The focus on international climate change negotiations has receded since Copenhagen last year. Copenhagen was seen as a disappointment, with its much touted outcome, the ‘Copenhagen Accord’ looking like it could lead to an almost 4C in temperature rises, causing massive devastation – and solidifying the opposition to the Accord among many vulnerable countries such as Tuvalu and the Cook Islands.

So with less fanfare than last year, the countries of the world have returned to the table to negotiate further agreement on international climate action. The second official meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) for 2010 will begin Monday in Bonn, Germany, with countries hoping to begin work on a pathway toward new legally binding agreements on emission reductions, funding for adaptation to climate impacts, and international institutions/governance.

There are plenty of new things to get your head around in the climate negotiations this year. There is a new executive secretary (starting in July); a new draft-negotiation text that has just been released; and a new infusion of ideas, courtesy of the People’s Summit held in April in Cochabamba, Bolivia. There is also, of course, new science, which shows that the situation for the planet is getting worse and that climate impacts could be more severe than previously projected.

Unfortunately, what’s old is the approach of the United States. Just six months after President Obama received his Nobel Prize for “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples” and his “constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”, people across the world are beginning to question whether he has lived up to that inscription in his actions.

Under President Bush the approach of the United States was easy to understand and easy to vilify. Bush denied climate change existed. He withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol. And he obstructed international negotiations. In a famous exchange at the Bali negotiations in 2007 a delegate from Papua New Guinea, asked the United states: ‘If you’re not willing to lead, then get out of the way.’

The approach under President Obama has been much more confusing – until now. It has been confusing because the US has actively engaged in the negotiations, not blocking with procedural issues, and actively taking leadership on issues, but often doing so in a way that hasn’t pleased campaigners.[1] Now, however, President Obama has followed up on his bald-faced blackmail of small developing countries to change their position in negotiations with a submission that clearly shows that the United States is not blocking negotiations but trying to take them backwards.

As the rules now stand developed countries have a collective target for emission reductions (an aggregate target) and then they negotiate their individual country targets underneath that aggregate. The negotiations focus on how comparable each countries’ individual target is, for example that the UK is doing the same amount of heavy lifting as Germany, and they work to make sure that the total sum of countries’ commitments will meet the agreed aggregate target. They then negotiate on the rules for meeting these targets and the penalties for failing to meet them.

The United States’ recent submission refuses to negotiate on any of these issues. President Obama rejects an aggregate target for the developed countries, which means we can’t be sure of how effective their contribution will be. He rejects that targets should be comparable, so different countries do their fair share of the heavy lifting. Now poor countries like India and Bangladesh will have to do a lot more than the US to keep temperature rises from wrecking havoc on their communities. Obama also proposes that there should be no rules about how targets are met or what penalties for not meeting them should be. In effect what President Obama has announced is that the US will not negotiate on emission targets – on their size, on how they are determined, or how they are achieved. In this context when the US says it’s for a ‘legally binding outcome’ I’m with outgoing UNFCCC Executive Security Yvo De Beor when he asks what does that mean in substance?

It’s also got the world asking the broader question: what’s the point of negotiating with the US at all? If the US will do whatever it decides (a 4% cut on 1990 levels by 2020 with unlimited offsets), no matter what the world decides, then what value is there for the world letting Obama save face by pretending to be a part of the solution? Increasingly the answer seems to be: very little. Perhaps someone at Bonn will say: ‘We want to go forwards. If the US wants to go backwards, please go by yourself. We’re going forwards and you can join us later.”

To see what is actually said at Bonn check back here as I (and others) provide updates – I’ll also be tweeting @climatedebtorg

Dispatch 1: Rumbo a Cochabamba
Jason Negrón-Gonzales

I’m writing from the plane in route to Cochabamba for the People’s World Conference on Climate Change and Rights of the Mother Earth.  For those who aren’t familiar with the conference, it was proposed by Bolivian president Evo Morales in the aftermath of the COP15 conference in Copenhagen last December.  While that conference was billed early as “Hopenhagen”, this week’s meetings in Cochabamba, Bolivia hold the real seeds of hope for a global response to climate chaos that is rooted in justice, equity, and historical accountability, and led by global social movements of workers, farmers, and the poor.

