents.

1

Europe: The new fossil

2

Profile: Jamie Henn

3

Youth and gender participation key to climate change solution

4

Combining Top-down and Bottom-up approaches for climate change negotiations

6

Group hug around the White House

7

The Global Cities Covenant on Climate (The Mexico City Pact) a year after its implementation

8

Justice in allocating adaptation resources

9

COP17 Side events calendar

10

4

A Republican on climate change

7

3 OUTREACH IS PUBLISHED BY:

About Stakeholder Forum Stakeholder Forum is an international organisation working to advance sustainable development and promote democracy at a global level. Our work aims to enhance open, accountable and participatory international decision-making on sustainable development through enhancing the involvement of stakeholders in intergovernmental processes. For more information, visit: www.stakeholderforum.org

Outreach is a multi-stakeholder publication on climate change and sustainable development.

Outreach is the longest continually produced stakeholder magazine in the sustainable development arena and has been produced at international meetings on the environment, including the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) and at COP15 and COP16.

Published as a daily edition, in both print and web form, Outreach provides a vehicle for critical analysis on key thematic topics in the sustainability arena as well as a voice of regional and local governments, women, indigenous peoples, trade unions, industry, youth and NGOs. To fully ensure a multistakeholder perspective, we aim to engage a wide range of stakeholders for article contributions and project funding.

If you are interested in contributing to Outreach, please contact the team (gmacdonald@stakeholderforum.org or Sabrina@sabrinachesterman.com) You can also follow us on Twitter: @OutreachCOP17

OUTREACH EDITORIAL TEAM Georgie Macdonald

Stakeholder Forum

Sabrina Chesterman

Independent Climate Consultant

Reporter

Kirsty Schneeberger

Stakeholder Forum

Design and Layout

Jodie Davies-Coleman

Independent Consultant

Online Design and Layout

Tom Harrisson

Stakeholder Forum

Co-Editors

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Göran Duus-Otterström

Gothenburg University

Jamie Henn

350°.org

John Howard

Citizens Climate Lobby - Twin Cities

Dr Rafael Leal-Arcas

Queen Mary University of London

Rebecca Munro

World Association of Girl Guides & Girl Scouts

Ana Romero

Fundación Pensar. Planeta, Política, Persona

Johannes Stripple

Lund University

Paul Thompson

CoolPlanet.org

COP 17 | DAY 4

1

pic: Amara Possian

pic: The Adopt A Negotiator Project

News from COP17

Europe: The new fossil A day of change in the fossil league and this time it is Poland, as EU presidency takes the award. After 20 odd years in the negotiations as the role of quiet mediator and the friendly partner between developed and developing blocks, Europe has taken its firmest stance. With tensions high and many mutterings in the corridors across the ICC here in Durban, many wonder what the outcome of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations will be.

Europe’s hardline perseverance to ensure that developing countries must also meet conditions has ruffled many feathers, and the fossil award was rightly awarded for the perilous position this may put the future of the Kyoto Protocol in.

After twenty years of being the ‘nice guy’, Europe is determined and resolute under Poland’s presidency.

The ambitious targets for emissions reductions the

EU is proposing in the KP negotiations, they feel should be matched by others entering the protocol and contention comes in the call for developing countries to match these.

It’s a hard bargain that the Annex 1 countries are putting on the table, already Russia, Japan and Canada have pulled out of the accord and the largest per capita emitter, USA has stated it won’t sign up – not a great bargaining chip for developing nations, many of which are highly vulnerable and suffering from some of the worst implications of climate change.

Developing countries are calling for a second commitment period to 2020 and China, India, Brazil and South Africa are part of the Annex 2 block resolutely facing Europe in battle.

In addition, Canadian youth continue to show their condemnation at the government’s stand (inset above). Canadian Youth delegation leader Cameron Fenton on Wednesday said: “We want to apologise in advance for our government and our negotiators who in the coming weeks will undoubtedly stand in the way of progress, blocking any international agreement to combat climate change.” ■

2

DAY 4 | COP 17

profile.

Jamie Henn

Nationality: USA Country of residence: USA Current Position: 350.org Co-founder and Communications Director

What prompted your early interest in the environment?

I grew up in an urban environment, just blocks away from the subway in Boston, but spent my summers in the rural state of New Hampshire, hiking, canoeing and falling in love with the outdoors. That love of nature stuck with me and helps drive my work today.

