As such, I send out this message, direct from John Lennon to the head of the Russian delegation. Please Honorable representative of Russia… let it be.

…

Watching on from afar as this week, it seems the SBI negotiations have spiraled down the drain of a clogged negotiating room. A blockage, made from frustration. A breech in the chinks of the UNFCCC armory that opened up in the ‘consensus’ of Doha. While desperately searching for a conclusion, Doha ended with one country, and one Lead negotiator vowing that they had been hard-done-by. And I don’t blame them.

I remembered back then, only 6 months ago. As the Kyoto Protocol looked nothing more than a cleared construction site, waiting for its foundations to be renewed, watching the negotiations drift round the weekend’s corners, I wondered if Russia, Poland and the Ukraine’s objections would blow the whole convention over. But as the caucus came to its surprise ending, with Russia still standing in objection I really felt they had been unfairly treated. Yet, as this week dragged on like a flat tyre lumbering up hill, I hope these reinterpreted words of one of the great peace seekers sung here, will bring sense, solace and serenity to the SBI in its second week.

For all of those who continue to object, please, just let it be.

As you may already know. Ryan and I go way back. Last night when we were talking about the ongoing uncertainty in the negotiations, he asked me to pass this on.
Apparently was Ryan was very concerned by the way Russia’s last minute interventions went unheard in Doha, but told me that he hopes that they can find a way to move on, for the good of the Durban platform, and our common future…

But will 2013 be an apocalyptic year for Australia’s climate change policy?

Over the last 2 years, I have watched on as political shifts in Canada and New Zealand have effectively reversed climate change policy in these two countries. What has happened in both proves that international climate policy is almost as volatile as climate change itself.

This year, as Tony Abbott’s conservative party colleagues are already eying out their seats on the other side of parliament, will his climate legacy be the same as his international conservative contemporaries?

I remember passing tissues to climate activists from New Zealand as they ushered in their 2011 election results with tears dripping onto their laptops. At the time, I didn’t really understand it. What was all the drama about? To me, I had always looked on to New Zealand’s own Emissions Trading Scheme (like a carbon tax) with envy and admired their far more progressive Kyoto protocol targets.

However, what my friends from New Zealand’s Youth Delegation to the UN climate negotiations already knew, was that all of that was about to change. Their tears came true. Within the next year, New Zealand’s new conservative National Government, led by John Key reneged on its international climate responsibilities and pulled out of Kyoto.

And as a result of the recent decision by countries at the UN climate negotiations in Doha to not allow non-Kyoto countries to take advantage of carbon markets within the Kyoto Protocol, their Emissions Trading Scheme will suffer as well…and might be in need of some serious reshuffling.

And then there’s Canada. Oh Canada. Thanks to Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party, Canada has gone from being that nice, polite, progressive kid you could introduce to your parents, to the local hitman. Not only did Canada turn its back on its Kyoto agreements and its $7 billion Kyoto bill, but since then, the government has laid waste to the country’s environmental credentials.

This year alone, Harper’s Conservative government has introduced over $160 million in cuts to environmental spending as well as gutted the country’s environmental legislation, including lifting the requirements for environmental assessments of offshore drilling. They even made most of these changes during this year’s Rio+20 UN Earth Summit, causing widespread post-traumatic disorder among environmental groups across the world.

And unless something dramatic happens to the water surrounding Parliament house, it looks like Australia might be heading for the same climate policy backflips.

Ever since Kevin Rudd was elected way back in 2007, Australia has quickly moved to make up the ground it lost during the endless years of climate silence that had reigned before. We joined the Kyoto Protocol, continued our commitment this year, and implemented our now world famous Carbon tax.

But the Labor party has come a long way from its 2007 popularity, and Tony Abbott is the far-and-away favourite to take out the election this year. Interestingly, The latest poll by Essential Research has found that as of November last year, more people support the carbon tax (46%) than oppose it (44%). In fact, The carbon tax is now more popular than Tony Abbott. Support for Abbott is at -31% (voter satisfaction compared to dissatisfaction according to Newspol).

Sadly however, support for Julia Gillad’s Labor government is even worse. So as Australia goes to the election this year to pick their lesser of two unwanted governing parties, all of this positive progressive movement could take a turn for the worse, overnight.

Throughout his time as the Liberal opposition leader, Abbott has vowed to crush the carbon tax. “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”  has been an all too repeated calling card Abbott has kept on speed dial. He has also labelled the Carbon tax as an octopus, a sudden cobra strike, a phyton squeeze, a cash cow and a dog of a tax. So he’s going to look pretty silly to anyone who has been listening if he allows this animorphing piece of climate policy to stick around.

