Climate Change

From Kjells

Jump to: navigation, search


Understanding the issues

Climate Change in general

Structural challenges

Why is climate change the biggest challenge humanity has faced so far?

  • Climate change threatens the survival of the human species on Mother Earth.
  • Climate change is causing IRREVERSIBLE damage to Earth's ecosystems. This makes it a priority over almost any political problem you can think of (health care, economic crisis, epidemics, jobs,....)
  • The problem is caused by those who will suffer least and last. Those who suffer first and most can do little to solve the problem. Only appeal to the mighty climate abusers.
  • "Democratic" governments in rich countries are not used to a long-term mindset. Their political calendar is focused on immediate topics up to mid-term. Solving uncomfortable long-term problems has never been easy for them.
  • Civil society could force leaders of rich countries into action. But so far the urgency of the issue has not been discovered/felt by most of the public in rich countries.
  • While the science is clear (the supposed "debate" was not more than an industry-financed PR campaign), what needs to be done has not been addressed by most political leaders. Translating knowledge into action does not seem to work in our today's democratic societies for a question like climate change.
  • Because there are many unknown details in the global climate system, we need a framework that is on the one hand strong, meaning that it will withstand blows by countries that suddenly realize they would gain more by not cooperating and on the other hand flexible, meaning that in the light of new information from science or new priorities from the world's people (who may learn that low-carbon prosperity is not only possible but much more desirable) it will be possible to easily adapt it to changing targets. My point of view is, that this is best given in a framework that sets A) a global cap on total emissions and B) an equal per capita allowance. That way the burden of a changing overall target will be shared equally among the world's citizens.

Species that may die out


Climate negotiations


  • Climate Action Tracker (by Ecofys, PIK)
  • Third World Network Updates
  • Negotiation Watcher (by ICCG)
  • Climate Change TV
  • Factors underpinning future action - Country fact sheets Ecofys
  • No more kindergarten approach to climate, Sunita Narain, DOWN TO EARTH, May 22, 2007
  • Naomi Klein on why activism matters
  • Simulation Game to understand what's going on at climate negotiations
  • Climate negotiations are actually not a field where something new needs to get created or figured out. The principle that we must not interfere with the climate system is a natural law. That every person on earth has the same right to "atmospheric space" is without doubt. So actually it is about those facing this truth and those trying to hide it or evade their responsibility. We need to make this very clear and visible!
  • China-bashing is quite common these days. I find China's target of reducing emissions to almost half in relation to GDP quite substantial and believe that China is way ahead of the US or Europe who are currently offering a little money to perpetuate a situation where they emit way more than everybody else on the planet. Once we Europeans and the US start talking seriously about fair global solutions that address both our historic contribution and equality between human beings, I am sure China will move in the right direction. How would you, as a Chinese explain that you are going to reduce your emissions from 5 to 3 tons per capita, if the US still emit 20 and Europe 8? Any logic in that??
  • Saleemul Huq, scientist at IIED, talks about the Climate Most Vulnerable Forum: people in the developed countries must understand, that courageous decisions are needed. Climate change is not the matter of one single country, but it regards all of earth's inhabitant together. (video, 1:26 min)
  • Vorreiter des Südens (Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung)

COP15 in Copenhagen




REDD stands for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Learn more:

Reasons for hope

Country Information













Before Copenhagen


Elements of Solution


Focus on Basic Needs

Meeting the climate change challenge will need guiding principles. One can be to listen to climate scientists' advice and keeping the framework flexible and open for adaptations according to the latest science. Another one will be a new definition of basic human needs. It seems that since Maslow's theory in 1943 we have not made any progress in terms of finding out what is basic to human life. We have human rights, but even though they make for a good starting point for campaining for a better world, they are quite complicated and not fit for everyday use by normal people, I am afraid.

In the face of crisis, I propose to focus on the big four basic needs: food, water, shelter and health. When these needs are met, you are fine. When they are not, you suffer. (Of course you can suffer even when these basic needs are met, but that's not the question.) Looking at it from this angle, the global challenge becomes very simple: How can we assure that all people have food, water, shelter and health, without ruining the climate? Every country shall be allowed a basic carbon budget with which to provide for these basic needs for their people while there is no climate-friendly solution available. The global carbon budget is aligned with IPCC recommendations. Whoever wants to emit more, will need to buy emission rights from others who emit less. Please note that the combination of food+health means healthy food. It does not mean overconsumption, nor cokes nor obesity.

I believe that we need to focus on what we want to win for the world's people. And I believe that in the face of climate chaos, we should focus on the four basic human needs: food, water, shelter and health. You cannot go without these four truly essential things. (except when you're on climate justice fast or a hobo)

If we can agree on assuring these four basic things for the world's population, that would be a great achievement. So why not take the climate negotiations as a stepping stone to reaching an agreement on guaranteeing this for everybody.

