Copenhagen in Sporting Imagery

Cartoon by Martin Rowson
in the Guardian 19 December 2009

Well the world came, they talked, they didn't really agree anything.

The sportsman in me knows that you have to set a goal a target to aim for. Sometimes you end up reaching that goal, I have won two Irish Junior cups at bowls as well as several other titles. Sometimes you miss, I didn't make the 1992 Olympics for example. But they were both goals that were set and they were both something that I strived for.

What has come out of Copenhagen is a non-binding accord to limit temperature increases to no more than 2C, but has not set any targets on how to do so. For me as a athlete that would be like saying I'm going to run a sub 4 minute mile (which I have done in the past) but have no clear way of how I'm going to train to do so, nor any idea of how I'm going to run the race to do so.

So how would I go about running that race to get to sub four without a plan. I could set off as fast as I could. Yeah I could run the first 100m in about 11 seconds. If I do that 16 and a little bit more times I'd run a mile in under three minutes. Easy. Err no.

Ok I'd set off then at a gentle jog and start to really run after the first three minutes are up. Only after the first three minutes I have only run a quarter mile, and I have to run the other three quarters of a mile in one minute. Something not even Usain could run at that required pace for.

After two years of planning to get to this summit in the final hours the issues of emissions cuts, monitoring of emissions and the legal nature of the deal all re-emerged in the final hours of negotiations. Taking a different sporting metaphor this is like getting to the final minutes of a game of football only to realise that the size of the net, selection of a referee and the rules of the game are contended by each of the players on the park and several of the fans. We wouldn't stand that in our sports following, how come we are to accept it for something as important as the future of our planet.

Yesterday there were rumours that the worlds leaders were going to be asked to stay in Copenhagen until they came to a substantive and target based agreement. It would be better than the hogswash of a document that they did.

Barack Obama says:

"This progress is not enough. We have come a long way, but we have much further to go."

Gordon Brown says:

"This is the first step we are taking towards a green and low-carbon future for the world, steps we are taking together. But like all first steps, the steps are difficult and they are hard.

"I know what we really need is a legally binding treaty as quickly as possible."

Only thing is Prime Minister this isn't the first step, this is a vital step along the way. This step may well have been like one an Olympic diver takes on the platform before the dive. The end result is either to soar to success or miss the end of the board and fall to a horrible mess. Sadly the second is a lot closer to the step that has been taken.

As Martin Rowson illustrates above it is like the World Leaders have washed their hands of their responsibility like Pontius Pilate. They should have been kept at the negotiations until they really did have a deal to help the world.

World Leaders to Pull an All Nighter in Copenhagen

Recently reading my student friend's updates on Facebook or Twitter I've seen numerous of them stating that they were pulling "all-nighters" to get the end of term essays finished. The latest news from Copenhagen is that the Danes are telling the world leaders not to go anywhere just yet on what is meant to be the last day of the Climate Change Summit.

Of course all nighters at the end of a period of discussion can get a result. The Northern Irish Agreement was meant to have been concluded on Maundy Thursday, it was only as a result of an all-nighter that the Agreement was made and the far more friendly Good Friday Agreement came into being.

President Obama sat down for an hour with the Chinese leader Wen Jiabao for an hour earlier in a head to head of what many correspondents see as the two key players in getting a global agreement settled. However, BBC News has just stated that President Obama is on his way to the airport and Air Force One to head to his Christmas vacation on Hawaii. He had earlier said he had come "not to talk, but to act". Whereas the Chinese Premier said:

"To meet the climate change challenge, the international community must strengthen confidence, build consensus, make vigorous efforts and enhance co-operation."

Apparently the major stumbling block at the moment is the American $100bn a year fund to help the developing countries business to develop in a green way. The Americans are wanting assurances that this is what the money will be going towards, the Chinese who are heading up the G77 of the developing nations is urging the USA to trust them to make sure this is what happens.

There are still poles of difference between these two major players, but it may be down to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to move the issue onwards if an agreement is to be made before the world heads away from Copenhagen. President Sarkozy of France however is saying that the Chinese are the ones currently holding up the talks.

