Comment

The arts, adaptation, mitigation, climate change and a discussion between old friends

“I knew I would run into you again, sooner or later”, my delegate friend fingered his glass of white wine waving me over to him from his chair. True to form he occupied an entire table in the sitting area, documents abounded, lap-top working, tie askew, and a big smile belied his apparent fatigue. We were both between flights, and chance had brought us together. He was coming from the UN FCCC, the climate negotiations in Bonn, on his way to another climate meeting, probably. I was on my way to London.

From Kyoto in 1997 to Bonn in 2009
He had been one of the key negotiators in Kyoto when the Protocol had been negotiated in 1997; we had seen each other regularly at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, the UN CSD in New York, but had not really been in touch since the UN Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002, which had tried to give directions for sustainable development in this century.
I knew that delegates from more than 180 countries had just finished preparing for the renegotiation of the new climate deal for the world, a new Kyoto Protocol, by many heralded as holding the potential to saving or failing the future of the world. The climate negotiations were to take centre-stage in Copenhagen come December this year, and my delegate friend was again playing a significant role. A professional and knowledgeable negotiator executing with finesse the role of ‘the eminence grise’ he was back where I thought he truly belonged, at centre stage in global environmental negotiations. With civil society present, several thousands had been active in Bonn, Germany for two weeks this June, they were now all going back to their drawing boards to see if they had succeeded or failed in their efforts to start saving the world.

“We have a long way to go and difficult terrain to conquer before the nations of the world, let alone its people have embraced and accepted a global agreement on climate with understood ownership” he said with a sombre smile. “We all have to scale a steep hill to arrive at agreement at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December, but we are making progress.” My delegate friend and I had our differences, but one thing we shared – incorrigible optimism.

No one shall perish
One of our deepest differences of opinions had developed over the compromise outcome from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol negotiations, illustrated best by the so-called ‘annex a’ and ‘annex b’ countries, demanding in simple and crude terms strong emission reductions in Green House Gas from the industrialised countries and allowing concessions for the developing nations. My delegate friend had been one of the architects of that compromise which actually saved the conference and the Protocol, and orchestrated an agreement among governments to start dealing with climate change back in 1997. He was rightly proud of that agreement. I had always been against the annex-mechanisms and claimed that emission reduction goals had to be universal, the same for all. No concessions on targets. But to accomplish those targets, I always said, the well endowed countries, in finance and knowledge should help those less endowed to reach those universal targets. I felt that this understanding had started to creep into the negotiations at present, and I was feeling slightly vindicated. I was thinking of what the PM from Tuvalu, the low lying island state in the Pacific had said last December, at the climate meeting in Poznan in Poland. Reflecting on the laws of physics, he intimated - anything that is heated up expands. So do our oceans. They are rising as a result of the thermic effect, the global warming. His speech had revealed a dramatic truth leaving you to understand that his people would not perish under the sun. “We are a proud nation of people with a unique culture which cannot be relocated somewhere else. We want to survive as a people and a nation. We will survive. It is our fundamental right!” he said to an audience who listened in awed and respectful silence.

Gloating with a bitter taste
“It’s a tough sell, getting people interested in the four agenda points in Copenhagen at COP 15, let alone their outcomes. I mean, what’s attractive about mitigation, adaptation, tech transfer and finance? And the content of these four issues will decide the future of our planet, no less; people’s welfare, affect their dreams, imaginations, future choices for their progeny, so to speak,” I wanted a response from  someone who knew the drama of back-stage deals.
“You always had a penchant for dramatic speech”, my delegate friend seemed to take in what I had said, “but yes, you are right, we have to get people at large involved. This is your responsibility. You are still civil society, the critical link between the people and their governments”

‘Don’t blame me or civil society for the governments’ lethargic responses over the past decade’, I retorted, we seemed to be picking up our discourse of well polished exchange of arguments, knowing full well we were pulling the same weight in the same direction.
“Had the governing bodies of the world listened to what we said in the 70s or taken Rachel Carson’s warnings in the 60s seriously, we may have avoided the mess we are in.” I dug into my delegate friend, knowing he had been an early sceptic to the climate change warnings, but had become a valiant crusader to change the opinions of politicians since 1997. He was as concerned over the effects of global warming as I was. Still, nothing feels as good as gloating. But, I had to admit, it was gloating with a bitter taste. The gravity of the climate issue could not afford anybody to triumph until the issue had been solved.