What’s at stake?

While the world needed and hoped for a responsible and sufficient (if not radical) response to climate change, or at least a solid step in that direction, instead what we got in Copenhagen was more of the same: corporations and developed countries trying to extend their advantage and wealth.  The class character of the debate was striking.  One the one hand, delegates from Global South and Indigenous communities who are least to blame for emissions and are facing the loss of the livelihoods and homelands were demanding strong action now.  On the other, economic powerhouses like the US, which consumes about a quarter of the global energy supply, refused to be accountable for the environmental impacts of their economies and way of life.

Turning to the US situation for a second, as we’ve seen with healthcare, the Democratic Party has been extremely ineffective in capitalizing on their majority to push strong progressive legislation through Congress.  Why?  Because as a party they aren’t progressive, and they are just as beholden to corporate interests as the Republicans.  The US attempt to pass domestic climate legislation, called ACES, started too weak and quickly became weaker under the attacks of Republicans (and Democrats) in Congress from big agriculture, coal and oil industry states.

So, given this difficult situation at home, the US delegation decided not to lead but also not to get out of the way.  President Obama couldn’t (or wouldn’t attempt to) pass the strong climate legislation needed at home.  He might then have said, “You know guys, I can’t make it happen at home.  I’m doing the best I can, but in the mean time we want to support the strongest international plan that we can.”

But he didn’t do that.  Instead the US tried to turn back the clock, scrapping the progress made with the Kyoto Protocol and fighting for a new accord, the Copenhagen Accord, that it pulled together in a back room deal.  (Even with it’s flaws, the Kyoto Protocol contained some language and mechanisms that Global South nations wanted to move forward on rather than starting from scratch.)  The Copenhagen Accord offers no shared targets for emissions reductions but rather takes whatever each country wants to offer up and aggregates these commitments as a plan. Then, if the bad back-room plan wasn’t enough, the US showed up waving money to buy delegates just like congress people get bought and sold at home.  In response to this crass display, a delegate from Africa replied that the money offered wouldn’t be enough to pay for their coffins.

The Road to Cancun

Today negotiations continue but the US has taken the hard-line strategy of pushing its back room Copenhagen Accord like it’s the new basis of negotiations.  In the last week: 1. The US announced that it won’t provide climate aid to any country that doesn’t support the Copenhagen Accord, 2. The game plan from the Obama administration was leaked, revealing a plan to ram the accords through in their entirety and to do small “intimate” meetings with Big Green NGO’s to get them on board, and 3. At a follow up meeting to Copenhagen in Bonn, the Mexican delegation which will host the next COP announced that they there was no plan to continue the main tracks of negotiation in Mexico, another nod towards the US attempt to suspend open debate by all nations and ram the Copenhagen Accord through.  Scandalous!

All of which brings us to Cochabamba.  The Obama administration stated explicitly that they would give no money to Bolivia based on their opposition to the Copenhagen Accord.  Now Bolivia is hosting governments, NGO’s, and social movements from all over the world to build something better.  A head to head battle is shaping up – democracy vs. the back room, accountability vs. impunity, an uncompromising assertion of the dignity and value of all life vs. crass attempts to buy countries’ support.  I know what team I want to be on.

For those of us in the US who care about these issues, president Obama’s behavior is a bitter disappointment. The transition we have to make is a transition we want– not one that is forced on us by history.  We want a transition from a fossil-fueled economy.  We want sustainable communities built on principles of justice, equity, and democracy.  We want a world of good work, and good housing, where families, children, and communities count.  We want to meet our global obligations and to ensure that our sisters and brothers everywhere have what they need too.  That’s where I want my children to live.  And it’s why I’m in Bolivia with the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, the Indigenous Environmental Network and other forces from across the globe who are working to build social movements with a strategy to win that world.

Mayor Menino’s announcement comes after Massachusetts finalized a three-year plan to triple utility investments in energy efficiency. Boston and the State of Massachusetts are moving toward a clean energy future. But will it be enough?