- The human rights (especially the economic and social rights) in decades of existence have failed to make the impact they were hoping to have. I think that's because they are too complicated and not straightforward enough. - The Millennium Development Goals are too many and too ambitious and unfortunately will not be met (they're kind of like a little Agenda 21).

But if we can get an agreement that no person on this world should go without food, water, shelter or health for climate change reasons, that could be a very strong direction for focusing activities. In order to achieve that we would abviously need to get down to 350 ppm soon. So why not nailing down the industrialized countries on providing these things for the victims of climate change caused by us? This would bring the climate victim dimension into European and US domestic policy.

The other side of the medal would be to demand from all those that have these four basic needs met to be solidary with the suffering ones, meaning that you should not be changing the climate with any activities that are not directly focused on meeting your own basic needs. Unless you are willing to pay for those who are falling off the table (or drowning, rather) on the other side.

So far it seems to be only "What are we losing if we fail?" I feel that we need this positive dimension, an answer to the question "What are we winning with a strong climate agreement?" The answer would be "food, water, shelter and health for everyone" (for sure the pharma industry would be with us, even though I believe the health part should be covered much more by prevention, medicinal plants and other locally available solutions)

The big four basic needs can also serve to redistribute wealth inside nations. Heck, it can even serve Obama for argumenting for his health care reform that seems more important to him than saving the future of the planet.

Lifestyle change is not difficult

Changing our lifestyle is easy, not difficult! - Transforming our economies has to be wanted and impulses must be given

We don't need a revolution. Changes to adress the climate crisis are not difficult. It is all very simple. We just have to want it. And we have to shut up (or shoot) those who try to stop this change for their own (short-term) benefit. Is it difficult to go to work by bike instead of by car. No. Is it difficult to eat vegetables instead of meat for most of the week. No. Is it difficult to eat an apple from your region instead of a banana or kiwi from overseas? No. Is it diffcult to go to vacation on the coast or in the mountains instead of Thailand or Cuba? No. Is it difficult to use a line bag you bring yourself instead of a disposable plastic bag for what you buy? No. Is it difficult to spend time with your family playing card games instead of driving around by car and consuming? No. Is it difficult to give a Christmas present made from flowers or other natural materials by hand, or time together with an enjoyable activity instead of industrial products you have to spend much money on? No. Is it difficult to drink water instead of coke? No. Is it difficult to spend 50% of your income for food (like most people in the world) instead of 10% (like e.g. in Germany) and renounce the additional consumption that this enables? No.

From a human point of view, all of this is easy. We are human beings. We have needs. Overconsumption and over-comfort is not part of our needs. It is only a tendency that our current system has made the main driver of our economies.

What is the alternative? Is it difficult to have your house destroyed by a hurricane, a wildfire or a flood? Yes. Is it difficult to see your country be wiped out by the ocean? Yes. Is it difficult to see your daughter starve to death because of harvest failure? Yes. Is it difficult to fight a war over the bit of water that's left? Yes.

From a human point of view, climate change is simply a huge disaster.

The changes needed, compared with what we face as a result of inaction, are very simple. But structural modifications need to take place. I invite every government in the world to form an expert group to develop proposals for structural changes to be made that help transform our over-consumption based economies into human needs based, climate friendly and sustainable societies.

  • I would like to create a method for changing your personal lifestyle that uses the following dimensions for analysis and change plans: basic needs (and also non-basic needs), time, money, emissions. Once you analyze your own lifestyle on these dimensions you will get a clear picture of whether you spend much time pursuing (or covering) your basic needs. If you need only a small amount of time for covering basic needs (food, water, health, shelter) then you are free to change in ways that take away the obligation to earn money. A carbon footprint calculator could be used as a first step. But then, analysis should go deeper. I have to develop this in more detail so that the results of the analysis become more compelling. Graciela suggests to buy as little as possible in the supermarket and try to cover the biggest possible amount of needs without money. That sounds like a good general rule to reduce ecological impact and increase the strength of the local community.

Nobel Peace Prize

Why does the Nobel Price Committee give a price to Al Gore and IPCC for raising awareness and laying the foundation for combating climate change, when two years later they are honoring the man who is fucking it all up? (Barack Obama) It would be appropriate for the IPCC and Al Gore to give back their awards, when on December 10th the man is honored who has it in his hands to stop climate change or drive the world into climate chaos. And decides to do the second.

Personal adaptation

I am frequently thinking about how to prepare myself and my family for the crisis to come. And there are several elements where preparation can help a big deal.

  • a piece of land to produce your food
  • local, autonomous solutions for: housing, food, water, health (sanitation and medicinal plants) - this is partly about resources, but even more so about knowledge, skills and experience which accumulates slowly through practice
  • where to put money you may have
  • which country will be safe and stable politically

Ideas for the UN Process

  • Focusing on a conference such as Copenhagen is nice, but actually you need to convince important actors of your ideas BEFORE the conference! A slow but sure way would be better than hoping for and betting on one big, transformative event.
  • The race where the winner is the one who is allowed to emit more is the problem. We need to turn that around.

