COPvoices

The Audacity of Nope

2009-12-19T15:41:00.001+11:00

By the time Barack Obama arrived in Copenhagen, expectations for a binding or significant agreement were tracking on the downside of hope. After Obama's lacklustre speech, which contributed little to the success of the talks, many were left wondering why he bothered.

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

After two years of lead -up work, two weeks of intense 192-way wrangling, and the presence of 115 world leaders, the best that Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao could come up with was a 'political agreement' that offers little progress, and in some areas a regression on previous agreements. The 'Copenhagen Accord', negotiated jointly with South Africa, India and Brazil, has infuriated developing nations. After weeks of intense negotiating, they have been effectively reduced to spectators, and have had their pleas for strong action ignored.

It is unclear whether binding agreements on rich nations will be included in the Accord. All references to a 1.5 degree temperature rise limit were removed at the last minute, and the goal of an 80 percent global emissions reduction by 2050 was also dropped. Mitigation and adaptation funding for developing nations was agreed at around 10- 25 percent of that demanded by some African nations, though the funding is in accord with the pragmatic and heavily criticised plan developed by Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi. The accord also includes agreements on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, though with REDD the devil will well and truly be in the the detail.

The accord appears unlikely to be endorsed by the summit. A number of nations, including Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and several African nations, have indicated they will not support it. At 2pm Australian time (2am Copenhagen) a rousing speech by Tuvaluan representatives indicating they would not support the accord was roundly endorsed by developing nations who felt they had not been consulted, and it appeared the talks were headed for a complete collapse.The talks, which had continued through the night, were still ongoing, however, at the time of writing (5:30am Copenhagen time).

Some leaders blamed each other. Others talked up the outcome. And others were flattened by the gravity of the failure in Copenhagen.

Earlier, after the Accord's announcement, the G77's Lumumba Di-Aping was scathing. "This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states,”he said. “It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action."

"It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever'" Di-Aping said."Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."

Evo Morales, along with many others, blamed the countries who negotiated the Accord."The meeting has failed. It's unfortunate for the planet. The fault is with the lack of political will by a small group of countries led by the US," he said.

Kevin Rudd was understandably positive regarding the non-deal, which followed the ALP climate policy model - high on rhetoric,low on action.“We have achieved genuine progress and a genuine step forward,” he said.“This is the first time ever developed and developing nations have committed to a two degree Celsius rise.”

Greens senator Christine Milne disagreed with Prime Minister Rudd, providing a clear and sobering summation of the talks, calling the accord “superficial last-minute statement … with no substantive progress made on any of the critical issues”.

The prospect of Copenhagen producing nothing but a 'superficial last minute statement' was thrown into sharp relief by the words of Tuvaluan PM Apisai Ielemia, telling world leaders to cut their emissions so it can continue to exist as a nation.“We have nowhere to run to because our islands are tiny, we just have to prepare ourselves individually, family wise so that they know what to do when a cyclone comes in or a hurricane blows because there is nothing else we can do," Ielemia said." There is no mountain we can climb up, there is no other inland where we can run to like in your big countries.”By the time Barack Obama arrived in Copenhagen, expectations for a binding or significant agreement were tracking on the downside of hope. After Obama's lacklustre speech, which contributed little to the success of the talks, many were left wondering why he bothered.

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

After two years of lead -up work, two weeks of intense 192-way wrangling, and the presence of 115 world leaders, the best that Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao could come up with was a 'political agreement' that offers little progress, and in some areas a regression on previous agreements. The 'Copenhagen Accord', negotiated jointly with South Africa, India and Brazil, has infuriated developing nations. After weeks of intense negotiating, they have been effectively reduced to spectators, and have had their pleas for strong action ignored.

It is unclear whether binding agreements on rich nations will be included in the Accord. All references to a 1.5 degree temperature rise limit were removed at the last minute, and the goal of an 80 percent global emissions reduction by 2050 was also dropped. Mitigation and adaptation funding for developing nations was agreed at around 10- 25 percent of that demanded by some African nations, though the funding is in accord with the pragmatic and heavily criticised plan developed by Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi. The accord also includes agreements on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, though with REDD the devil will well and truly be in the the detail.

The accord appears unlikely to be endorsed by the summit. A number of nations, including Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and several African nations, have indicated they will not support it. At 2pm Australian time (2am Copenhagen) a rousing speech by Tuvaluan representatives indicating they would not support the accord was roundly endorsed by developing nations who felt they had not been consulted, and it appeared the talks were headed for a complete collapse.The talks, which had continued through the night, were still ongoing, however, at the time of writing (5:30am Copenhagen time).

Some leaders blamed each other. Others talked up the outcome. And others were flattened by the gravity of the failure in Copenhagen.

Earlier, after the Accord's announcement, the G77's Lumumba Di-Aping was scathing. "This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states,”he said. “It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action."

"It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever'" Di-Aping said."Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."

Evo Morales, along with many others, blamed the countries who negotiated the Accord."The meeting has failed. It's unfortunate for the planet. The fault is with the lack of political will by a small group of countries led by the US," he said.

Kevin Rudd was understandably positive regarding the non-deal, which followed the ALP climate policy model - high on rhetoric,low on action.“We have achieved genuine progress and a genuine step forward,” he said.“This is the first time ever developed and developing nations have committed to a two degree Celsius rise.”

Greens senator Christine Milne disagreed with Prime Minister Rudd, providing a clear and sobering summation of the talks, calling the accord “superficial last-minute statement … with no substantive progress made on any of the critical issues”.

The prospect of Copenhagen producing nothing but a 'superficial last minute statement' was thrown into sharp relief by the words of Tuvaluan PM Apisai Ielemia, telling world leaders to cut their emissions so it can continue to exist as a nation.“We have nowhere to run to because our islands are tiny, we just have to prepare ourselves individually, family wise so that they know what to do when a cyclone comes in or a hurricane blows because there is nothing else we can do," Ielemia said." There is no mountain we can climb up, there is no other inland where we can run to like in your big countries.”By the time Barack Obama arrived in Copenhagen, expectations for a binding or significant agreement were tracking on the downside of hope. After Obama's lacklustre speech, which contributed little to the success of the talks, many were left wondering why he bothered.

Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, described Obama’s speech as “ridiculous” and the US’s initial offer of a $10bn fund for poor countries in the draft text as “a joke”.

After two years of lead -up work, two weeks of intense 192-way wrangling, and the presence of 115 world leaders, the best that Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao could come up with was a 'political agreement' that offers little progress, and in some areas a regression on previous agreements. The 'Copenhagen Accord', negotiated jointly with South Africa, India and Brazil, has infuriated developing nations. After weeks of intense negotiating, they have been effectively reduced to spectators, and have had their pleas for strong action ignored.

It is unclear whether binding agreements on rich nations will be included in the Accord. All references to a 1.5 degree temperature rise limit were removed at the last minute, and the goal of an 80 percent global emissions reduction by 2050 was also dropped. Mitigation and adaptation funding for developing nations was agreed at around 10- 25 percent of that demanded by some African nations, though the funding is in accord with the pragmatic and heavily criticised plan developed by Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi. The accord also includes agreements on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, though with REDD the devil will well and truly be in the the detail.