UPDATE: Within half an hour of me first hearing this the BBC are now stating that the UN Secretary General's office is denying that such an edict to world leaders has been issued. However, I'm saying why not?

What Bank Ki Moon's office is saying is that they are still hoping to reach an agreement in a few hours, without the need for overnight discussions. Although it may no longer be a Treaty but an Accord that is signed and that a deadline (2010) to sign up for a legally binding agreement may be omitted from the final text.

FURTHER UPDATE: Latest Facebook update at 16:15 from Lib Dem MEP for Scotland George Lyon does not make for good reading.

Time for the Rich to Heed Africa

The African countries have walked out of the Copenhagen talks because of the lack of movement from the industrialised countries to take responsible action now, beyond the Kyoto measures. The formal talks are currently therefore in suspension.

The African nations are amongst those that are liable to feel the first major effects of any catastrophic climatic change. That is if they are already not suffering from this. Around 200 activists in the hall started to shout "We Stand for Africa - Kyoto Targets now" when news of the African unrest that the Danes hosting the summit were about t0 sideline an extension of emission cuts under Kyoto.

The EU and other developed countries were discussing a new agreement out of Copenhagen, but the African countries were fearful that the gains made under Kyoto in 1997 would be swept aside as a result. The US commitment to 3% under its 1990 level while a big move from where they currently are is one of the prime examples of a behind Kyoto agreed levels. As this has come from one of the biggest producers of CO2 the need for change here is at its most critical. In the eyes of Africa the rich and greedy nations of the world are not doing enough to help alleviate their painful future.

Africa is speaking up because their survival is most at risk by the dolittle's of the industrialised nations. They know the need of radical reform first hand, they are now crying out for it. They are no longer prepared to be walked over as a great price of what is at stake is known to them, it is not just a mild irritating increase in temperature to them, but a real danger that they will never be able to feed their own people as a result.

Sarah Palin Carry On Delusioned

Sarah Palin is writing in the Guardian today about why the man who kept out of the VP's office should not attend Copenhagen. As you would expect from a climate change denier such as the former Governor of Alaska it is full of holes.

She talks about the 'serious cuts' that America is making, countering it with the increase being allowed by China and India. There is one issue here the cuts that Obama is making is only going to take the US down 3% on 1990 levels, which is actually behind where most of the rest of the developed world already is beyond. The thing is that America wasn't allowed to increase it carbon emissions the way that it did under Bush and republican lead houses that batted away attempts by Clinton to bring about a change. If anything the serious cuts from America are long overdue and too little at this time.

She also goes on to say that carrying out the proposed cuts will put America at an economic and competitive disadvantage. Well she is clearly ignoring the economic and competitive advantage that the USA has benefited from by ignoring the directives of Kyoto while others of us have pushed for reductions. Indeed instead of job losses it has seen more inventiveness and jobs moving in other directions. Indeed when I was studying environmental economics 20 years ago at University it was of the considerations that we addressed. There where several major difference that had to be made.

• The things that were produced
• What they were produced from (i.e. recycling rather than finite raw material)
• How we went about producing them
• How the workers environment changed to meet the challenge (this was mainly the home working model)

So if twenty years ago we were aware of the issue what happened in East Anglia after that is one thing that will have no impact. As someone who isn't a johnny come lately to the argument but spent a good part of my University years studying this and the economic impacts and been a keen follower of developments since I can say that Sarah once again has shown her ignorance of the facts.

However, she does speak a few lines of sense in her Comment is Free piece. One of the them is:

"Our representatives in Copenhagen should remember that good environmental
policymaking is about weighing real-world costs and benefits."

She is right. But from ready her article she makes the very basic economic mistake in thinking that all costs and benefits are measured in GDP. In the real world our social, environmental and sustainability costs and benefits are all to be taken into consideration. If we didn't we'd all be working 25/7/365 because the financial costs are of such a great boon.