Peoples' Referendum

Referendum proposed by Bolivia

Proposal for voluntary cooperation

Carbon per capita system - In a first phase that may start immediately, a voluntary contribution to an Adaptation Fund is paid by those that exceed their allowance under a global cap. In a second phase equal per capita emissions rights are traded while globally maintaining the planned emissions.

Fair deal without the US

Time is running out for an important climate deal. One option could be: Let's go it without the US first. Make a binding agreement without the US, one that is fair and transparent. Second step: put pressure on the US. Let the world stand together in turning the heat up the other way: a wanna-be hegemon that kills us all does not deserve respect nor mercy. Economic, political and social pressure must bring the United States to face their responsibility: they have caused the climate crisis (together with us Europeans) and it is their duty to solve it (again, together with us Europeans in the first place and all the other nations who aren't innocent either of course in the second place). I know that it is unusual to think of unfriendly actions against the world's most powerful nation. But it could be suicidal to not consider all the options.

Two simple principles for the agreement that can be reached without the US:

  • 1. Equal per capita emission rights globally by 2020.
  • 2. A global cap and trade system which limits global emissions according to the IPCC scenario B1 (the only one that stays below 2 °C warming).

2°Celsius warming is no longer deemed "safe" by leading climate scientists. However, starting out with this scheme, adaptations of the global cap will be rather simple and the burden shared equitatively.

Boycotting freeloaders

Companies and countries who act irresponsibly in the face of the climate crisis must be singled out and a broad alliance of citizens+states should call for and implement a boycot of their products. This should be done according to transparent principles. (such as emissions more than 100% above what can be emitted without causing climate chaos - details to be figured out).


  • Citizens

In 2003 we were calling on everybody to stop buying US American products, because that would be supporting the war on Iraq. But back then the US were "only" killing a couple of thousands of Iraqis. Today with their climate policy they are about to cause millions of victims of climate change. So if we mobilize when a few thousand people are killed and one sovereign country is attacked, then we should even more do so if the whole of humankind is affected and millions of people will be killed. So let's boycot US products until their government starts to live up to its global responsibility.

  • States

I think we may need to go the first steps without the US. It is the country with highest GHG emissions per capita, one of the richest countries in the world that will of course be affected by climate change (like hurricane Katrina showed), but they are likely to be the last ones who will starve to death because of climate change. And they are one of the countries with least concern for global issues. It is a TV democracy where a guy who is somehow more likeable gets elected instead of one whose policies people agree with (Bush vs. Al Gore). To say it in clearer words: average Joe in the US gives a shit about the rest of the world, and average Joe is who the US president is catering to. In consequence, the US president is implementing a policy that gives a shit about the global issues. It is a mad system, but that's how it works. Our TV democracies are not good at solving structural long-term problems like climate change (or unemployment). This is not going to be over too soon. So we have to face it.

Global Carbon Tax

A global carbon tax on fossil fuels. Increasing every year and going into energy efficiency, forest protection, renewables and climate change adaptation.

Published by Global Policy Forum, WEED and the Heinrich Böll Foundation March 2002

Speech at COP

1. Chaos scenario 2. Agreeable scenario 3. Climate-friendly lifestyle (all available technologies) 4. Per capita approach - everybody has the right to live well (but without screwing the rest) 5. Girl - you inspired them hope, enough to disregard the past mess and take a brave step forward

  • Technical implementation: partner with
  • Presentation to convince negotiators of equal per capita rights as the way forward

With very beautiful and moving pictures

1. Show a chaos scenario. Hurricanes, floods, drought, hunger, starvation, suffering, suffering, sad people (maybe even the baby with the vulture next to it) 2. Show a family in a peaceful setting, in a house, eating, driving a car (important for US delegation) (date:2050) 3. Girls goes to school and talks with her teacher about climate change: - how things have changed quite a bit, but - thanks to working together, humanity has met the challenge and created a fairer world for all, - mentioning that the lifestyle shown is carbon neutral or in line with a very ambitious target (check with experts from Wuppertal Institute or similar to make sure it is real and available technology that is shown) - talk about how the planet could have gone bad, if back in 2009 they hadn't decided to tackle it - girl asks:"why would they want to let chaos happen?" - explain a bit in terms that make it seem like a temporarily taken stance by some (industry, rich countries/people), something you can easily change - girl asks:"so how did they come up with the courage for today's solution, when there was so powerful resistance?" - answer:"you gave them hope" (obviously the girl must be very pretty, someone to fall in love with ;)

After this film, the person will explain that everything that we have seen in the movie is real. Of course the catastrophes looming, but also the lifestyle of the family which is wealthy and super quality of life and low carbon, and the best is: it can be done with today's technology. If we innovate, we will be able to do even better than that. So, in conclusion: no single person in the world should have the right to put his lifestyle choice (high carbon vs. low carbon) over the well-being of others. We must (A) solve the problem and (B) establish that no one may cross the line, because low-carbon wealth is already a reality for some today and a possibility for everyone in the near future.

