Example of An experiment to test out the story from the video

Serena:

I made a video which captures a dream I am having or being part of, which revolves around the question: Climate change, a chance for human beings to consciously evolve by developing the capacity to be selfish?  And Below is an experiment one can try, preferably with a group so you can check results with each other. 

The HD Version on facebook: 

My Dream: Humanities consciously evolve by being selfish

The Background of the video/experiment

Dec 2007- July 2008 

In my first year of law school at the University of Hong Kong, I attended UN climate conference UNFCCC COP13 in Bali (short video: Bali UN Delegation 2007); co-founded an NGO called Hong Kong Climate Change Coalition (Now renamed as Climate Chance). Since then, co-organised the first ever Asian Youth Climate Summi t2008 gathering people from all over the world. This process made me reflect on a lot of inconsistencies of my aspiration (sustainability) and the actions/thoughts in relation to the conference organisation/process/outcome, and personal energy/aspiration (unsustainable). I wanted to give up, when i was invited to embark on an Antarctica Expedition (for young students and professionals from all the world famous universities to discuss solutions to climate change) organised by 2041 and sponsored by BP (oil company).  

see Videos: 

1- Bali UN Delegation 2007  3: 47 
2- Asian Youth Climate Summit2008   4:32
3- 350 International Day of Climate Action Promotional Video 2009  4:04 
4-  350 HK Rally2009 2:23
5- Macau Branch Networking 2009 : 2:25
5- Inspire Antarctica Expedition for Climate Change 2009  3:58

In April 2009

During the Expedition, the facilitator called Roger Burton convinced the sponsor, BP and the expedition organiser 2041, to replace the standard leadership training program with this: 1- no set agenda, unless the whole group (more than 70 participants from all over the world agrees to); 2- no specific outcome; 3- we listen to how we listen.   The result is a tremendous sense of discomfort, because there was no structure and we had to organise ourselves, and our own fragmentation became a macrocosm of the fragmentations we see in the world. I saw all these, and decided to corporate with Roger. 

June - July 2009 

 Roger flew over to Hong Kong (entirely offering his service for free) from US and talked with a few of us from the NGO I was part of for a whole day. He did a few experiments with us and we continued on exchanging the results through skype conference calls.  (there were 4 meeting sessions - see minutes of the meeting)

In March - April 2009

I decided to quit the law school because i found everyone hypocritical. But just before I was leaving HK for good, I was invited to do a climate workshop with AIESEC people, and I had a trial of what Roger designed for us in Antarctica (see above), i felt a strange kind of energy emerged from the group and cancelled the flight. 

In July 2010

I met Roger and SOL China (founded by Peter Senge), participated in a very heated conversation which, my mere observance gave me a tremendous sense of liberation and bliss.  (see minute 7 & 8)  

In Aug 2010

A series events happened, my heart broke open, and suddenly i felt so grateful and connected to everything.  Then I got so sick i had to have 10 layers of clothes in order to withstand air conditioning. A kind Chinese Doctor listened to my pulse without touching me treated me, and in 3 days i recovered.   There has been such blissfulness in my experience of life; such peace and joy.  And then, events like this kept on happening like waves, and with each time, the heart broke opener, and more connected, more joy. Drastic behaviour change in relationships, increased consistency between my personal consumption habits/change models and my desired commitment, traffic of thoughts reduced.   

The whole experience to me is like recovering from an illness - just before i got recovered, it got so worse, i felt like running away (quitting law school), my attention was so much fixed on the problems and fixing other people and the world. But then, that led to facing the wound buried deep down in my heart, and everything i couldn’t accept, upon acceptance, my attention was getting more and more free and as my thoughts reduced, more creativity flows into my body. 

Now I am interested in working with anyone who wish to test these things out by forming a group which can meet up regularly. (skype or in person)

Below is one of the examples. See the “meeting with roger” posts for the origional minutes i took in the collective dialogue in the group experiments we did. (esp minute 3,4,5,6) 

-          The Methodology

·           Identify a problem

·           Ask oneself what would be possible if the problem is solved (keep on asking that until one reaches a state where the quality of the experience can be felt with the body: i.e. die a happy old women)

·           For the whole week, follow the three rules

1)      Try your best to realize the possibilities (upon solving of the problem)

2)      Do nothing which will cause it to be solved.

3)      Pay attention to the possibilities as much as possible.

 

-          What this experiment may do:  

·           Reveal the habitual way wewould go about causing something – the way one would seek to manipulate environment and people to match your idea of how it should be. 

·           One possible observation is that when we live in the condition of the problem with someone else and we have an idea they should change, we are essentially treating them as a kind of object and we seek to manipulate them to match our picture – it is uncomfortable and had emotional content.  

 

 

 

-          Theoretical basis:  

·           To pay attention to the possibility is to utilize the final cause according to the paradigm drawn by Aristotle. The theory is that overtime; our understanding of causality has eroded. The experiment is to try to explore alternative way of making changes, which may be more sustainable both during the process and for the outcome.  

——————————————————————————————-

Causality – Aristotle

-          Material Case

o   If you pick mud or ice, you get different statute

o   most people understand it as constraint

-          Efficient Case

o   Human activity and needs- most people think it is the whole of the causality– Cause & Effect- If X, then Y, if I do this, something will happen – use hand or chisel – you get different statute

-          Formal Case

o   Ideation – to form something for the vision you have of it. If you imagine a statute of bunny or anger, and you keep the granite and using chizzle, but you change the form (the idea) and that may cause a different statute.

o   Modern world understand it a bit – a vision session – but we have it so we figure out what to do, and the vision only lasts till we figure out what we going to do

o   The fact that it is causal is hard for people to understand

o   There is a collective quality to it

-          Final Case

o   “That for the sake of which” – it means what something is in service of

o   is that statute in service of money or freedom?

o   None of it has specific form, but if you put your attention on it, it may create a different statute. If you change the final cause and you end up with a different statute (despite using same chizzle, granite and form of bunny)

more? download the folder containing minutes of 8 group meetings/experiments with meeting with Roger

http://www.mediafire.com/?kqed476gii924

— Serena 

Help Improve Script for the video Climate Change is a chance for human beings to consciously evolve by developing the capacity to be selfish

Draft Commentary on the video - can humanities become self-aware

For the third part of the video-the voice-over, i know it sucks. So i am looking for people willing to help me with

 1- background music with no vocals

 2- replace my voice-over with a group dialogue or a better energy-charged voice-over

 3- improve the visuals presentation, suggest relevant video clips.

Something I wish to add to the script is that, the chronic build-up of endorphins is really a chronic experience of pain, for endorphins being able to produce pleasure, which is just the other side of the coin of pain, like love/hate, and since most of us grow up with it, we cannot feel the blissfulness. This realization allowed me to be more compassionate, I think.

 

 

SCRIPT

Listen to your heart.

There is a sacredness in every heart beats, continuing without the need to be controlled.

There is a rhythm to life.

In the cycle of death;

As they naturally self-balance.

As all earth systems are, self-balancing.

Unless prevented from doing so. 

