Musings on post-Copenhagen from Mennorode

On Tuesday night fifeen people met at dinner here to discuss what had been learned from the recent climate talks in Copenhagen. A number had participated directly in the events there—we had an NGO delegate to the UN negotiations and several who had helped organize or staff ancillary events, including the Survival Academy and the Inner Climate Learning Village; a few people were close with key delegates and conference organizers, and others experienced the events as inhabitants of the city.

Our delegate from the floor, experienced in working with complex global problems, pointed out a few not-so-obvious aspects of what was reported as a massive failure.

-The 20,000 delegates were incredibly well-prepared. “Imagine a class where everyone is really interested in the material and has done all the pre-readings.”
-The problem was not one of process (“A few good facilitators from ALIA wouldn’t have made any difference.”) The negotiating meetings were extremely well-organized and facilitated.
-Because the UN process demands complete unanimity, it was extremely unlikely, if not impossible in the face of politics, that anything could have been passed. The process ensures that the only way to go ahead is through a coalition of the willing.
-Given that, world leaders actually showed up, rolled up their sleeves, and hammered out a document—in itself a remarkable achievement.

An active conversation then ensued at both ends of the long table; following are some of the thoughts on the ways forward:
-Look for the opportunities, and publicize the evidence of openings to counter the focus on messages of failure..
-Looking to global solutions is tricky, and in one experienced view, carries the danger of meglomania. There are currently thousands of active intiatives underway at more local levels. There is a sophisticated network of cities sharing information on best practices. Other political regions below the national level might be more practical areas of focus.
-“People who have spheres of influence will just have to get on with it. That’s essentially what the leaders did at Copenhagen.”
-One thing such people might usefully do is to hold café conversations between government representatives, scientists, and civil society representatives.
-Countries with less of a stake or role in the issue might be useful to convene regional meetings.
-Better educate individuals about how they can make personal shifts in energy usage.
-A good process has been modeled through America Speaks to hold large and powerful conversations and share the results at the grassroots level. Hopefully these processes could begin and reach the critical mass to influence conversations and actions within government and within regions.