This is to make a case for contraction & convergence to be signed in Copenhagen, maybe even leaving the contraction part undefined in terms of "less than X" and the convergence part as well "earlier than the end of the century". Once everybody has signed and declared that all global citizens are equal in terms of carbon rights and we need to share a global carbon budget, civil society action will be so much more efficient in convincing people in the US and Europe to change their lifestyle and to demand drastic reductions from their leaders, in their own interest (set a lower global cap).

If we can get C&C through in Copenhagen, the rest will be so much easier. But we desperately need this first step!

Maybe the explanation part can be integrated into the movie, so when it ends with the word hope, everybody already knows what they have to do!

Ideas - Initiatives

Establishing THE standard for dealing with climate change and having all measure up against it

Taking Evo's proposal for good and taking in our own hands what our "leaders" can't get done seems like an important element. Besides, I believe that we can set a standard that governments will have to measure up against. You have already done it with Well, you haven't done it alone, many of us helped you, even I did my little bit ;) So why not do it again. This time I believe we could focus on two simple things: 1. The amount of carbon Mother Earth can swallow without throwing up, meaning a long-term carbon budget for the next decades in line with 1.5°. 2. The amount of carbon every human being can emit in line with that budget, meaning a per capita allowance that is equal for all.

There is enough science to underscore the first, and common sense underscores the second. I believe that people on the streets understand this very easily and so far I can't imagine anyone opposing these two simple principles. (But I am sure industry will get creative in order to try to smash this.) I like the logic of it, because this clearly shows if you are trying to live on the expense of poor people in other nations, or even on the expense of your own children!

As a first step, we could simply calculate these things and on an internet site show where different countries are now. Maybe also have a calculator for individual emissions, so people can evaluate themselves and change their lifestyle or pay into a Voluntary Citizen Adaptation Fund. So we basically create a new standard. The task will be to make as many people, institutions and countries support that standard. The next step will be to feed them into the negotiations.

Citizen Climate Framework

If Copenhagen fails, we urgently need to upgrade the civil society action. In order to do that we need a climate framework for the citizens' efforts. This framework could look something like this: If you choose to join, you subscribe to the principles of equal per capita emissions from the moment you join along with a personal carbon allowance in line with an emissions scenario that gets us back down to 350 ppm soon (details to be figured out). A historical element may also be included that would translate into contributions to an adaptation fund. Those joining the framework would effectively live under the rules of an effective and fair climate change agreement, thus showing that it is possible as a political act and reducing the overall amount of emissions at the same time. The more people, companies and countries join, the stronger the pressure to implement just such an agreement on a global scale.

  • possible partners: Wuppertal Institut, ASA-Klima-AG, My Climate, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung

Climate Performance Information Site

A new site is needed that brings together all the relevant information about climate/emissions-related performance of countries, cities, companies, products and individuals in an authoritative, yet ambitious way (ambitious in the sense of not being afraid to radically question the status quo). This site should measure everything against a standard of emissions that can be considered a fair share. So it would be based on a global carbon budget with steep cuts starting from 2010 and equal per capita allowances globally. This site has the following purposes:

  • mainstreaming "the standard" and thereby subconsciously establishing in the minds of people what a fair way to deal with climate change means (equal per capita emissions, low enough that it is possible for Mother Earth to handle)
  • allowing individuals, companies, cities and even countries to evaluate themselves against what would be "correct" for the climate and align their policies/lifestyle with this "correct" standard
  • allowing individuals, companies, citizens and countries to publicly commit to solving the climate crisis and having the implementation of that commitment monitored from an independent side
  • singling out those who are far away from a sensible dealing with climate issues and make them look very bad and unreasonable

I need to research all currently available methodologies for calculating carbon emissions and carbon footprints of the above mentioned entities. New methods will most likely have to be developped.

Possible partners:

  • Ecofys
  • United Nations University
  • Germanwatch
  • Atmosfair
  • World Resources Institute
  • Climate Circus already has some elements of this


  • Identify persons who carry a special responsibility. "Enemies of the climate" or "human drivers of climate change". They shall be put on a blacklist, their contribution explained and the global public should be encouraged to punish their deeds.

Luxury tax

Luxury good per definition are not necessary. They must not interfere with the climate or human wellbeing. Therefore they must be climate-neutral or pay an according tax for compensating their impact. This could become a good extension or complement to the rules and focus on basic needs (see above)

Free green technology

It is a shame that intellectual property rights are a hindrance for protecting the climate, because there is a lot of green technology which is not available to poor countries, because they can't pay for it. And under the current setup they are not allowed to simply copy it. So we need an initiative to bring together openminded owners of IPR in the "cleaner technology" sector who are willing to give up their profits for the sake of a cooler global climate. It should be made visible if someone belongs to this coalition and even if they are not earning any money with it it may serve there good image.

Who would be the person/group/institution to start building such a coalition? Greenpeace, WWF, the UN and the companies in the Global Compact,.....???