Thousands of years ago, some of the human beings created language, where they labelled black & white, happiness & sorrow,  you & me, society & I.  Other human beings found it useful, and they evolved the ability (to) represent realities. Thousands of years later,  their evolutionary advantage enabled them to build powerful globalized institutions,  so powerful, they were able to change the geological system of the planet (i.e. climatic system) As they accepted that was happening, and searched for ways to  not forget the relationships and the contexts from which each of “I” was born. Humanities evolved again. They became self-aware of thier themselves as an inseparable whole.

They began by asking themselves: Is it possible to solve the problem at the same level of consciousness which created it?

The evolution took place when some of they examine the structure of their thoughts. Each thought is made of memory. Each memory is a reflex in the nerve system. Each reflex is a chemical change in the body. As some memory is experienced through pleasant  sensations which involves the releasing of endorphins. When this is reinforced again and again. A  reflex may be chronically connected to endorphins. When one does nothing, the body naturally removes the chronic built-up of the endorphins (pleasant sensations), which gives  a sense of discomfort. When one subsequently tries to change it, the reflex is thus able to mobilize the body to defense against it.

Part II

Upon hearing this story, you started to test this it out for yourself. You asked:

  If the totality of human beings and their activities acting on the planet is altering the climatic system of their only planet.

Is it the same neurophysiological structure of thoughts, which, having created the problems,  then trying to solve it?

Is this self-denial what prevents nature’s elf-balance and  the inherent tendency to self-righten?

The question is then,

Can a mind which tries to solve problems as if it is separated from the problem, be aware of itself doing this?

Can the humanities as a whole, operate with all their senses awaken?

 

That is,

Can the totality of the humanities as we are now, be selfish? For to be selfish is to put close attention on ourselves. To feel the sense of unity and completeness, Just before the rise of thoughts, time, self.

 Can the humanities as a whole, be selfish?  To be selfish is to love oneself before you try to love others.  To accept yourself as who you are, without the need to become. Because, we already are.  Like everything in existence. Ephemeral in our manifestations, but eternal in our capacity to feel them.

Can the humanities as a whole, be selfish? Selfishly aware of our dreams, aspirations, possibilities we are committed to, the feeling of participating in something bigger than ourselves? Be free from the isolated boundaries of nations, religions, ideologies, systems of beliefs, the conclusions, knowledge?  Be free from the limits of thoughts?

  Can we, in moment of sorrow, anxiety, uncertainty, great sense of deprivation, a pursuit of pleasure and the endless pain of a thousand years of tears. Give attention to them? To listen to the body, in full acceptance?  To let it self-express. To let the authenticity, love within us shine beyond the thoughts and demands of its institutions?

To allow our inherent ability to self-balance, 

to heal the broken hearts,

to heal the broken relationships

In expressing what we deeply care about,

to heal the broken world.

 

For being simply selfish is

 to express ourselves

as love itself.

Part III

The story I was telling, and I am interested in you testing it out for yourself,  is that problems like climate change are really challenges for human beings to consciously evolve.

Which involves developing the capacity to be selfish –putting close attention on ourselves at every moment, because the collective attentions of human kind have been institutionalised and fixed on helping others and objective attainment/avoidance.

The stories can be summarised in 2 points:

1-      All systems spontaneously self-balance.

2-      It is now being prevented by an incoherence in thought, that thought as a system, denies itself:   Thought represents the reality to us, and it denies that it merely represents it.

Thus, climate change, like all other experience of problems, becomes a mere a symptom of a pattern. Inwardly, it is manifested as the thinking pattern of problem-solving:  the instance of trying to solve a problem as if I am separated from the problem itself.  Outwardly, it is manifested as economic, political, legal institutions currently being globalised:  institutions based on extraction, manipulation nature including human beings  towards centralised locations for the purpose of profit consolidation and asset accumulation.

And at structural level, both the problem-solving mind-set and the institutions are based on the presumption that there is this ‘black’ existing separated from my drawing the distinction from ‘white’’, that there is this “I” existing somewhere separated from the rest of what is in existence, from the context, the relationships.

The way I am presenting, this pyramid structure is based on a model of thinking. At the bottom, the mental model is the structure of thought

So a part of my video is dedicated to examining the structure of thoughts.

I started by borrowing from David Bohm, a quantum physic scientists and his theory of the neurophysiological construct thought. According to my interpretation of it, thoughts consist of memory, which consists of a reflex induced through a chemical change in the body which the brain is a part of.   A memory comes from experience of us interacting with reality which includes the totality of senses: feeling, smell, taste, which generates pleasant sensations  induced by a chemical called endorphins. etc.   Some reflexes, as result of being reinforced again and again, have chronic built-up of endorphins,   the result is that,  any attempts to remove it or change it or to do nothing will result in  removal of endorphins, which produces discomfort or apparent unpleasant feelings, and this would mobilise the body to defend that particular reflex.    One of such power defensive reflex for some people is “I”.

Another way to look at these whole thing is that if we treat pain as when our body send message to us that we need to stop doing whatever we are doing, for example, over stretching, so that it can re-balance itself.  

But, suffering is when we actively invest into the conditioning and building up of endorphins in others’ thought systems by associating certain words with producing pleasant/unpleasant sensations in the body.  For example, if you don’t do this, I will slap you, you do that I will give you an ice-cream.   And because the thought doesn’t tell us that it is a collective system, we end up feeling painful ourselves as others doing the same to our body*.

According to the two points above, I draw two implications:

1-      The things we do to solve problems now are perfectly causing the problems. Stop trying to solve problems will create conditions allowing the experience of problems to dissolve 

2- So how to do that? Since the endorphins built-up related to certain word like “I” happens in the body, if one pays close attention to our body which is producing it,   because with attention comes acceptance. In acceptance, there will be no more thoughts trying to trigger defensive reflexes.    At that very moment, the body, as part of the natural system, will not be prevented from its spontaneous self-balance; and start generating self-rightening thoughts and actions which happens to rectify the problems.

Therefore, in being selfish, which is simply to be. 

And nature would have all the endorphins built-up which constitutes the content of mankind’s consciousness, including millions of years of sorrow and pain removed.

As our bodies express themselves,

As love itself.

 ——————————————————————————————-

So I am interested in working with people who want to design small experiments within our own lives to test these stories.  Because thought, like language, is collective in nature, it is best to be tested as a group, where the inconsistency of this system can be corrected through our collective attentions.    The process of testing it would already be a liberating experience for some.

 

   If you are interested in how we can test these things out or to design process for emergence during your planning of initiatives and projects together, I can connect you to people who can facilitate the process.

Sources:

Music

Reincarnation (from ghost in the shell) - Kenji Kawai

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBvwhnmUxDA

Tiluk Kamod - Khuda Kay Liye

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEdcpUn8cQY

Young Artists For Haiti - Wavin’ Flag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB7L1BIDELc

David Bisval - Knaan - Waving Flag

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wjZG6vOEZ0

 

Video Clips:

Amy Zhang, UN COP15 Copenhagen

Me: UN COP13 Bali, Free Hug Day at HKU

Contact Movie Intro: Universal Zoom out from Planet Earth

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=xb2vgG_c0g8

HONG KONG time-lapse film HD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glryiXmH05U&feature=related

hong kong island: tilt/shift time-lapse 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_YeTcDvh6w&feature=related

Sunrise from Space (HD)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf4LJdQdEZI&feature=related

 

More information:

Roger Burton: Minutes I took of our 8 meetings together 

Krishnamurti: What Has Happened to Mankind? (Video/short article)

David Bohm: Thought as a System (Online Book via HKU library) 

Osho: Making Love is a Sacred Experience  (video)

Peter Senge: The Fifth Discipline; The Necessary Revolution (books) 

Lao Zi: Dao De Jing (道德经) (online book)

Ouspensky: The Psychology of Man’s Possible Evolution  (short lecture note)

Gregory Bateson: Is consciousness a sufficient feedback system for evolution?  (Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity)

Climate Chance: http://thenetworkforchange.org (student network based at HKU)

If you are in China:
气候变化是人类意识灵性进化的一个机会：自私才能自爱， 爱自己才是爱地球. http://www.tudou.com/progr ams/view/NoseciOawu4/ 

See http://www.facebook.com/vi deo/video.php?v=4424275671 15&saved for the short version. 