An emerging coalition of faith, business, environmental, and workforce development groups are joining The Leadership Campaign in challenging the Massachusetts State Legislature to double-down on recent clean energy and energy efficiency investments by creating a task force to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2020. The campaign – The Commonwealth Challenge, launched on March 4th – is not your typical political initiative.

The motto of the Commonwealth Challenge is “When the people lead, leaders will follow.” 40 years after the first Earth Day, the people of Massachusetts are putting down their phones, pens, and signs and picking up caulk guns and home retrofit contracts. Residents of the Commonwealth are demonstrating a real solution – hire local workers, including workers with barriers to employment, to make homes more energy efficient and pay them family supporting wages and benefits. Following in the footsteps of Van Jones, Green For All, and the Green Justice Coalition of Massachusetts, the Commonwealth Challenge is creating a green collar economy that works for people and the planet. And along the way, people are measuring the results and holding themselves and their leaders accountable.

The Commonwealth Challenge aims to engage 3,000 residents by Earth Day, April 22nd, in saving 100,000 KWh of electricity. If each person saves 5% of their electricity the goal will be reached. 100,000 KWh is enough to power the homes of Beacon Hill, home of the State Legislature, for a full day. It’s also enough to create 2200 job hours for local workers, save residents $20,000 on their energy bills, and remove more than 370 tons of carbon from the atmosphere.

By retrofitting their homes to make them more efficient, residents are taking the first step toward clean energy revolution. But more has to be done if the planet is to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in time to avoid dangerous climate change tipping points. On April 22nd, residents will present the results of their actions as a challenge to the State Legislature to lead the nation toward the next American Revolution – an energy revolution for good jobs and climate security. The way to get there – pass An Act to Create a Repower Massachusetts Emergency Task Force, a bill introduced on December 7th that would create a task force to achieve 100% clean electricity by 2020. At the same time, residents are challenging Massachusetts Senators Scott Brown and John Kerry to lead Congress toward finally putting a national price on carbon pollution.

It is not enough to simply promote home energy retrofits. Without a signal from customers or government that they should act differently, many companies will continue to weed out job applicants with barriers to employment such as the disabled, women, people of color, people from marginalized communities, and people who have ever been convicted of a crime. Contractors serving the Commonwealth Challenge must sign on to, the Green Collar Hiring Pledge, a promise by employers to pay fair wages and benefits, hire people with barriers to employment, and choose environmentally preferred products and practices. So far, three companies have signed on and are serving homes through the Challenge.

Before April 22nd, Neighborhood Captains across Massachusetts will organize “Energy Retrofit Parties”, phonebanks, canvass their neighborhoods, and show up at community events to sign people up to retrofit their homes. Thanks to significant subsidies and a group discount from Commonwealth Challenge Service Partners, a home retrofit is an easy sell for anybody in Massachusetts whether they own or rent their home. In fact, the initial energy audit and air sealing work is free. This flier explains what I am talking about.

After Copenhagen many people lost faith in the willingness of political leaders to step up to the plate to address the climate crisis. The question now becomes – what are we going to do about it? With coastlines eroding in the Maldives, fires and droughts raging in Africa, and desperate farmers turning to suicide in India, I believe that it is incumbent on all of us to take this challenge into our own hands. If governments won’t adopt a fair, ambitious, and binding climate treaty, we the people, have to use whatever power we have to decarbonize our economy and demonstrate the way forward.

Actions speak louder than words, but they also often begin with words. I have one question for people reading this.

Who do you know in Massachusetts? If you are inspired by what we are doing, I urge you to tell your friends and family in Massachusetts about the Commonwealth Challenge and encourage them to retrofit their home. 3,000 people might not seem like a large number; but the difference between 3,000 people signing a petition and 3,000 people signing up to schedule someone to come work on their home is significant.

Use the tools on this website to spread the word and become a fan of the Commonwealth Challenge on Facebook.

It is time to lead.