The accord appears unlikely to be endorsed by the summit. A number of nations, including Tuvalu, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and several African nations, have indicated they will not support it. At 2pm Australian time (2am Copenhagen) a rousing speech by Tuvaluan representatives indicating they would not support the accord was roundly endorsed by developing nations who felt they had not been consulted, and it appeared the talks were headed for a complete collapse.The talks, which had continued through the night, were still ongoing, however, at the time of writing (5:30am Copenhagen time).

Some leaders blamed each other. Others talked up the outcome. And others were flattened by the gravity of the failure in Copenhagen.

Earlier, after the Accord's announcement, the G77's Lumumba Di-Aping was scathing. "This deal will definitely result in massive devastation in Africa and small island states,”he said. “It has the lowest level of ambition you can imagine. It's nothing short of climate change scepticism in action."

"It locks countries into a cycle of poverty for ever'" Di-Aping said."Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush."

Evo Morales, along with many others, blamed the countries who negotiated the Accord."The meeting has failed. It's unfortunate for the planet. The fault is with the lack of political will by a small group of countries led by the US," he said.

Kevin Rudd was understandably positive regarding the non-deal, which followed the ALP climate policy model - high on rhetoric,low on action.“We have achieved genuine progress and a genuine step forward,” he said.“This is the first time ever developed and developing nations have committed to a two degree Celsius rise.”

Greens senator Christine Milne disagreed with Prime Minister Rudd, providing a clear and sobering summation of the talks, calling the accord “superficial last-minute statement … with no substantive progress made on any of the critical issues”.

The prospect of Copenhagen producing nothing but a 'superficial last minute statement' was thrown into sharp relief by the words of Tuvaluan PM Apisai Ielemia, telling world leaders to cut their emissions so it can continue to exist as a nation.“We have nowhere to run to because our islands are tiny, we just have to prepare ourselves individually, family wise so that they know what to do when a cyclone comes in or a hurricane blows because there is nothing else we can do," Ielemia said." There is no mountain we can climb up, there is no other inland where we can run to like in your big countries.”

Sarkozy: "Let's stop posturing - A failure in Copenhagen would be a catastrophe for each and every one of us.”

2009-12-18T13:19:00.009+11:00

Gordon and Nicolas in happier times

A confidential UN analysis leaked to The Guardian has put the lie to claims from nations such as Australia that they are committed to capping global temperature rises at two degrees. The report assesses the current emission reductions on the table at Copenhagen as leading to a three degree global average rise.

Climate campaigners seized on the report, with 350.org founder Bill Mckibben saying: "In one sense this is no secret – we've been saying it for months. But it is powerful to have the UN confirming its own insincerity."

In negotiations, the G77+China have successfully forced rich nations to continue the Kyoto track, after chair Denmark and other rich nations wasted a day and half unsuccessfully attempting a submission hold on the developing world. Rich nations hoped to force the abandonment of Kyoto, which sees only them with mandated emissions reduction targets, in favour of the ‘Danish’ text which enforces across-the-globe cuts, albeit with higher per capita emissions allowances for rich nations.

The Australian blamed the developing world bloc for almost sinking the talks with their rejection of the Danish text, with Copenhagen correspondent Lenore Taylor leading with “ BLOCKING tactics by China and the developing world have brought the Copenhagen climate talks to the brink of collapse, leaving more than 140 world leaders facing the prospect of achieving only a weak political statement.” The Oz missed the all important context of this debate - that is, the universal uproar that greeted the parachuting in of the new Danish text the previous day, and the clear warnings on day two of the talks that developing nations would not accept such a text.

With the continuance of the two track talks confirmed, some developing nation representatives where aiming with getting on with the job. Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said:"We have lost a day and a half. I don't want to point fingers. We must get talks back on a substantive track by the time the world leaders meet tomorrow."

Others expressed the fears of the most vulnerable nations. Maldives President Mohammed Nasheed said: "We will not have a draft. There is no draft. We are facing a situation where it is possible that nothing comes out of [Copenhagen] unless the heads of state decide to come up with it themselves."

"I am very nervous and very disappointed. During the course of the past two years, negotiators were supposed to have come up with a document for us to see and consider tomorrow, but they have failed," Nasheed said.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was similarly blunt. "There is less than 24 hours. If we carry on like this, it will be a failure," Sarkozy said. "Time is against us, let's stop posturing.... A failure in Copenhagen would be a catastrophe for each and every one of us.”

Further difficulties may arise as Tuvalu, and other n ations, doggedly pursue a 1.5 degree deal. "Over the last few days we have faced considerable pressure to accept a deal based around 2C. We have not yielded to this pressure because our future is not negotiable.I will not sign anything that is not 1.5C," said Tuvaluan PM Amisa Elamia.

Unlike Tuvalu, however, some nations have not been able to resist pressure from major aid donors. A Mauritanian negotiator quoted in The Guardi an revealed that “the Europeans have broken the African solidarity. There is enormous pressure on the heads of state of Africa. They are very weak – especially in financial terms. Any African country that depends on French or British aid will not be able to raise its voice to object."

Some positive steps have been made in the negotiations, however, with Hillary Clinton’s backing of African Union negotiator Meles Zenawi’s US$100b developing nation fund seen as significant. China and Indonesia’s moves towards allowing independent verification of their emissions reduction efforts were also viewed as constructive, with China’s resistance to this a key sticking point with the US.

Gordon :"You know whats funny? We haven't slept for three days. And it's all Denmark's fault."

Hillary: "At least we're not in Gitmo Junior."

A surprisingly sanguine Gordon Brown expressed hope that a funding agreement could be agreed by world leaders tomorrow, and reported that Chinese 2IC Wen Jiabao had raised the possibility with him of China working towards an emissions ‘peak’ - a significant departure from China’s current offer of reducing carbon intensity (CO2 emitted per GDP unit). Brown also told reporters that he and Mexican President Felipe Calderon had discussed moving forward the next major UN climate meeting in Mexico from December to July.

Reports also emerged of Danish police using wire taps, pre-emptive arrests, summary beatings, widespread undercover operations, and the pepper-spraying people in cages in a detention centre that police are calling “Guantanamo junior”. The Danish justice minister was quoted as saying “The aim of the law was to prevent violent demonstrators from setting the town on fire, attacking the police and ordinary citizens and from making extensive vandalism. And the law has worked. The police have ... thanks to their new powers done a really good job and prevented extensive unrest. I can tell the people appreciate this."

In local politics, the Coalition backed themselve s even f urther into their own corner, with Warren Truss pouring scorn on the Ethiopian plan to raise revenue on aviation and shipping freight levies, and Barnaby Joyce causing problems for Tony Abbot’s ‘direct action’ emissions reduction ‘plan’ by calling for compensation or an end to controls on land clearing.

There was once again no sceptics quoted in the examined outlets. There was a slight increase in the number of developing country voices quoted over the other days examined, however this was not hugely significant. The graphs below show the respective figures overall (graph 1) and per outlet (graph 2). Once again the Guardian was far and away the outlet with the largest number of quoted sources.

Tuvalu Squeezes Life From Titanic Metaphor, Rudd squeezes Tuvalu

2009-12-17T14:46:00.005+11:00

A tired Ed Miliband tries the oldest trick in the book to distract attention for the looming disaster at Copenhagen- "Hey, did I just see Tiger Woods and Connie Hedeggard go into that negotiating room?"

