The negotiating text that is to be used as the basis for the Copenhagen climate change talks has been released.
As this post’s title indicates, the document is very much a work in progress, with alternate text enclosed in little square brackets all the way through it. It’s not exactly easy to read, and The Guardian is seeking the wisdom of the crowd to translate it into something approaching English.
The reading and understanding problem, it seems to me, doesn’t lie in the English, give or take a bit of inevitable bureaucratese; it lies as you point out in the vast amount of square bracketing and other forms of alternative text proposals. But this is also largely inevitable in any multilateral negotiating text at this stage of its life, and the more so given the sensitivities and complex subject matter of this one. I don’t think the Guardian really understands the UN process, though no doubt my preconceived view that the Guardian really doesn’t understand very much about anything at all comes into that judgment.
However, to be slightly more constructive and in the spirit of the post, I was struck by a line in the text “mitigation and adaptation efforts should be given equal consideration”, not square-bracketed. Am I the only person baffled as to why the public attention given to climate change issues – and indeed the government policy attention – is so disprportionately weighted to mitigation in Australia?
Wozza, because it’s safe, and the effects are [relatively] predictable, and you can make a damned good case that it’s cheaper in the long run – or at least the costs are more explicit.
Adaptation is a dangerous, risky and unpredictable by comparison. All this and becoming ever more necessary.
The World Resources Institute has a nice summary of different countries positions.
patickg, yes, prevention is better than cure in principle but it’s the “becoming ever more necessary” I’m referring to. If some, and probably quite a lot of, climate change is inevitable regardless of any mitigation action taken from here, then adaptation is inevitably necessary also. And it is actually about risk management – managing the impacts so as to make them as undangerous as possible – so I certainly don’t agree with your last para.
Being something of a sceptic myself – in regard to the likely accuracy of the projections of the models, not AGW and its underlying science per se – I would expect a lesser degree of necessary adaptation than presumably most others would, which increases my bafflement that those others address it so little.
However, precisely because mitigation is so widely seen as overwhelmingly the main game, talking adaptation is probably verging on off topic so I won’t pursue it.
One thing that is no longer in a bracket is Annex III, 14 (p. 59):
Very good news!
Wozza @1: “Am I the only person baffled as to why the public attention given to climate change issues – and indeed the government policy attention – is so disprportionately weighted to mitigation in Australia?”
Speaking generally about risk management, there are a range of ways to deal with risks:
For low level risks, we could simply ACCEPT that there will be a negative outcome, continue with business-as-usual (BAU), and take the consequences. We use knives to cut food in the kitchen, knowing that there is a risk of cutting our fingers, but accepting that small risk. We could theoretically use knife-proof gloves, but we usually don’t, because the likelihood of the risk is small and the consequences are small.
Alternatively, we could continue with BAU, but plan how to MINIMISE the negative outcome. We do this when we drive cars (knowing that accidents happen) but install seat belts and air bags to reduce fatalities. The likelihood of some kind of accident is moderate (in a lifetime of driving) and the consequences can be significant.
Alternatively, we can continue with BAU, but INSURE ourselves against the financial risk. We do this with house and car insurance and health insurance. The likelihood of a negative outcome is small to moderate, but the financial consequences can be significant.
Companies often insure against a range of negative outcomes, when it is cheaper to use insurance than to take action against the risk in question.
Alternatively, we could DESIGN-OUT the risk, by making changes to how we do things. Divided roads are a way of designing-out head-on collisions. It is an expensive way of building roads, but head-on collisions are significant accidents. Railway overpasses are a way of designing-out train crashes with road transport at railway crossings on major roads. Overpasses are expensive, but the alternative is a potential train-wreck scenario.
OK, so how does that relate to climate change?
The general consensus is that climate change is a “train-wreck scenario”. As such, the most sensible approach from a risk management perspective is to try and design-out the risk, as a primary response.