Two months ago, hundreds of world leaders and tens of thousands of activists gathered in Copenhagen to craft a new global treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. Green groups put on a spectacle – yes, Greenpeace even docked two of its famous boats nearby to “help in pushing the delegates” – and some observers declared it a make or break event in global climate history.

Today, there is strikingly little to show for the whole affair, momentum has slowed to a crawl and hardly anyone is discussing the aftermath. For good reason: the Copenhagen Accord is basically a voluntary agreement with obscure objectives, and its impact will be negligible. Michael Cutajar, the former chairman of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiation group, said that “Beyond the lack of clarity in its drafting, its main weakness is the lack of ambition and identifying responsibilities… Who should do what, and when, in order to limit warming to two degrees?”

What went wrong at Copenhagen? As I recently argued on BBC World View, the outcome was primarily the result of a flawed UNFCCC process and policy framework. The first and most obvious problem was imagining that 192 countries – some of which represent thousands of times more people than others – could produce a meaningful climate mitigation treaty. The UNFCCC process is kind of like the U.S. Senate (today one of the most dysfunctional national legislative bodies in the world) but at least four times as complicated.

There is growing consensus that global climate mitigation policy should be moved into a setting like the G-20 or Major Economies Forum on Energy & Climate (the members of which effectively constitute a super-majority of the world). David Victor, a former Stanford professor and leading international energy expert, recently put it this way: “With a deal this complicated and difficult, the fewer countries you need to reach an agreement, the better the chances are.”

The second overarching problem was the policy framework. For nearly two decades, the dominant national and global policy approach to climate change mitigation has depended on establishing strong, “legally binding” caps on carbon dioxide pollution, particularly through cap and trade and other measures aimed at making fossil fuels more expensive.

Today, the writing is on the wall: the Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve significant emissions reductions, even with a “legally-binding” agreement. As President Obama himself noted in his post-Copenhagen press conference, “Kyoto was legally binding and everybody still fell short anyway.” Copenhagen failed to produce a binding treaty, even with great pressure and expectations. If the world continues down this road — an approach some experts have dubbed “magical climate thinking” — negotiations will again fail to produce a meaningful outcome.

The time has come to remake the global climate policy framework to focus on global energy technology policy. Instead of debating emissions targets and timetables like accountants, we need the largest emitters to think like engineers and concentrate on identifying specific technical hurdles and mobilizing the resources to solve them. Most importantly, policymakers need to focus on the goal of “making clean energy cheap,” or as Google puts it, “renewable energy cheaper than coal.”

How much money will each major emitter put on the table to invest in development, deployment and infrastructure of low-carbon technology? What hurdles will those policies confront, and what is each country’s low-carbon technological roadmap? How will the policies be structured, and how can nations productively collaborate and compete on technological development? These are the kind of critical questions that should be negotiated.

Some advocates claim that if the U.S. Senate passes climate legislation similar to the American Clean Energy & Security Act (ACESA), the UNFCCC will achieve a breakthrough. But little evidence suggests that China, India and other countries will respond by implementing strong binding targets, or that signatories will even uphold their emissions targets. ACESA is weak technology policy at best, given that its clean energy investments represent only a small fraction of expert consensus, and not exactly the kind of example we want to set for the world.

The irony is that while the U.S. and Europe continue playing the accountants game of targets and timetables, Asian governments are the ones beginning to move forward with serious technology policies, investing massive amounts in clean-tech development and deployment – while the U.S. falls behind. This is motivated not by climate mitigation nor international law, of course, but economic competitiveness. We should leverage these efforts to motivate the policies we need in the U.S. and abroad, and to develop a new approach.

Ultimately, technology policy is the single most important lever the world has for overcoming this challenge. Our civilization possesses enormous capacities for invention and innovation – now we must develop a global climate policy framework that finally puts them to good use.

The Climate Movement is Dead:

Long Live the Climate Movement

In the aftermath of the COP15 talks in Copenhagen, the inability of the Big Greens, governments, and market approaches to find genuine and sustainable solutions to climate change is undeniable. As author Naomi Klein so aptly observed at the end of COP15 talks, “A particular model of dealing with climate change is dying.”