Background of the making of the video/ Example of An experiment to test out the story from the video:http://hkccc.tumblr.com/po st/1328173861 
Or sponsor/participate a proposal for introducing the experiments into your own curriculum: 
http://www.slideshare.net/ Serenagao/living-lab-propo sal

(Source: videoscript)

that’s how we justify ourselves.

 

 

“This isn’t about a lie, or a consipracy, or a deceit, or a deception. It’s a decision”,
Tony Blair, former British Prime Minister, on his choice to go to war in Iraw alongside the US in order to oust Saddam Hussein.

yes. that’s how we justify ourselves.

-Stephanie-

别着急，两分钟给你讲清楚哥本哈根大会到底是咋回事

Climate Chance is going to present:

Rhe greatest interactive Drama/Comedy ever— “From Kyoto to Copenhagen, 2 minutes to tell you what happened with the global climate debate”

Based on the following story (as well as Marina’s witty capture of specifically what happened in Copenhagen.

The script will be reproduced in Cantonese, Mandarin and English.

Serena

Reblogged: http://shehui.daqi.com/article/2774426.html

核心提示：世界气候大会，咱们看通俗点其实很简单，这就好比在一艘破船上，而如何来处理发生的事情，就需要大智慧了。

如果一百多人在漏水的船上讨价还价谁该往外多舀水，那是明摆着的蠢，事实上没人会这么干，连船上那最自私最无耻的人，也会拿出最大公无私的精神拼命舀水的。

但是事情如果再复杂一点，就会有新鲜的现象了。如果船上的人算计一下，在这条船沉没前，他们有足够的时间安全抵达港口，危险属于下一船乘客时，有很多人就会停下来安静地欣赏海景了。

哪怕这条船在抵达港口前的确会沉没一部分，比如灌满一个叫“马尔代夫”的船舱，其他舱室的人，基本上都会无动于衷。

更复杂的是，如果这艘船超重，需要乘客们把身上的金银细软抛下船的话，扯淡就来了。穷人们说，富人钱多经得起糟蹋你先扔，至少得再扔40%；富人则说穷鬼 你那堆破烂儿又沉又不值钱你先扔；穷人说我扔也可以但你富人得拿出年收入的0.5%-1%，即3000块补偿给我，还得教会我发财致富的秘诀，富人说你丫 做白日梦吧老子已经一年白给你100块了，多了别想，你救的不是我是你自己。

穷人说老子才刚坐这船没两天，你狗日富人坐好几年了，生生把新船坐成了破船，现在多出点血是天经地义的；富人说以前天杀的知道这船是会坐破的，再说如果不 是我们富人天天捣鼓这船，你这帮农民今天还在刨地球，能懂航海术、看西洋景？今天这船要沉了也是我们发现的，要不你们这帮賤人淹死了都不知道咋回事。

淡还没扯完，眼见船越来越漏的厉害。于是船客们聚到“日本房间”，穷人们靠着人多强行通过了一份《京都协议书》，要求富人赶紧扔东西，穷人却可以不扔。最 富的富人米利坚说，这是明显的仇富嘛，天下哪有这道理，俺不玩了。穷人说你B一家最重，负担就占了全船的近1/5，你不扔谁扔？米利坚说我的东西是最重， 但也最值钱。俺以全船1/4的值钱物件才占了1/5的重量，凭啥我扔？你们看看那叫拆哪的穷鬼，以不到3%的价值也占了近1/5的负担，为啥不让他多扔？

黑眼睛黑头发黄皮肤的拆哪一听急了：穷兄弟们别听他的，俺们可都是穷苦人家出身，你们要是把我推出来，以后你们中有人小偷小摸耍流氓谁罩着啊？好歹这船是 大家的，你米利坚就是东西最多最重，这船也属你坐的时间最长次数最多，看我干啥？凭啥？你凭啥？这最怕船沉的不是咱穷棒子是富人，他们经不起大规模人员伤 亡。

为了尽快把淡扯完，船客们最近又在一间叫“丹麦”的房间开了一个会。据最新消息，把蛋扯完的机会已经很渺茫。最重大的成果将是形成一份《哥本哈根共识》，这份有所有船客签名的共识说：“我们都发现并且承认，这船在漏水，而且是会沉的。”

这份共识发表后，船客们纷纷接到恭喜电话，表扬他们表现出了高超的政治智慧，并且坚定地捍卫了国家利益。

Binding Targets? Let’s talk about something else…Dec 14 Copenhagen Planery Minutes by Joseph Yu

This is reblogged from the Joseph Yu, a fellow BP 2041 Antarctica Expedition, Taiwanese-Canadian  MBA graduate currently based in Copenhagen,

poignantly hilarious and illuminating of what the entire UN/UNFCCC/Internaitonal negotiation process or the State of the World Affair is like.

Serena

Here is a part of what went on inside Bella Center, Copenhagen, during the negotiation among 193 nations’ representative, regarding the target setting of CO2 emission reduction —- this is the most crucial, and substantial part of any agreement that can emerge out of COP15, because these numbers will serve as the basis of legally binding targets for the nations.

I will first give a recap (it was a session delayed from morning till 9 PM, and lasted past midnight).
Note that I will simplify each country’s speech, and it won’t be the exact words the Negotiators have said. (I will also use brackets to place additional comments, for those of you who did not follow the climate debate to have an easier time understanding). After that, I will give my personal analysis of the situation.

The Chair (kinda like a judge, sitting in front of all countries’ representatives) begins the session by having the UN staff handing out a chart, with Developed Nations’ committed reduction targets between 2008 ~ 2012 under the Kyoto Protocol. Also in the chart are 3 empty columns of different possible frameworks for 2013 ~ 2020, for numbers to be filled (so the nations only need to agree on which one of the 3 columns to use, and then fill in the essential numbers).

Japan begins: we suggest that nations can pick ANY of the 3 columns they want, instead of all nations using the same chosen column.And on top of that, we suggest that additional options be added …

(which I won’t elaborate here. But it shows that this crucial session starts, after 1 week of fruitless talk, with the expansion of chaos)

Bolivia: due to time constraint, we should not bring in any additional things out that are not in the mandate.

(this directly counters Japan’s proposal)

South Africa: yes, all nations should stick to year 1990 as the base year.

(under the Kyoto Protocol, the countries’ reduction target is measured against a base year, and that base year for 2008~2012 targets is set to be year 1990)

Micronesia: support. We need to have fewer alternatives and streamline the process, as we are running out of time. We have just wasted an entire week.