The talks in Copenhagen are tracking way behind schedule. UK climate secretary Ed Miliband warned that they could descend into a bureaucratic “farce”, saying "people will be rightly furious if agreement is not possible."

The two track approach is appearing increasingly mangled and unwieldy. Developing nations are seeking an extension of the Kyoto Protocol and rich nations a new agreement which enforces binding and verifiable cuts on developing nations.

Wednesday saw the new Danish chair, Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, drop a new draft text from the sky. The draft, developed by a small number of nations (including the U.S., Australia, and Japan) caused uproar after many negotiators had worked through the previous night on the Kyoto text.

Tuvaluan chief negotiator Ian Fry effectively summarised proceedings, getting some new life out of the flogged carcass of the Titanic/climate change metaphor. "I have the feeling of dread that we are on the Titanic and sinking fast, but we can't launch any life boats because a member of the crew has decided that we are not sinking and that we have to have informal consultations to decide whether we are sinking or not," Fry said.

Ethiopian PM and African Union negotiator Meles Zenawi has also polarised the talks. He secured support from Nicholas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown for a plan to fund developing nations through international aviation and shipping levies and a financial tax.

The plan also involves a three year ‘fast start’ involving rich nation funding, with 40 percent of this going to Africa, 20 percent to deforestation, and with developing nations having a say in distribution.

The Swedish PM, Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi and the European Commision head talking cash money dollars

Zenawi is conscious this may undermine efforts by harder line African negotiators, saying, "I know my proposal will disappoint some Africans . . . It scales back the ambition in return for more reliable funding," he said. "Because we have more to lose than others, we have to be more flexible.”

The G77 group of 130 developing nations has consistently asked for funding of US$400b per annum. Zenawi’s proposal provides $50bn a year for poor countries by 2015 and $100bn by 2020, in line with EU and UK offers.

Zenawi’s pragmatic approach captures the essence of the problem for many African nations, and the entire conference – is a bad deal better than no deal?

Awudu Mbaya, president of the Pan-African Parliamentarians Network on Climate Change, was definitely not impressed, saying, "If Prime Minister Meles wants to sell out the lives and hopes of Africans for a pittance he is welcome to, but that is not Africa's position".

The Australian pulled out yet more shoddy journalism. They framed the three day old tear-jerker moment of Queanbeyan-based Tuvalu Fry around his motivations as a Tuvalu representative, and his green credentials.

An unlucky intern was evidently sent snooping around his house, coming up with this keen observation - “At home, he practises what he preaches with a water tank, chooks and a vegie patch in the backyard, although there's a window-mounted air-conditioning unit down the side and a late model gas-guzzling Ford cab ute in the driveway.”

And with no source quoted, The Oz accused Fry of self interest - “Already he has forced the suspension of the main meeting in Copenhagen. But he insists his globe-trotting to tackle climate change is “not an ego trip”. It was unclear whether Fry himself used the phrase "not an ego trip". At least they quoted his ANU PhD supervisor (the head of the renowned Fenner School, Stephen Dovers) calling such speculation “childish”).

The Australian also quoted the PM as saying that Copenhagen was like "your average ALP conference on steroids." Judging by his reported bullying of island nations to drop their 1.5 degree temperature rise demand, it would be safe to assume he meant a NSW ALP conference.

Tuvalu Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia told the ABC that representatives of the PM’s office are pressuring him and other island leaders to back down on their demands, and that Mr Rudd has been calling Pacific leaders with the same message in the lead up to the talks.

Ian Fry - " Do you think the threat of making him wear this shirt at the South Pacific Forum is enough to hold off Ruddles?"

Diplomat - "I think so. Even Darryl Sommers wouldn't wear that."

Bolivian President Evo Morales one-upped the small island nations by demanding a one degree temperature rise limit (statistically determined as being "extremely bloody difficult") while he, Hugo Chavez, and Robert Mugabe railed against unrestrained capitalism as the root cause of climate change. Apparently Chavez’s address received the biggest applause of the day. Penny Wong was reportedly booed and had her speech interrupted by protestors calling for “climate justice now”.

Around 200 NGO delegates, joined by a few nation delegates, also staged a walkout at the Bella Centre to coincide with the ‘Reclaim Power’ action, where around 3000 people attempted to gain access to the centre. Many were angered by the revoking of access to the centre for respected NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and Avaaz.

The Scots offer whisky incentive as The Governator and Ramesh compete for 'toughest in conference'

2009-12-16T13:15:00.010+11:00

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond - "No whisky for Obama."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon yesterday labeled the last days of negotiations in Copenhagen as “the most complex and ambitious ever to be undertaken by the world community”.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond forewent grand rhetorical flourishes in favour of a more prosaic approach – free booze. Salmond has promised a bottle of bottle of specially distilled 2020 whisky that is 42% proof (equal to Scotland’s ambitious target) to any state leader who adopts strong targets.

"Every world leader who commits to ambitious targets will get to 42% proof,” Salmond said, “Those who water down their target will get watered-down whisky," adding that Obama will miss out on current pledges. I am left wondering what might have been if we still had Hawkie as PM.

Indian Environment Minister and conference star Jairam Ramesh has revealed that the BASIC bloc (Brazil, Africa, South Africa, China and India) has drawn up a ‘break conference in case of emergency' draft treaty text that will only be brought out if rich nations attempt to impose a new self interested treaty.

Ramesh also had a dig at Australia, saying “Australia is sort of the ayatollah of the single track,” after cancelling a meeting with Penny Wong. G77 head Lumumba Di–Aping also attacked K-Rudd, saying, “The message Kevin Rudd is giving to his people, his citizens, is a fabrication, it's fiction. It does not relate to the facts because his actions are climate change scepticism in action.”

Bush era neocon and former US ambassador to the UN also laid the boot into Rudd from the right flank with some big government tax hike scaremongering. And, shock, horror, the Australian carried another story running Abbot’s line about how the CPRS is a pinko Labor plot to redistribute the nations wealth.

Meanwhile, in the real world, China, India, South Africa and Brazil held a press conference in Copenhagen yesterday expressing their anger at the lack of credible emissions reduction offers from developed nations. US climate envoy Todd Stern made it clear, however that the U.S. would not be increasing their offer of 17 percent cuts on 2005 levels by 2020.

Ed Miliband, U.K. Climate Secretary and all round reasonable bloke, spoke positively of yesterday'ss progress after the previous day’s African led walk out. "It’s been a better day than yesterday. The process the Danes got under way yesterday has led to positive atmospherics. We've narrowed down the differences before leaders arrive. But this remains a tough ask, it's very complex, and there's a small amount of time left," he said.

Gordon Brown became the second world leader to arrive in Copenhagen, (Al Jazeera reported that Robert Mugabe snuck in first) with 115 others expected to follow. He arrived talking up the need for proper financing, after meeting with Ethiopian PM Meles Zenawi in London yesterday.
The Guardian reported that a number of African countries had sketched out a financing agreement with the EU, with Meles quoted as saying that there was “near total understanding” within the EU.

