Una guía visual para reconocer si saldremos de Copenhague con un buen acuerdo sobre cambio climático.

Esta es mi manera de tomar notas en las reuniones

Aquí estamos. Hace frío en Copenhague aunque menos del que esperaba: 5ºC. De momento no usaré mis calzoncillos térmicos.

La cumbre empieza mañana pero ya llevamos dos días de reuniones preparatorias. La sociedad civil está siendo muy activa y lo será mucho más en las próximas dos semanas. De momento estoy aterrizando de nuevo en la maraña de aspectos técnicos y legales que rodea a estas negociaciones. Algo duro para todos pero necesario si queremos asegurarnos de que podemos salir de aquí con un acuerdo justo, ambicioso y legalmente vinculante.

Pero ¿aún es posible?

No si dejamos a los negociadores trabajando por sí mismos. Pero sí, si seguimos presionando a nuestros representantes para que acudan a la cumbre e impulsen las negociaciones para que el proceso acabe con éxito.

Aunque un momento… ¿Qué entendemos por éxito y fracaso en Copenhague? En este mundo de porcentajes, tecnicismos y fechas de referencia cambiantes ¿cómo vamos a saber si lo que sale de aquí es bueno para luchar contra el cambio climático?

Os voy a dar una referencia: Lo reconoceréis por mis cuatro posibles caras post Copenhague:

Felicidad absoluta

1. Cara de acuerdo real

Al terminar la cumbre obtenemos un documento que marca objetivos ambiciosos, justos y jurídicamente vinculantes en los asuntos clave: financiación de la lucha contra el cambio climático, objetivos de reducción de emisiones y marco legal para que esto se cumpla.

Alegría contenida

2. Cara de retraso con esperanza

No obtenemos un acuerdo en estas negociaciones pero se sientan las bases de lo que necesitamos (aunque sea sin cifras concretas) y se establece una fecha cercana en el tiempo para establecer un acuerdo legalmente vinculante.

3. Cara de declaración política

¿Y ahora qué?

Los políticos anuncian que van a tomar medidas, pero sin ningún mecanismo que garantice que van a cumplir su promesa. Este es uno de los escenarios más peligrosos ya que la opinión pública podría entender que sí se ha llevado a cabo un
avance en la lucha contra el cambio climático. Es lo que por aquí llaman greenwash, que vendría a ser algo así como “un lavado de cara verde”.

Drama

4. Cara de colapso

Los países son incapaces de conseguir un acuerdo y se culpan unos a otros de impedir los avances. Este escenario también es muy peligroso ya que, aunque puede ser una llamada de atención para obtener el acuerdo, lo retrasa aún más cuando el tiempo que tenemos es cada vez más escaso.

Si tengo que pronunciarme, apuesto por la primera opción. Y si me pedís que huya de alguna de ellas, lo haré de la tercera Pero si algo queda claro del momento que vivimos es que no podemos permitirnos más retrasos: el cambio climático ya está aquí y es una cuestión de supervivencia para la humanidad y el planeta el actuar ya para paliar sus efectos.

Veremos mi cara el 19 de diciembre.

A lo largo del día, he oído esta conversación en más de una ocasión. Es viernes y la gente tiene ganas de volver a casa. Ha sido una semana de trabajo intensísimo y estamos contentos por el trabajo bien hecho, pero nadie oculta cierto aire de decepción.

Las cosas han cambiado bastante desde ayer. Durante todo el día, el ambiente en el centro de convenciones estaba extrañamente tranquilo y daba la impresión que algo se estaba cociendo en las salas de reuniones.

Pues bien: Por la tarde, varios representantes de la Unión Europea (UE) declararon a la prensa que no confían llegar a tiempo para firmar un tratado en Copenhague. Y parece que las reuniones de esta semana en Washington han tenido algo que ver.

Alienígenas buscando líderes climáticos en el centro de convenciones

El representante estadounidense en Barcelona, John Pershing, confirmó la sospecha de que Estados Unidos no firmará ningún compromiso internacional hasta que no apruebe sus leyes internas al respecto. Algo que, de ocurrir, sería pasado diciembre, después de la Conferencia de Copenhague.

En la reunión de esta mañana, Alicia Montalvo, directora general de la Oficina Española de Cambio Climático, comentaba: “lo que ha ocurrido es una escenificación de lo que ya sabíamos. La UE ha constatado que las piezas necesarias no están maduras para llegar a Copenhague”. Entendiendo por “piezas” a unas cuantas delegaciones que no están dispuestas a firmar.