New Zealand: under Kyoto Protocol, 1990 is the base year for the First Commitment Period (that is 2008 ~ 2012), that is no doubt. However, NOTHING has been said about the measurement basis for the Second Commitment Period or future periods. A suggestion we like to make, is that countries can choose whichever year they want, as the base year to be measured against for future periods, but add an additional column showing its relative % as compared to 1990, so things look clear for all parties.

(this sounds reasonably plausible, but it is essentially to support Japan’s claim to expand complication, considering that we will then have 4 different columns for target numbers)

Canada: In the meeting in Barcelona, nations agreed that every country needs a base year, but it doesn’t mean all countries should necessarily have a COMMON base year.

Sweden (representing the EU, as it is of the EU presidency this year): and we also need to discuss Article 21 of the Kyoto Protocol, which is currently unsolved.

(now … one more issue is brought in, and no number has been filled yet)

UN Chair: we should focus on what this session is about – setting numerical targets. As for Article 21, I will speak to the Chief of Chairs regarding the issue, and perhaps address it in some other session.

Sweden: we challenge that. Who says nations need to seek consent from Chair Chief about a side issue? As far as we know, this is a session about us nations and what we want to discuss.

UN Chair: of course, I did not say that it isn’t.

Micronesia: There is an urgent need to focus. Our topic strays backwards. It might be intended for that or it might be not. Anyway, right now, we should keep the table the way it original is, and move forward. Keep the text as clean as possible so we can focus on the substance. If some nations have needs of exceptions, additional footnotes should do the job without problem. We need to focus on getting a legally binding treaty done.

(the female negotiator of Micronesia talks with convincing authority and a sense of urgency, and makes a lot of sense, however …)

Australia: we support EU

(that means the Swedish representative) regarding that Article 21 be addressed HERE before we move anywhere else. (in addition to this, Australia also brings up further complicated issues regarding how footnotes should be dealt with, which I won’t elaborate in details here)

China: some parties’ speeches are contradicting themselves. They bring in a lot of old issues that are not even about why we are here – setting numbers.

Japan: number is not so simple. There are lots of issues linked. We would like to see New Zealand’s proposal about adding one more column on the screen (there is a huge screen showing the electronic table file, so when nations speak their modifications, staff can change through the computer right away). Or perhaps Madam Chair can show us in new print-outs TOMORROW MORNING.
(when I heard this … I was in shock. I think Developing Nations’ negotiators were shaking their heads)

India (he gave a sigh): always a lot of new variations being brought up … we’ve been negotiating for 2 years. And now no one even knows where we are heading.

Colombia: we support using 1990 as base year, as all nations should.

(and then Colombia volunteers to give its own target, as the first nation in the discussion so far that brings up an ACTUAL NUMBER. But almost 2 hours have gone by already.)

Australia (cuts in quickly, countering against just settling with 1990): we are talking about a legal matter. We take it VERY SERIOUSLY. Maybe you are tired, but we are ready to work on it all night, and all tomorrow night, or for as long as it takes.

Sweden: in today’s morning, the flow of our discussion was interrupted. So now it’s late and we need to work late. We support Australia.

(I am not certain which issue he refers to regarding morning. Perhaps some deadlock between Developing Nations and Developed Nations again)

Nigeria: Let us NOT disturb our “developed country” friends. Let them WORK SERIOUSLY.
(it was under a sarcastic tone, and people laughed)

Bolivia: no one is moving forward … and this will not work. We seek guidance from Madam Chair, please. It is okay that we work all night, but it does not make sense to INVENT things to work on.

China: we are fully ready to work. But we are not moving at the same direction. The more we engage, the more we are apart, it is meaningless. They still bring in the same issues … same old ones that were mentioned in Bangkok, in Bonn …

After consulting with her Chair Panel, the UN Chair proposes that the talk be moved into smaller groups

(it means that no more Observers like me can watch. And each nation only sends 1 key person instead of 2~3 like now, to engage in more intimate negotiations behind closed doors). The UN Chair also says not to add additional things to the text.

Australia: we support the idea of moving to smaller groups. But we are against the non-addition part.
(so they still want to have opportunity to further complicate things)

Venezuela: I am lost. We are not moving anywhere.

New Zealand: the Ministers that are on their way flying here should be the one that can change or decide on the numbers. We are just here to get the text right. The direction of our talk, should be to facilitate Annex I parties (meaning Developed Nations under Kyoto Protocol. This excludes USA as it did not ratify the Protocol) to make commitments, as we are essentially the ones that matter. It should facilitate so that Annex I parties have an easier time making commitments.

Sweden: let’s be frank. For a long time we have seen this coming. For the past months everybody knew a lot of things were deadlocked.

Micronesia: is this what we are doing? “To make parties feel easier to make commitments”? We should think of our obligation to the environment and our future!

To wrap this up, Algeria and Sweden both propose to move to smaller group sessions. USA spoke only once, regarding a certain line of text that mentioned its country (as USA did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it is only an Observing Nation in this particular talk which is based under the Kyoto Protocol). Bolivia questions the Chair’s intention to move into smaller groups. Switzerland, Canada, Egypt each inquires the Chair once more regarding details of moving into smaller groups.

And the recap here has taken 4 hours, with no progress and no numbers set.

Joseph’s Personal Analysis:

It is obvious that the Developed Nations that voice in this session wish this particular negotiation to fall apart. The attempt is more than apparent, and they do not hide such intention (but the real interest behind this action may vary: building credible threat for other negotiation tracks; forcing the Developing Nations to make concessions in this and other tracks; a grand strategy that stalls the whole conference so countries like Japan will be free from the pre-set obligations that will end in 2012; etc etc). The industrialized countries have long wished to either eliminate Kyoto Protocol obligations for themselves, or drag the Developing Nations in on similar level of obligations. This essentially translate into international power play, tied with strategies for relative economical advancement, and political influence. But that’s another long topic, let’s focus on the schemes of Negotiation here.

The Alliance of the Developed Nations is more well-structured, with Japan, Sweden (EU), Australia, and New Zealand representing the power. Whether pre-determined or simply following Negotiators’ styles, each of these countries actually played a very specific role. Japan is clearly the one that drops bombs. Sweden (representing the entire EU) is the central force and the strongest voice. Australia is a sound supporter, and New Zealand serves as a counter-weight that balances issues, nevertheless further the direction of the coalition.

The Developed Nations (G-77 and China, Least Developed Countries, and Alliance of Small Island States) are not as well organized in this session. They are all feeling frustrated, and each of them voices concerns that are basically repetition of the same sentiment.

Now, for Developing Nations this is unfortunate, because THIS particular track of negotiation (AWG-KP) is what the Developing Nations value the most. Perhaps the industrialized nations ARE better trained in negotiation tactics.
Or, an alternative possibility is, since this is an open session for NGO observers, the Developing Nations wish to play the disheartened victims and send public messages across in order to increase external pressure. However, this should be unlikely as this is not the only session that shows a lack of structure among G-77, LDC, and AOSIS. And if they want the semi-public message to be effective, they should emphasize more on the common good (greater good), instead of individual frustration that has less aspiration value.

Moreover, note the frequency of “support” uttered by the Developed Nations of one another. The Developing Nations on the other hand, are a bit more loose, with stance characterized by frustration that gives nothing but satisfaction to their opponents.