Today the World Speaks as One

With all eyes turning to Copenhagen this morning the world is hoping for a result that the planet can live with coming out of the Climate talks. 56 papers in 45 countries covering 20 languages (incudung Chinese, Russian and Arabic) including our own Guardian have taken the unprecedented step of carrying a common editorial, many have also moved it to their front page.

I'll let you read it for yourself, but I'll also direct you to the story of how this project came about.

The Wave That Flooded Glasgow #TheWave

Pictures by James Harrison

I'm sitting on the bus heading back home after the Wave in Glasgow. You may be asking why so late but at Kelvingrove Park the use of my laptop was requested by LYS for use of the secretary at their exec meeting held afterwards, which is the end was not in fact used.

Anyway this was the driest Wave I have ever been in the middle of, I have have been in some big Atlantic rollers at the strands in Portrush or Portstewart when we holidayed when I was a child. The Glasgow weather was mercifully dry while we were on the march, showers however, did give us a light soaking as we headed off to find somewhere to eat.

First off no sooner had I arrived at Ibrox underground station where the Lib Dems had agreed to congregate than I was greeted by the vision of the Linlithgow Climate Challenge team arriving with their banner. It was good to see them here as well.

George Lyon MEP, Robert Brown MSP and Alison McInnes MSP along with Glasgow North PPC Katy Gordon were prominent Lib Dems who were on the march. We formed up at Bellahouston Park before winding our way towards and over the Cylde. I also for quite a bit of the march was walking alongside or close to Green MSP Patrick Harvie. It actually felt good to be part of a Scottish Lib Dem contingent at a march and actually be one of those responsible for raising the average age.

Yes Liberal Youth Scotland were out in force and indeed it was their posters that you can see all of us carrying in the picture above. They have had a busy weekend yesterday they flashmobbed the Student Loan's Company in Glasgow*, then they headed off to help Ashai Ghay the Lib Dem candidate in next Thursday's Bearsden South by election, then The Wave and an exec meeting today.

There was quite a crowd there and just across the bridge next to the SECC we formed a big loop just off Finnieston Street. Here we all grouped up and did a a couple of Mexican waves down the whole march and then headed off to Kelvingrove Park, for the rally at the end of the march.


The official even photographer asked us to come over for a group picture behind the events official sign and as he levelled us all up he did say this is "big group".

Now we must hope that the message that the people in Glasgow and elsewhere have sent to the delegates heading to Copenhagen has a real impact. Hope they have listened to and seen us and the coverage we have had across the news and know that now is the time to take action.

PS I have lost the scarf in Wave colours that you can see above. Which is wierd as I distinctly remember having it at the QMU and remembering to pick it up as we were leaving.

PPS I tweeted about the absence of certain political presence at the Glasgow Wave while on the move. The absence of any grassroots support for this issue by these two really is a worry for the future.



*This led to representation coming down to discuss with them their issues on the doorstep.

The Wave #TheWave

As you may well be aware there are mass demonstrations in London and Glasgow ahead of next week's Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen. As I will be out and about on the streets of Glasgow here is a feel for the event from the hastags and some of the Twitter accounts that I follow of people who will be there at either location.

I'm a Bit Disappointed with Nick Clegg

Bet that headline has shocked some of you.

Yeah I know I can hear the Nats saying "Nick? Don't you mean Tavish?". I can hear certain Labourites going blah about time. I can also sense certain Lib Dems are working out how to do me in. But bear with me and let me tell you why.

Nick has just sent an email to all the Lib Dem supporters asking "What are you doing tomorrow?". Well I have a very good answer, do you? He then goes on to invite me to join him and Simon Hughes. I'd love to, I haven't spoken to either of them since Bournemouth and would love to catch up. However, he also tells me this is my last chance to take action.

What I'm disappointed with is that Nick seems to think that I can only take that action in London at the Copenhagen - The Wave demo in London. Well I'm not going to fly down there to take part in a Climate Change demonstration.

What I am doing tomorrow though is getting on a bus and heading to Glasgow. No I'll not be shopping in Buchannan Gallery or at the Fort or anywhere. I'll be marching through the streets of Glasgow as part of the The Wave march north of the border, see you don't have to be in London to make your voice heard.