In the same uncompromising spirit as Rising Tide publications such as Deal or No Deal, and Hoodwinked in the Hothouse, CMID:LLCM delivers a timely critique of the failures of this “particular model” as exemplified by the mainstream NGOs who have grown all too cozy with corporations and the political establishment. It explores the ways in which “green” capitalism,electoral politics, and market mechanisms, far from solving the climate crisis, are some of the climate movement’s biggest obstacles.

Not content with mere polemic, CMID:LLCM charts a course that diverges from the dominant discourse of the mainstream climate movement. The essay lays out a strategy of supporting and escalating frontline struggles againstdirty energy while building a new global climate movement from the ground up, based around core principles of climate justice, grassroots power, solidarity, and direct action.

The Climate Movement Is Dead: Long Live the Climate Movement is a must-read for anyone left disenchanted by the mainstream climate movement, and all who are ready to step it up and fight for climate justice.

You can download a digital copy to view online or print yourself.

Or send us an email to contact (at) risingtidenorthamerica (dot) org with your name, address, and how many copies you would like to receive. We are happy to provide this publication for free but as an all volunteer collective we greatly appreciate donations. Also consider joining in our print run collaboration:

Rising Tide North America is excited to announce a “Print-Run Collaboration” project for CMID:LLCM.  Local groups and allies can help us raise the funds necessary for an initial print-run of several thousand copies, and in return, receive a big stack “hot-off-the-presses” at approximately the cost of printing (cheaper than photocopies!).

Please email us with “Print-Run Collaboration” in the subject line for more information!

Dear Friends,

The epic fight to ward off global warming and transform the energy system that is at the core of our planet’s economy takes many forms: huge global days of action, giant international conferences like the one that just failed in Copenhagen, small gestures in the homes of countless people.

But there are a few signal moments, and one comes next month, when the federal government puts Tim DeChristopher on trial in Salt Lake City. Tim—“Bidder 70”– pulled off one of the most creative protests against our runaway energy policy in years: he bid for the oil and gas leases on several parcels of federal land even though he had no money to pay for them, thus upending the auction. The government calls that “violating the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act” and thinks he should spend ten years in jail for the crime; we call it a noble act, a profound gesture made on behalf of all of us and of the future.

Tim’s action drew national attention to the fact that the Bush Administration spent its dying days in office handing out a last round of favors to the oil and gas industry. After investigating irregularities in the auction, the Obama Administration took many of the leases off the table, with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar criticizing the process as “a headlong rush.” And yet that same Administration is choosing to prosecute the young man who blew the whistle on this corrupt process.

We cannot let this stand. When Tim disrupted the auction, he did so in the fine tradition of non-violent civil disobedience that changed so many unjust laws in this country’s past. Tim’s upcoming trial is an occasion to raise the alarm once more about the peril our planet faces. The situation is still fluid—the trial date has just been set, and local supporters are making plans for how to mark the three-day proceedings. But they are asking people around the country to flood into Salt Lake City in mid-March. If you come, there will be ample opportunity for both legal protest and civil disobedience. For example:

#Outside the courthouse, there will be a mock trial, with experts like NASA’s Jim Hansen providing the facts that should be heard inside the chambers. We don’t want Tim on trial—we want global warming on the stand.

#Demonstrators will be using the time-honored tactics of civil disobedience to make their voices heard outside the courthouse in an effort to prevent “business as usual”—it’s business as usual that’s wrecking the earth.

#There will be evening concerts and gatherings, including a “mini-summit” to share ideas on how the climate movement should proceed in the years ahead. This is a people’s movement that draws power from around the globe; for a few days its headquarters will be Salt Lake City.

You can get the most up-to-date news at climatetrial.com, including schedules for non-violence training, and information about legal representation. If you’re coming, bring not only your passion but also your creativity—we need lots of art and music to help make the point that we won’t sit idly by while the government tries to scare the environmental movement into meek cooperation. This kind of trial is nothing but intimidation—and the best answers to intimidation are joy and resolve. That’s what we’ll need in Utah.

