climate talks

Organisations around the world joined the day of action, and there were thousands of people on the streets of Tokyo and many more solidarity actions around the world.

Participants at Young Friends of the Earth Europe climate justice seminar also took action in Bonn during the UN climate talks. The seminar’s aim is to inform and inspire youth around Europe about the issues surrounding the efforts to tackle climate change.

Part of the issues in the big web of problems is false solutions. Many proposals are out there that are trying to solve the climate crisis but for different reasons many of them have not proven, and in some cases there is the possibility that they would cause more damage than help.

One of the false solutions is nuclear energy

Rich countries are using the argument that if we need to switch to non-emitting energy sources, nuclear is the only way to keep providing the electricity needed for our societies. However, events like the recent disaster in Japan show how vulnerable and fragile is the security of nuclear energy.

Even without earthquakes, nuclear waste has incredibly long decay time, meaning that it will be very difficult for future societies to deal with nuclear waste. We just simply don’t know how much trouble we cause in a long run.

There are good solutions that sometimes get ignored by the nuclear and oil lobby. Renewable energy, such as wind and solar power are clean, harmless and infinite source of energy that could solve the current crisis if we act quickly.

However, rich countries are already consuming way too much energy and natural resources with excessive and irresponsible lifestyle. Developed countries need to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions, their natural resource consumption, and their energy consumption.

Instead of emphasising on promoting business as usual, it is time for people, the private sector and governments to realise that we need a great change in a way we live and the way we treat our planet.

We have only one planet we share amongst all living things, and we cannot gamble with false solutions that could threaten our entire survival.

Solidarity action

The solidarity action on 11th June by participants on the YFOE climate justice seminar sends the message to governments that young people demand true solutions to the climate crisis.

Investing in nuclear is essentially a gamble with the future and with the lives of young people, who are representing the next generation. They are the most vulnerable, as they will have to deal with the problems what nuclear power will cause in few decades.

YFOEE also took action in December, during the COP16 Climate Talks in Cancun.

New era of energy use

We do have the technology and knowledge to leave behind the old fossil and nuclear age and shift it into a renewable age, where people live in harmony with nature and each other.

There is a long and difficult way to get there, as governments and companies are not necessarily willing to share these technologies with vulnerable countries.

Therefore, youth around the world need to be actively involved in all these debates, and information and knowledge sharing is essential for their empowerment. In fact, it’s the first step on the way of forming active networks, where people connect and self organise in order to take active role in shaping our and the planet’s future.

It was obvious to observers that the climate negotiations at Cancun were wired to support commerce rather than tackling the climate crisis that the world is confronted with. This trend took solid steps a year earlier at the summit in Copenhagen when a handful of nations sidestepped the multilateral tradition of the United Nations and working through “green rooms” away from the conference floor concocted the so-called Copenhagen Accord instead.

The Copenhagen Accord could not be adopted at the end of the 2009 conference for the basic reason that majority of country delegations did not know how it was crafted and on what basis. Countries like Bolivia and Venezuela stood resolutely against it and that conference only agreed to take note that such a document existed.

The fact that the Accord was not adopted as a conference outcome did not deter its authors, principally the United States, from working behind the scenes, bilaterally, to get several countries to endorse it. Some analysts have said that the endorsement was achieved through arm-twisting tactics and promises of financial and other aids. Those who refused to yield were sanctioned by way of having climate or environment assistance cut.

From the beginning of the Cancun negotiations, signals were sent that its essence was to elevate the Copenhagen Accord to the level of being the conference outcome. The first salvo was fired by the delegation of Papua New Guinea who declared that a few nations with divergent votes from the majority must not prevent the conference from reaching a decision. They suggested that if a consensus became impossible a decision should be made by a vote. This position, as noted in an earlier article on Cancun, was immediately objected to by the delegations of Bolivia, India, Saudi Arabia and others.

At the end of the Cancun summit, with the Copenhagen Accord now dressed in new garbs, there was no consensus for its adoption. Not to be deterred, the Mexican presidency of the conference banged the gavel repeatedly on her table and rammed the document through, after redefining consensus as not necessarily meaning unanimity.

Empty promises

Nations yelped and cheered. Cancun had delivered; they enthused and backslapped each other. But what did Cancun deliver and how will the planet fare under the scenario set by what has been termed Copenhagen Accord 2?