Describe your first attempt to ‘save the planet’: The first time I really connected the importance of tackling environmental and social problems simultaneously was when I was living in Costa Rica in the year before I headed off to university.

While teaching at a rural school in the mountains, I organised all my students to go pick up trash, only to figure out the only way to dispose of it was to burn it all in the school yard. It was a tangible example of how good intentions aren’t enough, you also need to be working on structural changes, as well.

How did you get to the role you are in today and what advice would you give aspiring climate champions?

I founded 350.org with six other college friends and environmentalist Bill McKibben. From there, our network has grown to hundreds of thousands of activists across the planet. Together, we’ve organized over 15,000 climate demonstrations in 189 different countries over the last couple years.

My advice to aspiring climate champions would be to double down on inspiration and creativity, and then get to work launching a campaign you think will catch fire. In the age of the Internet, movements can come together almost overnight. We need more experimenters and activists willing to take risks!

What do you believe should be achieved at COP17?

What should be achieved here in Durban is what should have been achieved years ago: a fair, ambitious and legally binding treaty that reduces the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere below 350 parts per million. That type of transformational change seems unlikely considering the grip that fossil fuel companies still have on our governments. Until we can break that stranglehold, these negotiations should focus on strengthening the legal architecture we do have, namely the Kyoto Protocol, and doing everything possible to increase the ambition of countries to cut emissions and invest in a clean energy economy.

What do you think the priorities for action should be emerging from COP 17?

We need this process to set up the international instruments that can facilitate ambitious emissions reductions and the investment of trillions of dollars into clean energy and adaptation efforts. We need that architecture in place so that the second we can generate the political will to truly take action on climate change, we’ll be ready to move fast. Building that political will should be our top priority leaving these talks.

What timeline is reasonable for an international agreement to be achieved? And what should this look like?

I’ll leave the reasonable timeline to our allies who follow the policy arguments here at the UNFCCC, but here’s what needs to happen outside these talks: we need to build a movement that can take on the 1% who profit from climate destruction while the rest of us bear the impacts. A good first step would be ending fossil fuel subsidies and transferring those hundreds of billions of dollars to clean energy. Until we can build movements strong enough to stand up to Big Oil and King Coal, we won’t see an ambitious agreement out of this process. Thankfully, those movements are getting stronger by the day. Whether we can beat the clock is yet to be seen.

What is your aim within your role for 2012?

My favorite part of my job as communications director here at 350.org is profiling the incredible organisers we work with around the world, a few of whom are here at the talks in Durban. They’re the real leaders in this international effort to solve the climate crisis. In 2012, my aim is to keep lifting up those voices. I hope their stories, their hopes, and their deep seated commitment to change will be an inspiration for others -- including our politicians. ■

ERROR IN YESTERDAY’S ISSUE The Editors would like to extend their sincerest apologies to Mr Ahmed Djoghlaf for the misspelling of his name in our Profile feature.

COP 17 | DAY 4

Youth and gender participation key to climate change solution Rebecca Munro Communications & Advocacy Director, World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts economic and social roles ensure that females are more likely to die in natural disasters, in some cases making up 80% of the fatalities.

Despite these cruel scenarios, females are not victims, but instead agents of change.

Their proximity to and knowledge of the environment makes them the best witnesses to its change and the most effective implementers of grass-roots solutions. Their willingness to invest in their family’s education and future means that they actively pursue sustainable approaches to economic and social issues to build better futures for their children. Their community leadership often focuses on consensus building and the development of resilience for the most vulnerable elements of society.

pic: Jon Ng

Climate change is supposedly indiscriminate, affecting us all equally and adversely.

Yet

the reality is that climate change accentuates existing inequalities, resulting in youth, especially girls, being yet again disproportionately affected.

Girls and women already make up the majority of the world’s poor, represent the majority of the children that do not go to school and own only 10-20 percent of the world’s land and resources. Simultaneously however, girls and women collect water and fuel, are responsible for a family’s food security and in many instances provide the labour for agricultural production.

Climate change makes a bad situation even worse.