We know it’s short notice. Some of us won’t be able to make it to Utah because we have other commitments or are limiting travel, and if you’re in the same situation, climatetrial.com will also have details of solidarity actions in other parts of the country. If you can contribute money to help make the week’s events possible, click here. But more than your money we need your body, your brains, and your heart. In a landscape of little water, where redrock canyons rise upward like praying hands, we can offer our solidarity to the wild:  wild lands and wild hearts.  Tim DeChristopher deserves and needs our physical and spiritual support in the name of a just and vibrant community.

Thank you for standing with us,

Naomi Klein,

Bill McKibben,

Terry Tempest Williams,

Dr. James Hansen

“Young people are turning up the pressure because we are not convinced by Obama’s promises to draw back from war and support a clean energy-driven economic recovery,” says Brian Menifee, Howard University student activist.

video from dc.indymedia.org

Stay tuned for more footage from the parade, including our Green Jobs Not War action at the Armed Forces Recruiting Center.

From the press release…

WASHINGTON DC – Young anti-war and environmental organizers are mobilizing in response to the failure of the UN Copenhagen climate talks, escalation of the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the crisis of 50% youth unemployment. “Young people are turning up the pressure because we are not convinced by Obama’s promises to draw back from war and support a clean energy-driven economic recovery,” says Brian Menifee, Howard University student activist.

Funk the Warming participants will parade and dance with a mobile sound system behind a banner reading, “Student Power for Climate Justice, Down with the Fossil Hawks.” Organizers have choreographed a diverse sequence of rowdy non-violent actions targeting corporate and military sites on K Street. “We’re dropping beats, not bombs to show that youth have the power and creativity to build a peaceful green economic recovery,” explains GWU student activist, Drew Sherlock.

Chevron and Halliburton will be targeted for their involvement in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars and their contribution to global warming. Halliburton provides military logistics, oilfield services, and builds power plants. Chevron owns Unocal, the company that planned the trans-Afghanistan pipeline in the 1990s. Sam Daly from DC Rising Tide: “Piping Central Asian gas and oil through Afghanistan and controlling Iraqi oilfields are the true motivations behind the US occupations. Resource wars abuse the earth and exploit the young people who inevitably fight them.”

Military recruitment is flourishing thanks to mass youth unemployment and the $20 billion recruiting budget. Meanwhile, the Green Jobs training program is pinching its meager $500 million stimulus funding. Brian Menifee: “College tuition hikes are out of control and too many of our peers can’t afford school or find a job other than war. We want green jobs and education not these resource wars that are killing our future.”

Students from American University, George Mason University, UMD College Park, Howard U, GWU, Arne Arundel Community College, and local high schools will make-up the groundswell of the parade. DC Students for a Democratic Society, an education justice network, and DC Rising Tide, a direct action climate justice collective, are coordinating the event

The morning that followed
Our message was echoed.
A failure! A failure!
My heart in despair.

The science lost, funding tossed,
No commitment in sight.
A stench of injustice,
The result: A failed plight.

“What more did you expect?”
Accusing voices chimed,
“Your efforts are a waste
Of carbon, cash and time”.

Is it a failure?
Were we mistaken?
How will we remember
Copenhagen?

How will we remember
Copenhagen?

I will remember the:

Forming of three fifty
In hundreds of states.
The Hundred thousand
Who marched till late.
Millions worldwide that stood,
And more that signed
In protest for the rights
For all Human Kind.

I will remember the:

Largest mobilisation
In world’s history.
Working in unity.
Despite culture or country.
Rising above divisions
In the “social order”;
Be religion, gender
Or a political border.

I will remember the:

Youth in the negotiations
Who brought heart and tears.
A champion for the voices,
The leaders needed to hear.
The Indigenous people
In the justice fight,
For our Mother’s Land to
Which we have equal right.

I will remember the:

Largest gathering
Of Heads in one room.
Of countries pleading,
To save them from doom.
Prayer to protect nations.
Have you seen such heart?
In a Global affair, it
Is a hopeful start.

But a start is all it is.

