The players:

Obama was between a rock and a hard place … effectively too soon in his presidency to make any deeper commitment and yet still hope to pass climate legislation at home.  China once again played the long game while resisting any move towards being held accountable.  The small island states cried foul (justifiably).  The developing nations by and large stuck with the victim card, although making some commendable moves to contribute to the solution.  The emerging economies of India, South Africa, and Brazil tried various tactics to remain in play but in my opinion were largely out-maneuvered.  Then there were the mavericks that could and should have been more responsible … Canada perhaps leading the way from behind. The NGO’s and activists were locked out (and some were locked up too).

The consequence:

It was a historic event … but that’s not necessarily a compliment!  Leadership was largely missing.  The default minimum of a delayed accord leaves the world with premiums to pay from taking a loan against the future, and that’s going to really sting in years to come.  At the same time, could anything better have been achieved under the circumstances?  At the end of the day people did what they did with the requirements they had under the constraints of their circumstances.  On the micro-scale there was notable value for the CSAG team and partners (ERC, WRC, etc).  On the macro scale the necessity for wise adaptation has suddenly ratcheted up a number of notches.

The coming days:

Is your head spinning yet, because the spin doctors are in full stride already.  From the fanfare of failure (e.g here and here) to cautious approval (e.g. here and here) alongside the official positive spin (e.g here).  What should be your take on it all? Wrong question!  Instead, decide for your self after you’ve looked at the evidence.  There’s a flurry of opinionated oratory that opines on outcomes (sorry, couldn’t resist!), and that includes this blog!.  But in the end each needs to take responsibility for reaching a conclusion — an attribute sorely missing at COP 15.  And if you need a starting point to the evidence, try this.

As for the the CSAG COP 15 team, we’ve split to head around the world to the cold fields of England, snowfields of Scandanavia, the mountains and beaches of South Africa, and home.

Some closing visuals from Copenhagen

Images of the present or the future?  Or both?

Hiding faces / Saving faces?

They did What????

Display at the exit to COP 15 venue.  Ironic?

CSAG (and the world?) have left the building!

I feel not much was there beyond what has already been stated.  Perhaps because Obama said it, there might be some movement today.  There certainly seems to be a growing willingness to achieve something that’s concrete.  How optimistic do you feel today?

Here’s my take (Obama’s points in bold – not exactly verbatim, I can’t type that fast!):

• all major economies must put forward targets - ignoring the fact that USA’s are weak targets
• need a mechanism to ensure we share information and keep commitments … not infringing on sovereignty … but ensure credibility - a jibe at China?
• finance to help developing countries to adapt … USA will be part of a ramp up to $10bn by2020, and $100bn by 2020 – BUT the latter if it is part of an accord as he described, and that’s a big IF.
• Common but differentiated responsibilities - the cynic in me says, how differentiated!
• Will we split?  Preferring posturing to action? - an attempt at using guilt to move people? Makes me think of the pot calling the kettle black.
• No country will get everything we want.  Some want aid with no strings attached. Some developed nations think they cannot afford the aid, and that developing economies must take a greater part of the burden – well, of course! Everyone knows that.  The problem is that the equitable solution cannot be agreed.  I wonder why?
• Negotiation in recent years have produced little while emissions have increased - we need to be reminded of this more often
• Time for talk is over; we can take this accord and build on it and be part of a historic endeavor for our children and grand children, or we can delay and be back for the same stale arguments until climate change is irreversible – a nice quote for the history books
• No time to waste, USA has made their choice, now the nations of the world need to come together, there has to be movement on all sides – yeah, yeah, so USA has made their choice and we take it or leave it? I would have liked a little more expression of accommodation.
• Better to act than to talk … choose the future over the past. An inappropriate either/or choice?  Isn’t our daily challenge to talk and act, take the future with the past?

OK, so a cynical response.  Sorry. Obama probably went as far as he could and still get his home legislation enacted.

China’s speech was no better, and in effect said you don’t have to have mechanisms to monitor us and enforce agreements, trust us!  Right.

Lastly, just imagine if Mugabe was given such an opportunity to motivate and move the nations of the world (shudder).  So let’s take what was said for what it is, a step in the right direction.  Perhaps the truest works Obama spoke: “let’s take this accord and build on it“

Now there are merely hours to take the last decisions.