While Abbott’s personal polling took a slide for the worse after everyone realised that the Carbon tax was not nearly as catastrophic as Abbott made it seem, he’s still beating on the drum.

In a recent column for News Limited, Abbott wrote that he plans to resurrect his fear-mongering tactics in a bid to abolish the carbon tax as Prime Minister.

“AUSTRALIA is a great country that needs a better government. We need a government that’s prudent with taxpayers’ money, competent in delivering services and, above all, honest with people about what it will and won’t deliver. If elected this year, the Coalition will: reduce the pressure on family budgets by abolishing the carbon tax”

This is all part of his new “positive” plan to “build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia.” Admittedly, nobody wants to hear Tony Abbott when he’s negative.

But scrapping the Carbon Tax would not support Aussie families, and if anything, it would make for a far more insecure Australia as these families plan for their future. What Tony Abbott doesn’t realise is that the Carbon Tax is not made to hurt Aussie families, but support them, and to support a safer and more secure future for Australia as these families grow up and grow old.

And it would be pretty complex. He would need a big majority to be able to all out scrap the Carbon Tax. But if statewide elections are a trend of things to come, Australia’s Carbon Tax may be on the chopping block faster than you know. And if the Carbon Tax goes, Australia’s Kyoto commitments go with it.

So far early hints put the election somewhere in August. If nothing changes before then, we could see some dramatic changes to Australia’s climate policy before the year ends.

But as the Kyoto Protocol hangs in the balance, we recap on how it all happened. From the 4wdrive of the US, the late entry of Australia, the continuous compromise of the EU, India’s equitable exclamation and the historical hypocrisy of the US…we capture it all in this latest episode of Climate Theatre.

Gregory Andrews(Australia)

iisd

Say what you like about Australia’s policies, we’ve got one great negotiator in Gregory Andrews. Not only is he a nice guy who proved himself this year facilitating the discussions on long term finance, he’s also an avid defender of social justice back home in Australia. Oh, and in case you’re wondering how he’s been able to keep his cool here in Doha, it’s because he used to live in red-centre of Australia’s desert, not so far from where I used to call home. No wonder he’s such a nice guy.

Naderev “Yeb” Saño (The Philippines) In September this year I called “Yeb” the Tom Cruise of the UNFCCC, and he definitely has remained a show stopper at COP18. While most parties have turned up to tango negotiator-style, Yeb seems set on achieving his own one-man ‘mission impossible’; to resurrect the Kyoto protocol from desert sands of political crucifixion. Oh, but he’s also one of the humblest guys you can possibly bump into across the corridors. He even took some time to come down and deliver a heartwarming speech to young delegates at this year’s Conference of Youth. And yesterday, delivered one of the most heartwarming interventions in UN history.

Claudia Salerno (Venezuela)

iisd

Table topping, heart-stopping, hotter-than-a-Jalapeño Claudia only arrived in Doha this week, but already sparks are starting to fly. On her first morning here, it was Singapore’s Burhan Gahfoor who commented that “it’s good to see Claudia here, because now you know things are going to get serious”. As the great hope for all of us sick and tired of the Business As Usual approach to interventions, lets just hope that Durban’s passion hasn’t run out just yet.

Dessima Williams (Grenada) Dessima has been a moral stalwart of the talks for quite some time now. Widely renowned for her lovely nature, poetic interventions and island pride, you could also add hard working to the list of likable qualities ascribed to this incredible negotiator. In Bangkok this year, Dessima was spotted burning the midnight oil longer than any other, working until the cleaners kicked her out 3 nights in a row.

Rene Orellana (Bolivia)

iisd

This man has been a stalwart against the harmful effects of markets in the UNFCCC and can always be depended upon to remind developed countries just how big the giggatonne gap is between their (lack of) ambition and science.  But what sets this guy apart, is his zen-like demeanor. With a healthy shot of passion, a pound of patriotism and a pinch meditative peace, Rene is sure make an impact whenever he intervenes.

iisd

Paul Watkinson (EU but also wears a French hat from time to time) When this man isn’t actively finding a compromise, he’s pretty keen to tweet. And generally, he’s just a pretty approachable guy (whether online or live). So while the EU might be getting a bit of criticism here, you can bet this guy is fighting behind the scenes fighting for all of us.