Girls will need to walk further to collect water, take longer to collect fuel and therefore have less time available to go to school. Without an education, employment choices are limited for girls and they remain in high risk and low paid jobs. It is these livelihoods that are more vulnerable to climate change, exacerbating the already vicious poverty cycle. When resources are scarce, girls and women are often the first to go hungry. Further, their

Despite being most affected by climate change, and despite their valuable contributions in mitigation and adaptation to climate change, girls and women are often excluded from the decision making process - not only at a governmental level, but also at a community, school and family level.

This imbalance needs to be addressed, not only with respect to girls and women but to the youth in general. The youth of today will inherit the unhappy future of tomorrow. We must therefore provide them the skills and opportunities with which to become leaders of today and tomorrow. Further, youth participation is not just a moral decision; it is a practical one. Youth bring to the climate change conversation great commitment, as well as approaches to negotiation and communication that are unique to their generation. Their influence over their peers is also more likely to result in the fundamental behavioural changes that are needed.

In a recent World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts survey conducted in over 100 countries, respondents identified children and youth as the group who should most decide what happens to our environment, followed by teachers, parents, politicians and scientists with equal weighting.

Yet the reality is less positive. Only 7% of young respondents felt that they were consulted and only 9% felt that their opinion was valued by their government.

It is clear that the benefits of youth and female participation in the mitigation of climate change are considerable. We must listen to and involve females and young people in finding and agreeing solutions to climate change. ■

3

4

DAY 4 | COP 17

Combining Top-down and Bottom-up approaches

for climate change negotiations Dr Rafael Leal-Arcas Senior Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary University of London The Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was doomed to face serious difficulties ab initio because it places the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions only with developed countries (Annex I countries) as if they were the only sinners of climate change. A more plausible solution to reduce GHG emissions is to involve major GHG emitters irrespective of their GDP.

Instead of asking only Annex I countries to reduce GHG emissions, a more effective (and arguably fairer) way to tackle climate change today is by bringing together the major GHG emitters, irrespective of their GDP. Why? Because the Kyoto Protocol’s stipulation that only Annex I countries reduce their GHG emissions does not reflect the climate change reality of today or tommorow. It is not enough to ask only Annex I countries to reduce their GHG emissions if the aim is to solve the climate issue.

Major developing countries that are also major GHG emitters should be asked to reduce their GHG emissions. Why? Seen prospectively, climate change is a problem also linked to developing countries, as predictions indicate that developing countries will be the major polluters in the near future, as well as the major victims of the consequences of climate change, especially countries near the equator. Moreover, developing countries have already surpassed the industrialised world in total GHG emissions and will account for more than 75 per cent of emissions growth in the next 25 years.

The U.S. and other Annex I countries maintain that the terms of the Kyoto Protocol are unfair because they provide developing countries with inappropriate

trade advantages and because the GHG emissions of leading developing countries are growing rapidly, and yet non-Annex I countries are not legally bound to reduce their GHG emissions. The world has changed dramatically since the UNFCCC divided the world into two categories in 1992. For instance, approximately fifty non-Annex I countries now have higher per capita incomes than the poorest of the Annex I countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. In the same way, forty non-Annex I countries ranked higher on the Human Development Index in 2007 than the lowest ranked Annex I country. So major GHG emitters/economies (whether developed or developing countries), which are responsible for historic, current and future emissions, should therefore be the ones to take action.

As of 2000, the top 25 GHG emitters accounted for approximately 83 per cent of global emissions.

Moreover, the top five GHG emitters today (China, U.S., the EU - treated as a single entity - India, and Russia) were responsible in 2000 for over 60 per cent of global emissions. By contrast, most of the remaining countries contributed very little in absolute terms to GHGs in the atmosphere (i.e., the 140 least-pollutant countries were responsible for only 10 per cent of global GHG emissions). These countries include the least-developed countries and many small island states.

Ineffectiveness Dealing with the challenge of climate change requires concerted international action supported by an effective international climate regime, with a global institutional framework for coordinating national climate policies. The current impasse in international climate negotiations on a post-Kyoto climate agreement calls for a reconsideration of the basic canons of global climate protection, and facilitation of international climate policy with new instruments. While the UNFCCC has its merits of serving as an international forum for the negotiation of solutions to climate change, the UN-led climate negotiations reveal serious drawbacks of a top-down approach to the international climate regime and the ineffectiveness of a consensus-based system. The international climate change negotiation process is

“

COP 17 | DAY 4

The world has changed dramatically since the UNFCCC divided the world into two categories in 1992. For instance, fifty non-Annex I countries now have higher per capita incomes than the poorest of the Annex I countries with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol...