There are a few fundamental issues, aside from the commonly known conflict area that Developing Nations wish to place social economical growth above (or at least parallel to) combating climate change, and that the industrialized nations wish to enclose more global players into the same level of obligation that match theirs:

First of all, in terms of underlying interest, within the broader bracket that all nations’ futures are tied together, each coalition (and nation) essentially focuses on its interest more, because they cannot help but project the relative position of power (taking economy, politics, social, cultural, demographical, and geographical elements all into consideration), and that accounts for major decision-making that is cast upon the long-term spectrum (kinda like Game Theory).

Second of all, in terms of Negotiating Power, the Developed Nations have much better alternatives (the so-called BATNA in Negotiation terms). They possess historically accumulated wealth, technologies, and systems. If the deal shall fall apart, poor African nations are the ones that suffer the most severely, and Small Island States (such as Maldives) will be the first ones to be buried under the sea. With better alternatives should the deal fall short, the Developed Nations have way more bargaining power, thus they can act cold-bloodedly calm in the face of this global crisis, in order to press their counterparts into making concessions.
(and in all areas of the COP15negotiation – mitigation, adaptation, technology, finance – the Developed Nations are all better off. And that serve as major powers to be manipulated during the talks)

Countries like China, while it may suffer more if it comes to deal-breaking, has been conducting two strategies simultaneously. Firstly of all, an alliance has been formed (the so-called “G77 and China”). At the beginning we have witnessed the 4-3-2 phenomenon of shifting alliances, but now things are pretty much solidified (but not without effort on China’s part). Secondly, China has been actively improving its BATNA (alternative). That’s why President Hu announced its ambitious goal (40~45% cut in 2020 as compared to 2005’s emission level) disregarding the grudges of regional/provincial governmental heads: it is a decision born not out of ambition, but of a lack of choice. China has sent a signal that it will not, and cannot, follow the historical industrialization path. It’s a win-or-fall gamble. Nevertheless, such alternative-buildings will only come to fruition in the next decade. As of now, China’s bargaining power is still weaker than the Developed Nations, as can be seen by the concession made on December 17th that it will set “standards of measurement” for its carbon emission (something that China did not wish to agree upon for the longest time, and was one of the major reasons of the Deadlock. This criteria was insisted by USA, which did not even ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The sheer fact that China abides to such a claim without sound legitimacy from USA’s part, signals the big nation’s weaker position).

What Japan did was considered a hardball tactic, but it only worked because of the structured coalition that backed it up. According to an UN PR staff’s private words to me, Sweden has sent a high-level negotiator to this session, so did New Zealand (USA on the other hand, sent a low-level negotiator to this session). Such acts signaled that the Developed Nations were ready to engage in a “serious negotiation”. Based on this premise, perhaps their tactics during the open session was to drive down the morale and patience level of their counterparts, thus making it easier to push for Developed Nations’ concessions during closed sessions (smaller groups), when the real deal-making should occur without public scrutiny.

With Ethiopia, Algeria, South Africa being the political centers, the African nations are very much united. Along with joint forces of China, India, and other emerging economies, the coalition of the Developed Nations have a good potential to make bargains. However, the inherent disadvantages (often associated with the population proportion in poverty, and the reasons mentioned above) make them start off in a much weaker position. (that’s also how the “Danish Text” scandal was exaggerated, by Developed Nations believing that Developing Nations were secretly aligned to make the deal favorable only to the richer nations.)
Nevertheless, the Developing Nations can leverage the public channel, antagonizing the industrialized countries for the lack of political will (and this can be a legitimate claim).
Moreover, with better structured negotiation tactics, they can do a much better job (for example, in the session above, Micronesia’s negotiator voiced rallying calls with dire passion. However, being a nation of small, scattered islands, her opponents all understood that playing hardball would make her lose composure, as her nation is the first one to sink. That deprives her of convincing power when negotiating with big players like the EU and Japan, without logical and tactical backing from China and India).

All in all, it was a frustrating session that made me learn plentiful.
I do not appreciate nations with greater power using subtle tactics to exploit those they are supposed to support, even though that is the way international relations usually work.
But everything else aside, people of all nations (ESPECIALLY those in the Developed Nations) DO wish to see leadership taking charge of creating a binding deal.

One more day, let’s see what happens.

Philip Hafstad -Copenhagen Concluding Blog

Philip Hafstad

A complete failure for humanity? A death penalty for millions of people?

This is how many NGOs as well as national governments express their feelings after the failed negotiations here in Copenhagen. The discussions have been intense these last days and finally all countries agreed to a very weak paper, far away from something that the earth really needs. The paper that has been signed does not mention any targets in terms of numbers, and experts estimate that the signed paper will increase the Earth’s temperature to 3 degrees Celsius, a big difference from the 2 degrees target. United States and China has not been willing to compromise their stance towards the climate change issue and many are now blaming these two polluting giants as the major block from a more substantial paper here in Copenhagen.

We are of course very disappointed that these historical negotiations did not lead to any legally binding commitment and as youth, we cannot be anything else than worried for our future. During our time in Copenhagen we have learnt that negotiations in the UN is not simple, and the process that took place here in Copenhagen is slow and inefficient.

On the positive side, we have had a very interesting time in Copenhagen. Although we were restricted from the negotiations at the Bella Center during the last days we have meet with many interesting people, especially other youth and students from all over the world. We have made progress and connections with youth from Australia, United States, Europe and Asia, we have created a mutual awareness that we together as youth will suffer from the consequences of this week’s failed negotiations. Even though we are not satisfied with the outcome from the negotiations, we are very happy that we have created such a network around the globe with other youth and we know that at least we stand united.

During the time here in Copenhagen we have listened to leaders such as Al Gore, Hugo Chavez and Desmond Tutu, we have been inspired by some nations’ commitment to tackle climate change and have been disappointed by others that have failed us. We have listened to inspiring talks and have become more aware about climate change. Now we hope that we can use our knowledge and contacts to continue to spread awareness about tackling climate change and how we can act together for fighting for peoples’ survival.

Marina at COP15 Diary 5: Why am I not disappointed? 夢@哥本哈根(五)：為甚麼我不失望？

Again, reblogged from Marina Tse’s facebook note.

She has many lovely photos and lots of other deeper personal insights, please add her as a friend and read the rest here.

One comment on this bog -  It’s funny that at the end of my 10-day meditation, i did come to the same conclusion as what you said —behind the façade of “nation,” “society,” be it developing or developed, they are made of people, and being people, we all feel happy when we are loved, or when we serve others”

One thing which became very clear during meditation, be it our “addiction to oil” or to any particular living styles while clearly knowing the cost it comes at—ultimately, it is all about your ability to face death, to face the reality of our existence - that all that rises must past away. During meditation, you are literally struggling with your mind - it says: go this way, you say ” no, go this way” - there is so much pain, and yet at the end, you feel  literally, lighter…and that’ s when i realised how most of my life, i have followed my mind’s will. Of course, i could only be angry at someone else….

