It seems like a lot of youth groups already agreed to a slogan like Our Climate Our Future.

I think it would be more productive to focus our limited time on policy messages. Then we will know what to lobby for. I can’t tell the American government Our Climate Our Future. They won’t know how that would translate into an actual policy they could support (or oppose…)

Let’s see how many youth delegations would agree to 350 ppm as an overall policy goal.

Ryan, good call on technology transfer. That seems like another area where youth are largely in agreement.

What kind of short phrase about technology transfer could we develop and see how many youth delegations support it?

It could be as simple as “Support Tech Transfer” or something more clever.

Financing mechanisms, especially fund vs. market mechanism for combating deforestation will be hug, although I’m not sure we’ll have time to develop policy messages for them.

Would just like to point out in relatin to the visioning mentioned by Liz that the Alliance of Small Islands States AOSIS has recently agreed that 350pmm and 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels as an objective that would be more likely to allow for the rights to survival of small islands developing states.

Any higher than that and the vital coral reefs that provide food security and buffers from storm surge will likely suffer from ocean acidification as well as the temperature and sea level rise issues we already are well aware of. Perhaps as much or more than terrestrial forests, healthy oceans are key to the long term viability of our planet.

Regards

1. Lack of representation from other parts of the world, a.k.a. Asia, Africa, Latin America

I know that it’s difficult, but perhaps, it’s easier to work within regional groups, as solutions, policies and messages may differ from region to region.

2. Technology transfer
There’s a lot of energy in this debate from youths, and that’s really awesome.
Personally, I’m studying engineering, and I feel that for environmental issues, the campaigns and policies should also be supplemented by technical solutions.

3. Financing
I hope that there is more input from people from a financial background, as I strongly believe that solutions need to be sustainable also financially.

Thank you,
Ryan
http://www.e3alive.org

or even

“Our Climate, Our Future: not negotiable”

It is inclusive, it is youth-focused, and it takes ownership of the future, while the personal pronoun acutally puts a human face on the message, not just talking about an abstract ‘the’ or ‘one’ climate.

Also, in case it is interpreted that ‘our’ is exclusively referring to youth, and thus excluding older people, we can simply tell them that no, it is THEIR future too. ‘Our’ refers to everbody!

350ppm I think is prudent for youth to support, and is necessary. (And it makes 550ppm totally out of the question! Aiming for ‘450′ or for ‘2 degrees’ makes 550ppm seem closer to a ‘reasonable compromise’, which is of course, bulls**t.)

On an even broader level than where Kyle started, I’d also like to see a youth vision somewhere in this. The most powerful messaging we have, in my opinion, is when we can paint a vivid picture of the world we want to live in, which can only exist if we address climate change now.

So I’d like to see things like green jobs, resilient communities, a safe future, stable global economy, etc. To have these things, we need to create a strong global climate agreement now. Then comes all the other messaging.

Industrialized countries should commit to taking real action to solve the problem that we have largely produced.

Caroline

How many youth delegates from how many countries would agree that we need a treaty that helps keep us below 350 ppm?

How many would agree to making sure an agreement limits global warming to less than 2 degrees C?

Moving a little lower:

How many would agree that an agreement cannot do these things without the United States showing leadership by signing on?

Below that would come specific policies like the very important deforestation/reforestation, land use, etc.

Start at the top, see which of those we can agree to, work our way further down the list as far as we can go with the time we have.

Start earlier for Copenhagen and repeat.

…sigh Utopia

I think you have a point – reforestation is key to restoring the Carbon balance to the earth. Deforestation alone accounts for up to 20% of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, and we need to remedy that situation. But it’s foolhardy to think that we can solve the climate crisis without dealing with the industrial revolution and the carbon emissions it has wrought. We need reforestation and biodiversity, but we also need clean energy and real sustainable development. We need all these things.

I would be in favor of using an umbrella vision under which we can specify points we’d like to see addressed, such as deforestation, clean energy and a just transition to a carbon-free world.

Phil