The world’s most visible climate change activists also joined forces with a series of speeches uniting the all-star cast of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Prince Charles, AL Gore, Nicholas Stern, Darryl Hannah and Wangaari Maathai.

The Governator chose to accentuate the positives, both about Copenhagen and himself, saying, "Some will say da world will melt and we will all die; but I say this conference is already a success. Copenhagen makes us think differently. We are beginning one of history's great transitions," he said, before adding with menace: "I am governor of California and I have the right to brag ... I will be back."

Schwarzenegger "Give me the whisky - I deserve it."

Prince Charles’ address, however, gives hope to the believers in environmental determinism – in contrast to Schwarzenegger’s muscular positivism and self-belief, the Prince was all greasy fish and chip dinners and dour realism (albeit with a stiff upper lip that appears to be melting as quickly as the Himalayan ice cap).

"The grim reality is that our planet has reached a point of crisis... we appear intent upon consuming the planet ... fisheries will collapse by 2050 ... fresh water is scarce," Charles said. "Just as mankind had the power to push the world to the brink so, too, do we have the power to bring it back into balance." "I bloody hope Arnold gives me a dram of that whisky. I need
something strong after all that serious business."

The Prince re-iterated his call for rainforest protection, while at the same time a leaked draft text on REDD showed the removal of all important deforestation targets, with rumours also surfacing that other important clauses, such as the recognition of difference between plantations and natural forests, the rights of indigenous peoples, and biodiversity safeguards, may also be cut.

"Without targets, REDD becomes toothless," said Peg Putt of the Wilderness Society. "The so-called safeguards will be nothing but fancy window-dressing unless they are given legal force." REDD provides an example of the vigourous backroom dealing as negotiators attempt to open, close, twist, and mangle various clauses in their favour.

Australia has been front and centre in these efforts, being accused of attempting to hide emissions behind some fancy land use accounting. This includes gaining emissions credits for creating fewer emissions from logging and agriculture than we think we might make in the future (imagine asking your boss for a raise on the basis that you might lose the company less money than everyone thinks you might five years from now, and you are getting the picture).

The official COP15 site reported that the U.S. and U.K. appear to have lost their attempt to get clean coal certified under the Clean Development Mechanism (or CDM – where rich countries get offsets under Kyoto for investing in emissions reduction in the developing world). This failed as nobody has shown carbon capture and storage is possible or safe in the long term.

China, who has received the lion’s share of CDM funding to date, has also encouraged more investment in less developed nations. For a quick run down on CDM s and other backroom issues, Osman Faruqi's half time report at New Matilda is worth a look.

The police have been gearing up for Wednesday’s mass action where activist are planning to occupy the conference centre. High profile activist Tadzio Mueller, who is associated with Climate Justice Action, the organisers of the Wednesday protest, was arrested after leaving the conference centre yesterday. Police also arrested 190 people and fired tear gas in the alternative enclave of Christiana in central Copenhagen.

The Guardian was the hardest working outlet, using 45 sources , with The Australian coming in a distant second at 15. The Guardian’s sources were overwhelmingly from the developed world(see second graph below). The Guardian did provide a large number of voices from activists (18), primarily in two stories.

The Australian provided the highest number of voices witnessed thus far from those opposed to climate change action on scientific or economic grounds, quoting US arch conservative John Bolton and two Australian industry representatives.

Al Jazeera had only two stories and was lacking its usual feature stories about climate change impacts.

The trend towards favouring developed country actors was accentuated today (see first graph below,) with this appearing largely as a function of a spike in high profile conference attendees, and also The Guardian’s use of activists who are primarily based in the developed world.

Four Minutes to Midnight Express Derailed In Two Track Talks

2009-12-15T14:06:00.007+11:00

Al Gore looking worried by the idea of an ice free Arctic

The soaring rhetoric of Yvo De Boer, Ban Ki Moon and Connie Hedeggard seemed a distant memory yesterday as the two track talks saw a head on collision between the developing world and the U.S., Japan, Australia block.

The twin track talks – one draft on a continuation of Kyoto, and a non-Kyoto draft pushed by rich nations which imposes cuts on developing nations – were left in serious disarray on Monday after rich nations attempted to force the abandonment of the Kyoto track and rejected deeper emission cuts, ending in an African led developing nation walkout.

Chair of the talks Hedeggard called a time out to remedy the situation, but only ended up aggravating the situation by suggesting a core of 50 ministers work on a compromise treaty.

The Guardian reported some straight shooting by a number of negotiators:

Victor Fodeke (head of the Nigerian special climate change unit) said: "Africa is on death row. It has been sidelined by some countries. If there is any attempt to remove one of the tracks of negotiations, then it's obvious the train will crash."

A senior Asian negotiator: "The disaster has already begun because we have not closed the gap an inch. We are just trying to paste over it with political rhetoric."

U.K. Climate Secretary Ed Milliband: "We have not done a brilliant job today. We are now four minutes to midnight."

After some frantic negotiating developing nations forced a continuation of the two track talks. The Guardian reported G77 head Lumumba Di-Aping as saying, "The developing countries have won this round. Two texts will be presented to heads of state to sign. We won because Africa and other countries stood up."

Time is running out, however, as heads of state and ministers begin to arrive. The official Cop15 site carried a story quoting Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh as saying that two texts must be ready by Tuesday night Danish time, as heads of state cannot do the negotiating.

Al Gore also added to the urgency. He conducted a slide show with a Danish scientist which demonstrated evidence of a much earlier than previously thought melting of the Arctic ice cap, with a 75% chance that the entire ice cap will melt over summer within the next five to seven years.

And an example, to demonstrate what rich nations are actually offering, after Obama’s science czar Steven Chu came through with a ‘free set of steak knives’ deal, offering 350 million over five years for renewables in developing nations - Grist.org’s Geoffrey Lean, writing at The Huffington Post, pointed that much of the 10 billion per year emergency fund being offered by rich nations consists of existing aid.

The media outlets COPVoices is looking at also continued a significant bias towards using sources from developed nations, despite the current activities of developing nations, with more than double the number of sources from the developed world (see first graph below).The Australian, unsurprisingly given its daily airing of Tony Abbot’s latest intransigent stab at the CPRS, leads in the favouring of developed country sources(second graph).

Copenhagen gets moving - ["We are now using [square] brackets]"

2009-12-14T15:06:00.005+11:00

African Union negotiator and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi

At last - progress! There has been significant movement on those all important "brackets" in the draft negotiating text - these are the words than go between 'and', 'but', and 'Geezus that bloke from Saudi Arabia is being a pain in the arse' - and deal with the important bits like emissions cuts and money.

In the lead up to Copenhagen, E.U. President Jose Manuel Barroso quipped that the draft text was so full of brackets that it was destined to become "the longest suicide note in history." Thankfully, The Guardian's Jonathon Watts has reported one insider as saying "We are now using square brackets, which signify something solid, instead of squiggley brackets, which were far less substantial."

In other good news, it looks like civil society may be having a little impact. The forces of God were back with the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams hosting mass in Copenhagen while church bells tolled 350 times across the country (in support of a 350 parts per million C02 target).

There were also 200 more arrests, with new improved cuddly-image concern Chinese negotiating supremo Su Wei contending that the huge protests may be considered "constructive, as it shows the interest of the general public in climate change."An interesting call from a Chinese diplomat, though he hopped safely back onto the fence, saying, "you can also say they disrupt the negotiations and the freedom of other people."