If you are not able to get the London though here is Simon Hughes who you won't see in Glasgow telling you how important tomorrow is.



So therefore as you can imagine I'm only a bit disappointed with Nick, thankfully many of his colleagues are giving equal billing to both marches.

How Green are Our Copenhagen Delegates?

I see that Prince Charles is to 'attend' the Copenhagen conference on Climate Change. I say attend, he has been invited to make an address during the opening of the conference, in total he will be in the Danish capital for all of four hours.

Which asks the question how will he be getting to conference? Is this a flying visit in both the literal and figurative senses? Indeed how will anyone be getting there? Obviously some of the long haul delegates will have to fly, but with High Speed Rail links across Europe surely the Europeans should be making every effort to get there by using less CO2 and letting the train take the strain?

That is just what George Lyon Scotland's Lib Dem MEP and Simon Hughes representing the party at UK level are doing. Of the 38 UK delegates 19 of the 38 have so far confirmed that they will be flying. Why? Simon Hughes says his train ticket cost him £398, the cost so far claimed for travel with not all travel costs claimed by the delegation is £17,500 averaging £420. So no only is it costing the planet more in CO2 it is costing the taxpayer more as well.

Indeed it is estimated that the total CO2 cost of the conference will come to 41,000 tons, approximately the annual emissions of Morocco. Surely we should expect more of our own delegation. Indeed Eurostar give advise on how to get to Copenhagen by train. It is no more arduous that some trips made by Scottish MPs on a weekly basis for work. Yet somehow when we have a chance to do something practical as well as merely talking about it half our delegation at least are not looking into greener options.

As an aside I know that Prince Charles does his best to carbon offset his travel emissions, but how many of the other delegates will be doing so?

Deal or Too Slow Deal

I've just seen Gordon Brown's response to Nick Clegg's questioning in PMQs about the Copenhagen summit and raising the issue that Labour is doing too little (I'd add too late) on the Climate Change.

Brown replied that ALL parties should campaign together for a deal at Copenhagen. Strangely that only last week all parties bar one, plus Sammy Wilson of the DUP, did vote positively for their own responsibility, agreeing to vote for Parliament signing up to 10:10. Of course we know the one that was largely against was Brown's own party. Ed Milliband tried to explain this anomaly in talk and action away by saying (my comments in red):

"10:10 is a campaign which Labour supports: all Cabinet ministers have signed up to try to reduce their CO2 emissions by 10% in 2010. It's a great motivator of public action to cut carbon emissions through individual and collective behaviour change and I hope it helps to build public support for action by governments to agree an ambitious, effective and fair deal at Copenhagen. This is a great opening paragraph one I cannot fault.

"It's also true that signing up can be an important step to sustaining long term emissions cuts. That's why Labour-run councils and Labour groups are signing up to 10:10; we want local authorities to have local carbon budgets, and signing up to 10:10 is an important step towards that goal. Again bravo!

"But Oops! as a government we have a much bigger too big to take personal action?, long term goal that we set out in the framework of the Climate Change Act last year. Five months ago we put flesh on that framework when we agreed - with the support of the Lib Dems and the official ouch! Opposition things have changed in five months – the first three carbon budgets for this country. Those budgets are 3 five year cycles moving from last year to 2022. The problem of course is that the whole thrust of the 10:10 campaign is that we no longer appear to have the luxury of waiting until 2022 hence the need for drastic acceleration starting NOW!


"So every government department is committed to a long term reduction in carbon emissions – not just in 2009, not just in 2010, but through to 2022 and beyond failing to recognise the fact that 10:10 also believes these need cutting beyond as well. The public sector has already reduced its emissions by a third between 1990 and 2007 this has shot up from 21% or 18% from last week circa one fifth. Impressive or lies? and the Government is on track to meet and exceed its carbon emissions target of 12.5% as I said last week that is inclusive of carbon trading actually 8.5% reductions from across its estate by 2010-11.

"We're now allocating £20 million pounds to cut CO2 emissions from both the government estate and its transport to achieve those goals." Again while it looks impressive spending to save the planet but isn't really that much especially when but beside the £1.5trillion to save the banks.

