Continue reading more on the Fletcher Forum.

Overall, they found that 54 percent of American teens believe that global warming is happening, but many do not understand why. In this assessment, only 6 percent of teens have knowledge equivalent to an A or B, 41 percent would receive a C or D, and 54 percent would get an F. Overall, teens know about the same or less about climate change than adults. The study also found important gaps in knowledge and common misconceptions about climate change and the earth system. These misconceptions lead some teens to doubt that global warming is happening or that human activities are a major contributor, to misunderstand the causes and therefore the solutions, and to be unaware of the risks. Thus many teens lack some of the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about climate change both now and in the future as students, workers, consumers, homeowners, and citizens. For example, only:

•  54% of teens say that global warming is happening, compared to 63% of adults;
• 35% of teens understand that most scientists think global warming is happening, compared to 39% of adults;
• 46% of teens understand that emissions from cars and trucks substantially contribute to global warming, compared to 49% of adults;
• 17-18% have heard of coral bleaching or ocean acidification, compared to 25% of adults.

However, American teens have a better understanding than adults on a few important measures. For example:

•  57% of teens understand that global warming is caused mostly by human activities, compared to 50% of adults;
• 77% of teens understand that the greenhouse effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, compared to 66% of adults;
• 52% of teens understand that carbon dioxide traps heat from the Earth’s surface, compared to 45% of adults;
• 71% of teens understand that carbon dioxide is produced by the burning of fossil fuels, compared to 67% of adults.

Meanwhile, like adults, large majorities of teens incorrectly think that the hole in the ozone layer and aerosol spray cans contribute to global warming, leading many to incorrectly conclude that banning aerosol spray cans or stopping rockets from punching holes in the ozone layer are viable solutions. However, many teens, like adults, do understand that switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy is an important way to reduce global warming.

Only 29 percent of teens say they have thought “a lot” or “some” about global warming, compared to 52 percent of adults. Likewise, only 19 percent of teens say that global warming is extremely or very important to them personally, compared to 27 percent of adults.

American teens also recognize their limited understanding of the issue. Fewer than 1 in 5 say they are “very well informed” about how the climate system works or the different causes, consequences, or potential solutions to global warming, and only 27 percent say they have learned “a lot” about the issue in school.

Importantly, 70 percent of teens say they would like to know more about global warming. Likewise, 75 percent say that schools should teach our children about climate change. Finally, teens are much more likely than adults to visit zoos, aquariums, natural history, science or technology museums than adults, suggesting that informal education venues are important places for teens (and adults) to learn about complex issues like climate change.

President Nasheed of the Maldives at the Opening of the Cartagena Group/Dialogue

“There is nothing wrong with being helped to go on living.  And that is what this[climate change] issue is all about,” stated a senior official from the Environmental Protection Authority of Ethiopia.  I am at a ministerial gathering of 28 nations of the Cartagena Group/Dialogue for Progressive Action convening in the beautiful island of Bandos in the Republic of Maldives.  The participants are from Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Malawi, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Samoa, Spain, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Uruguay, UK and the European Commission.  The Cartagena Group/Dialogue is an informal space, open to all countries that want ambitious and comprehensive outcomes in the UNFCCC, and that are committed, domestically to becoming or remaining low carbon.  These are “forward looking” countries, willing to work positively and proactively together within and across regional and UNFCCC groups.  The aim of the Group/Dialogue is to openly discuss the reasoning behind each other’s positions and to explore areas where convergence and enhanced joint action could emerge.  That is precisely what I see happening.

A representative from an industrialized nation stated clearly, “don’t push us, [to be even more ambitious] or you are not going to like it.”  While the words may seem a little jarring, that was not the intent.  The purpose was to make clear that negotiators and country representatives sent to UNFCCC talks can only do so much as they are at the mercy of the political winds of the countries they represent and might suffer backlash from voters.  It reaffirms that if large industrialized (and rapidly emerging) economies are to take strong action, it requires the majority of the citizens of those countries to have the will.  And while we witnessed the lack of political will to pass through climate and energy legislation before the congressional mid-term elections in the United States this week, countries small and large gathered at Cartagena have provided a glimmer of hope, giving a breath of life to the stale atmosphere that lingers within the UNFCCC post Copenhagen.  The truth is that the stiff negotiating environment of the UNFCCC rarely allows for a common space for understanding country positions and barriers to creating a comprehensive agreement.   This is especially true given such forums are reduced to a debate over choice of words in what is essentially a legal contract.  This is the second meeting of the Cartagena Group/Dialogue with regular meetings planned in the future.  The arrival of this group is also important as Copenhagen revealed that even large groupings such as the G-77 are beginning to fracture due to the rise of BASIC.  The latter’s demands conflict with many Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developing Countries (LDCs) who are calling for a 350 ppm or 1.5 degree Celsius warming target.  It remains unclear what future groupings could be like within the UNFCCC and there is no formal “Cartagena Group.” The current impasse in the UNFCCC requires new alliances and I suspect with time, a “G-X” will emerge to break the deadlock.  