Yasni France

Madeleine Rose Diouf Sarr (Senegal) As the KP talks have prolonged well past peak negotiating periods, Madam Madeleine has been the one divine dividing line, keeping the lions from tearing each other apart. Not only has she been ever persistent in pushing these discussions through the mud of polarized parties, but as I realized late last night, in the midst of unanimous madness, Madam Madeline has remained true to her magnanimous grace.

iisd

Franz Perrez (Switzerland) When you’re looking to inject some urgency into the negotiations, this guy puts his foot to the floor all day every day. Don’t rely on him for kind offers of  Swiss compassion, this ticking time bomb emits more radiative forces than the sun and is the ultimate accountability measure here at the talks. For all those countries unwilling to up their ambition in the next few days, watch out, because Franz will hunt you down!

Jonathan Pershing (USA) …just kidding

According to governmental projections that went into designing our latest Kyoto Protocol target, our economy is set expand by about 3 per cent per year between now and 2020. On top of this, Australia’s population is expected to increase by 12 per cent.

As you can see on red line in the graph below,  Australia is expected to significantly increase our greenhouse gas emissions in the next 10 years if no action is taken.

This is where the government steps in says, “look at how much we are planning to do!” And I have to give them credit, a 22% reduction on what they like to call “Business As Usual” is pretty impressive, especially for such a developed economy.

But these increases in population and economic growth don’t come anywhere near the increase in greenhouse gas emissions the government has been projecting. Do you notice that from 2010, the purple line changes to red, and it rises quite dramatically? That’s because from 2010, the government has started projecting that Australia will massively increase its mining and gas industries. This was highlighted in the government’s recent energy White Paper which shows just how much we’re planning on increasing our fossil fuel industries over the next 20 years.

Sure, these increases are mainly going to be shipped off to the emerging economies of Asia. But it takes quite a lot of effort to dig the stuff up. And that’s what’s driving up our so called Business as Usual projections.

But as I’m sure you can now tell, this projection isn’t “Business as Usual” at all. It’s a gigantic increase in fossil fuel extraction and it amounts to significant increases not only in our own greenhouse gas emissions at home, but would have a ridiculous impact on the global greenhouse budget. As Ben Eltham recently argued:

“Once it is burnt, that carbon will be released into the atmosphere. The same atmosphere that also circulates over Australia.”

At the end of the day, what all of this means is that the fossil fuel industry is apparently here to stay in Australia. While negotiators here have exclaimed that discussions this week have been about “transitioning to a diversified, low carbon economy that is free of fossil fuels”, Australia is transitioning in the wrong direction.

What makes it worse is that everyday Aussies are funding. Australian tax payers are involuntarily some of the world’s biggest investors in a one-way climate highway to hell. According to Oil Change international, the Australian government dished out over $8 billion last year in subsidies to the Fossil Fuel industry.

$8 billion! To some of the most profitable companies in the history of money. But when it comes to giving money to some of the most vulnerable countries trying to deal with the impacts of climate change, we pledged  $204 million. Now this is a pretty good chunk of money, but you have to admit that it’s relatively measly compared to our fossil fuel subsidies.

If you want to compare this to other developed countries, Australia has the highest ratio of fossil fuel subsidies compared to climate finance. Even higher than the US.

Australia has donated generously to financing adaptation and mitigation projects over the last year, but when you compare this to our ambitious commitment to funding fossil fuels, it falls in comparison.

Here in Doha, the lack of finance for developing countries has been one of the key issues holding up negotiations. After a steady stream of funding between 2009 and 2012, developing countries fear that this stream is about to run dry. At the start of the conference, no one in the developed world was willing to put any money on the table for next year, and this has had developing countries spooked ever since.

But today, the UK announced that it will give £1.8bn over the next two years. This is a 40% increase on what they had donated over the last 3 years and the announcement was praised by all. If Australia was to do the same, and announce a 40% increase in our climate finance over the next few years, it could dramatically shape the outcome of this year’s UN climate negotiations.

Considering the steady growth trajectory the government has predicted, I don’t see why we can’t. Time to divert some money away from funding climate change and into climate finance if you ask me.

Australia’s negotiators courtesy of iisd

Negotiators spend much too much time analyzing the costs and benefits of political maneuvers that they have barely any space left in their brief cases for the latest scientific journal.

But I thought I would put science back on the map here in Doha. So I tracked down some of the world’s foremost exerts on international climate change policy, Dr. Michiel Schaeffer and Marion Vieweg-Mersmann from Climate Analytics.