As the end of the conference draws nearer, however, the pressure is beginning to show. It's getting to that stage where impassioned pleas from island nations induce tears in the compassionate, a little choking in the guilty, and constant checking of the watch from US negotiatiors.

The Australian, redeeming itself after reporting tabloid babble about the size of the Australian delegation, has described how bow tie wearing Queanbeyan dandy and Tuvalu negotiator Tom Fry almost broke down defending Tuvalu's draft proposal which requires deep cuts form the U.S. and China.

"I woke this morning and I was crying, and that is not easy for a grown man to admit," Fry was reported as saying in his conference address, "The fate of my country rests in your hands."

The Australian also reported that K-Rudd is rumoured to be pressuring Tuvalu to drop their proposal (supported by 90 island and poor nations) for a 1.5 degree temperature rise target. Further unsubstantiated rumour has it that Tuvala is planning to punish Rudd by making him look even more uncomfortable in the brightest shirt ever seen at next year's South Pacific Forum photo shoot. If there is one thing Rudd will fear more than condemning neighbours to oblivion it's being subject to an uncontrolled press conference.

The African Union is also not taking the obstructionism of developed nations lying down. Ethiopian Prime Minister and AU negotiator Meles Zenawi has throw down the gauntlet, saying "If Copenhagen is going to be about an agreement that simply rides roughshod over Africa, then we will try to scuttle it, and I think we have reasonable assurance we can scuttle it if our concerns are not addressed."

The official COP15 site also reported that Zenawi has sought assurances from India and China that they won't support any deal that doesn't addressed African demands for funding.

Al Jazeera has also stocked up on the real business of climate change, with several stories detailing some pretty shocking impacts that people in the developing world are wearing. Disastrous Kashmiri saffron harvests and the oxygen starvation and death of most life in the Manaquiri River in the Brazilian Amazon provide a poignant counterpoint to debates about squiggly or square brackets.The English Transition Town pin-up child of Totnes also gets a look in to show that not all the news is bad.

The show rolls on.....

India maintains its poker face as Africa demands free chips and Mexico brings its own.

2009-12-13T16:44:00.002+11:00

India maintains its poker face, as Africa demands a pile of free chips and Mexico brings it’s own.

Copenhagen Texas Hold’em host Connie Hedeggard passed judgement at the halfway mark of proceedings, saying "we have made considerable progress over the course of the first week". Well, at least everyone is still seated, and some delegates are talking up their hand (a REDD of hearts and an optimistically good hand of technology transfers).

Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh yesterday put India’s cards on the table – a 20 – 25% reduction in carbon intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) on 2005 levels by 2020. A big small step, particularly given the pre-tournament confusion as India’s two top negotiators went home in protest at Captain Ramesh’s undermining of their ‘no reductions’ strategy.

Ramesh rejected the idea of any emissions peak, however, saying, “we will not agree to a concept of a peaking year for India because we have a huge backlog of development particularly in expanding rural electricity supply.” Could make things tricky in the future as India’s growth accelerates. Though good if you own BHP or Rio shares.

The African negotiating group has thrown out the figure of five percent of rich nations GDP for mitigation and adaptation funding in the developed world. This appears an ambit claim, given that the group has asked for US$400 billion from 2010-2012 when the UN estimates a need for 30 billion. Given that the emissions reduction ask in the same text is consistent with cutting edge science (50 percent by 2017 compared to 1990 levels, rising to 65 percent by 2020), however, and these nations are copping it climatically, it’s difficult to judge.

G77 head and notoriously hard player Lumumba Di Aping has kept his profile up, writing off the E.U.’s 7 billion 2010-21012 funding offer. "Our view is that European leaders are acting as if they were climate sceptics," Di Aping said, "Fundamentally, they are saying this problem does not exist and therefore they are providing no finance whatsoever."

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, due in Copenhagen later this week, promised on Friday that Mexico will start cutting emissions in two years out of its own pocket, and continue if it gets international help, aiming for 30% cuts by 2020.

Yesterday saw big protests in Copenhagen, with The Australian leading with Desmond Tutu and former Irish President Mary Robinson holding of a candlelit vigil (in a story titled Anti-capitalist protesters take to streets of Copenhagen. )The story was actually about a rally attended by 30-100,000 people where a few hundred black hoodie clad types were arrested.

The Danish police arrested around 900 people over a number of protests that continue d into yesterday night, cracking down after a handful of people allegedly threw some bricks, though the brick throwing was disputed by some marchers, The Guardian reported. They quoted a British demonstrator, Georgy Forshall, as saying "Two of my friends are in there. The police said demonstrators had been throwing stones, but my friends were in a cow costume, they wouldn't have been able to throw stones."

Al Jazeera reported that police began arrests after some activist attempted to disrupt meetings between corporations and industry lobby groups.

In Australia there were also large rallies, at the annual Walk Against Warming, including 40,000 in Melbourne. Gratefully these rallies avoided being overshadowed by the disturbances such as occurred in Copenhagen, and climate change was front and centre rather than crucial issues such as whether or not a cow can throw rocks or whether people did or police imagined that they did.

A big week looming, and as they say, it’s a game of two halves. As the big hitters warm up on the bench, the protestors sharpen their slogans, and the late night negotiations continue, COPVoices will keep the news flowing.

Obama dips a toe and REDD gets let out of the cage.

2009-12-11T14:57:00.006+11:00

Barack Obama talked climate induced conflict (and combatitively defended the war in
Afghanistan) in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech

Barack Obama has made his first tentative steps towards Copenhagen, invoking the military implications of catastrophic climate change in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. While in Oslo the Norwegians evidently convinced him of the merits of their joint proposal with Brazil to limit deforestation.

This is the first major coverage of the thorn encysted issue of REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). The basic idea is that deforestation and degradation (loss of carbon from forest activities) is a significant global emitter and can be knocked off fairly cheaply. Developed countries like the idea of being able to cheaply stop emissions in other nations to offset their own, while developing nations stand to earn significant income. Aside from concerns about the effectiveness of such offset/trading schemes, REDD is a minefield of dubious carbon accounting, self-interest, vested-interest consultants and secondary impacts (for example on forest dependent communities).

Brazil sees the Amazon as being able to support a ‘sustainable’ crop other than rubber and brazil nuts – offset dollars. A positive side effect could be stopping emissions, however, with Brazil keen to ensure that the mechanism does not only provide a ‘get-out-of-jail-relatively-cheaply’ card for rich nations.
Tuvalu - soon to be using piles of data as sandbags?

U.N. climate supremo Yvo De Boer also delicately poured lukewarm water on the proposal by the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS – 43 nations) and supported by 48 Least Developed Countries to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees.

The calm and erudite Grenadian diplomat and AOSIS spokesperson Dessima Williams informed the conference that “We bring empirical evidence to Copenhagen of what climate change is doing now to our states." From the response of the rich nations it appears they’ll be taking back the reams of empirical evidence to use as sandbags.