The conference outcome avoided legally binding emissions reduction targets for the main polluting nations - the rich industrialised countries - and rather urges a voluntary pledge based system with no monitoring mechanisms. From recent WikiLeaks regarding discussions in France, it is clear that the rich countries are determined not to make binding commitments to act for the safety of the planet.

Looking for something to celebrate, some countries latched on the promise to create a Climate Fund within the United Nations climate change framework but having the World Bank as a trustee. The promised climate fund did not specify how the funds would be sourced.

The agreement did not review subsisting intellectual property regime that does not freely allow the exchange of green technology. It took big steps in paving the way for new market based mechanisms that would allow for speculation and avoidance of actions to reduce emissions at source and generally position the planet at great risks of catastrophic climate change.

Teresa Andersen of the Gaia Foundation, who wrote about the manner the Cancun conference ended, captures the disbelief of critical observers:

"We sat in disbelief as the crowds leapt to their feet, cheering, applauding, whooping and whistling the Mexican chair of the Cancun climate negotiations. Mexico’s foreign secretary, Patricia Espinosa, graciously bowed her head, her hands crossed over her heart in an authoritarian simulation of modesty, as we shook our heads, open-mouthed, at the eerie frenzy taking place around us. In the last hours of the Cancun climate negotiations, the world’s deluded leaders were cheering as they tossed the planet onto the bonfire."

According to Teresa, "The Cancun Agreement, we are told, has “saved multilateralism”. What it has not done though, is offer any meaningful solution to climate change. As it stands, the Cancun Agreement could mean global temperature rises of up to 5 degrees centigrade, and a possible 6.5 degrees in Africa."

Friends of the Earth International's initial analysis of the Cancun outcome sees the prospects of opening new market mechanisms as potentially creating practices that are more harmful to the climate than current ones.

We believe the establishment of one or more market-based mechanisms over the course of the next year is to be considered, with a view to taking a decision to adopt these new mechanisms at COP 17 in South Africa. The new mechanisms could include a number of different types of instruments, some of which would be more destructive than others.

Little gains

All was not lost in Cancun. Social movements pushed the path of climate justice in various venues in Cancun. The government of Bolivia, which had facilitated a Peoples Conference on climate change and the Rights of Mother Earth in April 2010, stood with the people, pushing the right analysis and solutions, right to the end of the conference.

Social and climate justice movements clearly stated that the causes of climate change are systemic and that the only way to tackle the climate crisis is through a change of the capitalist and patriarchal system that caused it.

With the clear indication that rich nations are not keen to tackle climate change, but would rather make bogus promises that poor vulnerable nations unfortunately lap up, it is doubtful if the 2011 conference to be hosted in Durban, South Africa, will produce anything different from Copenhagen and Cancun.

The South African government has dubbed COP17 the Peoples COP. It will be seen whether the voices of the people will prevail or if corporations and their surrogate politicians will hold sway in their market-based chariots.

Here Nnimmo explains why initiatives such as carbon offsetting should really be called 'do nothing solutions'. 

Watch all of our videos here

"With the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, emitting greenhouse gas (CHG) emissions over a set limit entails a potential cost. Conversely, emitters able to stay below their limits hold something of potential value. Thus, a new commodity has been created – emission reductions. Because carbon dioxide (CO2) is the principal greenhouse gas, people speak of trading in carbon. Carbon is now tracked and traded like any other commodity."

The above quote is taken from a publication of the UNFCCC on the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. The publication focuses on international emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation – all market based mechanisms set up to ostensibly help the private sector and developing countries to contribute to emissions reduction efforts.

Reflecting on the framing of the protocol one could easily reach the conclusion that there is no point seeking its continuation or validation for another commitment period. It does however appear that the world is in a tight corner right now with the crop of policy makers intent on inventing new ways of carrying on with business as usual and doing nothing concrete to fight climate change. Because the Kyoto Protocol is the only existing climate treaty that has legally binding targets inscribed by parties, many see it as better than nothing.

Could this be a case of half a loaf is better than none? Or is it the case of drowning persons hanging onto straw? You must find your answer!