Así pues, el acuerdo legalmente vinculante empieza a borrarse del mapa y las delegaciones de los países desarrollados sólo nos ofrecen algo de carácter político. Algo que por el centro de convenciones se explica con un chiste. Dice así: “Si los políticos hiciesen autopistas políticamente vinculantes y no legalmente vinculantes, nos ahorraríamos mucho dinero en peajes”. Malo ¿verdad? Lo sé.

Sea como sea, parece que las negociaciones están tan encalladas que es necesaria una intervención al más alto nivel. Aquello que salga de Copenhague debe ser justo, ambicioso y vinculante de algún modo. Y si esta condición no es posible, debe marcarse un calendario exigente para que podamos sacar un tratado internacional. Ese era el trabajo que les habíamos encargado y no han hecho. Ya es hora de que actúen con responsailidad.

En el plenario de esta tarde, los países menos desarrollados y los pequeños Estados insulares han expresado su malestar con la situación. “El ritmo de negociaciones ha sido intolerablemente lento y muchas discusiones han sido circulares”, declaraba la delegada de la isla de Granada. El de las Islas Salomón señalaba directamente a los países más desarrollados: “Somos víctimas de su falta de tiempo para negociar”.

Así pues ¿Barcelona ha sido un fracaso?

La delegada Alicia Montalvo considera que sí se ha avanzado “en trabajo técnico, que era el objetivo de esta reunión. Hemos reducido opciones, para identificar qué puntos faltan por rellenar”. Y aseguraba que “el de Barcelona no era un foro político, hemos avanzado en lo técnico y ahora queda dar el paso político”.

Esperemos que Zapatero esté en Copenhague para recoger el testigo y actuar. No apareció en Barcelona y la delegación española no podían confirmarnos hoy si el presidente estaría en Dinamarca.

Bostezando y con dolor de espalda, no pierdo la esperanza de verle por ahí.

Y os animo a hacer lo mismo ¡Nos jugamos el futuro de la humanidad!

Climate certainly changes! But will we act in time?

In English below…

Was aussieht, als hätte ich es per Bildbearbeitung manipuliert, ist in der Tat wohl ein Tippfehler in derAnzeigentafel zum Konferenzraum “Epsilon” im Hotel “Pullmann King Power”, der Unterkunft der deutschen Delegation bei der Klimakonferenz hier in Bangkok. Dennoch trifft es dieser Tippfehler wohl auf den Punkt: Das Klima wandelt sich definitiv, es ist nicht mehr Aufgabe der Verhandler, das hier in Frage zu stellen oder zu diskutieren. Fraglich ist nur noch, wie kriegen wir dieses menschengemachte Problem soweit in den Griff, dass wir eine Überlebenschance haben?

Es mag zu plakativ klingen, von Überlebenschancen zu sprechen, doch in der Tat sehe ich jeden Tag mehr Statements, Sticker, Anstecker und Pressemeldungen, die eine eindeutige Sprache sprechen: Selbst 2 Grad Erderwärmung sind für viele Länder der SIDS (Small Island and Developing States), also bspw. Tuvalu, Salomonen Inseln und ähnliche schon zu viel, um sich halbwegs in Sicherheit wiegen zu können.

Zu allem Überfluss jedoch ist mir nach zwei Wochen hier eines klar: Diese wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse und die daraus zu folgernden Notwendigen allein genügen einfach nicht, um die richtigen politischen Entscheidungen zu treffen. Politik ist leider nicht das Ergebnis von Ratio, Verantwortung und Handeln, sondern viel zu oft das genaue Gegenteil. Eine Zusammenkunft von Interessensgemengen, innerhalb von NGOs, innerhalb einer Staatengemeinschaft von 192 Mitgliedern, innerhalb der einzelnen Bündnisse und sogar innerhalb der einzelnen Delegationen, wie ich heute morgen mitbekommen durfte.