Ethiopia, a nation that is often recalled for chilling images of the devastation from the droughts and famines of the mid-1980s, has announced its commitment at this event to become carbon neutral by 2025.  The nation, which can be considered a cradle of humanity’s agricultural experimentation and development had only 5% of its original forest cover remaining in tact by the early 20th century has seen that percentage grow to approximately 30% today.  Last year, it planted 7 billion saplings, second only to China.  Joining it in this commitment was the small pacific island of Samoa which pledged to become carbon neutral by 2020.  The Prime Minister of Antigua & Barbuda pledged that the tiny Caribbean island nation would slash its emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.  Costa Rica and the Maldives also reaffirmed their commitments to go carbon neutral by 2021 and 2020 respectively.  And while no industrialized country has yet made such a commitment, Norway is developing its own carbon neutral plan for the year 2030.

The Cartagena Group/Dialogue will continue to discuss ways to deepen and enhance access to carbon markets for all nations, leverage the finance commitments from Copenhagen, and tackle MRV structuring (the measuring, reporting and verification component of mitigation commitments).  All of this is in hopes that Cancun can pave the way for a breakthrough at the Earth Summit in South Africa in 2012.  ”While expectations for Cancun might not be high, we certainly cannot lower ambition.”  The Cartagena Group gathered here in one of the most vulnerable nations to climate change impacts  made that clear.

Bombardier's experimental Jet Train

I am obsessed with trains.  There, I’ve said it.  I would even go so far as to argue that I love trains more than Joe Biden does. When I was young, my father used to take me to the train station to watch trains.  This is while I was growing up in Baroda, India.  While I cannot recall the specific memories of those visits, I do know that at one point in time I would be able to rattle off all the parts of a train, including the different types of engines, rolling stock, their purposes, and the roles of the different employees involved in the industry.  I would even spend countless hours drawing scenes of vibrant train stations and would eventually go through several different model train sets until about the age of 13.  There is a magic to a journey aboard trains that is unsurpassed by any other form of transit.  It inspires.  And a study of its history reveals the powerful impact the technology has had on the growth of nations around the world.  On April 16, 1853, the departure of the first passenger train from Mumbai (previously Bombay) to Thane traveling just 34 kilometers signaled the arrival of industrial revolution in India.  Today, India boasts the second largest passenger rail network in the world and the Indian Railways is the largest employer with approximately 1.6 million employees.

When my family left India, I did not realize that I would be leaving behind a country with a rich legacy of railways

America's Streamliners

to come to a country which has all but forgotten its own similar legacy, which served as the very foundations on which it was built.  In 1869 the last spike in the transcontinental railroad, the first link between the east and west coasts of the United States, was driven into the ground.  With it, a Morse code message was sent across the United States simply stating, “done.”  Railways allowed the United States to become truly unified, they allowed for the expansion of cities, for the distribution of resources and information.  Without railways, this country would not have been the same.  Railway transportation of both freight and passengers was a very lucrative business.  Furthermore, America led the world in railway technology innovation through the creation of “streamliners” noted for their speed and comfort.  In 1956 President Eisenhower’s signing the Highways Defense Act signaled the slow and steady decline of a once powerful industry.  It was also the beginning of a long and painful journey America would undertake to becoming addicted to oil fostered by the growth of a car culture and the rise of a suburban way of life.  Rail, a fixed form of transit, ties communities together.  Once upon a time, vibrant downtowns were anchored with a central station, surrounded by shops, business, and not far from residences.  With the decline of rail, America has witnessed a decline in community.  What’s more, our concern for individuality supported by the car culture has jeopardized the safety of the nation through our addiction to fuel sourced from foreign lands.  We are prisoners to this curse.  