The first week of the climate conference in Cancun drew to a close with no cheery news and lots to worry about. The first shocker came when Japan declared that they would not inscribe any targets in a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. Let me quickly add here that the term inscribe may sound like chiselling a rock, and casting commitments in concrete, but in reality the inscriptions in the first commitment period have been promises made only to be broken. Nothing inscribed in stone or concrete.

Killing Kyoto

So why are people worried? One reason could be that Japan is wishing up to what the USA knew long ago. Let us take a trip to Kyoto in 1997.

It is reported that when the protocol was being negotiated, the USA, led by Al Gore, made the inconvenient demand that carbon emissions reductions must be tackled under a framework of carbon markets. This led, rather conveniently, to the formulation of what some termed innovative ways of emissions reduction through the commodification of carbon or emissions. Did the USA sign the protocol after they got what they wanted? No. They conveniently walked away. Now we are in the inconvenient corner, pressed on every side and perching precariously on the brink of catastrophic climate change. The USA just walked away from Kyoto once they got the world on the roller coaster of carbon markets. Japan can equally walk away. So can Canada. And Australia.

The European Union says they are willing to consider either option. Wise guys. The fence could be a great place to sit, especially when the only smoke of battle is raised not by canons but by carbon trade.

The carbon market paradigm spun the so-called clean development mechanism (CDM), among others. At the Bali conference another item found its way on to the platter – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD). This quickly brought up proposals for REDD plus, REDD pluss pluss… and who knows what else is waiting in the wings. The entire idea is to find ways by which carbon can be quantified and valued wherever it can be found. So far carbon stocks in trees are valued under REDD. 

Progress or regress is being made about carbon stocks in the soil, so that those who do not have forests, but presumably have lands can key in and make some bucks from the carbon beneath their feet. For those who have neither forests nor land, there is hope that they can find some carbon in the water on which they float. And if they have no forest, no land and no water they will probably have some air over their heads. The bigger the atmospheric space over your head, the bigger your chance of making a kill in the carbon equation. Probably. 

There's no doubt that there may be some folks who in the future may have none of these natural assets: no forest, no water, no land, no air. This will happen when every natural thing would have been privatised. Believe me. In that case, all any one would need to tap into the carbon market will be to prove that their bodies embody some amount of carbon.

Mexican Text

As the first week drew to a close, the rumour mill was abuzz with stories of a text being prepared by the Mexican chair of the COP to force a path for the outcome of the conference. This was the method of COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. If the text is not a phantom, it will materialise over the weekend in time for ministers who will be arriving then to have something to chew on.

In a statement pre-empting this move, civil society advocates, including Friends of the Earth International and the Third World Network demanded, “that delegates reject any attempts to introduce such a text into the conference.” 

They said so because the text would seek to replace “the aggregate global emission targets that are supposed to be negotiated under the Kyoto Protocol with the non-binding pledges of the Accord could, according to a UN analysis released November 23, [and] set the planet on a course for devastating changes by the end of the century - as much as 5°C (9°F) of warming.”

It appears that policy makers are not living on planet earth. With a temperature increase of this magnitude, no amount of mitigation or adaptation would preserve most lives, as we know it.

Action time

The week was not all talk. Action time came on Friday when groups led by Jubilee South took to the streets of Cancun, marching from the municipal office to a Wal-Mart Supermarket and demanding that the World Bank must not be allowed to become the climate bank. Why? For one, the bank is notorious for funding fossil fuel related projects and is thus one agency that is deeply implicated in the climate chaos. 

Will the last week of the COP bring any hope? We will have to see.

Photo credits: Sheila Menon

Felipe Calderon began his presidency in 2006 with the promise that he will become the 'greenest Mexican president'. Calderon has had the opportunity to see his promise into fruition by hosting COP16. He has said that the conference will be managed under the ethos of 'sostenibilidad' (sustainability). 

However, the conference begins in the air conditioned Moon Palace hotel with distinguished delegates sipping their Nescafe with a smile whilst queuing for incredibly low quality ham sandwiches that cost 10 US dollars. This comes across as a slap in the face as the year 2010 sees plenty of European companies importing organic and fair trade coffee from Southern Mexico. 

To add further insult to injury these sandwiches are eaten in light of a growing agenda pushing for sustainable small-scale agriculture with particular attention given to the meat and dairy industries. 