Together, Michiel and Marion highlight that Australia’s current emissions reduction targets are far too low and put us on track to far exceed 1.5 or even 2 degrees warming. In fact, Michiel quotes Australia’s own governmental analysis to highlight that the Australian government is fully aware that our current emissions reduction levels put us on track for dangerously harmful climate change. Considering the human health and socio-economic impacts of rising sea levels, increases in drought, bush fires, extremely hot days and floods, this revelation alludes to the fact that the Australian government are willingly putting Australians at risk.

Marion adds to this analysis by highlighting that regardless of the political rhetoric coming from government ministers, our current efforts to confront climate change don’t even match up to the efforts from many developing countries. Specifically, Marion highlights the emission reduction efforts of Brazil and South Africa which far exceed our own. Both of these countries have similarly export-oriented economies like Australia.  However, Brazil and South Africa, are also  seeking to rapidly lift millions of their own citizens out of poverty.

While these countries find the capacity to exceed our own emissions reductions efforts, I guess it’s not surprising that Australia has been highlighted as one of the key parties holding up the negotiations here in Doha.

“#Climate Political Theatre”

Will this formidable foe keep the EU from changing the game here in Durban? Or will we need to delay Australia and the EU’s engagement party for 2013, in Poland.

Only time will tell. Luckily we still have 5 days remaining to set things right on the road to romance…

Stay tuned

In the months leading up to Doha, Australia’s confirmation that it was ready to continue its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol was a cause to celebrate. After nearly a year of uncertainty, Australia had transferred its domestic action into the international arena. Already this has had a considerable impact on these negotiations.

On day one in Doha, Australia was applauded for its decision to continue its Kyoto commitments. Both developed and developing countries highlighted this in their opening speeches as one of the key pieces of the climate puzzle that had once again found its place.

But when the news was released that Australia had only committed to an emissions reductions pledge of 0.5% of its 1990 emissions, the applause stopped. And the silence sat still.

As an Australian, sitting in the halls and listening to our representatives announce to the world that we had abandoned scientific reasoning, and did not feel that it was our responsibility to make a significant contribution to solving a problem that will deeply affect not only our pacific island neighbors, but our own farmers – I felt a sense of shame. My grandfather was a farmer. And I want my grandchildren to be farmers too.

But if we don’t take concrete action to limit climate change below 2 degrees celsius, the potential temperature and rainfall variations that might occur across the South-East of Australia would make this an almost impossibility. At least in the way I would like to imagine it. As it states in our own submission to the UN in September:

In 2008-09, the Australian Government conducted a comprehensive national review of drought policy. This review found that Australian farmers faced an increased risk of drought over the next 20 to 30 years

What’s more, it would affect the health of Australian farmers as well. As Australia’s submission to the UN in October states:

Rural communities that experience downturns or disruptions in production due to changes in climate and environment are widely expected to experience stress, and, for many, depression. A decade of recent experience with drought and reduced farm yields in the southern parts of Australia underscore the risks of community morale, livelihoods, and health. One study of Australia’s most populous state (New South Wales) found that a decrease in annual rainfall by 300mm leads to an increase in the suicide rate by about 8% over the long-term average suicide rate.

And it is not only Australia’s farmers who will be negatively affected. According to the government’s own reports to the UN:

Even small changes in our environment can have dramatic effects on the human body. Serious heat stroke and even death can occur after a relatively short time if a person’s core body temperature exceeds 42 degrees Celsius. A three-day heatwave at around 43 degrees Celsius in the city of Melbourne in 2009 led to 980 deaths, an estimated 62 percent increase above normal fatality levels. Rising temperatures threaten the health of everybody, while those least able to respond will be the most at risk.

But this understanding of the human health impacts of climate change is something that seems to be easily forgotten in these political negotiations. Countries like Nauru have pleaded that “Doha is a matter of survival.”

And this is in no means false. Nauru is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world when it comes to the impacts of climate change. But the health impacts of climate change are being felt across the world. According to the World Health Organisation:

• Global warming that has occurred since the 1970s caused over 140 000 excess deaths annually by the year 2004.
• The direct damage costs to health (i.e. excluding costs in health-determining sectors such as agriculture and water and sanitation), is estimated to be between US$ 2-4 billion/year by 2030.