Sixty years of crumbling rail networks, decommissioning of large tracts of track, pumping billions into highways which serve as a positive feedback for our oil addiction, and lack of investment in rail technology have set us back.  The recent announcement by the Obama administration of $8 billion for “high-speed” rail projects across the country may be step in the right direction, but it is not close to what we need.  Proposals are on the table to build a national high speed rail network starting with the mega transit corridors that see the highest amount of  road traffic.  Keeping in mind that by 2025, 27 of the 56 largest US airports will exceed capacity, rail has a big potential to recapture this market as well.  Initiating a high speed rail project for five major corridors (California, Northeast, Texas, Florida, and Midwest) would cost approximately $140 billion and benefit 142.3 million riders annually.  Yes, the financial investment is a big figure, but keep in mind that the federal highway system cost $459 billion (2009 dollar equivalent) by the time it was complete!  For repairs and expansion, on an annual basis between 1982 and 2004, the federal government has spent several billion more on highways and on the airline industry than on rail.   And with the recent funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that have gone towards highway infrastructure improvement having not created any net jobs, its becoming increasingly clear that investing in railways and public transit will.   History has a funny way of repeating itself.  While Chinese immigrants may have helped build the Transcontinental Railroad, China’s recent stunning success with high speed rail has made it a viable candidate to bid for financing and building California’s high speed rail corridor!  While this is not an ideal situation, it may be a way to reduce costs and construction time.  Yes, history has a funny way of repeating itself.

But investments in our national railway network alone won’t suffice.  For railways to really rebuild community, it will require the rebirth of mass transit for our cities to feed into central railway stations.  Signs of this are already here with the revival of streetcars in many cities and the success of Oregon Iron Works in being the first manufacturer of Streetcars in the United States since 1956.  Thanks to the “Buy America Act,”over 60% of the parts and components are sourced from within the country to build the streetcars.  Perhaps car manufacturers like GM could also gain from this mass transit renaissance?  This is the future:  job creation in the United States, decreasing our carbon emissions, rebuilding community and redefining the “American Dream,” and most importantly, freedom from foreign oil.  Today marks the 3rd annual National Train Day.  Take a moment to think of a new vision for the United States.  Railways built this nation, and Railways will build it again.  Freedom, from our energy woes, will come through rails.

Photo Credit: Dakota Fine

American adults under the age of 35 have come of age in the decades since the “discovery” of man-made climate change as a major societal problem. The oldest of this cohort was twelve in 1988, when NASA climate scientist James Hansen testified at a Senate Energy Committee hearing that global temperature rise was underway and that human-produced greenhouse gases were almost certainly responsible. For this reason, the conventional wisdom holds that young Americans, growing up in a world of ever more certain scientific evidence, increasing news attention, alarming entertainment portrayals, and school-based curricula, should be more engaged with and concerned about the issue of climate change than older Americans.

However, contrary to this conventional wisdom, Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 are, for the most part, split on the issue of global warming and, on some indicators, relatively disengaged when compared to older generations.

Overall, the survey data offer no predictable portrait of young people when it comes to global warming: While less concerned about and preoccupied with global warming than older generations, they are slightly more likely to believe that global warming is caused by human factors and that there is scientific consensus that it is occurring. They are also somewhat more optimistic than their elders about the effectiveness of taking action to reduce global warming. And, while they are less open to new information about global warming than older generations, they are much more trusting of scientists and President Obama on the issue.  However, they also share older generations’ distrust of the mainstream news media.

Of note, young evangelicals, an increasingly important group politically, place strong levels of trust in religious leaders as sources of information about global warming, though they are also trusting of scientists and President Obama.

Nationwide, liberals and conservatives exhibit wide differences in their beliefs about global warming, with conservatives more skeptical and less engaged than liberals, and this ideological divide is no different among young Americans.

Members of the current college-age generation (18-22 year-olds), who have grown up with even less scientific uncertainty about climate change, are somewhat more concerned and engaged than their slightly older 23-34 year-old counterparts; however, this does not hold across the board. Still, the data suggest untapped potential to engage young Americans on the issue of global warming. Two important caveats, however:

1) These results are limited to Americans 18 years or older. The Center is currently collecting data on teenagers aged 13-17, but won’t have this analysis completed for a while.