Sostenibilidad

It took a whole two hours of crawling on an express-way jammed by cars, buses and trucks heading to the Cancunmesse, a centre where delegates are screened before being ferried another 20-30 minutes to the Moon Palace - the venue of the talks.

For those who have visited this city, the location of the venue is rather isolated from the main city and may well have been selected for this reason. The routes are lined with armed police, including some on vehicles mounted with machine guns. The picture one comes off with is that of security overkill.

While welcoming delegates to the conference of the parties (COP) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), president Felipe de Jesus Calderon Hinojosa of Mexico stated that the world must embark on the pursuit of “green development” and “green economy” as the path to sustainable development.

The president also stated that some of the steps to be taken to attain this ideal include progress on the negotiations on Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD) as well as development of technologies to reduce fuel emissions. Another key point was that the financing of sustainable development should start with support for the poorest and the most vulnerable countries.

These were nice words. These were also very contentious ideas. There are several red flags and concerns about REDD by indigenous groups and forest dependent peoples as well as mass social movements across the world. The idea of canvassing the extension of financial assistance to the poorest and the most vulnerable countries is also seen by critics as a possible way dividing those same nations and making them pliable to suggestions and decisions that may actually be contrary to their best interests.

another copenhagen?

Even before the Cancun conference opened there were concerns that efforts may already be afoot to rig the outcome, as was the case in Copenhagen in 2009. One concern is about a text for negotiation that is emanating from the chair of one of the working groups through an un-transparent process. Another concern has arisen from a decision of the Mexican president to invite selected heads of states to the conference. The list is not openly available, but already it is becoming clear that some uninvited presidents intend to be in Cancun.

The Copenhagen conference began and ended under a cloud of doubts and perceived undemocratic actions. At that meeting many delegations from developing and vulnerable nations believed that drafts of what would be the final outcome document were being discussed and circulated within privileged circles away from the standard practice where such negotiations took place on the open conference floor. 

Many delegates in Cancun hope that the conference will take a transparent pathway. In Copenhagen there was a steady flow of leaked documents allegedly prepared by the president of the COP. Already in Cancun there are concerns over draft text prepared by the chair of the ad hoc working group on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) without due mandate of the working group. The other major working group under the COP is the one that deals with the Kyoto Protocol and another text is being expected from the chair of that working group also possibly without a mandate from the working group.

the copenhagen accord and the peoples agreement

The year between conferences is spent on technical negotiations and preparations during which delegations review texts prepared by chairpersons of the working groups on the basis of the submissions made by the delegations or members. 

The document produced by the chair of the LCA appears to be something quite at variance with what many delegates expected would be the outcome of the negotiations and work done since Copenhagen. The document that delegates are to debate is allegedly based on the "Copenhagen Accord" which some delegates insist was not an agreement at the end of COP15, but was merely taken note of by that conference. Questions are being asked why such a document would now be legitimised and made the foundation for serious negotiations expected to produce a fair and ambitious agreement at the end of the conference in Cancun?  

After the Copenhagen conference ended without an agreement, the government of Bolivia hosted a first ever World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth in Cochabamba in April 2010. The outcome of that conference was the Peoples Agreement that the government of Bolivia then articulated into a formal submission to the UNFCCC as well as the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The essential fault line between those following the path crafted by the Copenhagen Accord and those who do not accept it as the way towards a fair agreement that recognises the principle of common and differentiated responsibilities are quite serious and the resolution has deep consequences for the future of our planet and the species that inhabit it, including humankind. 

weak targets and small change

The draft text circulated by the chair of the LCA puts forward the ambition that may lead to an aggregate global temperature increase of up to 2°C as opposed to proposals made by a number of delegations that the target should be between a 1° and 1.5° temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. A 2°C temperature increase would mean catastrophic alteration to some parts of the world, with Africa being particularly vulnerable.

The text in question has also disregarded the demand by vulnerable nations that to ensure urgent and robust technology transfer for the purpose of mitigation and adaptation such transfers should not be governed by subsisting intellectual property rights regimes.

Another sore point in the text is that the financial commitment proposed does not step up to the level of ambition needed to tackle the climate crisis and is even less serious than what was suggested by the so-called Copenhagen Accord.