Global Strike

My suggestions to

  • The strategically most important task as I see it is to Frame the National Climate Discussion in the US. With 20+tons per capita emissions, the US is the country that will have to change the most with an effective climate change agreement. Therefore it is unavoidable to prepare the US population for that task. First mentally, then physically. There is no way around that. In order to get that done, and its partners must succeed in the next few months in framing the public discussion. It must be clear to every single US citizen that 2 tons carbon is what he may burn, unless the planet shall drift into chaos. We need to look for powerful partners for getting that message across. I was thinking of National Geographic (but haven't found any contact there yet). An alliance of concerned journalists could be another way. But many more must be found. I guess it must be a great Campaign of Public Education.
  • For framing the discussion and keeping it on track, I recommend the study of the book "Propaganda and Public Opinion" by Leonard W. Doob. It helps to A) understand what the oil industry and others are doing B) developing counter-strategies for disinformation and C) developing effective communication strategies while being conscious about where to draw the line of ethical practice. The crap about Weapons of Mass Destruction and Iraq-Al Qaida links worked on the American people, even though it were pure lies. I don't see why a Well-Conceived Strategy to make the sad reality about climate change and the available solutions known should not work! It should be so well done that after signing an agreement at COP16, no congressman or senator will want to open his f...[censored] mouth to criticize! It must be seen as completely stupid and deeply un-patriotic to let the country and the world drift into climate chaos.
  • A possible frame I can think of is to make clear that climate change is determined by the Size of the Carbon Budget (per capita). We have to figure out how big a possiblility of melting of the Greenland Ice, dieback of the Amazon and other Concrete Problems we want to accept in exchange for continuing to drive cars, eat food from overseas, go on vacation far away etc.
  • It must be made clear - especially to US citizens, but also in Europe - that International Negotiations should be mainly about Exceptions from the Per Capita Rule. That everybody has the same right to use the atmosphere is not something that really needs to be negotiated. What needs to be negotiated is whether anybody should be allowed to use it more or less than others for some particular reason. The only obvious exception would be that industrialized countries would be allowed to use it less, because they have already overused it. The talk about Reduction Commitments Is Bullshit, we will never solve the climate crisis by fussing about who will reduce how much from totally unequal starting level. It simply doesn't make sense. Reductions are simple math elementary school kids can do once we are clear about what the global budget is.
  • You at should seek to Be In Touch With Negotiators from OASIS, Europe, etc. If we can coordinate activities between what is being talked about and proposed inside the conference with demonstrations and massive action on the streets around the world, I believe that we will be able to increase our impact.
  • As for analysis to be performed, we need to Find Out Why the Budget Approach is not in the Limelight yet. Maybe somebody of you knows and can explain it to me? (I would appreciate that) The barriers must be targeted and gotten out of the way. Else, we shall fail again.
  • One (repetitive) action could be Wake Up Calls (first, second, third, fourth, etc.). Because actually, it is not about creating something new, or committing to something extraordinary. It is simply waking up to the fact that today's lifestyle in the US (and this could be done in any country that emits more than 2 t per capita) is boiling the planet.
  • For getting the US population behind the climate agreement to be taken, it is essential to Mainstream Solutions for climate-friendly living. It must be clear to everyone, that a decent, humane, even wealthy lifestyle can (easily) be achieved without boiling the planet. This is not clear to anyone today, as far as I can see. The details of such a Climate Friendly Lifestyle must be explored and made common knowledge.
  • What has to be done in the US is to Open up Space for Obama. On the one hand he should feel pressure from us and internationally to say yes to a real solution. On the other hand, he needs to feel free to do so without harming (m)any interests that seem crucial to him for X reasons. Each of those "crucial" reasons must be well known to us. And for each of them we need a counter-strategy that should be deeper than just words or arguments that speak against it. I believe that the motto "Know Your Enemy" applies and we should know him from the outset and should work during the whole year (and beyond, if necessary) to weaken those "enemy reasons" step by step to open up political space.
  • A key to getting to an agreement that the US can be part of lies in Analyzing Kyoto. If you can figure out what went wrong there, we can work towards making sure that this time the US won't jump off the train again.

Possible activities with the Mexican Presidency of COP16

100 Miles of Mirrors

Mr. Green

Tradable Energy Quotas

  • TEQs are a framework for sharing the burden of a reduction target fairly within a country.

Beef down!

Beef consumption is a climate killer. (check page 9 in this Foodwatch report) Cows produce methane and cattle ranching is one of the big drivers of deforestation in the tropics. We must change that and reduce beef-eating. The good thing about it: eating less beef is not bad for people, it is actually good for your health!

So we need domestic policy measures for reducing cattle "production" and beef consumption. NGOs can also get active by spreading this information.


McKinsey has looked at mitigation of climate change from a financial point of view, identifying possible mitigation actions, calculating their cost (often negative, that means you can actually earn money by implementing them) and drawing their famous cost curves.

I suggest to take this work much further in two directions.