But even as countries such as Venezuela and the European Union have called for dramatic increases in Australia’s ambition to tackle climate change, we have remained content to sit behind the barriers of diplomatic dodgem-cars and bump up against every call to reason with a carefully rehearsed response, placing the burden of climate change mitigation squarely on every other nation’s shoulders. In a press statement, Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet stated that

“The commitment to sign Kyoto 2 is contingent upon countries around the world taking action on climate change and continued progress on a new agreement.”

But at the moment, the whole world is looking at us. Our lack of political will to combat climate change is causing serious geopolitical concerns. Many negotiators here in Doha that I have spoken to from both developed and developing nations feel that a number of our current positions regarding the Kyoto protocol may threaten to destabilize the globally binding Durban package, which is due to be finalized in 2015. And this would have unquestionable consequences for the health impacts

It is simply that we are not doing enough. And when report after scientific report states that developing nations such as Australia need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by between 25-40% of our emissions levels in 1990, and our current targets sit at 0.5%, I can understand their outrage.

But how can it be that Australia can be so ambitious when it comes to cigarette’s, but lacks the same ambition when it comes to combating the local and international health impacts of climate change?

But to cut a prolonged meeting short, there are a few technical issues that need to be resolved tomorrow. They are of utmost and immediate concern. But on top of that, it is now clearly evident that developing nations are frustrated with the lack of finance and ambition from developed countries.

This is something that we always knew would happen here in Doha. The EU has hit a financial cliff of their own, and developed countries haven’t looked to increase their ambitions since last year. This is largely because in Durban, countries have agreed to a process that links increased ambition and financial commitments to a timeline that was never going to affect these discussions. However, it is increasingly clear that without increases in finace and ambitions emissions reduction targets from developed countries, these talks may not result in anything more than a few lost pounds from all the running around negotiators have to do in the gargantuan Qatar national conference centre.

One of the key tactics that states are sure to try and apply this week will be a forging of alliances both across and between traditional firewalls seperating developed and developing states. In negotiator speak, these are firewalls never to be crossed or confused. But between the corridors and into the late nights of next week, I am sure we will see some moving and shaking acrosss the lines that theoretically divide the UNFCCC.

This is a complex process of re-design. At the moment, countries are still well and truly holding their cards to their chest. Some have even tucked them into their chest-height travel wallets. So you’re just as good a guess as me.

But I thought I would explore this issue of negotiating blocks with Farrukh Zaman, our Pakistani tracker. As you will see, he knows about these things a little more than me.

But before we get into that, I thought I would just explain some of these ‘negotiating groups’.

In the UNFCCC, most member states find it beneficial in both voting, political and policy power to be aligned with other similar, or ‘like-minded’ countries. These alliances can either be concrete negotiating blocks such as the G77+China, or they can simply act as informal alliances between friends keen on sharing their ideas and working things out, like the Cartagena Dialogue.

In any case, these alliances play a critical role in the negotiations. Many times, I have found it incredibly difficult to define whether a nation state truly believes in what it says in these conferences, or whether they are simply promoting the ideas of their nation-state alliances. This is especially true of Australia, who operates within a group of nations who like to call themselves The Umbrella Group. This grouping comprises of 9 countries that climate activist Anjali Appadurai argues “tend to block the negotiations”. They include Australia, Canada, Japan, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Russia, Ukraine, and the dear USA. While it is unfair to argue that they only “block the negotiations”, it is certainly true that these countries contribute the most towards the world’s greenhouse emissions per person and have taken home an unprecedented amount of ‘fossil of the day’ anti-awards for the worst performing countries at the UNFCCC negotiations.

However, many of these countries, such as Australia, have contributed significant amounts of money to finance adaptation and mitigation projects in developing countries. This is at least on paper…but it is definitely not enough at this stage. And with no more finance currently proposed between 2012 and 2020, there looks sure to be a gap between the finance already pledged, and that promised fo 2020. Finally, there has also been many fundamental questions this week as to whether or not this finance is or isn’t reaching the “grass roots” “communities” in developing countries.

This is something that many Least Developed Countries (LDC’s), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and African Group nations (AG) have been advocating this week.

Many of these groups are relatively self-explanitary. But some of the newer groups, such as the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group are much more complex. It is made up of some of G77+China’s fiercest negotiating countries, including Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mali, Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Thailand and Venezuela. However, as Farrukh and I explain, this is a group that a lot of people here in the negotiaions know very little about, but could be one of the key coalitions as we move into the second week of COP18.

But it will require more than just a few powerful interventions to move into a positive outcome for Doha. It will require the strategic firewalking of key negotiators, back and forth across the divides that drive this process forward.