A coalition of civil society groups complained about the text from the chair of the LCA and also raised concerns about “the Kyoto Protocol negotiations, where the Chair of that track intends to propose his own text that will postpone adoption of legally binding emission reductions targets by the developed countries in Cancun, risks the expansion of accounting loopholes and replaces a legally-binding system with a voluntary pledge-based approach reflected in the Copenhagen Accord.”

holding on to hope

The immediate past chair of the COP in her final statement indicated that the conference must move in a way that would show that Cancun can deliver a good outcome for tackling climate change.

Papua New Guinea suggested in a first statement at this conference that where there is no consensus, decision should be made by voting. He referred to the rejection of the Copenhagen Accord at COP15 and subsequent signing on by 140 countries. The delegates take was that only a small minority of states were holding others hostage. Papua New Guinea pledged cooperation and reasonableness in the COP. The suggestion by Papua New Guinea was promptly opposed by Bolivia, India and Saudi Arabia among other states. They insisted that that consensus must be maintained as a way to reach decisions.

Besides the crawl to the COP and the fact that getting to the different venues for the side events as well as the mobilisation and civil society spaces could mean a full day travelling, one hopes that the debates will be robust. That is one of the three things that will make being cocooned in Cancun bearable. The other is the exciting camaraderie of being among great Friends of the Earth International folks. And thirdly the first day of a two-week conference is not the appropriate day to lose all hope.

Photos: The entrance to the Moon Palace where the talks will take place; Asad Rehman, climate campaigner at the FoEI delegation meeting; Meena Raman climate campaigner at the FoEI delegation meeting. Copyright: Friends of the Earth International/Sheila Menon

For about two weeks, starting from next Monday, the world will be locked into another session of negotiations on how to tackle climate change. The conference, to be held in Cancun, Mexico, has drawn less excitement than its predecessor held in Copenhagen, Denmark, a year ago.

The excitement of Copenhagen was partly driven by the false information that circulated that the Kyoto Protocol was ending at that meeting. Though there were serious, but failed efforts, made at that conference to lay the protocol to rest, its first period actually ends in 2012, while a second commitment period will be entered into as soon as the first period elapses.

But why would anyone want to kill the protocol and why should it be sustained? The Kyoto Protocol is seen by some as the only legally binding instrument to which the industrialised and highly polluting nations can be made to commit to cutting emissions at source. From this perspective, when countries fight to abolish the protocol, they are simply trying to avoid making any real commitment to tackling climate change.

leave it to the market?

One problem with the workings of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the ongoing negotiations is that it bases a chunk of its reasoning and framings on the market logic. This follows the path created by the mindset that has built a vicious paradigm of disaster capitalism, in which tragedy is seen as opportunity for profit. What do we mean by this?

Rather than take steps to curtail emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, some people are busy devising ways of making every item of nature a commodity placed at the altar of the market. Through this, everything is being assigned a value and many others are privatised in addition.

What makes this offensive is firstly that you cannot place a price on nature, on life. Secondly, speculators are hyping the utility of the carbon market as a means of fighting climate change. Some of the ways this manifests is through the carbon offsetting projects by which polluters in the industrialised countries continue to pollute, on the calculation that their emissions are being compensated for elsewhere.

As Friends of the Earth International stated in a recent media advisory, “Carbon trading does not lead to real emissions reductions. It is a dangerous distraction from real action to address the structural causes of climate change, such as over-consumption. Developed countries should radically cut their carbon emissions through real change at home, not by buying offsets from other countries. Carbon offsetting has no benefits for the climate or for developing countries - it only benefits developed countries, private investors, and major polluters who want to continue business as usual.”

Cancun will obviously be crawling with carbon speculators and traders, as was the case in Copenhagen. And they have good reasons to be there. They will be there because policy makers on both sides of the divide see benefits in the schemes, even though the so-called benefits are pecuniary and are actually harmful to Mother Earth. But as far as the money enters the pockets of some poor countries, the rich countries can go on polluting, having paid their "penance."

Not just money alone

The world appears deaf to the need for real actions to curb climate change, and the focus remains on money. In fact, while many of the items of the Cancun agenda have stalled, with regard to reduction of carbon emissions in the industralised nations, there is no shortage of proposals on how carbon markets can be brought in to give appearance of action.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is one of such schemes in the scheme. Quick progress is being made on REDD and already, talks are advancing on other variants of the scheme. Indigenous and forest community people are opposed to REDD and object to its implementation, as attention is being focused on forests merely as carbon stocks for mercantile purposes. Significantly, many see REDD as not seeking to stop deforestation, but merely to reduce it.