Sure, we can arrange for the equivalent of fire brigade, ambulance, hospital emergency facilities, jaws-of-life, tow trucks and cleanup crews, etc as a fallback if the “train-wreck scenario” occurs.
However, that is an implicit admission of failure with designing-out the risk in the first place.
Actually, there’s a lot of adaptation talk going on – conferences of local councils (who have a fairly large stake in this, especially in coastal and other liminal areas), agricultural sectors, etc.
It’s made its way very firmly into – for example – bushfire management (recent conference on the gold cost), coastal development practices (and therefore issues like council responsibility and liability for development in affected areas, etc).
Where it’s still probably behind the 8-ball is in state and federal governmental policy, all of which we know, and that failure is not unconnected to the failure of those same levels of government to respond in any adequate manner whatsoever to the challenges of mitigation.
All is Vanity!
Peter, how in the hell did that slip in there?
Peter W @ 5, good news indeed, but let’s see whether the rest of the document seriously tries to achieve the first milestone:
Impoved transport and globalization have reduced the risk of localized droughts etc actually leading to starvation outside of the seriously third world. However, this risk reduction has come at the expense of an increase in the risk of a major, global crisis. The reduction in the impact of localized problems gives us the confidence to kid ourselves that we don’t need to do anything about population growth. Keep in mind that a major food crisis may lead to the outbreak of war between very mobile and very well armed armies. Even if global warming was not an issue there is a strong case for action to reduce the risk of a major climate related crisis.
Climate change simply adds to the risk of a major crisis partly because we are not really sure of the timing and extent to which rising temperature and ocean acidity will affect our capicity to feed the world. Even in the unlikely event that the world decides to go the “war footing” approach at Copenhagen, it is hard to see how we are going to avoid peaking somewhere over 450 ppm.
Working to deal with the effects of climate change will not only reduce the impact of climate change but it may also help focus our minds on the desirability of mitigation action. One of the arguments for widespread first aid training is that it gets people thinking about doing something to stop accidents.
Brian, it seems pretty clear that despite the paragraph alluded to above, the mandated action required to bring it about will not occur. The chances of the US reducing its emissions by 40% on 1990 levels by 2020 (stated in the text as the necessary reduction for developed countries) must be close to zero.
LO @ 12, what we need is a wake up call, a game changer. Such as a limited catastrophe that kills a few million people in one of the major power centres of the world.
The example that comes to mind and is quite possible is a storm surge to inundate New York, fill the subways and cut off the escape routes. I mention New York, not to wish for it, but because it is a realistic example. They are worried about it and it nearly happened in 1972.
Elise @6, thanks, yes, I understand with all that (though I think my concept of the train wreck probably involves fewer carriages derailed than yours does). But to cut to the the chase, does this mean that you think the line in the negotiating test ““mitigation and adaptation efforts should be given equal consideration” is wrong and should be cut?
Because my point, and my only point, was that they certainly don’t currently get equal consideration in the public and government policy debate in this country, not least on this blog.
Perhaps its just the innate human fascination with train wrecks.
Wozza, speaking for myself, I can’t cover everything, I simply don’t have time. My main interest is in the science and its implications for the longer term.
I’d say also that I don’t come across all that much on adaptation in the MSM.
Brian 13,
As an interesting aside, I remember a discussion on RN involving an insurance analyst. He claimed two simultaneous catastrophic events of the magnitude of Katrina would seriously bring the global insurance capacity into question. Three in one year will definitely bring the whole industry on its knees. It would be interesting to see verified projections.
I had a similar initial primary interest in the (hard) science re Greenhouse/AGW. However, while it is useful at indicating where we are at in physical terms, I lost faith that it will provide the cutting solutions. My interest has shifted to the social science, psychology in particular. RE train wreck scenarios, it is interesting to observe the parallel scenario of the increasing road toll carnage and individual risk assessment and responses. In my region the road fatalities have nearly doubled to last year, no one mentions the additional associated physical and psychological trauma.