2) It is also possible that there has been a surge in young people getting politically involved in climate action, but this has not (yet) translated to the entire age cohort. We have certainly heard (and seen) anecdotal evidence to support this hypothesis, but the Center wouldn’t be able to observe such a trend in their national survey data.
The full report is available here: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/

• 88 percent of Americans say it is important to recycle at home, but only 51 percent “often” or “always” do;
• 81 percent say it is important to use re-usable shopping bags, but only 33 percent “often” or “always” do;
• 76 percent say it is important to buy locally grown food, but only 26 percent “often” or “always” do;
• 76 percent say it is important to walk or bike instead of driving, but only 15 percent “often” or “always” do;
• 72 percent of Americans say it is important to use public transportation or carpool, but only 10 percent say they “often” or “always” do;

On the positive side, large majorities of Americans think these actions are important. Yet there is also plenty of room to improve. It is important to recognize, however, that each behavior confronts its own set of barriers. For example, public transportation may not be locally available or convenient. Policies to lower these barriers will make it much easier for people to act in ways consistent with their values.

The survey also found that, in the past year, approximately 1 out of three Americans have rewarded companies that are taking steps to reduce global warming by buying their products, while slightly fewer report that they have punished companies that have opposed steps to reduce global warming by not buying their products. Finally, in the past year 12 percent of Americans have contacted government officials about global warming. Of these, 72 percent urged officials to take action to reduce global warming.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/BehaviorJan2010.pdf

• Funding more research on renewable energy, such as solar and wind power (85 percent)
• Tax rebates for people buying fuel-efficient vehicles or solar panels (82 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans how to save energy (72 percent)
• Regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant (71 percent)
• School curricula to teach children about the causes, consequences, and potential solutions to global warming (70 percent)
• Signing an international treaty that requires the U.S. to cut emissions of carbon dioxide 90% by the year 2050 (61 percent)
• Establishing programs to teach Americans about global warming (60 percent).

Surprisingly, majorities of Republicans and Democrats support many of these policies, including renewable energy research, tax rebates, regulating carbon dioxide, and expanding offshore drilling for oil and natural gas. Further, majorities in both parties support returning revenues from a cap-and-trade system to American households to offset higher energy costs, perhaps opening a pathway for Congressional action.

Sixty percent of Americans, however, said that they have heard “nothing at all” about the cap and trade legislation currently being considered by Congress. Only twelve percent had heard “a lot.”

When cap and trade is explained, 58 percent support the policy, but this support drops to approximately 40 percent if household energy costs increase by $15 a month, or 50 cents a day. Sixty-six percent support cap and trade, however, if every household were to receive a yearly bonus of $180 to offset higher energy costs. In addition, 59 percent of Americans said they would likely spend the bonus on home energy efficiency improvements. Support increases to 71 percent if the bonus is doubled and spent entirely on energy efficiency improvements.

It may at first glance seem strange that public support for many of these policies remains high, despite the drops in public belief and concern about global warming reported last week. These results are from the same survey respondents, however, and it is important to remember that different people support these policies for different reasons. For example, some do so because they want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, others because they want to strengthen national security, or make the US less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Some of these policies have had solid majority support for years (e.g., renewable energy research), while for others (e.g., cap and trade) public opinion is still fluid and could go either way depending on how well advocates and opponents make their arguments.

A copy of the report can be downloaded from: http://environment.yale.edu/uploads/PolicySupportJan2010.pdf

That aside, negotiators had feared from day one of the talks that the documents and the process of negotiating would not mature to the point required in order to allow negotiations to move into the high level segment where over 100 Heads of States would come to sign a just climate deal. Their fears were realized. The process has been deeply flawed and the voices of nations regarding lack of transparency, conspiracy to kill off the Kyoto protocol has been true. I often found myself being witness to the injustice within the UNFCCC process (where had I not gone to certain meetings, I would have missed out on joint drafting sessions which I assumed were only scheduled G-77 coordination meetings). Text messages were sent, rooms were changed, information was not available to all.

All of this, in the wake of the greatest climate conference the world has ever seen since the birth of the Convention some 18 years ago. Why did it take us so long? How did we get so bitterly entrenched in this process? I have seen and learned more about the process as a negotiator in the last 2 weeks than I could have my entire life. As a result, I have become deeply disillusioned. Two nights ago, at the launch of the Maldives “Survival Kit” for nations, President Nasheed had all but given up on the process and called on youth to take to the streets and make this the absolute issue in politics. For nations like the Maldives that lie 1.5 meters above sea level at their highest point, this is an issue of their survival. I would agree.