[EDIT] Zuma now speaking: A somewhat ponderous recitation of facts … but some points that stuck out:

• Developing nations emissions must increase in the short term, with common long term responsibilities.
• Developing nation response will be conditional on technological and financial support from developed countries … rich countries must take the lead.
• With support from developed countries SA can reduce emissions 34% below business as usual by 2020.

So we’re coming down to the wire and with every rumor emotions fly between hope and despair. We have a situation where:

• NASA has 2009 as one of the warmest on record (currently #4),
• developed nations are throwing money in a last minute effort (Clinton’s offer for theUSA),
• senior ministers working into the night to forge a solutions (see leaked text), all the riff-raff excluded (i.e. CSAG included),
• China, still the spoiler at the party are positioning themselves as the new green economy
• and over the top emotive media surrounding it all!

So what does this actually mean in real terms for folk like us in CSAG?  Well, there is nothing on the table, even when viewed most optimistically, that is going to get us out of the braai pit we’ve dug … at best any agreement will be along the lines of someone picking up a cup of water to cool the fire temporarily. Now, in the face of the trajectory we’re on, more than ever before there’s a need for credible, defensible, and actionable (my current mantra) knowledge generation to inform and guide policy and action for adaptation response to the future of regional and local scale impacts (which just so happens to be our core work profile!)  Moreover, the already pressing need for competent and experienced people to stand on the interface between science and society is now urgent — especially as one listens to the nonsense (and that’s charitable) that’s spouted from some quarters — any one want to sign on as a new MSc / PhD student and help fill the void?

Whats the optimist in me say? COP-15 is a step (it was never likely to be all we hoped it would be), it’s moving in the right directions, there’s dialogue, there’s partial acceptance of relative responsibilities, and it’s initiated a move that will add to the momentum of global response.  We have some (small) room for maneuvering in the next few years.

What’s the pessimist in me say? It’s not enough now, may well be not enough in the coming years, the rich will ride the troubles (mostly), the poor will suffer further, and the whole steaming mess is morally bankrupt.

What’re the biggest uncertainties in the coming hours? What will Obama say, What will China do, How will the developing nations respond, What last minute pressured arm-twisting is underway, Who’s going to be the loser?

Stay tuned!

Last minute monetary gestures being made by developed nations (e.g. 10 billion dollar offer from UK) have been responded to with the comment they are just “holding out a carrot”.

What will Obama do tomorrow???

I empathize with the protesters who turn to activism, because what else can they do? Perhaps the COP should have started with a session on ethics and responsibilities.

We (CSAG) are thin on the ground now, three of us have departed Copenhagen already, and the remaining two will be gone in the next 36 hours.  In my cynical moments I think little is going to be accomplished until we get another climate-attributable disaster associated with human suffering — and that’s an extremely uncomfortable thought.  What will it take for politicians to do what is needed?

In the meantime we look to 2010 … to putting our heads down, generating information and knowledge to try help society respond, while in their intransigence the international game-players pout at each other and point fingers.

Amongst all of this are some positive elements; the engagement of the youth (and there are large numbers here) is impressive.  The innovation on the part of organizations looking beyond the politics is encouraging, and I have a sense that the landscape shift to climate change responses occurring outside of the political framework is gaining momentum.  However, while national and international policy continues to be established by elected governments looking to protect their power base, even this change can only go so far.

Personally COP has been fruitful; we have had the chance to engage with others on the work we do, to build new relationships, initiate new avenues of activity, and discover new opportunities.  While some are too preliminary to mention here, the GCAP and weAdapt.org initiatives in which we are a core partner is looking exciting, and have the potential to strongly contribute to bridging the science-society divide.  Also we have had productive discussions with a wide range or organizations including DMI, UNDP, UNITAR, Red Cross, UK Hadley Centre, etc., etc., all leveraging the opportunity of being in the same place at the same time.

So what next?  Well, maybe all the negativeness above will become irrelevant if sense prevails in the next 48 hours — things can, and have in the past, taken a dramatic turn for the better.  But for now I remain very pessimistic.