It is also argued that that any reduced deforestation may not be sustained, as deforesters may just shift to another forest or zone to continue with their activities. In other words, REDD is a pretty fiction that may pump money into the pockets of some countries and corporations, but will marginalise forest peoples and will not help to fight climate change. The attraction, as critics have said, is that if this mechanism is linked to the carbon market, it will allow developed countries pay money to REDD-projects that preserve forests in developing countries, and in return receive carbon credits - buying the right to pollute.

There will also be strident rejection of any role at all for the World Bank in the climate finance architecture that may be devised in Cancun.

The atmosphere is set for a somber, winding series of negotiations. However, social movements and other civil society groups are set to push up the voices of the people, as already broadly articulated in the Peoples Agreement, reached at the World Peoples Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth held in April 2010 at Cochabamba, Bolivia.

The environmental justice movement that took first serious steps in Copenhagen is sure to take firmer steps on the streets of Cancun and in thousands of Cancuns being planned for a multitude of locations around the world.

The message in Cancun, if we must expect motions towards real actions to tackle climate change, is that governments must pay attention to what the people are saying, to the real challenges faced by vulnerable peoples around the world, and not lend their ears to carbon speculators.

Find out more about what we're calling for in Cancun

Early on in the second week of COP15, the cordoned path created for long lines of NGOs seeking entry into the Bella Centre was a crowded mass of people. The cold was setting in, but the people pressed in. 

The story was different for the last two days of the COP. The path was desolate and taken over by a carpet of snow. Observers had been barred from entering the venue and the few with possibilities of entry had to contend with long waits as security officials thumbed through sheets with names of those cleared to enter.

Within the conference venue the most democratic space appears to be the entrance hall where the registration of delegates was carried out. The pull here is the large UNFCCC logo on the wall where virtually every delegate sought to be photographed as a memento to a conference of lost opportunities.

Inside the chambers, more went on behind closed doors than in plenary. The Danish president of the COP spent more time denouncing leaked or rumoured secret texts rather than spending precious time negotiating. Blocks and hurdles were erected in the path of negotiators to ensure that real progress was not made.

The UNFCCC erected banners inviting people to raise their voices for climate change. Out on the streets the Danish police fought to ensure that the voices of dissent were silenced.

Thousands demand Climate Justice

If any good news emerged from the climate conference, it must be that the climate justice movement is rising up. On December 12, 2009 over 100,000 citizens of the world braved the cold and marched more than six kilometres through the streets of Copenhagen to show their disgust with politicians and leaders who consistently refuse to act but keep talking about climate change.

Would emissions be cut? Would these be done at source or would it be through acts carried out elsewhere rather than at home? Who would pay for the mitigation measures needed to be effected in poor developing nations? The impacted nations have said that levels of funding needed to tackle these impacts have been put at about US$400 billion per year. With brave generosity, rich nations offer to place $30 billion for the period 2010 to 2020. And then ramped up to US$100 billion by 2020.

President Lula of Brazil, while speaking at the plenary on the closing date, wondered if the negotiators would have to wait for angels to put intelligence in their brains before they could come to a good deal. His statement suggested that there was a case of lack of intelligence. Was it really a lack of intelligence or an unwillingness to toe the paths of true ambition?

take it or leave it

When President Obama took the stage, he asserted that climate change poses an unacceptable risk to our planet. The world should act boldly in the face of the threat. He said he came to act and not to talk. So what was the act.

Obama stated that the USA would change the way they create and use energy as a necessary block in their national security. In addition they would work to ensure reduction of dependence on foreign oil.  At the end of the day, all that President Obama said amounted to declaration of US interests that the world had to accept or leave. It brought nothing new to the table.

Even the funds promised for mitigation in poorer nations was made with a snigger that no one expecting aid should escape the demand for responsibility.

Talking about responsibility, who is responsible for the climate impacts in these poor countries? The pledge of President Lula to meet Brazilian challenges with own funds and the promise to assist poor countries in their efforts to take mitigation measures shone in the dark hallways of the Copenhagen talks.  

With several versions of the Copenhagen Accord, coined perhaps from a phrase in President Obama’s speech, one leaves the conference wondering where all the hype about working for an ambitious deal went. If there was a deficit of anything at this conference it was that of ambition.