After a bitter impasse, and stalling of the talks due to the flawed process, negotiators had still not made progress on many of the key issues. In the group discussing “enhanced action on mitigation” I found myself transported back in time as if no progress had been made between the developed and rapidly developing countries on any of the points on emissions reductions. On the issue of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions by developing countries, the parties talked in circles and could not arrive at any concrete conclusions. Finally the Heads of States arrived adding further confusion to an already impossible situation. Having lost a day and half due to the boycott of the talks by members of the African Group and other major developing countries didn’t help but probably was the only thing that kept the two track process (the Kyoto protocol) alive. Late last night, the heads of 25 nations were invited as part of a “friends of the chair” group to help broker a deal: United States, United Kingdom, Sweden, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Maldives, Grenada, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Algeria, Denmark, Germany, Korea, Bangladesh, France, Gabon, and three others. The leaders of this group tried to hammer out a rough document to provide the basis for further negotiations. This is the “Copenhagen Accord“.

The deal is far from perfect. It is non-binding for starters and has a range of base years from which the many countries putting up targets can choose. If one looks closely, there is probably no way that it meets the 2 degrees guard rail target that we need at the MOST in order to avert a run-away climate disaster (even though it claims to use 2 degrees as the upper limit). It is far from what the islands need, far from what the Least Developed Nations require and still leaves many questions to be resolved. Yet it is the only thing that can salvage the absolute and utter lack of trust and faith that has been built up over the last two years between parties of the United Nations. Climate poses the biggest question to humanity as to whether or not we are going to be able to save ourselves. That is after all, what we are trying to do here. At this time, what we need is trust, faith, and greater understanding to move forward. I am only 25 years old. I fear bringing children into this world and as I sit here listening to nation after nation make statements in favor of or against supporting the passing of the Copenhagen Accord, I am now as uncertain as ever as to the future of humanity.

We have not attained “climate justice” here today. Nor have we secured our future. Outside over 200 protesters mobilized to arrive at the conference center to organize a “Shame Vigil.” Mind you civil society suffered the most fatal defeat during these talks by having been forcibly locked out in the final days. However, with an unprecedented over 45,000 registered delegates to the talks I think we have indeed arrived at a crucial point where the movement is unstoppable and will only continue to grow. It is 7:00 am on December 19th and I am unsure as to what the outcome will be. I leave you with this:

“In my anger, I am not blind, and in my fear, I am not afraid to tell the world how I feel.” –Severn Suzuki (age 12), Rio Earth Summit 1992

Among the 12 of us tracking the delegations here at Bangkok , I’m really tempted to go out in the evenings after a hard day’s work in the negotiations. I think after running after 60 year old negotiators from my country I require some youthful energy to enthuse the atmosphere!

From the perspective of a Non Annex 1 girl ,I feel that it would be literally impossible for me to find love among my team of 12 (keep in mind, there are no non annex 1 guys) due to the following very very STRONG reasons:

1. He is not willing to COMMIT

I am thinking Leela, I will think about it, I have loads of domestic responsibilities (read: girls back home) to undertake said the American Tracker. Whereas all the others supported him ,obviously ,collectively coming to a decision as the European Union , but nevertheless made their individual statements.

Instead they all say: Lets start all over again, lets try and get to know each other (read: shift baseline from 1990 to 2005)

What is keeping you from committing? Is it the reason that you feel I’ll dominate the relationship in the long run? (read: I’ll develop more than you over the years).

2. He takes more SPACE in the relationship

Adam- the Canadian Tracker

He takes more of the space in the relationship (read: has a massively higher proportion of pollution than us) and still demands he needs more space!

This is so totally NOT FAIR!

3. He refuses to FINANCE dinners

Although they have so much more money considering the dollar to baht exchange rate is amazing , they fail to fund my dinners. So I end up paying for myself, but considering that I don’t have the capacity to buy special desserts and exotic cakes, it becomes difficult to try and eat my share! (read: we can fund local missions like solar but in case we need to scale up activities we require your help!

4. Hates my mother (READ: tries to kill the KYOTO PROTOCOL)

Does not agree to any principles and conditions  my Indian mother puts before him as far as getting back earlier than midnight etc etc and definitely hates my mother for them ! (read: doesn’t like the conditions imposed and will not ratify them at any cost).

Florent- The French tracker

My mother is the most special and essential part of my life, how can you neglect her like this? (read: I have signed onto the KP and my commitment period is coming to an end not the protocol!)