An Alternative Approach: Bilateral and Regional Agreements International efforts to negotiate a comprehensive, universal, and legally binding treaty on climate change have “been producing diminishing returns for some time” and an alternative approach to this top-down fashion of law-making is needed “which develops different elements of climate governance in an incremental fashion and embeds them in an international political framework”. At the same time, there are 193 parties to the Kyoto Protocol, many of which are in favour of its continuation. For instance, countries in favour of the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol argue that it is currently the only legal instrument with legally binding constraints on GHG emissions of any sort. The continuation of the Kyoto Protocol could be conceived not in isolation, but along with complementary climate agreements.

Bilateral and regional agreements could therefore complement the UNFCCC/Kyoto Protocol. Other smaller fora with major GHG emitters could provide stimulus for an agreement in the UNFCCC regime.

“

Copenhagen, Cancún, Durban and Beyond

New York city. pic: Tony Leherman

heavily hindered by the large number of participating countries with diverse interests and different expectations from the outcome, reliant on their level of economic development and the dependency of their economies on fossil fuels.

The main challenge of the international climate regime is how to accommodate diverse international interests, especially those countries whose participation is crucial to the success of climate protection - i.e. the largest GHG emitters in the world. These concerns require a new complex architecture of the global climate regime with flexible economic mechanisms and tools that would provide incentives for the largest GHG emitters to participate in emissions abatement and comply with undertaken commitments. Based on the theories of the international regime and global governance, a redesign and institutional framework of global climate protection capable of effectively addressing climate change and its negative consequences is needed.

For the creation of a future global climate change agreement, the following fundamental points need to be kept in mind: 1.Assessing the emissions reduction pledges: are they enough?

2.Fast-track finance: what are the sources of finance and what are the targets?

3. Technology diffusion 4. The impact of investments in the energy sector 5. What will the political groupings be in the multilateral agreement on climate action and what will parties ask for?

6. What can be done to facilitate the UN process in the climate change context? Should the climate talks be ‘multi-track’?

7. What are the complementary and supporting routes to an agreement on climate action? The EU presidency? The G-20? Bilateral agreements between major players?

8. Can and will sub-national, national, and regional agreements reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

9. Are there any ‘quick-win’ multipliers for climate action? ■

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dr Rafael Leal-Arcas is Senior Lecturer in Law, Queen Mary University of London (Centre for Commercial Law Studies), United Kingdom. Senior Research Fellow, World Trade Institute (University of Bern). Contact: r.leal-arcas@qmul.ac.uk.

5

Group Hug Around the White House Paul Thompson Founder of Cool Planet MN.org “Let this be the time when the seas begin to lower and the Earth begins to heal.” With those words and so many other inspiring quotes, US President Barrack Obama inspired millions of Americans to believe that real change is possible and that finally the country would have an administration that would take serious action to avoid the worst consequences of a rapidly warming planet.

For nearly three years, the environmental community has been looking for bold action to back up those inspired words. That opportunity came last month during a 12,000 person rally at the White House.

The rally was held to remind President Obama of his commitment to environmental protection, around the signing of a permit that would allow Trans Canada the ability to build the 1700+ mile long Keystone XL Pipeline. The pipeline is planned to pass over the sensitive Ogallala water aquifer in Kansas, to the oil refineries in and near the Gulf of Mexico (the refineries proximate to the disastrous BP oil spill of 2009-10).

This is not your normal pipeline. The Tar Sands oil is a mix of shale embedded with fossil fuels that requires extensive quantities of water (5 gallons to produce 1 gallon of oil) and natural gas through the fracking process. In addition, millions of acres of pristine boreal forest had to be harvested, disrupting the lives of the indigenous communities of Alberta, Canada.

Once the abrasive oil loaded with contaminants runs in the pipeline, spills are assured. The first Keystone Pipeline had 12 spills (including 40,000 gals running into the sacred Yellowstone River) in the first 12 months. The spills, which could threaten agriculture particularly in Nebraska, is not the worst that the proposed pipeline has to offer. The Tar Sands deposit is the world’s second largest deposit of oil after Saudi Arabia. Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s leading climate scientist has stated that if this project is fully exploited, “it’s game over for the climate!”