Yesterdays ‘run-to-the-hills’ award was won fairly and squarely by a team from the E.U.-funded European Project on Ocean Acidification, a 27 institute, 100 scientist review, with The Guardian reporting that “The world's oceans are becoming acidic at a faster rate than at any time in the last 55m years, threatening disaster for marine life and food supplies across the globe.” Fishing from the pier at Tinderbox may never be the same again.

The U.K. Met Office also released a report which shows that to have a 90 percent chance of keeping temperature rises under the magic two degrees, negative emissions (i.e. less than zero) and geo-engineering (such as artificial carbon draw down and artificial cooling) will be required with an emissions peak in the next few years.

The Australian, after putting in some solid journalistic work over COP15 thus far (excluding the re-hashing of one story two days running) had a stumble today, buggerising around in the corner with a meaningless story about how the Australian delegation is half as large again as the U.K.’s.

K-Rudd blamed the states for the enlarged contingent, though the PM didn’t disclose how many in-flight meal consultants or hairdryer logistics officers were travelling. The Oz, in a separate story on the same issue, did uncover a ‘baggage liason officer’ (really), though rumour has it that his job is more to do with explaining Kev’s coal addiction, our world-trailing targets, and Tony Abbot rather than having a hairdryer in the holster at all times. (I first speculated that the ‘baggage liason officer’s’ job was to explain what Peter Garrett actually does but this seems unfair in light of Garrett’s recent game-lifting).

Jacqueline Head, of Al Jazeera, has written a great story about Australia’s apparently paradoxical actions regarding climate change, with contributions from pre-eminent British science writer Fred Pierce and commentary from Leon Ashby, president of the world’s first (Australian) Climate Sceptics Party and former luminary of the resource development promotion astroturfing group the Australian Environment Foundation.

The piece opens with an observation on our national stocks of common sense:
“In a country that has suffered years of devastating droughts, catastrophic bushfires and soaring rates of skin cancers due to a gaping hole in the Ozone layer, one might expect a rising tide of popular and political pressure for the government to take steps to tackle climate change.

Not in Australia.”

Sceptic activity also came across the radar of The Huffington Post, who reported the onstage harassment of noted U.S. scientist Dr Stephen Schneider in Copenhagen by a lone sceptic who became agitated after Dr Schneider mentioned the Climategate affair. I’m trusting that Australia’s engorged delegation didn’t have room for an official ‘agitated lone sceptic’. Steve Fielding was probably busy anyway.

Back with more tomorrow at COPVoices. http://copvoices.blogspot.com/.

Day 3 - Queanbeyan's day in the spotlight

2009-12-10T14:41:00.007+11:00

Su Wei, the deputy head of the Chinese delegation, has
rubbished U.S. emissions targets, saying "I'm not very good at English, but I doubt whether just a one percent reduction can be described as remarkable or notable," said Su Wei.

Day 2 of COP15 saw a developing country uproar as a draft text was leaked which changes the name of the emission reduction game even more heavily in favour of the developed world. Day 3 saw the going getting tougher as a proposal by Tuvalu looks like creating a split in the powerful G77+ China block of 130 countries.

Resident of NSW country town Queanbeyan, and Tuvaluan chief negotiator Tom Fry announced a proposal would force deeper emissions cuts but also could lead to some developing nations carrying the weighty emissions reductions bag. They are supported by island states and heavily climate affected African states who are also encouraging a temperature rise target of 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial l levels (we are already committed to 0.8 to 1.3 degrees ).

The Chinese, Indians, and Arab states have lined up on the other side in support of the current process of continuing Kyoto, a position which looks like dividing the talks into three blocs - the have-nots, the getting-somes, and the we’ve-got-it-dare-ya-to-take-it-off-us bloc.

Denmark also tried to make amends for its disastrous performance on Day 2 by putting a few sweet things in their draft text showbag. Judging by G77 head Lumumba Di Apings statements, however, I’ll doubt he’ll believe that its now chocolate, comparing the current climate policy of EU nations with their disastrous appeasement policy adopted against Nazi Germany.

The UN also sent in Big Ban Ki Moon to sort out the Danish text situation, with Ban and Gordon Brown doing their best to get everyone at Christmas Dinner to at least pretend they can tolerate each other.

The Danish police have also been busy, raiding an accommodation centre set up by the Danish government and temporarily detaining 200 activists

On the Home Front, Tony Abbott and the Business Council of Australia have been sniffing around the K-Rudd delegation table at COP15 and trying to make the scraps sound scary, with the old line that Australia is placing its fate in the hand of an international treaty (Nick Minchin hasn’t popped up with the ‘left world conspiracy’ line on climate change again yet, however I’m hoping his PR minders might go out to take a leak and he’ll throw it out there. As the pressure in Copenhagen builds on Australia to adopt stronger target, the scaremongering over costs is sure to increase.

Su Wei, the deputy Chinese delegation head, was COPVoices top newsmaker after rubbishing U.S. emission targets, while Al Jazeera pulled through to become the first outlet COPvoices is looking at that favoured actors from the developing world. The graph below shows how are featured outlets compared.

Coffees Vs Coffins as Developing Nations Go In hard on Day 2.

2009-12-09T13:53:00.005+11:00

Lumumba Stanislaw Di Aping - biting black humour
makes him today's best-on-park.

Chinese delegations at UNFCCC conferences do not often give press conferences. Yesterday, the head of the Chinese delegation, Su Wei, called one to denigrate the emission reductions offers of Japan, The U.S., and the E.U.

The big news of yesterday, however, was the uproar caused by the circulation of an informal Danish draft for a political agreement at the summit. The draft proposal, leaked to The Guardian, places more power in the hands or rich nations, and sidelines the U.N. and Kyoto. The text proposes radical changes, including handing control of climate financing to the World Bank, creating binding targets for developing nations, and restricting their emissions to 1.44 tonnes per person, a little more than half the proposed rich nation limit of 2.67 tonnes.

Sudan's Lumumba Stanislas Di Aping, who heads the G77 group of developing nations, criticised the draft and said developing nations would not sign an inequitable deal. This does not bode well for the success of the summit, and African nations have already demonstrated their willingness to walk from proceedings as they did at the previous COP meeting last month in Barcelona.

Di Aping also pithily dismissed currently proposed funds for developing nations, telling Al-Jazeera that ‘"If divided by the world population it is less than $2 per person," he said, adding that this would not cover a coffee in the rich world or a coffin in poor countries that are at the sharp end of climate changes.’

I have the feeling that we’ll be hearing a lot more from Di Aping as the summit progresses.

Sounds like the Danes have some explaining to do. UN climate supreme Yvo De Boer and E.U negotiators have been busy struggling to hose down the controversy before the conflagration consumes the Bella Centre and derails the talks.

The hose was then passed to use as a water cannon as the U.K. Met Office did its damndest to keep the Climategate-aroused sceptics quiet, releasing data which confirmed the last decade as the warmest in recorded history. Reports have also surfaced that two of the climate scientists who have had hacked emails distributed on the internet have subsequently received death threats.

Today’s analysis looks at the stars of the show – who was best-on-park on day 2. Searing and charming G77 head Lumumba Di-Aping, a conciliatory Yvo De Boer and surprise packet Michel Jarraud, the WMO secretary-general, were equal top scorers in the quotations category. In a points decision, person-of the-match goes to the entertainer Di Aping for his well-aimed Sudanese black humour –his ‘coffees and coffins’ line likely had a few E.U negotiators staring guiltily into their morning beverages.