High quality life not the same as a life in luxury
“Financial Times?” he looked at what I was reading. Somebody had left behind a copy of one of their week-end magazines, fittingly titled ‘Travel Unravelled’. It was about luxury resorts going for zero-carbon emissions. “Everybody is picking up on climate issues, and that’s good. What are they saying?” Reporting on two luxury resorts, the article rife with pictures of resplendent luxury, actually showed examples of what was possible in order to reduce energy and emissions almost to a zero level. And in a strange way it illustrated one of the serious issues that seemed to cause a grid-lock in the UN climate negotiations: with ample funding and enough technology and a will to implement and carry out new projects, reducing GHGs was absolutely possible. But agreeing on funding climate friendly development and transferring cutting edge and affordable technology to developing nations were two of the difficult issues to reach agreement on in the climate negotiations. “But the articles are not in context, and they are inconsistent”, I explained to my friend. “The magazine addresses climate change in two articles, then in a third writes about the splendour of vacationing in Bora Bora, the island paradise in the Pacific, without mentioning the rising oceans as a result of global warming which may very well submerge the island paradise. And once you are at these new ‘environment friendly hotels, you live on zero emissions, but you have to be transported there. The article does not give a total life cycle analysis of the place, the cost of…”

“It’s a start, right?” My delegate friend interrupted me. “Somebody has to start; five years ago no hotel would be doing this. Besides it goes to the heart of our biggest problem – our consumption patterns! Ok, transportation is a big polluter, more than 20% of all CO2 emissions, but contrary to popular myths, global flying contributes with less than 3% of all CO2”.   I knew how to trigger my friend. Still, we both agreed that media often had a tendency to superficial or inconsistent reporting on climate issues, or scant reporting as had been the case with the newly finished UN meeting in Bonn. I had often criticized journalists for too generalist reporting, for instance advising their readers what would only amount to cosmetic adjustments of life styles.

“High quality of life is not the same as a life in luxury. We need to delink a high quality of life from high levels of consumption. And I think we can change our life styles, we constantly do. I am convinced that for instance well-planned and well governed cities are central to this. Getting people involved there. Bill Clinton (Clinton Climate Change Initiative), Ken Livingston (active in the C40 Cities initiative), Pachauri (Director of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),  they all have said that the battle against climate change will eventually be won or lost in the city. A well planned and participatory urban area can contribute immensely to a reduction of GHG emissions,” now I was heating up.

The arts for a carbon free, well governed future.
My friend knew how to trigger me. Touché. He smiled disarmingly. “And how do you translate the complex concepts of ‘adaptation’ and ‘mitigation’ into people’s everyday language? To get them involved as you say?”
“Mitigation is simply limiting the effects of climate change through measures significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or as experts have stated: avoiding the unmanageable. Taking steps to minimize the predicted impacts of climate change is adaptation or, to quote the experts: managing the unavoidable.” I had a feeling I was pontificating. Now my friend was giving me a benign smile, almost patronising – “and how will you spread the message of adaptation, mitigation and good governance, you know, involvement, understanding, participation and all that?”
My delegate friend was not teasing me, he was asking a serious question whose answer constantly worried decision makers and politicians – how do we get people involved in fighting climate change and believe in the future?

I answered quietly: “Through the arts; working with artists, socially and politically engaged artists. Not ‘art for art’s’ sake or ‘art as entertainment’, but art as a delivery mechanism to empower citizens and facilitate change, such as developing good governance and implementing mitigation and adaptation projects.” I knew I left out a lot to be explained, but my friend looked surprised and interested. I plodded on: “You know, building on the understanding that the arts are universal, this can deal with people’s daily experience in a transforming way. Artists question the way we look at the world and help us see different explanations and possibilities. And this is ‘no shoe fits all’ solution. Climate change negotiations can and must be driven at the national and international level, but projects and their implementation must be localized. You know as well as I that there are thousands of people, especially young people in the cities that are feeling disenfranchised, never involved. Unless they are involved, local adaptation and mitigation projects will perhaps never amount to much. Reaching out to them, spurring their creativity, taking them seriously can actually involve them positively in building their own future, a carbon free future!” I was extolling.

“You are involved in a new project? Is this why you are going to London?” I nodded. “Well, we all know that art is powerful, and the arts community has been a global one for centuries. And they do ask questions we often need to ask, but do not know how to formulate. The arts for a carbon free future. I like that.”  “And the arts for good governance”, I added. I could see I had given my delegate friend something to think about.

The computer screen announced ‘Go to gate’ for both of us. We parted with a handshake. My friend looked at me: “Keep me posted on the art/climate project”- he said. “I like it. You should get the UN involved. By the way, we both fly a lot. Do you offset your carbon?”
“I try – but I think I just upset it. See you soon.”

Oslo, July 2009

If you would like to respond to Jan-Gustav's comment email comment@haringwoods.com >>