Do not ignore the Truth.
Two degrees is death to
Africa, the islands,
And our generation.
In our success there still
Remains a challenge,
A long way to go, it
Needs our dedication

It will take:

One goal.
Seven continents.
A hundred paths.
Thousands of leaders.
Millions of voices and
Billions of hearts.
To arrive at our
Destination.

Many may call this vision naive.
But perhaps naivety is all we have?
As long as there is love in the world,
We are on the right track.

Where there is love,
There is hope.
Where there is hope,
There is inspiration.
Where there is inspiration,
There is change.
And if there is change,
We can stop climate change.

Here’s that story.

It’s Getting Hot In Here, the blog, was founded at the United Nations climate negotiations in Montreal in 2005: COP11/MOP1.  Just that year Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, meeting the requirement that countries producing at least 55% of global emissions signed on for Kyoto to take effect.  Montreal was the first meeting of Kyoto Protocol signatories. It was also the foundation of the International Conference of Youth, the body that brings youth from around the world together to develop a common platform, strategy and story.

The atmosphere in Montreal was both hopeful and frustrated.  The Kyoto Protocol had finally come into effect, the first ever international treaty on climate.  This was a major step forward.  And yet, the United States and Australia, two of the world’s largest emitters, had refused.  While delegates met to discuss making the Kyoto Protocol stronger and how to improve implementation, parallel negotiations began to discuss a new framework to replace Kyoto after 2012.  It was in this context that I found myself thrust into the international climate movement.

I was one of approximately 150 young people at the conference, a group largely dominated by youth from the United States and Canada.  We were not an officially recognized constituency, and many of us found our way there through other organizations.  We were a small group, but dedicated.  While some youth followed the policy developments, others pressured individual delegates, and others organized youth actions and media.  I was a part of this last group.

One day, in some back hallway, a group of about 8 of us were trying to plan out the day’s action just a couple hours later.  We decided to go with something simple, attention grabbing and easy to pull off with a lot of people in a short time frame: a cheer.

Ooh, it’s hot in here.  There’s too much carbon in the atmosphere.  I said, OOH it’s HOT in here.  There’s too much carbon in the atmosphere.  Take action take action and get some satisfaction.  Take action, Take action and get some satisfaction.

Two hours later, over 100 youth marched through the Palais de Congres, publicizing the blog and first performing a cheer that would become a rallying cry for the international youth climate movement for years to come.

Since then, It’s Getting Hot In Here has become the largest youth issue blog in the world, and the cheer has been performed at nearly every youth climate conference since, from Missouri to Australia, the Kenya to Indonesia.  Youth have been recognized as an official constituency by the United Nations.  Youth spearheaded global mobilizations of hundreds of thousands of people before and during the UN negotiations in Copenhagen last month.

Back in 2005, I never imagined that those few words would travel the world connecting young people across the globe in the effort to build a better future.  But as this movement builds, we will keep accomplishing feats I never imagined in 2005.  Here’s to transforming our movement such that a year from now we will do things I can only imagine today.

This post is the first of the Climate Generation series, a month-long series reflecting on the state of the youth climate movement.  As we pivot into 2010, the series will provide a forum for discussion on the history of the youth climate movement, recent victories and setbacks, potential for growth in capacity and influence, and how to orient the movement in the post-Copenhagen landscape.  Please join youth leaders for posts on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday afternoons and early evenings.

Yes things did not turn out to be as fair, ambitious and binding as we all hoped for upon the conclusion of COP 15. Yet in many lights, it was inspiring, constructive and everlasting. I want to share several little a few serendipitous moments when I was struck by what I said, what I heard, what I was part of and what I think it now.

In the wake of Wednesday 16th riot, the police had pushed back the crowd. I was walking toward Bella Center trying to get in, a guy with a little video camera stopped me and asked me to say a little something about what I think the solution [to our climate crisis] was. I replied, in gasps, that I think we need to put ourselves in each other’s shoes. We need to understand that we are one people in different forms;our lives connected. He asked me where I was from. I said China. He waved one of his hand whiling the other still holding the camera, “thanks for the Chinese wisdom.”