Enough negativity….enter Bill McKibben and the newly formed Tar Sands Action group. Using a vast network of 350°.org volunteers in 188 countries and many other partner environmental organisations, a 2-part plan was birthed. The first part entailed

a peaceful demonstration at the White House in Washington DC from 26 August to 4 September this year. During the 10 days of demonstrations, 1,253 people of all ages were arrested for civil disobedience while opposing the signing of the Keystone XL permit.

The second part of the plan was to encircle the White House on November 6, one year before the next presidential election, to remind President Obama of his inspiring words to heal our planet.

It was also a reminder to President Obama and all United States citizens that we will not sit idly by while wealthy corporations negatively impact the health of the fragile ecosystems in the US. 12, 000 people turned up to encircle the White House with flags and a symbolic plastic pipeline.

I left there with a “see you in Durban” and a sense that my voice and the voices of the 12,000 voters had been heard. This was confirmed two days later when the news came out: The State Dept asked the White House to return the Keystone XL permit for further study and to not make a decision until after the 2012 election. Not a total victory but most analysts agree that the pipeline across the heartland of the USA will not happen.

Who or what can we encircle in Durban and COP 17 to let them know that we must create a global partnership to start putting a price on carbon to accelerate the investment in clean renewable energy?

In addition, how do we mobilise ordinary residents of the planet to claim their citizenship and rights to a healthy, clean and affordable future?

Let us attempt to answer those questions in Durban but even more importantly in our cities, villages and neighbourhoods around the world when we return from COP 17. ■

“

How do we mobilise ordinary residents of the planet to claim their citizenship and rights to a healthy, clean and affordable future?

“

6

DAY 4 | COP 17

COP 17 | DAY 4

The Global Cities Covenant on Climate (The Mexico City Pact) a year after its implementation

By Ana Romero General Secretary, Fundación Pensar. Planeta, Política, Persona (Think Foundation. Planet, Politics, Person)

Climate change is viewed as an unprecedented phenomenon, involving geographical, social, environmental, economic and political dimensions, spanning international and local perspectives. With 80% of the world’s greenhouse gases (GHG) attributed to cities and 90% of the world’s population predicted to be living in cities by the end of this century, cities are at the centre of this crisis.

With this stark reality in mind, the mayors of the world are now adapting their public policies and investments to reducing GHGs with an aim to halt the adverse effects of climate change and drive sustainable growth. However, this movement has so far failed to gain recognition at the negotiations and, in response, local governments are now creating international initiatives to drive change.

In 2009, the Mayor of Mexico City, Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon, was elected chair of the World Mayors Council on Climate Change (WMCCC). From this new role, Mayor Ebrard encouraged cities of the world to take decisive actions to combat climate change through “The Global Cities Covenant on Climate”, better known worldwide as the “The Mexico City Pact”.

Launched during the World Mayors Summit on Climate on the 21st of November 2010, The Mexico City Pact consists of two parts, the first mentions considerations as to why cities are strategic in combating global warming, and the second establishes a set of voluntary commitments to promote strategies and actions aimed at mitigating GHG emissions and adapting cities to the impacts of climate change. Developed and organised by the Mexico City Local Government through its Local Ministry of Environment, the initiative was coordinated by of Fundacion Pensar.

Planeta, Politica, Persona, with strategic allies ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), The Club of Madrid, UCLG

(United Cities and Local Governments) and the WMCCC (World Mayors Council on Climate Change). More than 138 cities from across the world signed this international agreement and are now reporting their climate actions in the carbonn Cities Climate Registry (cCCR), led by Bonn Center for Local Climate Action and Reporting (carbonn). The registry uses a MRV methodology to demonstrate a transparent process. The Mexico City Pact was presented in Cancun, to the Mexican Precedency of COP16.

A year since its launch, The Pact now has a diverse set of 207 signatories, from megacities to rural local governments, representing more than 250 million citizens from 46 countries. An international secretariat now drives the work and is led by “Fundacion Pensar. Planeta, Politica, Persona”.

At COP17, the International Secretariat will present the “First Annual Report 2011 from the Mexico City Pact”, with more than 52 cities reporting their climate actions. This report demonstrates once more to the world that local and regional action is effective and central to combating climate change. The report shows that 444 climate change related public policies were produced; 297 relating to mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHG) and 147 relating to adaptation.