5. Doesn’t let me use the TV remote or the computer (read: no transfer of technology)

I am deprived of using any sort of advanced technologies. Do you think that I don’t know how to use them? I come from India , we literally live with software and knwo the C to S of computers.

6. Wouldn’t save me If I fall off a cliff / Earthquakes hits us/flash floods take place

READ: We are already losing lives and their inaction could push us over the cliff towards run away climate change…..

He’s not going to come in a helicopter to save me like a Bollywood movie hero (read: countries are already feeling the effects and they are not reaching out enough with support for adaptation)

7.Doesn’t follow through and is indecisive

READ:  One second Obama is at the UN  high level summit promising big things and yet here in Bangkok there is little to no action to meet those high remarks. Why do we hear different views all the time?

- Don’t share a blanket

Just don’t have any concept of sharing is it?? and then let you freeze outside in the cold at the middle of the night.

Andrea the Italian Tracker and Ole the German Tracker

8.Possessive and wants daily reports

READ:  They want measurable , reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mission reductions.

Why do you keep tracking us, when you never has an answer to where you are ?

9. Have such a consumption oriented lifestyle

Waste most of their money buying goods that they don’t use! We need to shift to a more sustainable lifestyle.

10. Would not make a good father

Read: clearly doesn’t care about protecting the environment for future generations and has no concept of making a better world in general.

So what say guys , are you willing to change or not?

Two years ago at the UN Climate negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, I happened to have the opportunity to attend as a member of the US youth delegation (because I was studying in the US). Upon arriving at the negotiations and after countless hours spent submitting our policy proposals to the UN Convention I realized that there is a growing and vibrant youth movement dedicated to the cause. These youth are actively trying to influence the negotiations. I became conscious of the fact that there were not any Indian youth in this growing international youth caucus present on the sidelines of the conference. I decided to introduce myself to the Indian Government negotiators as a “youth representative.” I was met with a cold and blank stare and then asked, “youth? Shouldn’t they have the same view as their elders?” I knew then that my life would never be the same again.

To be fair, I respect my elders and I know that there are many out there who are on the “far side of fifty” (age 50 that is) who have worked hard to make the world a better place. Generations have come and gone and nearly all of them have had a defining issue to tackle. My generation, labeled the “silent generation” by Thomas Friedman, is caught behind our computers and on facebook, having struggled to come to terms with the seemingly perfect world with an uncertain future of which we are not in control.Many in the climate movement are aware of the political deadlock between developed and developing nations over the issue of climate equity and historical emissions and responsibilities. Though we claim to be talking climate for the sake of future generations, nothing that we are doing is actually putting future generations in a better environment than that enjoyed by generations passed. So let’s get serious about generational equity because those in control sure aren’t.

While the climate crisis looms, we are currently consumed by a financial crisis that has gripped the planet.Just as financial institutions played with the public’s money, we are playing with the global commons that is our climate. We already know the impacts of unabated borrowing of money that does not exist. Can we play the same game with the lives of future generations as we borrow for our unsustainable growth today?

Global leaders are meeting at the summit in Pittsburgh and on the agenda is rebuilding the planet’s economy and hopefully, cooling down the planet. Let us turn this economic crisis into an opportunity of global proportions and usher a new era of genuine, sustainable development. I come from a young country—75% youth–that is facing many challenges. My own ancestral home in the desert sands of western Rajasthan only received electricity a year ago—electricity promised to my grandfather 25 years ago. Yet it is a land bursting with opportunity. Sure enough there is an army of youth in India that are ready to take that stand and that are dreaming of a clean, green country – one which will take this opportunity to build a green economy and support the growth of a green jobs movement. With 500 million people still in the dark, there are millions to be trained in sustainable energy enterprises alone. Let us not forget that this is a country that has half a million engineers graduating annually—a potentially potent force to engineer the country into the paragon of sustainable development.

While youth are 48% of the global population they are not an official part of the negotiation process at the international level. Though many of us are silent, many more are launching revolutions to transform our local communities. I was transformed by my experience in Bali and knew that in the labyrinth process of the negotiations all sense of urgency—of our future—is lost. This hopelessness was transcended through the creation of the Indian Youth Climate Network (IYCN) which has grown in waves and caught the attention of young people, civil society, companies and the same government that questioned the role of youth on the topic two years ago. Similarly youth movements for the cause are rising across the planet—daring governments to break the deadlock. We envision a future which ensures the survival of all peoples and all nations. The debate is old and it is time for some fresh air. A bail-out for the planet is a bailout we will not regret.