Denn: Mein Anliegen heute morgen war es, mit der deutschen Delegation ein Gruppenfoto zu schießen – deshalb oben auch das Bild von Konferenzraum. Leider jedoch war ich etwas zu höflich und wartete meinen Erfahrungen zufolge lieber vor dem Raum, als mich reinzudrängeln :-) – tja, schon war es 8 Uhr, der Bus der Delegation längst da und keine Zeit mehr für ein Foto. Ich muss also morgen wieder hin – bzw. werde das wahrnehmen, denn wirklich: Ich will nun endlich wissen, wer alles hinter Frau Wilke steckt :-)

Ergebnis: Ich durfte immerhin im für das rund 30-köpfige Team aus Experten und Delegierten mitfahren…und ein bißchen mithören. Ich will hier keine Interna verraten, nur so viel: Die Stimmung war auch im Bus angeregt und erhitzt, Frau Wilke in aufgeregter Diskussion mit einem Kollegen. Auch darüber, wie viele Themen im Plenarsaal diskutiert werden, über die viele Delegierte nicht einmal bescheid wissen, einfach, weil die Zeit nicht reicht und noch lange nicht alles digitalisiert und automatisiert versandt wird.

Es beruhigt mich, dass keine Bequemlichkeit eingekehrt ist in der deutschen Delegation. Dennoch musste ich leider wenig später im Interview mit Jan Kowalzig von Oxfam erfahren, dass auch unsere deutsche Position schon lange das Niveau eines Vorzeige-Umweltschützer-Landes verlassen hat… es gibt also auch keinerlei Anlass mehr, sich auf Lorbeeren auszuruhen, im Gegenteil.

Doch auch Frau Wilke und ihr Team haben nur begrenzt Möglichkeiten, für uns das gemäß wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen und Menschenverstand “richtige” Abkommen herbei zu zaubern. Auch das wurde mir beim Zuhören klar: Hier sind Menschen am Werk. Menschen mit Fehlern und Menschen mit limitierter Zeit und streng reglementierter Bewegungsfreiheit. Die wirkliche Politik wird “Zuhause” gemacht, sprich: In Berlin.

Eine Bestätigung erhielt ich dafür beim Mittag in der UN-Kantine, als ich einen der Bus-Mitfahrer erneut traf und dieser schon nach kurzem Wortwechsel zugab: “Das hier ist echt frustrierend. Es ist mein erstes Mal bei einer solchen Konferenz. Aber Experten-Meinungen sind hier am Ende des Tages gar nicht Grundlage des Ergebnisses. Da geht es um höhere Politik, Bauchgefühle und Geschacher zwischen den verschiedenen Playern.”

Deshalb gilt es wohl für uns, selbst tätig zu werden. Nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, damit unsere Vertreter auch das vertreten, was wir uns wünschen – und: Damit wir uns selbst das “richtige” wünschen und damit unsere Mitmenschen informieren. Seien wir mal ehrlich: Wer von Euren Freunden weiß bescheid über diesen Prozess? Wer von Euch kann sagen, dass alle seine Freunde sich für den Klimaschutz einsetzen oder sich zumindest erste Gedanken darüber machen?

Schaut Euch das Video von Jan an – er weiß ne ganze Menge – und dann: Zögert nicht länger, werdet aktiv. Zum Beispiel bei den Oxfam Klimahelden, denn dort gibt es jede Menge Gelegenheit & Spaß noch dazu!

–
English

Although it seems as if I used Photoshop to manipulate that picture shown above, it is indeed just a typo on the screen in front of the conference room that had been booked for their morning meeting today in the Pullmann King Power Hotel, Bangkok.
However, it is pointing us to the right question: Climate changes, that’s pretty sure, but: will we act accordingly? Will you do? Will the German Delegation do it?
All of us, including the delegations, know, what is going on. It’s not that they would really deny it. The problem we have here is much more about politics and the political will of industrialized countries in particular, to get their work done and move their… well, you know what I am saying.

It might sound too strong if I am talking about the chance to survive, but indeed we are negotiating about survival of millions of people, the inhabitants of SIDS (Small Island and Developing States) in particular. This includes Tuvalu, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and many others. They even need the global warming to be limited to 1.5 degrees in order to have a chance…

But: After two weeks of listening to thousands of statements, reading news and proposals and talking to NGOs, delegates and the Youth alike, I know one thing for sure: The result of these negotiations won’t be based on any scientific studies. They will be made back home in our capitols, by politicians that mostly have no clue about Climate Science (which is easy to conclude since they would certainly act differently if they did).

And I even got confirmation for that by one of the German delegation members that I met once more for lunch: He told me quite frankly: “This is just a frustrating experience. It’s my first time at a conference like this and I can make no use of my scientific expertise, since decisions are not based on this, they are not asking for it, it’s all politics!”