A disaster for the world's poor

I left the Bella Conference at 1:45 AM to meet the warm chants of climate justice activists protesting in the cold, beneath the Metro tracks, denouncing the lack of seriousness in the climate negotiations. The protesters could have been snugly asleep in their beds, but these were mostly young people whose future was being jeopardised for the political expediency of a few and for the comfort and profiteering of carbon speculators.

As we said in our final statement at the talks, the so-called accord was a disaster to poor nations. A two degrees Celsius temperature rise means sure disaster and death to millions in vulnerable countries. 

As I crushed the snow beneath my feet, each step raised a question: for how long will leaders be disconnected from the voices of the people? But I took great comfort from the strength of Friends of the Earth International activists who demonstrated to the world that the time for the growth of the climate justice movement has indeed come.

Congratulations, friends. Have a great holiday season and an action-filled 2010.

Ricardo Navarro from Friends of the Earth El Salvador opened proceedings at the Klimaforum by talking about the expulsion of the Friends of the Earth International delegation from observing the talks and how the people who represent the millions of affected people around the world are being denied a voice.

Today only two people from Friends of the Earth International were allowed into the conference centre where the talks are taking place.

"The blame game is now beginning for who will be responsible for the no solution."

Friends of the Earth International believes that rich countries are squarely to blame for the lack of any meaningful progress made so far.

Cristian Dominguez from the Bolivian negotiating team at the climate conference told the audience what it was like on the inside for developing countries:

"They don't want to talk about the Kyoto Treaty so they delay. Last night we stayed until 2am and achieved nothing."

He said the politicians of the developing countries were focusing on the past and unwilling to change, "they are like robots of the capitalist system."

"We have faith that Evo Morales [the Bolivian President] won't sign a document that goes against humanity, against Mother Earth" he concluded.

the climate fund

Most of the politicians and heads of state attending the summit have now arrived in Copenhagen and are making announcements on how they propose to move forward.

Today US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton announced a $100 billion climate fund. However, she did not say how much the US would contribute to this amount that falls far short of what the United Nations say is needed.

Read the press release

Watch the video of the how the day unfolded

Nnimmo Bassey the Friends of the Earth International Chair said:

"Our organizations represent millions of people around the world and provide a critical voice promoting climate justice inside the UN. On the inside and the outside, all the rules have gone out the window - organizations such as Friends of the Earth that support peaceful action are being barred while developing countries concerns are being trampled in the plenary."

This is a shocking turn in events and we are working on our response now to the UNFCCC.

We will keep you updated.

To learn more about today's dramatic events inside and outside of the conference centre please visit the Friends of the Earth US blog.

The first talk explored the false solutions being promoted in the name of tackling climate change including the role of the World Bank, carbon offsetting, monoculture tree plantations and agrofuels.

The speakers included Camila Morena from Friends of the Earth Brazil and Nnimmo Bassey from Friends of the Earth Nigeria and the Chair of Friends of the Earth International.

Camila looked at REDD as a false solution.

"The Amazon covers 49% of Brazil and Amazon deforestation accounts for 48% of the deforestation taking place at the moment, four times the rate of Indonesia - the second deforester" she said.

REDD, which stands for reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in developing countries, will mean that forests are incorporated into carbon markets.

Put simply, a factory in Europe can offset their emissions by buying credits on the carbon market and as a result a landowner in the Amazon will be paid not to cut down a hectare of trees. The way the mechanism is set up though could also mean that deforestation actually increases under the scheme. It is flawed in many ways.

Camila said there was "tsunami of investment in REDD projects in Brazil at the moment" and said that big agribusiness, who are the owners of most of this land - not peasant farmers as we are led to believe, who are cutting down the rain forest to plant soy are now being rewarded for not deforesting the Amazon anymore.

"We are paying the kings of deforestation not to chop down our forests" she said.

In the climate talks Friends of the Earth are demanding that forests are kept out of carbon markets, that plantations are entirely excluded and land rights are enforced as the basis of any forest policy.

Find out more about REDD

Nnimmo Bassey talked about gas flaring in his country.