Serena

理論上我的無聊會議紀錄還有兩三篇，但我想先跳過。

從哥本哈根回來，最經常遇到的問題就是：你對會議結果失

望嗎？

(呵，結果……如果哥本哈根協議(Copenhagen Accord)算是結果的話。)

而通常問我這個問題的人都是自己覺得失望。

所以，還是先回答一下。

為什麼我沒資格失望

從兩件事說起

第一個是從NGO那裡聽來的。

話說會議將結束前的某一天，大部分plenary都是閉門會議，能進場的NGO都是和政府官員溝通過用party的身分入場的。會議氣氛緊張不在話下，其中中國首席談判代表蘇偉有一段6分多鐘的發言，明顯超出了會議3分鐘發言的時間限制，更重要的是那6分鐘裡他到底在講什麼在場很多人都迷糊了(至今還沒有人告訴我他到底在說甚麼)。

據說，蘇偉在那兩天幾乎沒睡過。

(請別忘記這是一個六十多歲的老人。)

另一件事刊登在明報，是小道消息。話說某次閉門會議，蘇偉很激動地斥責發展中國家，而當時主持會議的溫家寶(大陸網民暱稱他為溫寶寶，我覺得太親暱了)總理及時叫翻譯員不要翻譯。

我不是要告訴你中國談判代表團吃了多少苦受了多少委屈，我知道美英意法俄印……所有國家的談判官員都承受莫大壓力，更不用說那些面對亡國之災的小島國代表們。我只是想讓你有個概念：所謂談判，有時就是會發展成勾心鬥角鬥智鬥力比國力比手腕的局，但局裡面的，是人。

所謂“局”，用王力雄的話來說，就是雙方都知道哪條路不該走卻又在相互牽制的情況下不得已走向了那條不歸路。局開始了，就像開是流動的沙漏，是剩下結束時間的問題。

結束時間，就是局的毀滅。

身分

扯了一大堆，差點忘了要回正題。

我沒有失望的資格，也沒有批評的資格，因為我知道如果談判桌前的是我結果可能不會改變。

的確，我也相信人在任何一個情況下都有選擇的自由，但這個自由在constraint越多的情況下選擇就越少。更何況，當你做得不是你一個人的選擇，而是背後有一個叫國家的團體；當你所考慮的利益不是你的得失，而是國家利益；所謂的選擇，也很可能不過是一個理論上的存在。

國家利益

這是不得不說一下國家利益。

飛哥本哈根之前，S一直問自己也問別人的問題，就是What is national interest?
(她現在在閉關冥想，不知她找到答案沒。)

每次想這個問題就不期然想起Allen v Gold Reefs: the amendment of Articles should be made “bona fide for the benefit of the company as a whole”. (So what is “the company as a whole”? In fact, what does it really mean by “separate legal personality”?)

把國家的面具撕開，“國”最基本的組成部份，是人。但所謂國家利益，似乎與人民利益有所不同。

我不善於思考，不想也沒能力告訴你一些很哲學很有深度的論調。只是覺得有時候在無法理解以“國家”為單位的國際形勢時，可以回到“人”的層面。

做為一個人

我喜歡引用一位日本首談判代表的一段話。

這次峰會日本的立場是在有條件的情況下減排。所謂有條件，就是其他國家也要行動。

日本做為發達國家，減排是義務，你大可批評他們不厚道，但這位談判代表說得有道理：如果所有國家不減排，只有日本有這擔子，我們無法向納稅人交代。

明白了嗎？當但判桌前的各國代表都覺得有義務向自己國家的納稅人交代，你在大肆批評之前有必要先問一問自己。

投訴香港人環保意識薄弱商人浪費政府被動之前，先問一下自己：我做了多少？我還願意付出多少？

同理，如果政府有天向高炭物品徵收炭污染稅(以香港政府的思維和能力這個可能性與2012普選差不多)，在抱怨物價騰飛之前想一想其他國家的人民也會抱怨政府為環保徵稅。

就氣候變化峰會的發展來說，我們固然氣憤發達國家不想負責任(不肯答應減排目標，答應了又不做)，並企圖用政治手段讓發展中國家背他們歷史的債，還有他們阻撓談判進度的黑鍋。但如果我是美國人，我也可能會支持政府立場，也可能支持國會不要在其他國家沒有行動時通過法案讓美國採取積極的減排行動，也可能受到油公司的宣傳策略影響反對美國積極減排。

只是可能。但至少我不想看到自己的政府在國際上出醜，或屈服於巨大壓力。

我不能否認我常不自覺地帶著有色眼鏡看世間，我明白我所謂的獨立思考受到立場利益等等多重因素左右，而我也知道大部分人和我一樣。

我們都只是人。

所以，我只能一直問自己：如果我是他……

為什麼我還握著希望

如之前所說的，政府必須對納稅人負責。有點常識(我已經放棄了政治智慧這個詞了)的政府都懂得要聽一聽民意。

不要跟我說有多少民調指出香港人覺得什麼重要，覺得政府需要怎麼做。絕大部分的人認為氣候變化是重要議題贊同政府應對氣候變化這不代表甚麼，因為大部分人也都會認為自己的收入很重要，但當問題變成你願意犧牲多少收入來支持應對氣候變化的工作分歧就出現了。

所以，你已經知道我要說什麼了。

你可以做的比你想像中要多得多。

你不一定要去遊行示威，不一定要成為素食者，不一定要餐餐有機食物(雖然我對有機食品對環境的利弊有保留)；但在買衣服時你考慮的可以不只是價錢牌子，還有耐不耐穿、需不需要；買菜時你可以考慮來源地，還有運輸過程中的炭排量 (所以當你看到這是空運日本神戶牛排是希望你看到的不只是美食和虛榮還有養殖和運輸過程中對環境的破壞)……

小至出門關燈大至裝修設計，你都有自己的選擇。都是老生常談了……

政府政策上的支持是必要的。我想說的只是當政府沒做事時，做為“個人”我們不是被動的。

題外話

最後，小小地借題發揮一下。

請別再說Save the Earth，那可真是我見過最狂妄的口號。地球有自我調節功能，只是不一定會一直調節在一個適合人類居住的環境，另一種環境可能會產生完全不同的生物組合，不一定包括人類。

Marina at COP15 Diary 4夢@哥本哈根(四)：峰迴路轉的第二周會議之空降文件

12月16日，由於對NGO的入場人數管制和會場的安排

混亂，我無法進Bella Centre。

據在會場內聽plenary的隊友說，那天的會議進展真的是始料不及而且令人熱血沸騰。

首先是AWG-KP的chair提交報告，又是一場(意料中)沒結果的討論。
(Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol，是負責研究KP的後續發展的工作小組)

詭異的是接著主席Connie Hedegaard就辭職了，換上來的是丹麥首相。

(Connie Hedegaard在記者會上給的解釋是因為有很多國家首長都來了，由丹麥首想做主席會比較恰當；而國內媒體的看法是Connie Hedegaard支持KP而丹麥首相立場親美，主席替換是由於美國壓力。)

更令人不解的是丹麥首相位子還沒坐暖就扔出了一份草案企圖強制進入高級別會議，而非照原先程序先聽AWG-LCA的報告。
(AWG-LCA=Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention，是負責研究KP之外的國際合作；順便一提，LCA可是辛勤工作了一個晚上了)