Well, after the busride with my German delegation this morning, I must admit that I consider even them to be powerless in this regard. I have overheard a couple of their conversations and it was quite clear to me that what they are dealing with are details that belong to the diplomacy game and to their roles in their respective jobs. But what they cannot change is whether they ever get the political freedom (and mandate) to actually represent the right position in the first place. For that, we need the right attitude to spread back home, the right voices to be heard and the right political actions to be taken. Going back to nuclear power and coal power plants, for instance, is simply cynical in these days. And to be quite frank: I expect Angela Merkel to show up in Copenhagen in the end of the year to show a minimum of respect to the importance of this process.

In case you share my frustration and you want to be active rather than waiting for yet another diplomatic deadlock, go and register as a Climate Hero here: Oxfam Climate Heros (www.oxfamklimahelden.de) or join in the International Climate Action Day: www.350.org

Me with Ambassador dasgupta and CANSA members from India

I love ice cream and can never get enough of it.  But what is intriguing is the Indian ice cream seems to be melting much faster than any other type of ice cream at the UN negotiations here at Bangkok.

Are we being really fussy and imitating the US and EU negotiators?

Are we also speaking without doing our “home” work?

Why can’t we lead by example? I am certain that we aren’t out of capacity, after all we are some of the best brains in the country coming together at these negotiations.

Let us analyse exactly what India is doing with regard to international negotiations:

So we are saying that we cannot shift to a sustainable path if we are given finance and technology transfer. But have we calculated the costs of a two degrees temperature increase on our economy? Have we considered what would the impacts be of short term increase of temperature in our own country (long-term is another story)? Before pointing out to anyone on their inactions, maybe we should be prepared for actions in our own country.

And this is not because the others are not taking leadership, this is because of the millions of people on our coasts.

Personally, I do not see my country doing anything to protect the vulnerable poor individuals who will probably bear the burden of these short term emissions.

Have we mapped and put Nationally Appropriate Adaptation Plan Actions (NAPAs) which are in line with our socio-economic factors such as the economy, gender, health and other human indicators? I dont think so. I don’t see this as something our politicians are taking seriously!

Has our parliament even considered this as a serious issue?  Politicians are worried about their votes which they mostly get by advocating for bijli, sadak, and pani (electricity, road and water). Couldn’t these be renewable energy derived electricity generation, sustainable roads and infrastructure and sustainable water management, conservation and access?  Doesn’t this translate into a stronger agenda for running a campaign?

Don’t you think that will win you more votes or make you an effective government?  Don’t these issues actually give you more political competence given that Al Gore used climate change to do exactly that?

Politics and climate change not can but need to go hand in hand.  Let us plan to educate our politicians with regards to that!

India , US and China in order with thier ice creams

India And China

We really hope our negotiators pick up from the action of the GCCA to host the Chinese tracker and the Indian tracker in the same room. What really hurts both of us , that despite our continuous efforts of building capacity and encouraging local action , the international media still feels like we will be the reason for stalling the negotiations on the way to Copenhagen.

What do I have to say to this???

Well, India and China are definitely key players but most importantly they are the key MOVERS of the negotiations and can actually lead us to the answer to whether we see a deal in the Copenhagen treaty. First introducing you to the background narrative which involves some crucial factors of exactly why Media is taking this stand, in particular US local media.

The first being the impact of positive globalisation which has led to the high level of competitiveness in the international labour market. Given the mastery of the Indian ability to ace IT related jobs, other countries are losing jobs. But contrary to this fact, almost all our rural traditional artisans are unemployed because of intense competition from mechanised textile counterparts, so globalisation is actually affecting us much more adversely than it is to other nations.

Another prominent underlying factor is the Trade Union lobby namely the CITU – Central Industrial Trade Union which apparently is now willing to do something for climate change since they ahve realised that the adverse impacts are the most hazardous to its very own workers? The argument that India is a Debtor country. We cannot afford to scale up solar activities or provide renewable energy driven power unless and until we get finance and technical transfer from the Developed countries. Besides our human development indicators are really dismal for eg our infant mortality rate is so high. We really need to reform our country and in that context coming out with independent goals for mitigation seems a really non negotiable deal. India is a poor country with around 25 % of our population living under the poverty line and it is these vulnerable lives that are at stake.

China and India seem key players to understand the negotiations. We need to understand where India had drawn the red lines and why? Our Human Development indicators are dismal and taking action and calling programmes on poverty alleviation, gender empowerment, health and education are taken up but are at the moment NON negotiable.

Haven’t we already the US enough by planning so much domestically with such a paucity of resources and finance?