It was also a good day for the activists and scientists across our selected media outlets. A plethora of report and data releases and the Danish draft text uproar provided plenty of space, with the tally being 18 mentions for government actors, 12 for the activists and a heady 16 for the experts, with business and sceptics both failing to get on the scoreboard.

And despite the best efforts of Di-Aping and the Chinese delegation, the ratio of developed nations to developing nation actors was ore or less static in comparison with Day 1.

I hope you’ll join COPVoices tomorrow where we’ll see how Yvo and Co. do making it up to the G77.

The message is crystal clear: get moving.

2009-12-08T12:46:00.004+11:00

Yesterday’s opening of COP15 was filled with the expected grand rhetoric and tough talking by hosts Denmark. Connie Hedegaard, the Danish climate minister and conference president, spoke of the positive effects of pressure on nations to come up with emissions reduction targets before the conference, while U.N. climate negotiator Evo De Boer focused on the need for developed countries come up with the cash to ensure emission reductions in the developed world.

Several of our featured news sites focused on expectations that the E.U. will boost its targets to 30% reductions by 2020, with rumours that the EU is ready to announce multi billion Euro funding for developing nations as a sign of good faith in negotiations. The head of the G77 developing nation bloc (130 nations) criticised even the upwardly revised European targets, saying "I do believe that they [the European countries] should move away from considering their national economic interests at the cost of humanity."

The U.S. Environmental Protection Authority has also come to the party, announcing that it considers CO2 and five other greenhouse gases a threat to public health. This is significant as a warning shot across the bows of the Republican Party, as it provides the Obama administration with the power to regulate to reduce emissions if the current bill before Congress doesn’t pass. As Senator John Kerry told A.P., “The message to Congress is crystal clear: get moving.”

John Kerry has told Congress to "Get moving" on climate change.

The Guardian reported that Saudi Chief Negotiator Mohammed Al Sabban was repeating his party trick of using the University of East Anglia email affair to cast doubt on climate science. Several outlets reported an editorial, organised and written by staff from The Guardian, which was published in 56 major papers worldwide.

Domestically, The OZ also expanded on Malcolm Turnbull’s blistering Twitter attack on Tony Abbot and his climate change policy and beliefs.

And so, to the voices – who was talking the loudest? In terms of individuals, U.N negotiating head Yvo de Boer was the leading quoted source, followed by IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri. Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen and compatriot Connie Hedegaard were also quoted frequently by a number of our web sources.

Interestingly, the only sceptics quoted were Thomas Donahue (head of the sceptic endorsing U.S. Chamber of Commerce) and Saudi chief negotiator Mohammed al Sabban, with Pachauri and his IPCC deputy Jean-Pascal van Ypersele were going hard to negate any impact Climategate may have on the talks.

Van Ypersele speculated that Russian hackers may have been paid to steal communications between climate researchers in a ‘well-funded attempt to destroy public confidence in the science of man-made climate change.’

We’ll be looking at a number of ways of analysing those voices quoted over the next few weeks, and how it varies between news outlets. In most outlets, by far the dominant sources of quotes were politicians or other government actors (including those from non-scientific U.N. bodies). The Australian was, by a long shot, the leader in using scientific or expert individuals, with 7 experts quoted vs. 13 government sources, with The Oz also quoting two environmentalists and no sceptics or business representatives. In contrast, the COP15 site quoted 10 government sources and no others.

Worthy of observation is the skew towards voices from the developed world. The graph below demonstrates this. This is expected given the origin of four of our sites are in the developed world, although Al-Jazeera English also demonstrated a similar trend, with an 8-3 count in favour of developing nation voices. Al-Jazeera has, however, been running a climate features site called Climate SOS in the lead up to COP15 (including video which I’m not analysing) which has largely featured the developing world.

I’ll be keeping an eye on this division, and am expecting a small rise in developing nation sources if the talks start to go pear shaped, and also as the opening commentaries from many of the dominant developed country actors are replaced with details of the negotiation’s progress.

Why COPVoices?

2009-12-07T15:16:00.011+11:00

Australian Climate Sceptic (and part time menswear catalogue model) Ian Plimer

The recent of coverage of “Climategate”, where emails from a leading United Kingdom climate research facility were hacked and released on the internet, has highlighted the miasmic links between media coverage, climate contrarians (sceptics and deniers), and public and government opinion.

Both in recent times and over the political history of climate change, ‘climate contrarians’ (deniers and sceptics of anthropogenic climate change), have induced uncertainty in public discourse and national and international policy making. The mass media, in providing column space and airtime for sceptic voices, has been identified as actively contributing to this uncertainty, an uncertainty which is not reflected in the reality of climate science.

The exploitation of sound scientific practice.

The 'debate' over the existence of climate change, and its causation by human activity, has been settled unequivocally in scientific terms. The United Nation's peak climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has continually upgraded its surety of both the existence of climatic change and of its anthropogenic causation over four 'Assessment Reports'.

The latest report, from 2007, states that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," and that "most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

The IPCC, an organisation consisting 2500 of the world's top climate scientists, from a range of disciplines, has employed a rigorous peer review and consensus driven process to ensure accurate representation of climatic science .This process is also politically mediated, in that non-scientific state-based actors are engaged in the creation of the final text in Assessment Reports.

Many commentators (for example, Jeremy Legget in The Carbon Wars and David Spratt and Philip Sutton in Climate Code Red) cite the involvement of state-based actors antagonistic to the scientific findings of the IPCC as diluting the publicly stated consensus. Additionally, leading scientists such as NASA's James Hansen and the Potsdam Institute's Hans Schellnuber see the IPCC's findings as conservative.

Modern science is underpinned by the peer review, consensus agreement process. As it notionally eschews an attachment to absolute truths, continuous re-examination and experimentation is encouraged in the pursuit of increased surety. In the case of anthropogenic climate change 'climate contrarians' have exploited this process to massively amplify doubt that has for practical ends been eliminated.

Ian Plimer, a Professor of Geology at the University of Adelaide, provides an example of this exploitation by deniers and sceptics. Professor Plimer has been heavily criticised by many climate scientists for employing dubious statistical and other scientific techniques, and seriously misrepresenting the work of other scientists in his recent book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science.

Professor Barry Brook, the chief climate scientist at the same institution, characterised the book as "plausible to conspiracy theorists, perhaps, but hardly a sane world view, and insulting to all those genuinely committed to real science." Professor Plimers farcical 'offer' to debate The Guardian's George Monbiot didn't appear to improve his credibility, although some media outlets, such as The Australian, have reported Monbiot as hiding from a debate. In reality Monbiot fronted Plimer and he bolted (Check out the evolution of the challenge at monbiot.com and realclimate.org).

'Climate contrarians' are a cohort who appear to consist primarily of non-qualified bloggers, scientists with links to industry at risk from climate change mitigation action (such as Plimer) right wing politicians and journalists (such as Senator Nick Minchin and News Limited's Andrew Bolt) . They have become a highly visible and disproportionately influential voice in climate change discourse largely because of their legitimisation by the mass media.