於是巴西很自然地提案說，我們還沒拿到LCA的案文，還是跟原定程序討論LCA的報告吧。

發展中國家紛紛表示支持，因為雙軌變單軌的因應有再次籠罩。

這時丹麥首相很勇敢，繼續堅持。

發展中國家繼續反對，首相繼續堅持……

我事後看對有的會議紀錄，真有種目瞪口呆的感覺。先不管先前多個版本的丹麥文案滿天飛令會議蒙上陰影，現在是破天驚地出現一個草案，感覺就像是看魔術師從空空如也的帽子裡拿出的一隻小白兔…更準確的說是一隻被懷疑按照富國口味烹制的兔子。

當天出盡風頭的肯定是委內瑞拉總統。他在會議中高呼：
“哥本哈根的河流游走着一个幽灵，这个幽灵就是资本主义，你们听到年青人喊着“要改变体制，不要改变气候”，而我认为先改变体制，才能改变气候……富国想毁坏这个地球，再去另一个星球，但是他们能去哪儿呢？”

你可以想像一片掌聲。

委內瑞拉總統的發言中還有一段：
“自由是什么？只有法律才能给人自由，有些国家说不想要法律，因为没有法律就可以继续剥削人民……”

呵，law is there to be broken。

主辦國如此公然地漠視程序，難道還不說明甚麼嗎？

(當然，逆向思維是如果沒有程序規章就真讓他們得逞了。)

我有一種“原來所謂權威也不過如此”的感覺。

鬧劇。

Comments:

Karena Wong Marina! 謝謝你的分享！
看完你的4篇幽默諷刺的報告，讓我對COP15多了些認識，也多了些惆悵。唉，這場世界性的政治秀真是鬧劇一場。Martin Ng 剛剛看了一篇文章，或許會給妳多一些角度看這 COP 15
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,668408,00.htmlSerenity Serena haha, law is there to be broken - cna’t agree more! I do think it reflects the nature of modern day legal system - how both the making and enforcement of law are concentrated on a small group of people. One does not need to do research, but only need to ask our heart - how much power we feel as an ordinary citizen?Serenity Serena Dear Martin, the article you recommended—Copenhagen Reveals a Vicious Circle of Mistrust— does indicate a rising direction pointing away from the puppet states but to the people - whose “addiction to oil” as the ultimate culprit - however, to break free from this addiction, to me, one needs a discipline of the mind - using budda’s word - to be able to be free from its habitual reactive pattern - to this end, i highly recommand meditation - haha, it really helps!

Marina at COP15 Diary 2 夢@哥本哈根(二)：(被我寫得很悶的)第一周會議

Sorry for English readers! But climate chance does have many Chinese readers too! Will try to upload the translation ASAP.  (Serena)

(如果你不知道這是怎麼回事，可以看一看；如果你一直有

跟進，歡迎指正。)

但事先聲明這是一篇很長很悶很無聊的文字(我已經不敢把它稱為文章了)。

KP

第一周談判桌上的第一個明爭暗鬥的重點是KP(Kyoto Protocol，京都議定書)的存亡。

KP的法律期限在2012年失效，會議討論焦點就是2012年之後要做甚麼。但由於美國沒有簽署KP(正確來說是沒有ratify KP)，所以目前採用的是雙軌制：要談如何延續KP，也要談另一個新的條約，希望可以把美國拉進來。

發達國家不想延續KP，想把雙軌變單軌，用一個條約取而代之。因為在KP他們有強制減排義務，而發展中國家則只需按國情量力而為。再者，全球第二大溫室氣體排放國美國都不受KP的約束，談來幹嘛。

發展中國家想保留KP，一來這是目前唯一有法律約束力的條約(雖然個人認為在國際層面法律是一個行蹤飄忽的東西)，放棄了不知還能不能在2012年前達成另一項有法律約束力的條款；二來KP沒有給發展中國家訂立強制減排目標，再來一個條約沒准兒就對一些正在急速發展的經濟體(如中國)強制減排，中國對此反應很強烈，認為這違反了公約裡的“共同但有區別的責任” (common but differentiated responsibilities)原則。

兩方陣營吵呀吵，中間又多了一個圖瓦盧(Tuvalu)做插曲(用這個詞很悲哀也很無可奈何)。

插曲：Tuvalu

這個南太平洋的小島國因氣候變化面臨亡國危機，呼籲更積極的減排，於是在會議之初提出就要成立一個新的工作小組討論一個比KP更積極的具法律像力的條約。與圖瓦盧在同一陣線上的還有一些AOSIS國家(Alliance of Small Island States，小島國聯盟)和LDC (least developed countries).

這提案遭到中國印度巴西等其他國家反對，理由是現有的機制足以應付，一個新的小組會阻礙會議進展，沒說出口的是要實現圖瓦盧的要求發展中國家也須背負更大的責任。

心水清的你會知道：G77+China(包括一百多個發展中國家的聯盟)開始分裂。

發達國家自然靜觀其變，如果沒有暗中煽風點火的話。

圖瓦盧的要求自然不是發達國家的那一杯茶，因為要增加國際總減排量發達國家的那一杯羹肯定少不了；但圖瓦盧一攙和中國等發展中國家就被拖下水，何況在對自己不利的情況下混亂就是機會。

意外的是圖瓦盧成為會場裡的英雄。不但得到媒體的報導、NGO的支持，連每天頒發Fossil of the Day給妨礙談判進展的國家的Climate Action Network(CAN) 在12月9日也破例頒發了 Ray of the Day給這小島國表揚一下。

而圖瓦盧也是令第一周會議充滿人性化的關鍵。

那位謙稱自己只是政府中微不足道的一員的代表尖銳地指出，世界的命運很諷刺地掌握在美國的一些國會議員手裡；他說，自己早上起來哭了，因為自己國家的命運在大家手裡。

從他哽咽的聲線沒人懷疑他的話，我身旁的NGO observers 報以熱烈的掌聲。

而我當時在現場鼓掌時有莫名的悲哀，現在明白了：國際政治就是這麼殘忍。從現在的哥本哈根協議看來，圖瓦盧充其量不過是片刻的感動、讓媒體有些題目的焦點，或者(根據我和很多人的陰謀論)是發達國家轉移視線的煙霧。其餘一切照舊。

插曲二：丹麥草案

會議初期英國衛報就發表了新聞，關於一份據稱已被多個發達國家同意的丹麥草案，其內容可用一句話總結：讓不公平更不公平。

拋棄共同但有區別的責任原則(common but differentiated responsibilities)，把發達國家的人均排放量定為發展中國家的一倍，更讓世界銀行操控應對氣候變化的資金流向……

而我聽到的最多的感想就是懷疑草案是假的，事件純是媒體炒作。

丹麥官方的答覆是那只是個非正式文件，從來不是討論對象。

真是假做真時真亦假，但即使草案不是真的，從種種跡象看我還是和大多數身邊的人一樣覺得各國有在峰會前搞小圈子……

其他：一如所料

其他議題如減排則是把我們聽了很多年的論調重覆重複…發達國家要發展中國家有更大承擔，發展中國家強調溫室氣體排放的歷史責任和發展權……

相互指責的結果是原地踏步。

結語

當時看過一篇新聞評論說：真正談判從第二周開始，第一周是國家代表作給國內人民看的政治秀，信焉。


老實說，我不以為有人會從頭看到這一行，如果你做到了，我除了感激，還想建議你看一看上文提到的圖瓦盧代表的發言：http://www.grist.org/article/2009-12-14-tuvalu-to-obama-and-the-senate-the-fate-of-my-country/