If we can do it with these kind of circumstances what stops you from showing some leadership?

Is it that we are not really that good in projecting or rather over projecting the great plans we are willing to implement? Are we not able to communicate what we are willing to do , for you to take leadership?

Are you even listening? Or Are we doing our job in telling them?

This negotiations is about ME and YOU , US , WE need to make to sure we are listening and we are communicating to our governments that there is a positive outcome , that some things do sound UGLY , but they are totally NEGOTIABLE!

Yesterday I had a meeting with the Swedish delegation, the room was huge and when I sat down in one of the chairs I was wondering whether it would all fill up. A couple of minutes went past and NGOs and representatives from the several different countries poured into the big room. The heads of delegation from the European countries were also invited for this meeting. So when the meeting began most of the seats were taken.

It all began with a presentation of Climate treaty 1.0, which Anders Turesson commented as a constructive and interesting proposal. In my opinion, what would be really interesting is if the European Union actually took the action proposed in this progressive proposal. Among the more interesting points in the proposal and what will be critical in Copenhagen later this year is financing, the proposal solves this through auctioning 10 % of industrialized countries emission allocation.

Another question that arose during the discussion was regarding deforestation and keeping the natural forests. This is one of the most important issues in the developing countries as huge areas of forests are cut down. This could potentially both save biodiversity that could come in handy for medicine research and at the same time these vast forests work as carbon sink and would reduce emissions tremendously if logging stopped. Currently forest destruction is responsible for close to 20 % of emissions. To this Anders Turesson basically answered that they currently do not have clear answer yet. I know deforestation is not of immediate concern for EU personally, however it is of concern to future generations to keep the green lungs of the Earth.

As Sweden now has the presidency the rhetoric from Reinfeldt has been to take climate change seriously and to bridge the gap between science and politics. So far, a month after the takeover nothing groundbreaking has happened. The position is the same, although the rhetoric has shifted from 20 % to 30 %. The same strings are attached as before and the same conclusions are taken. As mentioned earlier by Anna, with the current position that EU has, there is only 50 % of not exceeding 2 degrees. An awful probability for playing with billions of peoples’ lives. So I would suggest that Sweden take a peek at Norway and follow some of their neighbours suggestions in the coming climate talks, because Sweden really has to pick up some pace in leading the EU.

On a positive side-note, EU is committed to reducing the text from 200 pages to 30 pages until Bangkok is finished although Anders Turesson was doubtful if that would happened. But the good news is that from today the G77 + china also committed to giving the chair mandate to help them reduce in the coming weeks when no negotiations are taking place.

I am confident that the government recognizes the scientific advice of achieving 25 to 40% emission reductions globally below 1990 levels by 2020. Yet our target doesn’t seem to match up.

To put this in perspective, Japans statement of a much higher level, -15% by 2020, received a response from Yvo de Boer (general secretary of the UN Convention on Climate Change) of, “For the first time in 2.5 years in this job, I don’t know what to say.”

He continued to say that the emission reduction plans to date leave developed countries “a long, long way from the ambitious reduction scenarios” that scientists say are needed.

In addition, almost all other developed countries are submitting targets more ambitious than Canada. For example: European Union: 20-30%, Australia: 5-25%, United States: 17-24%. Studies show that it is economically feasible for Canada to achieve the 25 to 40% by 2020: this target is ambitious, though certainly possible.

What is it going to take for Canada to gain leadership? Quite possibly the voice of the people. I’ve written my letter to our Minister of Environment. Have you?

• Contact information of the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Environment
• Contact information for your Member of Parliament
  

Ever since time existed,India has been discouraging the finance in form of bilateral Aid in the negotiations like the ODAs and US AID. But is this new stance going to affect the adaptation and mitigation activities back home?

It could limit the scale and the effect of mitigation and adaptation strategies in India as well as make the poverty alleviation programs .We cant say much , but rumour has it that India had become very aggressive.

In the LCA meetings the Annex 1 countries have always swung around some big words and tried to avoid talk about the numbers and targets they are setting

We have our ears open and our boxing gloves ready!

In English below.

Idag har förhandlingarna satt igång på riktigt här i Bonn. De olika arbetsgrupperna har början förhandla kring texterna som utgör det första utkastet till Köpenhamnsavtalet. Men det verkar gå långsamt. Väldigt långsamt. Huvuddelen av tiden går till att prata om form och struktur, och nästan ingenting alls sägs om innehållet.