  • For governments: Repeat this "Mitigation & Finance Win-win Analysis" in other sectors. Possible candidates are Win-win Analyses for Mitigation & Health, Mitigation & Water, Mitigation & Public Security (Crime Prevention), Social Security, Education, National Security, Water, Social Networks, Employment, Tourism, Democracy/Participation, Good Governance, Economic Stability, Contamination,....
  • For think-tanks: Amplify this analysis by adding a further dimension: quality of life. Introducing this dimension will help to identify measures that improve quality of life while reducing GHG emissions. Those should be prioritized. They also help break the equation "conventional (fossil) development = money = high emissions". This equation still applies everywhere in the world and we need orientation beyond money in order to steer clear of climate chaos. Quality of life may be the compass that we can follow to steer our societies to a low-carbon future.

Existing solutions

We need to create new mechanisms that in itself lead to ever decreasing emissions. Some ways already exist. What other ideas of mechanisms do you have that can become "self-runners" and reduce emissions more and more all the time?

Cap and Dividend

In British Columbia, Canada.

Top runner approach

A top runner approach to all kinds of products. (A top runner is the most efficient product of its category. Its efficiency becomes the new standard after a few years.) This can be used in a pure (below-standard products are forbidden) or hybrid (below-standard products pay additional taxes, depending on how far from the standard they are) form.

Carbon labeling

Mandatory carbon labeling. Every product needs to go with a label that shows its carbon footprint. This is even more important than nutritional information (in the long term). Sweden has recently made progress and in the UK it is already implemented in some supermarkets.

Food sovereignty

  • Why we left our farms to come to Copenhagen: proposal by Via Campesina to cut GHG emissions by half (!) by transforming the food production system.
  • Homegrown food is on the one hand a mitigation and on the other hand an adaptation strategy! It makes you less vulnerable to the perils of industrialized agriculture in times of climate change, gives you food security. On the other hand it reduces (fossil) energy input and transport and brings down the carbon backpack of your food. Using your compost for that brings additional benefits.


This captures carbon and stores it in the ground while enhancing soil fertility. When done on a small but widespread scale it can help reduce carbon in the atmosphere while contributing to feeding a growing population. The industrialized approach to biochar seems rather dangerous for people and nature from what we can see so far.

Buy and retire carbon credits

Obviously this will help the planet much more once a global carbon cap is in place! But once we have that, there is a real opportunity for Bill Gates or somebody like that to turn himself into the climate saviour by using his billions to stabilize the climate by simply buying up emission allowances and retiring them!

Potential partners for Progressive Action

Action networks




New Zealand

  • Climaction Climaction is a radical environmental Climate Change coalition in New Zealand. Formed in October 2006 at a broad meeting in Auckland City's Methodist Mission, it advocates "System Change Not Climate Change", citing the need for the ecological movement to move "Beyond Kyoto" and reduce greenhouse gases by 90% within the next twenty years.



  • Alliance for Climate Protection The Alliance for Climate Protection was founded in 2006 by Al Gore, Nobel Laureate and former Vice President of the United States. With more than 2,000,000 members worldwide, the Alliance is a unique non-profit, non-partisan organization that is committed to educating the global community about the urgency of implementing comprehensive solutions to the climate crisis.

Calendar 2010

Kjell's work plan

  • Blog&Mailinglist&Facebook-Entries: Beef down, Climate Positive Movement, Supply-side Mitigation, Regenwald-Blog-Hinweis, 350-10/10-Aktion, Klimaverhandlungs-Update, 2tons is what Mama Earth can handle - easy story,


  • International Court of Climate Justice - Was celebrated in October in the eastern Bolivian city of Cochabamba by NGOs from all over the world. Seven cases, claiming environmental harm contributing to climate change, were presented by Latin American communities and civil society organisations. A people's tribunal independent of formal justice systems, the aim of the Court is to pass ethical and moral judgment on transnational corporations and complicit states in order to raise the visibility of environmental crimes and the changes needed to coexist in balance with nature.
  • Dave from UK
  • National Geographic researchen und kontaktieren (2t und climate-friendly lifestyles)
  • Systemanalyse: Szenarien

We face a great challenge. How to convince the public and the governments in rich fossil-fuel dependent countries to commit to something they don't imagine right now. In order to do this, we need to be very smart and effective. We cannot waste our time and efforts on actions that will not work towards this goal. In order to be so effective, we need good analysis first. A systemic analysis of the climate negotiations environment can help to identify

experts: Dirk Messner WBGU Jörg Haas Ex-Böll Bill McKibben Kathrin Gutmann, Kim Carstensen WWF Ditas Muller, Walden Bello Philippines Stanislaus Di-Aping Sudan Ian Fry Tuvalu Christoph Bals Germanwatch Niklas Höhne Ecofys Dominic Stucker

  • Ideen für Arbeit/Aktionen meinerseits: die 5 wichtigsten Personen in den wichtigsten Ländern interviewen zu kurz- und langfristigen Themen, die die Position und mögliche Zugeständnisse bestimmen - als jemand der nur lernt und dem Vorsitzenden hilft, seine Pappenheimer zu verstehen; die wichtigsten Klimaschutz-Gegner interviewen; Tudela&Co. den Rücken freihalten; News-Digest machen


Agenda 21 says that youth and children have a right to participate in ALL political decisions that affect them. So far we haven't really seen that (some examples and principles of youth participation).

