Fear and loathing (and deep thinking) in Copenhagen

3,013 Views

As I write this I'm sitting in the Plenary Session of the COP15 waiting for things to get underway. Just me and roughly 3,000 of my closest friends. Security was ratcheted down today because the various Ministers and Heads of State that are arriving, but there are still thousands of people. The Danish police manage to effect an interesting balance, they are exceedingly polite and somewhat menacing at the same time: they are here in very large numbers.

Prior to my arrival I wrote of my fascination and trepidation about COP15 and both emotions have been fully realized. Registration on Monday took 4 hours start to finish and evoked jokes of the Donner party as we stood in the 30 degree Fahrenheit cold for 2-1/2 hours.

Once inside the Bella Center I encountered what one Congressional staffer derisively called an "International Trade Show and carnival." Roughly every 15 minutes an impromptu political theater would break loose in the middle of the hall: young people clapping and chanting about the need to preserve Kyoto, dressed in polar bear costumes or something similar. Attention grabbing, entertaining and undeniably provocative.

Everywhere people are engaged in some intense discussions about some of the thorniest and complex issues the U.N. has ever tackled. It is admirable, but many here are questioning the presence of so many accredited observers (apparently a record number for a U.N meeting): Are we contributing or simply a huge distraction?

In close one of the questions I've been pondering: what is the role of business in these negotiations? My impression is that business is rather marginal to the event, as evidenced by small turnouts and a fair amount of negative press, graffiti and protests. While business is raptly discussing the opportunities of climate change solutions, many people feel business is merely opportunistic (in the worst sense of the word). My thought is that business' time will come after a framework and agreement are fashioned. National targets, carbon trading and most elements will happen "on the ground" only if businesses respond effectively and efficiently. Moreover, the lofty targets being proposed will only be achieved if innovations are developed and then brought to scale through commercialization. It is also hard to envision a low-carbon future if green jobs are not created in huge numbers by businesses all over the world. With that future in mind, it is hard to understand the antagonism towards business.

NEWSFLASH - the Working Group of Key Parties has just discouragingly reported a failure to reach a consensus on an extension of Kyoto. The delegate from the island nation of Tuvalu likened that failure to "being forced to remain on board the Titanic while the crew debates whether to launch the lifeboats!" So, let the politicking begin because a technical solution does not seem likely to emerge.

Bookmark/search this post with:

Keywords:

Comments

Thanks for your insights

Submitted by Devon Swezey on Sun, 12/20/2009 - 16:30.

Hi Bruce,

I share your wonderment at the circus that was Copenhagen, but am not terribly surprised at its result.

It is precisely the idea of setting abstract targets and timetables without having any conception of how they will be achieved that makes the Kyoto framework unworkable. Developed and developing economies end up arguing over targets that no one really knows how to achieve (except perhaps through an over-reliance on fake offset projects), instead of negotiating over how we are going to deploy as much clean energy around the world as quickly as possible to get us on a path to a low-carbon world.

We saw this process iterated again at Copenhagen, and for the first time (finally) it appears that the UNFCCC negotiating framework, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

What is necessary now is for national governments to engage in the real work of developing, demonstrating, and deploying low-carbon solutions at scale to truly bring about a low-carbon economy. This is where businesses like Applied Materials must be on the front line arguing for transformational policies that can drive low-carbon energy sources rapidly into the market and make clean energy technologies more attractive by improving their performance and reducing their cost.

Unforunately, Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are not transformational. Beyond locking in coal for decades to come, their RES does not require any renewable deployment above BAU levels, the large provision of offsets makes the "cap" effectively non-binding, and the bill invests a pittance in clean technology research and development, demonstration, and deployment that will be necessary to bring "innovations" to "large-scale commercialization."

I hope that Applied Materials fights for something stronger in Congress. As we continue to lose the clean energy race to nations like China, Japan, and South Korea, current U.S. legislation will do little to help us catch up.

Thanks much for your

Submitted by Bruce Klafter on Mon, 12/21/2009 - 06:34.

Thanks much for your perceptive comment. As I followed the events of the last two days of COP15, I reached some of the same conclusions. Even as I sat listening to representatives of the G-77 rail against abuses of the "process", it was obvious that a brokered agreement could easily emerge and make those objections irrelevant. Upon the arrival of our delegation in Copenhagen, our guest Rod Bradley of the World Resources Institute sagely noted "the process is too political for the technocrats and too technical for the politicians." The former was clearly the case.

In any event, I share your desire to see something come out of the Congress that takes us beyond business as usual. The U.S. Congress and the electorate, however, seem as polarized as they ever have been, not only on climate change, but health care and a myriad of issues. I am confident Applied Materials will keep doing our part in building the green economy and in advocating for supportive public policy. Thanks again.

islands

Submitted by BrianM on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 12:34.

Pacific Islands have come and gone. people have adapted...that's key. As modern people we have become more use to people saving us from nature. By law, FEMA should not have rebuilt most of the area of New Orleans that was destroyed. Politics came in and instead of giving people land inland above sea level which would have cost billions less...we rebuilt an area which will be once again destroyed in the next direct hit. We will eventually give back this area to the sea and then maybe 100s of years later repopulate...maybe thousands of years.

Volcanic activity created the Pacific Islands and erosion and rising seas destroys them. The sea level has been rising long before modern man sucked a single gallon of oil from the earth.

Tuvalu? News flash? Ha!

Submitted by BrianM on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 06:14.

Well Bruce, sounds like you are having fun at the circus. And that is essentially what it is. As you know, cap and trade has zero chance of coming about in the good old USA. And as I wrote before, that is good based on the infrastructure in this country and the severe damage it will do to the lower income people here.....not to mention the tragedy it would be to enrich Al Gore the climate -----! Enter any word you would like ;>) Now the EPA and Obummer have made the strategic blunder of shooting their last bullet. The EPA can now regulate green house gases. All of the coal state dems and most others are now saying....."we don't need to vote for cap and trade, the EPA is in control and can do it"....think I am wrong....just watch. All for the good....maybe now Obummer will propose a strategic and intelligent plan for the USA to be energy independent and kill 2 birds with one stone. He'll whip out his check book and put up 200B of that 550B stimulus money still sitting there as matching funds or zero interest loans for green energy. As well he'll generate a strategic energy plan that mandates 20% by 2015 and also includes clean diesel and LNG cars which with a higher mileage standard alone can reduce green house gases faster than any other initiative. The big plus....we won't be sending 500B to the Arabs anymore and if they would like, they can go back to living in the theological stone age.......or join the party and we'll all be living in greener pastures. All is good. Oh and don't worry about little Tuvalu the island nation and where business fits in......they're all over business.....you know that internet address http;// xxx.TV.....well that's those sneaky little islanders internet domain which they make money off of.....no kidding!

Thanks for your comment. I'm

Submitted by Bruce Klafter on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 11:15.

Thanks for your comment. I'm not sure that the effects of cap and trade will necessarily be felt by low and moderate income households. What worries me is that it's a huge experiment in many ways. As far as Tuvalu is concerned, I seriously doubt any amount of internet money will comfort the islanders when their nation literally disappears. There are many low-lying island nations who will be dramatically affected by relatively small increases in sea levels. Thanks for your thoughts and comments.