Gas flaring takes place when the the associated gasses that occur when oil is extracted from the ground are burnt straight into the atmosphere. This is what Shell and other companies do in the Niger Delta, often in the middle of communities, twenty-four hours a day. Not only are huge quantities of CO2 pumped into the air but also toxins that have had devastating effects on the surrounding communities.

For decades oil companies have broken the law by illegally flaring, saying it's very difficult to stop. Now the clean development mechanism (CDM) has come along, another false solution, and Shell are looking to stop these illegal flares and claim money for doing so under the pretext of reducing their carbon emissions.

Nnimmo put this question to the audience:

"If I were a bank robber and I decide to rob only one bank a day instead of ten should I be given an award? This is what is now happening as oil companies turn to carbon development mechanisms."

Find out more about gas flaring

a future without fossil fuels

In another room George Monbiot, an environmentalist from the UK, also addressed false solutions and looked at the huge levels of investment that would be needed to continue down the road of fossil fuels.

He dismissed the notion that we'll soon be at peak oil and once that runs out we will naturally progress to renewables because we will have no choice.

"The problem we're facing is not too little fossil fuels, it's too much" he said.

He explained that as fossil fuels become harder to reach, more and more money will be needed to extract them. In the case of coal there is plenty in the far reaches of Siberia and the North Sea bed. The problem is getting it.

He conceded that the path to renewables is an expensive one - around $4.2 trillion he'd calculated - and will totally change our consumption patterns but the path to our continued reliance on fossil fuel would also cost around the same amount just to continue with business as usual.

As he sees it, there are two options:

"We spend trillions on securing fossils fuels for the next generation an adapt to the the disastrous consequences, or we can invest the same amount in renewables that will last forever."

I know which one I would choose.

The event was hosted by Friends of the Earth Denmark in collaboration with Brian Vad Mathiesen, an assistant Professor at Aalborg University in Denmark. The Professor looked objectively at the case for and against CCS.

Firstly, Palle Bendsen informed us that the technology won't be ready until at least 2020 and not on a large scale until 2030. It's worth bearing in mind that 2020 is the date that countries are committing themselves to achieve large emissions reductions.

The Professor's presentation revealed some fascinating facts about CCS that never seem be raised by the people promoting this 'solution'.

Around 40% more coal will need to be burned just to enable the carbon dioxide to be captured and stored,

There are also added social impacts with CCS. In addition to the negative impacts of coal on the local population, there will now also be an impact on the people who live on land slated for the captured carbon facility. They will have to be evicted.

Professor Mathiesen said: "In Denmark at the moment a community of farmers need to be relocated to make way for a storage facility. They don't want to go and so the project has been delayed due as a result of their appeals."

At least in Denmark there is the benefit of an appeal. This can't be guaranteed for projects being developed elsewhere.

And finally, the money. It is estimated that a coal fired power station with carbon capture storage will take fifty years to achieve a return on investment.

With these stark facts laid out CCS clearly has to be exposed as a totally false solution to climate change.

Find out everything you need to know about carbon capture and storage

Speaking to the cameras after the second action Nnimmo Bassey, Chair of Friends of the Earth International said the rich countries were "using dirty negotiating tactics..trying to change the rules and tilt them in their own favour."

African countries stood up to these tactics and during the action Friends of the Earth International chanted "We stand with Africa. Don't kill Kyoto targets"

• Watch coverage of the first action
  
• Hear Nnimmo explain why it's important to stand with Africa
  

At 10am on Monday morning Anje von Broock and Tina Loeffelsend form Friends of the Earth Germany / BUND delivered 10,000 signatures collected via the DemandClimateJustice.org website calling for at least 40% cuts in carbon emissions from Germany and the EU by 2020.

The minister said he welcomed Friends of the Earth International's efforts to push governments forward.

Picking up on Chancellor Merkel’s remarks that she will not make unilateral commitments now, Anje and Tina reminded the German government that, industrialised countries have led the way in carbon emissions and now have to take the lead in reducing them in Copenhagen.

Drastic reductions of at least 40% are needed from rich countries at home without offsetting.

The minister responded by stating the German government's mid to long-term reductions targets of 80-95% by 2050. At which point Anje questioned the Minister's commitment to that pledge given the investment currently going into new coal fired power plants in the country.

"That is something we can debate back home" the minister responded.

We look forward to what will be a lively debate.

View another video here from the Danish Climate Movement