So I think that Nick's question was very well justified, and Gordon should really have taken his own answer to heart only last week, instead of playing a political game of football.

Just who is playing party politics with climate change

I wasn't going to post the contents of the email I got back from Michael Connarty last night until I heard the same refrain from elsewhere. Here is the motion I asked him to back:

"That this House believes it is vital that the UK demonstrates political leadership at all levels in response to the climate crisis, and that this is particularly important ahead of the United Nations Climate Change summit in Copenhagen if there is to be an international agreement which will avert the worst effects of catastrophic climate change; further believes that immediate practical responses to the crisis should include a massive expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency and a commitment for all homes in Britain to be warm homes within ten years; acknowledges that action taken now to tackle the climate crisis will cost less than action taken in the future; notes the declared support of Labour and Conservative frontbenchers to the objective of the 10:10 campaign which calls for 10 per cent greenhouse gas emission reductions by the end of 2010; agrees that the House will sign up to the 10:10 campaign; calls on Her Majesty’s government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010; and further calls on the government to bring a delivery plan before this House by the end of 2009 on how these objectives will be achieved."

Looks pretty much like what the Lib Dems called for at our Autumn conference. However, Michael's opening salvo in his email back to me was:

"I support the 10:10 proposal, but sadly the Lib Dems in the UK parliament have decided to make it a point scoring exercise rather than getting cross party support on a useful target to try to set public authorities, councils and Quangos. I have spoken to your Scottish MPs about their Party's sillyness."

But surely I read in the above 'calls on Her Majesty’s government and all public sector bodies now to make it their policy to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the end of 2010'. So Michael do you support 10:10 or not? I merely ask as that is the core of the message in a nutshell and is what Government can legislate for. If not what useful target do you want to set public authorities, councils and Quangos? Be careful how you answer that as even I recognise that the 10% is going to have to be achieved through tough measures. So higher seems unlikely, therefore I'm guessing based on the past 12 years experience you'll be asking less.

There's even acknowledgement that both the other major parties front bench teams have given their backing to the objective of 10:10. The fact that they have and have yet to talk about, let alone bring a delivery plan to be is an issue that needs to be addressed.

What draws me back to the subject I blogged about earlier was that Labour Internet Tsar Kerry McCarthy MP tweeted about a stronger Labour amendment that she would be backing. She's not alone, Plymouth MP Linda Gilroy used surprising similar language to that of Michael Connarty and Kerry. Indeed she says:

"I think the Lib Dems are playing politics with something that should be above politics.

"I would hope to be in a position to vote for a strong motion as amended by the Government to reflect the leadership role it continues to play. We were the first country in the world to put into law such a comprehensive framework."

So let me get this right as the motion may not reflect the strong leadership (see the graphs from earlier folks) that Labour have given they will not be backing a 10% reduction in public sector CO2 emissions in the next 14 months. The reason I stumbled across Mrs Gilroy's comments was of course trying to find the wording of the Labour amendment. Silly me after yesterday's I should have guessed that was a vain hope.

Piecing two and two together, it would appear that the amendment will be looking for a useful target to be set. By that I'm guessing they'll not impose 10% by the next year, maybe even leave it up to individual departments to come to their own figure. It will praise the Labour Government for setting targets, buying carbon credits, holding off doing much constructively until near the target dates. After all a landing on the magic figure however it is achieved is better than not setting the targets at all, right? Wrong.

The longer we put off reducing our emissions on target for the final deadline the closer the unfortunate deadlines move forward too. Those unfortunate deadlines include the earth's temperature rising, climate being irreversibly changed and weather patterns being distorted. The irony for the UK is that global warming is liable to lead to a UK cooling and the Atlantic Drift Current diverts away from our shores.

I look forward to seeing the wording of the Government amendment I doubt it is as clearly put as the Lib Dem motion and therein lies the crux of just who is playing party politics with the climate. Are Labour really above politics in this issue themselves, or are they just wanting to count up past points ignoring demerits in their own achievements?