P.S. 我收回剛才說的話，我感覺我還活在丹麥時間。

P.S.2 既然這是一堆很悶的文字，我不加相片了。

夢@哥本哈根日记(一)：(很簡的)會議簡介

Reblogged from Marina Tse, one of the Climate Chance Copenhagen UNFCCC COP15 Delegate (accredited as part of Chinese Youth COP15 team)’s facebook notes:

The best summry of the Copenhagen Climate Conference i have ever seen ! A poignant reflection on the state of the world today…but then, without illusions, there be no disillusions, without disillusions, there be no enlightenment, without enlightenment, there be no knowing of why the hell we are live or die. So grateful for everyone!  —Serena

從哥本哈根回來，昏睡了十二個小時，再魂遊了一整天，讓

自己沉澱，但其實我沒有預期中混亂。

該說的話還是要說。

先來一個總結。

是次聯合國氣候變化峰會，全稱是聯合國氣候變化框架公約第15次締約方會議(United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15)，簡稱COP15。

兩星期的會議過程用幾段話說明就是這樣：

一開始大家吵得很烈的是還要不要延續KP(Kyoto Protocol，京都議定書)，吵到最後決定還是留下吧。這時會議已經進行了一半，而其他議題如減排目標、資金來源、技術轉移……有在談。

之後主席辭職換上了丹麥首相不顧會議既定程序空降了一分協議草案，並試圖強制進入高級別討論，發展中國家憤怒：這文案一不合會議程序、二不知是哪兒來的、三事先沒交代它的出現、四沒我們的同意，你想討論啥？

發達國家出奇沉默。鬧劇的結果是丹麥首相坐不下去，原來的主席一兩天後又回來了。

大約同一時間，Hillary Clinton發表了一段冠冕堂皇的演講，說美國願意與其他發達國家一起發動(mobolize)一千億美元的資金援助發展中國家，但大前提是“減排行動必須透明”。

於是形勢急速逆轉。Clinton的言論不用說是針對中國，因為中國將減排目標訂為“自願”性質，不受國際約束，不做MRV (measurable reportable verifiable)。美國的高招是如果在哥本哈根達不成協議理由會是中國固執不妥協。

中國壓力暴增。雖然你不很仔細也可以看出來美國壓根兒沒說自己會掏腰包給多少錢。

會議廳裡又回來的主席帶來了Friends of Chair的提議，就是找一些國家代表小組討論一下再來匯報(不然這一百九十多個國家代表可以定居會場了)。之後幾經周折經過多次(不同的)小組討論，出來了所謂的哥本哈根協議(Copenhagen Accord)。

所有人精疲力盡。

如果你沒留意會議進展希望以上幾段話能讓你明白，(很無聊的)會議觀察明天再寫。

(我已回到香港時間了，可以重新過早睡早起的生活，各位晚安)

Some practical questions

Found a very honest blog article that both raises some practical questions and gives pertinent answers.

Read the article on the blog website of Malaysian Youth Climate Justice Network

Posted by Jessica

氣候變化與信仰

by Jessica

回顧緊湊的六天行程，民間社會遍布著對氣候公義的訴求。從坦桑尼亞乞力馬扎羅山積雪融化導致當地水資源匱乏，到孟加拉國日趨嚴重的洪水威脅生命，靠天吃天的發展中國家脆弱地不堪一擊。因此談判過程中大多數爭論的是，作為造成氣候變化的罪魁禍首，發達國家是否有責任援助發展中國家適應氣候變化。若有責任，再進一步探討，應該如何援助。我發現，無論從哪個發展中國家的立場看待氣候公義，都回歸到道德義務，平等氣候談判變成了對發達國家道德標準的一種考驗。而這種道德義務，與不同的宗教信仰追求的對自然的敬畏不謀而合。

這樣的結論源于我與一位致力于環境保育的基督徒的對話。他叫Brendan Bowles，是Climatestewards的主管。Climatestewards以社區為基礎，在全世界18個國家開展環境保育項目，宣揚神對萬物之愛。創世紀1:31寫道，“神看著一切所造的都甚好”。以Brendan Bowles的觀點來看，氣候系統和自然環境都是神的完美創造。神還創造了人，要人從土里種出食物來維持生命，并交付他們管理土地和所有活物。稻谷生長，石油噴涌，這些都是上帝的恩賜。因此人類應以管家的身份照看神所造之物。管家意味著人類必須按仆人的形象，時刻以照看好地球萬物的平衡來榮耀主人。維持人類生命的土地，空氣和水，既是神賜予的禮物，亦帶給人類責任。因此他希望通過宣講，越來越多的基督徒可以看到這樣一種聯系，為神造之物禱告。他的一席話讓我想到，氣候變化或許正是因為許多人失去了對神的敬畏，變得自大的后果。詩篇24:1寫道，“地和其中所充滿的、世界、和住在其間的，都屬耶和華”。 但是人類卻逾越了神的職位，設法征服自然，征服神的創造。正是這種狂妄讓我們的生存環境遭受著不可逆轉的破壞，屬于自然的反抗。

也許有人會質疑，這只是基督教支持的觀點，這種人與自然的關系并不能應用到其他宗教信仰。在12月16日Klima Forum為西藏游牧民族組織的氣候變化論壇上，我見到了信仰在氣候變化問題上的共通性。西藏代表講述了中國的現代化進程對草原造成的破壞。中國政府要求西藏施行草原承包經營制以方便管理，同時，這樣的承包經營可以創造競爭氛圍，達到經濟效益的最大化。在這種資本主義的經營方式下，經濟效益在短期內的確有顯著提高，但過度放牧卻加速了草原退化和沙漠化，令西藏失去了長期效益。藏族自古對自然有著神圣的崇拜。他們認為凡事都應該尊崇自然規律，各家的牛羊應該在草原上自由奔跑，覓食求生，而不應圈養。這樣留給草原的生態系統足夠的時間自我恢復，年復一年，不斷更新生長的嫩芽才能保證牛羊有充裕的食物資源，維持西藏人民薪火相傳。西藏游牧民族的經歷更直接地傳達了人與自然如何和諧相處的信息。更令我驚訝的是，2009年11月2日，世界宗教與環境保護聯盟與聯合國開發計劃署共同主辦了主題為 “諸多天堂與一個地球——為適合生存的星球而做出信仰承諾”的會議。來自全球基督教、佛教、伊斯蘭教、巴哈教、印度教、猶太教等宗教的200名宗教界人士參加會議，共同討論保護人類生存環境的問題并提出許多環保倡議，其中包括坦尚尼亞植樹計劃、建設綠色宗教建築、使用再生紙印刷宗教書籍等。盡管各大宗教信仰各有千秋，但在環境問題上卻殊途同歸。

宗教在全球范圍的力量是不可估量的，若所有宗教信仰都在氣候變化問題上達成一致，這樣的社會效應將是史無前例的。哥本哈根的當地教會就在身體力行，改善教會運營方式達到碳中性，創建綠色教堂。聯合國氣候談判期間，更是在服務期間在圣壇上擺放來自格陵蘭島的石塊，馬拉維的粟米棒和太平洋小島的珊瑚碎片，以提醒人們對氣候變化對全球各地的負面影響。