Bitte anschreiben:


  • Norwegian government - who's in charge of UNFCCC youth participation?
  • UNFCCC-Sekretariat (Kontaktperson für NGOs, früher Barbara Black)
  • China Youth Climate Action Network (just now new page went online)


  • Zupis
  • Carolin
  • COY-Organizer
  • Selene
  • Dominic
  • Focal points YOUNGO: Mr. Sébastien Duyck, 60 Route de Geneve, 17, 69140 Rillieux, France, Tel: +31 633686623, E-mail:

AND Mr. Rishikesh Ram Bhandary, Ram Kuti No. 4, Kamaladi Ganesh, Kathmandu, Nepal, Tel: +977 1 4242021 Tel: +977 0 9808130254, E-mail:



Meta level

  • Youth participation is a common challenge for many policy processes.
  • Enabling youth participation should not be considered as an act of goodwill, but rather a right that young people have (as recognized in various international conventions).
  • The young generation's interests tend to get marginalized in national political processes and that bias should be counterbalanced on the international level especially since youth have a special stake in the issue of climate change and need to be engaged and empowered.
  • The voice of youth is a necessary part of climate change negotiations because it reminds government officials who get too much into their positions and negotiation strategies of the real world out there.
  • Effective youth participation is a hallmark of good governance as defined by UNDP in 1997 (Core Characteristics: Participation, Rule of Law, Transparency, Responsiveness, Consensus Orientation, Equity, Effectiveness and Efficiency, Accountability and Strategic Vision) - if we strive for good governance in the UNFCCC, we must give youth participation a more prominent role, but also inclusion of civil society in general.
  • Where the split between adults and youth is too broad, young people's participation becomes less productive: more events based advocacy and very visible actions but less policy work.
  • Mexican government could pledge to promote the active inclusion of civil society members at COP16, especially youth and indigenous people.
  • Mexico could pioneer and set standards (the “Cancun Standards” or “Mexico Standards”) others would then have to measure up against. (e.g. min 1 youth + 1 child participates in every group, children get a space for their daily press conference, min 1 child + 1 youth is allowed to speak during the high-level segment, the presidency allows youth and children delegates to ask for the floor on their behalf,.....)
  • Mexican Government has the COP Presidency up to COP 17 and needs to maintain a sustained dialogue with civil society and other governments, academia etc. Through discussions, meetings, communicating developments either in Mexico itself or through Mexican embassies around the world.
  • Division of work between children and youth: children adress emotions and long-term priorities (e.g. climate justice), at occasions also concrete points from the negotiations, youth do more work on the current topics of negotiations and address them.
  • Develop intrinsic motivation in our leaders on a daily basis: talk to them personally and in a friendly way, take action locally and make sure they know about it, get them involved in activities, make them feel part of the solution if they don’t manage to take initiative themselves. If the community shows support to the actions, the policymakers will support them as well, because they want to keep the voters on their side.
  • Synergies in participation activities (e.g. with the topics of MDGs and Sustainable Development, advocacy and education/capacity building) must be used, because no single strategy guarantees success but they mutually reinforce each other.
  • More youth representatives from Parties, NGOs, UN Agencies etc. are needed.
  • Implementation of Article 6 of the Convention on 'Education, Training and Public Awareness' is needed before, during, and after the COP.
  • Make this list available to everybody and use it for future events.

Participation Process

  • Enable good preparation of youth delegates in terms of content (e.g. like in CSD Youth Caucus).
  • Motivation and empowerment is a very important dimension of participation activities, many of the participants of past events are active today.
  • Selection process of delegates is a critical point, since we want to foster cooperation not competition.
  • A condition for becoming a youth delegate could be that he/she has a participation and outreach strategy.
  • Reducing youth participation to a selected elite is an obstacle we should aim to remove.
  • Look for ways to have broad masses of kids/youth join participation activities/processes.
  • Virtual engagement through a dedicated website opens the door to a broader participation of young people.
  • Unite for Climate at UNICEF offered to provide their internet space for the youth participating in COP16.
  • Earth Child Institute would like to cooperate. They have experience with children participation at COP15, UNICEF's Children's World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006, and International Children's Climate Change Conference in Brasilia in 2010.
  • Participation or youth engagement should be a continuous process, not one that starts and stops around the event.
  • Government should provide money for some of the actions.
  • Approve a special budget for COP related youth participation activities, form a steering committee including youth representatives for exercising the budget.
  • Help youth organizations to raise funds to grow our movement, recognizing that many of us are struggling to do this on very little money, especially considering youth from the Global South (e.g. as the Netherlands' government last year).