The Mass Media Role In Destabilising Climate Change Discourse

The abstract nature of ecological crises, such as climate change, situates the media as the key facilitator of the representation of these issues to the public and as such, imbues the media with a responsibility in communicating information and creating public discourse.

A number of studies and commentators have identified the media's role in undermining the consensus scientific view in public discourse. This has been attributed to several factors, with a primary causation identified in the conventions of journalistic practice. The influence of public relations practice on behalf of corporate interests that stand to lose significantly from action

taken to mitigate climate change has also been identified as important. Not to harp on about Ian Plimer, but Sourcewatch has unearthed links to the Institute of Public Affairs, whose activities include the setting up of astroturfing groups such as Timber Communities Australia and the horribly misnamed Australian Environment Foundation (Don Burke's last gig before taking on the role PR man and evil gardener at the world's largest hardwood woodchipping company Gunns Limited).

It's also difficult to ignore the potential influence of advertising revenue and the political inclinations of media owners which have been cited as influencing journalistic practice in other areas (such as Fourth Estate principles) in the economically and politically potent, and potentially costly, arena of climate change discourse. A cursory look (in the dark, with the lights out) at the behaviour of FOX in the U.S. would confirm this( and I'd suggest a look at The Daily Show - www.thedailyshow.com if you need convincing and a good laugh).

The exploitation of scientific process in order to present non-existent uncertainty on climate change can be (and often is) amplified through media practice. Max Boykoff, an Oxford based Geographer specialising in media and climate change coverage, in a study involving analysis of U.S. press articles, identifies numerous examples of the use of sceptic commentary which is disproportionate to its scientific relevance. This is echoed in the Australian media, with press outlets such as The Australian regularly featuring contrarian voices, including a small pool of sceptic academics (for example Bob Carter and Ian Plimer) and non-expert community members such as surf life savers and tour boat operators, in opposition to climate scientists.

Journalistic conventions, such as the way newsrooms works, who the boss is, or the dictates of news production often serve to scupper the fine intentions of journalists (or make it harder for the crap ones to do even passable work. or make it easier for dodgy ones to twist the truth). With climate change, the constant desire to frame conflict in news , and the use of sceptics to provide 'balance' has resulted in often horribly disfigured representations of climate science as an evenly contested climate science consensus.

Max Boykoff ascribes the use of balance in this context as facilitating the “discursive and real political space for the US government to shirk responsibility and delay action regarding global warming.” Or, in other words, sticking your head in the sand and hiding the rest of you behind a pile of Piers Akerman's news clippings.

One recent media event serves as an exemplary demonstration of the role and power of the media in shaping climate change discourse and policy in the lead-up period to the COP15 – the widely covered 'Climategate' affair.

‘Climategate’: Media Coverage and Political Response

In late November, hackers released emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia(UAE), one of the world’s top climate research institutes, and home of a number of key contributors to the IPCC, which purportedly demonstrate purposeful manipulation of data by climate scientists to overstate global warming.

Media coverage from some quarters, including Australia and the U.S, appears to have heavily overstated the significance of what representatives of the UAE have called a “deliberate attempt to undermine ‘the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous." For example, FOX News commentator Dan Gainor has written “The private e-mails showed potentially unethical or illegal behaviour and a possible conspiracy to distort science for political gain,” while articles by The Australian have widely quoted sceptic bloggers.

In public statements the research unit targeted has said that "The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way,". Despite explanations by the research unit’s director Phil Jones (who is standing aside pending an investigation) regarding his use of the word ‘trick’ in an email regarding data analysis, and of the contents of other emails, some media commentators and sceptics have taken these as evidence of data manipulation by scientists.

The linkage between disproportionate media coverage of the disputation of anthropogenic climate change , and the impacts of such on the public arena have been clearly demonstrated in the “Climategate” situation. Several political actors have seized upon the issue in order to re-assert publicly their doubts regarding climate change, and in several cases this appears to have had significant political impacts.

In Australia, influential Liberal Senator Nick Minchin has cited the hacked emails as confirming his scepticism as his party has been involved in high level policy discussions over the legislating of an emissions trading scheme. Saudi Arabia's chief negotiator at the COP15 has also used the emails to retreat from his nation's recent acceptance of anthropogenic climate change, suggesting that the Copenhagen negotiations were now unnecessary.

Saudi Chief Negotiator Mohammed al-Sabban

Conservative politicians and other sceptics in the United States have also sought to use the emails to support calls for inquiries into the legitimacy of local climate research. Influential sections of the U.S. Media, such as FOX News, have also actively supported the conclusions drawn by climate contrarians. For example, John Lott claimed on FOXNews.com that the East Anglia scientists “were brazenly discussing the destruction and hiding of data that did not support global warming claims,” whilst also drawing linkages with the IPCC process and characterising the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report as 'controversial'.

Republican politicians and climate sceptic bloggers have also tried to tie Obama's Science Advisor John Holdren into the situation because one of the 1000's of hacked emails was a(n apparently innocuous) communication to him.

It looks like Climategate is still getting a good run coming into COP15.Interesting timing to say the least. I'll be keeping an eye on how sceptics and other actors are covered ov

er COP15. If you want to see what's going on and who's saying what(as well as a few other bits and pieces) stay with us at COPVoices.

Welcome to COPVoices - Time to start the party

2009-12-07T12:58:00.001+11:00

This partygoer has just heard that Tony Abott has turned up in his budgie smugglers

Welcome to COPVoices. It's opening night for the COP15 and even though the biggest star has opted for a fashionably late entrance, it's shaping up as one hell of a party. As pre-party nerves are hidden beneath bluster and the security keeps on eye on the gatecrashers, the questions on everyone's lips are:

1) Will the older blokes with the good jobs give the broke ones a six pack to share?;

2) Can the ones who usually drink too much and start beating up on everyone else be restricted to half a dozen beers and some decent behaviour?

3)When the dust settles and the booze has run out will mum and dad's house be left with only slight structural damage and a mess that can be cleaned up with some vigorous cleaning before the parents get back from the coast? Or will the partygoers give up and be sprung sitting around in a pile of broken glass drinking the remnants of a cheap wine cask?

Big questions indeed, but here at COPVoices I'm primarily concerned with the makeup of the party goers - whose invited, whose the most popular, and whether anyone else can be heard above the loud obnoxious ones who were invited to make their mates look better (that's you, climate sceptics and deniers) .

As the dust continues to rise over the University of East Anglia emails business and the Saudis attempt to obscure themselves miraculously in that dust storm (I'm sure they'll bump into Nick Minchin in there somewhere), I'll be looking at several websites and seeing which of the following categories of actors in the climate change morass are getting a solid run.

Government boys and girls;

Climate scientists and other expert commentators;

Sceptics/deniers (scientists or otherwise);

Environmentalist activists; and

Journalists.

There'll be some pretty graphs, analysis of how the main issues of the day are being reported, who said what, why, when and how, and a little fun along the way.We'll also be looking at other climate reporting from the sources listed below. I'll be checking out the work of the good folks at The Australian, the official Danish Government COP15 News Site,The Guardian, U.S. web media newspaper The Huffington Post and Al-Jazeera English.

Each day's analysis will be up and running by 4pm.Hope to see you here.

COPVoices - going hoarse shouting above the pack.