From a bottom-up view on this process, there are two other phenomena I witnessed in Copenhagen that I think are worth reflecting on: Business and civil society. Both have in common that they give hope for more ambitious climate policy in the future. At the same time, both are manifestly different in nature.

Business was omnipresent at and around the COP. Whether at side events, the “fair” with stands in the Bella Center, at hotels and other venues in all over the city or in my research interviews with energy industry representatives its message was clear. Time and again, I heard: “Business is ready. The shift towards the low carbon economy depends on the political process that is lagging behind. All we need a political framework, the level playing field.”
To me, climate friendly business represents a significant pull factor for the political process(es) to deliver. Putting the massive lobbying efforts from these sectors into historical perspective, one sees that back in Kyoto for example there was virtually no business presence. Looking into the future one can easily expect even more push coming from this direction as clean technology sectors expand and, and in so doing, will further pressure policy. Concerning renewable energies – whose impact on climate change policy I am researching for my thesis – this is already evident. While all over the city there were large advertisements for renewables (“The time is now”), inside the conference center presentations were held on scientific scenarios for large shares of renewables in the medium term – the ‘only’ thing needed: policy that induces demand for green goods and services. This could lead to enormous profits.

Civil society – in whatever form one chooses to imagine it – had a huge presence as well. The main venue was KlimaForum (“The People’s Summit”) downtown where discussions, presentations and networking took place. What I saw there seemed like a different universe compared to the elegant business events in hotels and the Bella Center. There one could find people dealing with climate change from all imaginable angles, from the global North just as much as from the South. There were indigenous peoples that were concerned about the impacts of REDD, environmental NGO activists, environmental columnists… Also many groups see Copenhagen as a continuation of the meetings of a justice movement that began 1999 in Seattle.
One particularly impressive civil society event was a climate candle vigil that took place shortly before the end of the conference. We, the participants each held a candle in our hands that represented 10,000 signatures of the largest climate petition ever – ca. 14 million had signed. As it was clear that COP outcome of the COP was going to be disappointing, speakers sought to gave inspiration and hope to the attendees. This is “the first truly North-South global justice movement in history”, it is “just the beginning” of a long fight. It seems evident that the civil society that converged in Copenhagen from all over the globe will return to their local bases as part of a stronger and closer-knit global network and will in one way or another influence domestic action and politics.

From a global governance view, business and civil society, albeit very different, are both mounting pressures groups for climate policies. Yet, many civil society organizations can be described as globalization critics, opposing market solutions, which they argue benefit only a few and don’t really solve problems. For a more ambitious climate policy, it would be desirable that both groups cooperate to create synergies for real climate action instead of counteracting it. A positive sum game where one side would not be opposing effective policies only because markets are involved, and where the other one would not be advocating policies that are profitable to them unless they are effective in fighting climate change too. In any case, the two broad groups will definitely play a role in whatever comes after Copenhagen.

Labels: Business, Civil Society, Climate Change, COP 15, green economy, Renewable Energies

The tag word for my experience at COP15 is: unexpected. From the moment our group arrived we were confronted with surprises: no registration for already accredited participants that Monday afternoon (of the second week), day-long waiting in freezing temperatures the next day, virtually no non-governmentals allowed inside for the rest of the week… and beyond this subjective dimension the unexpectedly low-ambition outcome of the COP. Although after the November APEC meeting in Singapore it became clear that a legally binding agreement was out of reach, many had believed in a more significant result. The near-record number of heads of state present had also supported hopes. However, the Copenhagen Accord was to fall abysmally short of what climate science demands.

Judging from my first hand experience, the disastrous organization and the more than disappointing outcome have one thing in common: overload. Waiting outside the Bella Congress Center with thousands of other people of the most diverse climate related backgrounds as well as seeing the Danish capital flooded with climate experts from all over the world gave me a sense of the vast scope. With 45,000 officially accredited persons (plus thousands of non-accredited ones) in Copenhagen and a conference center that could accommodate only 15,000, the conference organization had failed. This huge number of participants is a direct consequence of the overburdened and badly organized agenda: Emission reduction targets, development, financial assistance, R&D & innovation, technology transfer, intellectual property rights, economic transformation, trade, REDD…

What became clear to me at the COP is that the current global climate change governance process is far from sufficiently mature to be capable of producing acceptable outcomes. The question that I took home from the Copenhagen chaos is how to redesign the process to effectively address each one of all these interlinked issues.

Labels: Climate Change, COP 15