And there too the MSM are still screaming for more and faster roads. Let me guess, it sells their product.
Over my working lifetime the accident rates in mining and construction have dropped dramatically. This drop is the result of a wide range of strategies. These strategies have included action to reduce the effect of an accident (Protective clothing, guard rails etc.) and avoid the accident all together have been used.
Climate change is no different. We certainly need to take action to halt/slow down climate change but it doesn’t make sense to forget about action to reduce the impact of the climate change that will inevitably occur.
Talking more about reducing the impact has the added advantage of focussing peoples minds on the desirability of reducing the extent of change. For example, development of plans to deal with sea level rises will focus minds on the cost of cost of these rises on property values, industry etc.
OOTZ @ 16 comments are relevant. Our reaction to threats is not always rational.
John D @17, totally agree!
“For example, development of plans to deal with sea level rises will focus minds on the cost of cost of these rises on property values, industry etc.”
And while we are at it, we could factor in the cost of handling a multiple magnitude increase in boat people, from a few thousand per year to perhaps tens of millions?
Bangladesh is hardly above sea level, and it has a population of 142 million. They won’t all just sit there and drown. And they won’t be all that welcome in neighbouring countries either. They may figure that a leaky boat is a reasonable least-worst option, given the poor hand they have been dealt?
How many million boat people could Australia handle?
Wozza @14: “…does this mean that you think the line in the negotiating test ““mitigation and adaptation efforts should be given equal consideration” is wrong and should be cut?”
I don’t know enough about the modelling, and about the real actions that countries will take. What is the potential for avoiding the tipping point?
There is one curious point. Risk management principles are usually invoked to deal with risks that have uncertainty of occurrence. You don’t know if the event will occur in a given time frame, although you have a fair idea about the probability or likelihood of it occurring.
The interesting point is that climate change is not possible or probable; according to the scientists it is now a dead certainty for BAU. We are talking CERTAINTY of train wreck if we do nothing to stop it.
What do you do, if there is a dead certainty that you will face a significant crisis if you don’t act? For example, dead certainty that the plane you are about to catch has terrorists on board?
How fatalistic does humanity feel?
“How fatalistic does humanity feel?”
Elise check out ‘boiled frog syndrome’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog
Another interesting human psychological feature in this context is cognitive dissonance. It enables to hold two contradictory believes, attitudes or behaviour. I bet the Easter Islanders knew what they were heading towards in their stone masonry heydays.
Ootz @20, Yep, the poor frog thought that he could adapt.
No forward-planning and risk mitigation.
We must be frogs.
Peter @ 5, sadly, the whole of that annex is effectively in brackets. It;s kind of a grab bag of wishes from countries that didn’t get stuck in where they belong. Those few clauses there are what AOSIS and other least developed countries are aiming for. It won’t happen unless the Earth moves massively…
Elise @ 18, I read somewhere that the Indians have already closed the border to the Bangladeshis.
The Mekong delta in Vietnam is nearly as bad as Bangladesh.
Robert obviously hasn’t been reading the papers
Brian @23: “…Indians have already closed the border to the Bangladeshis.”
Make that many tens of millions of boat people then?
The number might easily exceed our domestic population?
dk.au, sometimes I wish you weren’t so cryptic
I clicked straight through to this article and thought it either must be very recent, so recent that we should have heard about it all over the MSM in recent times, or too good to be true and a fake.
The first indication of the latter was that there were three links dating late June and an internal reference to the G8 meeting in past tense, although the G8 didn’t happen until early July. Then there was the note that the print version dates from December 19, 2009. Indeed, one of the links identifies it as a fake.
So if you don’t mind, I’ll send you a bill for having wasted my time
Tim Hollo @ 22, if the whole 350ppm section is bracketed, then it will have to be done away with by a deliberate action of the negotiators, which will surely go down as the stupidest action so far in the history of the species!
Sorry to catch you out, Brian … yes it’s a Greenpeace at play