I don’t know if it is particularly Chinese. I just always remember a peacemaking guru who only sleeps for four hours everyday, once said that we are all one. I just cannot agree more.

Thursday, 17th. The banner says “change the system, not the climate.” It was in a warehouse that turned into a working station for people who can no longer enter Bella Center. Merkel was delivering a speech within Bella Center. Heads from the governments of the world was doing that one by one. I had no interest in listening. I thought they were all to symbolic and not constructive at all. I realize how hard it was to reach an agreement when at least a few of the big potatoes did not have the sincerity and bona fide; how hard it was to really change the system.

Tuesday 15th. Robert Swan giving a speech about his expeditions to both Poles. He was the first man to traverse both Arctic and Antarctic by foot. He is now taking young folks to visit an eco-base he set up in Antarctic each year. He ended the presentation with one quote from himself (pretty snobby I have to say): the greatest challenge to our climate crisis is that we think someone else will do the job.

Monday 14th. I was representing our team to discuss possible venues for youth from the States, India, Japan and China to get together to deliver a joint voice. It proved to be politically difficult as well. First, the Japanese counterparts did not show up. Second, the day after that most of us would not be able to get into Bella Center. Third, the Indians want to have the Indian and Chinese youth talking to Indian and Chinese delegates, in one room, pushing our government and stand closely by the island/African countries (to kill Kyoto or something more radical —which was strongly disapproved by both governments).

While sitting on the floor in the absence of wine, we ignored the first obstacle and went crazy with the second one. Reed the American guy proposed that we use radio transmitters to deliver youth voice inside from outside. He said he knew a friend in Copenhagen who invented the bike system (or something like that) who might have access to such devices. He admitted, very seriously, this idea was crazy but he can always do what he wanted to do without too much idea of how to do it. I proposed what I thought would be fun but less risky – having youth inside holding their computers in a circle, skypeing in with youth outside and saying what they want with both voices and images. We all agreed and thought hard of places outside where we had wireless. Later another Indian Friend Linkesh joined and showed us a song he just wrote about Bolivia and their brave commitment as a developing country. We all sang together in a circle:

/Every day their stalling and//they’re saying the same old things again//hm-hm-hm//But one bright country stands apart,//they’re sayin’ things close to my heart.//They’ve got a plan with hope in hand,//They’re sayin’ c’mon let’s just start…//Bolivia//, I wish I was Bolivian//Just one degree temperature rise,//300 ppm in the skies,//cent per-cent emissions down by two thousand forty//Does anyone know the price of waiting//fighting, hating, procrastinating,//hm-hm-hm//My future stands in front of me,// while people here make history,//I hope and pray that it will be,//what the world’s children wish to see…//Bolivia//…//We’ve got to take the boldest steps//there’s work to do; clean up the mess.//hm-hm-hm//My future looks me in the eye,//says to me the time is nigh//It’s time to see the world agree,//time for responsibility!//Bolivia//…/

We dismissed in the urgency of going to the US-China youth joint press release. There was almost no follow-up after that, except I invited the Indian friends to come to a dinner that was just meant for the Chinese team. I will talk about that in a second.

Thursday 16th. This dinner was just intended for the Chinese team and the Danish organization Energy Crossroads who gave us the chance to participate in COP 15.One team member had a very clever comment on this dinner, which in the end was joined by the Indians and Africans (sorry I had to use the general term, I did not know where in Africa they came from)—when the old generation used “Pingpong Diplomacy” to break the ice between China and the U.S. during the Cold War, we the younger ones used “Chinese food diplomacy.” I don’t think it was our intention to have any diplomacy. It was just a very natural gesture for us to invite friends from afar that happened to have chance to gather on the land of fairy tales. If, just a naive thought, everyone in this world could be as native as the the young ones, we probably would have maintained better harmony.

One thing I maintained after COP 15, however disillusioned it could be, is to stay ideal, stubbornly ideal, passionately ideal, naively ideal. With vision and intention, things can be done.

Yes the adults will always tell us “it is more complicated than you can understand.” We should be aware not to grow up with unnecessary sophistication that gets simple things complicated.