Official Programme/Procedure

  • Participation is fairer and works better when young people are actually part of the negotiations in the same quality as adults. This may be difficult, but has always proven more effective than having two separated events, where the youth's voices are expressed only through a declaration.
  • Often civil society makes statements during the final moments of a plenary or to an almost empty room. It would be more meaningful if civil society could actually engage in a dialogue with governments during key parts of the negotiating process. This may make more sense during intersessionals or in initial phases of negotiations but the CSD major group model could be an effective example.
  • Recognize youth as full participants in the negotiations and not spectators or booth exhibitors or side events holders.
  • Why people younger than 18 years old can’t attend COP16 and have a say there? (Is there such a rule?)
  • Yvo's four worlds scheme should apply to all equally, i.e. government delegations, IGOs and NGOs.
  • Ensure youth have full access to the negotiations and plenaries throughout the two weeks, ensure civil society presence is not restricted at COP16 (bad example: Copenhagen, good example: Bali), because United Nations were established for humankind and social welfare purposes and governments' accountability and transparency in the process for all citizens of the world needs to be assured.
  • Make sure most meetings are public and supporting information such as negotiating texts are easily and freely available.
  • Ensure that YOUNGO receives funding equal to or more than for COP15.
  • Include youth/indigenous members in Mexico's delegation.
  • Encourage national delegations to include youth delegates and to work with their youth constituency.
  • Ask country delegations to “adopt” youth (similar to Ditas Muller's adoption by Sudan) and allow them to speak on their behalf. - Candidates: Maldives, Tuvalu, Nauru,...Mexico?
  • Give youth a simple, but potentially very influential opportunity: proposing the agenda of the meeting. Not dictating, only proposing. Delegates will decide whether to follow the proposal or not. Youth's moral authority may come to bear and change the course of the negotiations.
  • Allow for a speech by several children at the high-level plenary.
  • Include “Plant for the planet” on Forest Day.
  • Make sure another Young & Future Generations Day is held.

Around the Conference

  • Use youth for an independent feedback to measure progress that is not distorted by special interests.
  • Youth could work out a declaration of principles or a similar document and invite presidents and ministers to sign it and voluntarily commit themselves to these principles.
  • Children could translate for TV what has happened at the conference every day.
  • Create a feedback loop Negotiations – Translators – Children – Press – Negotiations, e.g. through daily children's press conferences and briefing of the children by NGO or other “translators”.
  • Arrange meetings between youth delegations and formal delegations.
  • Provide special logistics support to YOUNGO (meeting rooms, SMS information service).
  • Presidents and ministers plant trees together with children from Plant for the planet e.g. in a lunch break.
  • Ministerial lunch with youth delegates (such as at COP14).
  • Briefings with youth (such as at COP15).
  • Joint Press Conferences - Youth, Indigenous, UNFCCC Secretariat, Barack Obama, Hu Jintao.
  • Establish a live remote global intergenerational dialogue where a larger number of kids can go into studios in their countries to participate (without need to fly all over the world) through web-cast facilities which the World Bank and other donors such as JICA have in most developing countries.
  • Create a blog for youth and children like the Climate Champions Blog by the British Council in 2009
  • Use the international network of youth climate groups for informing people outside of the negotiations about what is being negotiated.

Additional Activities

  • Organize a preparatory conference for youth (e.g. as the conference in Sweden before the Johannesburg Summit).
  • Hold a Children’s Climate Forum (as in 2009 which was a great success) either before or during COP16.
  • Write a booklet that explains the process in accessible terms together with youth organizations.
  • Call upon youth and student organizations to organize activities (workshops, conferences etc.) about the topic.
  • Hold contests to collect perspectives and ideas.
  • Do preparation workshops for the event.
  • Strengthen the capacity of youth in terms of the issues discussed in UNFCCC through a series of workshops and seminars in specific areas of youth concern.
  • Youth could debate.


  • Address the whole youth community by going directly through schools.
  • Connect participation with awareness raising activities (workshops, seminars, model conferences....).
  • Organize fora in different communities.
  • Information dissemination campaign targeting youth.
  • Promote information about the event in universities.
  • Use Facebook to spread the word.
  • Create a network with kids all around the world, create channels of communication so that kids can react to what happens in the negotiations and demonstrate in front of embassies and governments. (maybe rather for NGO channels)
  • Couple these initiatives with offline networks.
  • Help to get youth actively engaged in events that are happening anyway now organized by government, academia, civil society etc. Invite them to all kinds of public discussions, working groups etc. so they will understand more and more and can get involved in the current issues.

Groups & Initiatives




COP15 Media Initiatives

Official COP15 Media Feeds

Media Portals on COP15

Possible partners:

COP15 News Hubs

Similar initiatives


Climate Positive Movement

Personal tools

דומיין בעברית  דומיין  דומין  תוכנה לניהול  קשרי לקוחות  CRM, ניהול קשרי לקוחות  דומין בעברית  פורומים  ספרדית  גיבוי