Vi Svenska ungdomar som är med på mötet träffade idag Sveriges klimatambassadör, Staffan Tillander, för ett timmeslångt samtal i ett av konference-centrets caféer. Vi hade många frågor och hoppades få svar av mannen som ska vara Sveriges ansikte utåt i klimatfrågan. Mycket av diskussionerna handlade om vad som är politiskt möjligt, och vad vetenskapen säger att vi behöver göra för att undvika en omfattande kris där mängder av människor drabbas, särskilt fattiga och minoriteter. Staffan talade om hur svårt det är för 192 nationalstater, med olika intressen och förutsättningar, att komma överens i globala förhandling

Okej. Det stämmer säkert. Men det är galet frustrerande när det är vad som är politiskt “möjligt” blir det som avgör och inte vad som faktiskt behövs för att undvika en omfattande kris som många arter (kanske till och med människan) inte kommer att ta sig levande ur. Det verkar som att flera länder känner sig bekväma med att överskrida tvågraders-målet, trots att inte ens det är tillräckligt ambitiöst för vi ska kunna vara säkra på att tröskelnivåer inte översktids och möjligheten att påverka klimatet helt försvinner ur vår makt.

Det är skrämmande att många länder inte inser allvaret av att hamna i en sådan situation och man kan inte låta bli att undra om situationen hade sett annorlunda ut om fler röster hade kommit fram i förhandlingarna. Hur hade det framtida avtalet sett ut om vi ungdomar hade haft en större roll i förhandlingarna? Eller kvinnor? Eller ursprungsbefolkningar? Eller de länder som kommer att drabbas hårdast av konsekvenskerna, som världens fattigaste länder och de utsatta ö-staterna? Eller kanske kommande generationer, som inte har någon möjlighet alls att göra sin röst hörd i dagens diskussioner? Det hade med all säkerhet gått snabbare fram än dagens förhandlingar i alla fall.

Vi som är unga nu kommer att finnas kvar på den här planeten när år 2050, som är det långsiktiga målet i förhandlingarna, infaller. För vår skull, och för alla andra grupper som har mycket på spel och är underrepresenterade i diskussionerna, måste man omdefiniera vad som är politiskt möjligt. Det borde inte längre vara intressant, det enda som borde spela någon roll är vad om måste göras för att undvika en storskalig kris.

Vad är din åsikt kring detta, dela med dig!

Today the negotiations in Bonn are going on for real. The different working groups have started to negotiate the documents that are part of the first draft of the Copenhagen agreement. But it seems to go slow. Very slow. The main part of the time is used to talk about form and structure, and almost nothing is said about the content.

We, the Swedish youth, that are here on the meeting met the Swedish Climate ambassador, Staffan Tillander, for an hour-long conversation in one of the conference center’s cafes. We had a lot of questions and hoped to get answers from the man who is supposed to be the Swedish face outwards in the climate issue. A lot of the discussions was about what is politically possible and what the science says that we need to do to avoid an extensive crisis where a large amount of people is being hit by the impact of the changing climate. These especially include poor people and minorities. Staffan spoke about how difficult it is for 192 nation-states with different interests and possibilities to mitigate their situation.

Ok. That’s probably right. But it is insanely frustrating when it is what is politically ‘possible’ that becomes the deciding factor and not what is actually needed to avoid an extensive crisis where many species (maybe even the human species) won’t be able to get out alive. It seems like many countries feel that they are comfortable with exceeding the two degree goal even though it’s not even sure that this goal is ambitious enough to avoid the crossing of tipping points. If we happen to cross the tipping points our ability to influence the climate entirely disappears.

It is quite frightening that so many countries don’t realize the seriousness of getting into a situation like that. This makes one wonder whether the situation would have looked different if more voices would have reached the negotiations. How would the future agreement look like if  youth had a bigger role in the negotiations? Or women? Or indigenous? Or the countries which will be impacted the worst by the consequences, like the poorest countries or the vulnerable island-nations? Or maybe the future generations, who don’t have any possibility to get their voice heard in the current discussions. The negotiations would surely go faster than at present at least.

We who are young today will be here on this planet the year 2050, when the long-term goal of the negotiations fall in. For our sake, and for all the other groups that have a lot at stake and are on top of that underrepresented in the discussions, we have to re-define what is politically possible. That should no longer be interesting, the only thing that should matter is what should be done to avoid a large scale crisis.

So what is your opinion about all this. Do share!