Looking ahead, the International Secretariat aims to develop strategic, logistic and diplomatic actions together with the invaluable support of WMCCC, The Mexico City Government, ICLEI, UCLG and Club de Madrid.■

7

8

DAY 4 | COP 17

Justice in allocating adaptation resources Göran Duus-Otterström1 and Johannes Stripple2 1 Gothenburg University, 2 Lund University Climate finance has emerged as a central part of the negotiations under the UNFCCC. At COP 15 in Copenhagen, developed countries made a commitment to mobilise 100 billion USD per year by 2020 to address the adaptation and mitigation needs of developing countries. While many scholars and policy-analysts are crafting an efficient and practical system to handle the resources (i.e. the Green Climate Fund), there is a need to address the larger ethical issues that loom in the background of adaptation finance. How can the resources for adaptation be distributed in a fair way?

In all matters of distribution, it is essential to have a system that guides the distrubtion of the item in question, typically material resources. Discussions under the UNFCCC on adaptation usually single out the notion of vulnerability — resources are to be distributed in a way that is guided by the vulnerability of various agents to climate change. If adaptation consists in taking active steps that reduce the most vulnerable, how should adaptation resources be allocated? Several regulative principles are possible.

One suggestion is Equality: Equality: Adaptation resources should be allocated so as to approximate that all are equally vulnerable to climate change.

Equality is attractive in that it aligns with the view that persons are of equal moral worth. Yet the principle seems unfeasible. Given how unequally vulnerability to climate change is distributed, it simply does not seem possible to achieve anything even approximating equal vulnerability. Furthermore, since Equality is a comparative principle as it concerns how agents fare relative to each other, the principle could permit an adaptation politics of ‘levelling down’ (e.g. making rich countries more vulnerable without improving the position of the least developed countries). We want a principle that points out both; that the interests of the most vulnerable take priority and that adaptation politics should improve their position. Some climate theorists have therefore defended a principle called Leximin:

Leximin: Adaptation resources should be allocated to each tier of vulnerability to improve their situation.

The problem with Leximin is that it will be incredibly hard to satisfy. Getting the most vulnerable out of this state might require us to spend enormous amounts of resources. Since the funds for adaptation are scarce, if we try to satisfy the Leximin principle we might allocate resources in an inefficient way and get little ‘bang for the buck’. The wastefulness of Leximin stems from its under-appreciation of what we might call the ‘utilitarian’ component of morality - that people’s lives improve overall. Consider therefore Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism: Adaptation resources should be allocated so as to make the (expected) consequences as beneficial as possible overall.

Note that, as it is phrased above, Utilitarianism makes no reference to vulnerability. This is because utilitarianism is interested in maximising (expected) utility, and vulnerability is no more than indirectly relevant to that end. Thus, action-guiding utilitarianism enjoins us to allocate adaptation resources in accordance with standard cost-benefit analysis, with an eye to making the overall balance as beneficial as possible. The worry with this view is that it seems too insensitive to differences in vulnerability. It is possible, for example, that we get the best overall utility by spending most adaptation resources on the United States. Yet such a situation would clearly be unjust, partly because the United States is responsible for roughly one third of the historic carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, but also because it is relatively speaking not a vulnerable country.

Prioritarianism fits the bill The above suggests that what we want is a principle that is sensitive to (absolute) levels of vulnerability yet contains a ‘utilitarian component’. The principle that fits the bill is Prioritarianism: Prioritarianism: Adaptation resources should be allocated so as to make the (expected) consequences as beneficial as possible, but as the moral value of a gain increases, the worse off its recipient will be.

The core of Prioritarianism is the idea that the importance of benefitting people increases with thier vulnerability. Prioritarian adaptation allocation would thus hold that, the more vulnerable a person, community or nation is, the more improvements in adaptive capacity (and hence reductions in vulnerability) matter. ■

COP 17 | DAY 4

COP17 Side Events Calendar Date

Title

Host

01/12/2011

Launch of GHG Protocol Product & Corporate Value Chain Standards

World Resources Institute (WRI)

01/12/2011

Fresh Thinking Forum: What’s Involved in Taking Corporate Sustainability to the Next Level?

CPSL

01/12/2011

Ensuring Survival: Oceans, Climate, and Security

South Africa, International Coastal and Ocean Organization (ICO)

01/12/2011

Green technology and China’s climate adaptation: toward a low carbon society

Xiamen University

01/12/2011

Cracking the code: Private sector solutions to facilitate effective global action on carbon emission

Carbon Markets and Investors Association (CMIA)

01/12/2011

The comparative advantages of Brazilian companies towards a low carbon economy

Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD - Brazil)

02/12/2011

Leveraging private sector financing and investment

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

02/12/2011

Climate-Smart Agriculture – a transformative approach to food security, adaptation and mitigation

IFAD

02/12/2011

Green Climate Fund: The private financial sector’s perspective

UNEP - Finance Initiative (UNEP FI)

03/12/2011

Water, Climate and Development Day

African Pavillion and partners

03/12/2011

Oceans Day

The Global Forum

03/12/2011

Agriculture and Rural Development Day

IFAD, WFP, EU Rockefeller Foudation

03/12/2011

Climate Forced Migrants : Human Rights Perspective

Coastal Association for Social Transformation Trust (COAST Trust)

03/12/2011

Indian Industry Perspective on Market Based Mechanisms, Technology Transfer, Trade & Climate Change

Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI)

03/12/2011 04/12/2011

World Climate Summit

World Climate Ltd

04/12/2011

Nutrition and Climate Change: Making the connection to enhance livelihood resilence, ehalth and women’s empowerment

African Pavilion

04/12/2011

Forest Day 5

CIFOR

05/12/2011

The Business of Adaptation

Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL)

05/12/2011

Assessment of biodiversity, forest management, REDD+ links; the need for common data standards

Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO)

05/12/2011

Mobilising finance and investments for water security and climate resilience

Global Water Partnership Organisation (GWP), International Hydropower Association (IHA)

05/12/2011

Green Actions in China

China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), Greenriver, Shan Shui Conservation Center (Shan Shui)

05/12/2011

China’s Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change

China

06/11/2011

Launch of Momentum for Change Initiative

UNFCCC

06/12/2011

Payment for ecosystem services

Cambridge Programme for Sustainability Leadership (CPSL)

07/12/2011

Food, Energy and Water for All: Lessons from WWF’s work in Africa

WWF

07/12/2011

Rural women, agriculture & natural resource rights: Real impact & right response to climate change

ActionAid International, OXFAM International

08/12/2011

Business leadership and a call to action on climate change.

University of Cambridge

9

10

DAY 4 | COP 17

A Republican on climate change John Howard Coordinator, Citizens Climate Lobby - Twin Cities It is often believed in my home country, the USA, that Republicans won’t do anything about climate change. I am setting out to change that by running for our House of Representatives as a Republican whose main objective is climate change policy. I’ll be running for the MN 3rd District seat, which covers an area west of Minneapolis.

I’m not the typical political candidate: I’m 23, I hate wearing ties, and I get nervous about public speaking. Hopefully I can use these distinguishing features to show that this issue is simply too important and immediate to get buried by political bickering.

You might be wondering why I choose to run, and that is a very reasonable question. The simple answer: In my opinion, we can no longer wait for our politicians to act on climate change, and the most effective way to get politicians moving is to elect someone who will do something.

The longer answer: I came to the conclusion that I would run after a series of disappointing meetings with legislator offices in D.C. Time and again the line was either, “We can’t do anything in this political climate” or “The economy is more important”.

Basically the political will needed to do anything was lacking, and I was not going to wait for it to magically appear.

I haven’t been laughed at yet for running as a Republican, although I’ve received some odd looks – confirming that the acceptance of climate change is

terribly politicised and confirming why I’m running.

Climate change really shouldn’t be a political issue it should be a matter of assessing the science. Along these lines, a primary tenet of my campaign will be that the physical realities of our world need to take precedence over the political situation. Although I think this is entirely logical, it has not prevailed at our highest levels of government.

Even if I don’t get elected, I’ll hopefully still make a difference by exposing Republican voters to the issue of climate change and by applying pressure from within the party to improve its stance on climate change. In a broader sense, I am trying to break through false dichotomies, in particular this one: you can believe in climate change or be a Republican. More open-mindedness will surely help our system of government and may even get us where we need to be. Of course, if I did win, I could advocate climate policy from the inside and my election would show the remaining legislators that they better get on board.

In a perfect world, congress would draft and pass wonderful climate legislation tomorrow, and then I could drop out of the race. I’m not counting on that happening and, until it does, I’ll continue working towards achieving it. ■

Outreach is made possible by the generous support of