The logo of COP 15 and Day 3 recap

Definitely want to talk about the logo of COP 15. I think it is a very smart design.

It is the bird nest like texture sphere of a globe. It not only, at least from my understanding, gives the sense of the intricacy of the interconnectedness of our world. The nest is not linked in total randomness but has some traces of patterns, if you take a close look at it. Or the pattern I see could just be own insanity-- it can go both ways, like the matter of state. We can see patterns and find our way out if we can find peace first. It would be hard if you are impatient. I think. [Sounds general? Well, I am a generalist anyway]

This applies to the split among developing countries (non-Annex-1 coutries) played out during yesterday's negotiations.

Small island countries, led by Tavulu (probably the first one to be submerged by the rising sea level), strongly urged the abandonment of Kyoto Protocol and adopted a more aggressive one. This was of course resisted by some of the emerging economies such as China, India and Brazil, because under KP, all developing countries are freed from emission reduction targets and each come with goals of relative reduction depending on their situation and capability. Yet those small island and some African countries do not think

this is fair and radical enough anymore. "Tuvalu needs a real deal", cried by a group of campaingers from Tuvalu, together with other organizations such as 350.org. [picture from Oxfam, I will upload my picture soon]

Apart from what the Chinese government say, apart from what the youth delegation as whole cannot say about this issue, I'd say real "differentiated responsibilities" among all the tranditional developing countries could be modified so that everyone can have a chance to survive, if everyone is willing to comprise a little bit. Not in a sense compromised quality of life, but in my ideal, try to avoid the un-necessity of many consumptions. I don't have time to go into detail here of my series of ideals. But there was a sense of regret when the Indian Youth Climate Action director—Gupta, a friend of mine I met in India, came to rally the Chinese delegation to organize a climate fast as part of the protest for the least developed and island countries. Gupta said they did not agree with their government's decision. We somewhat could not basically. Each of us just has sth others do not have.

BBC's Richard gave a good summary of some of the structures of UN meetings that will be help in explaining partially what is going on. Also good information on the two tracks of talks that are sometimes confusing.

1439 CET: So as I mentioned yesterday, I wanted to try and give you a quick look at how the UN climate conferences work - or how they don't.

The official negotiations proceed along two "parallel tracks" that - in theory at least - have equal weight.

One is the Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action (AWG-LCA) [the one in which i heard the speech of Sudanese diplomat]- the other the Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP).

The remit of the second is a bit easier to set out, because the Kyoto Protocol already exists. The matters it is looking at include:

• commitments by developed nations still inside the protocol (the vast majority) to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2012
• how the Adaptation Fund is working
• and whether the number of greenhouse gases covered by the protocol should be increased.

The AWG-LCA is a little more nebulous. "Long-term co-operative action"...what is that?

Part of it is emission reductions from developed countries outside the Kyoto Protocol - especially, in this context, the US - and emission curbs from developing countries.

It includes financial mechanisms not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, such as the idea for a "quick-start" fund of $10bn per year proposed by UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Another facet is the future shape and operation of the UN climate convention.

How discussions progress in these "tracks", though, is uneven. Sometimes there are plenary sessions in which virtually every country is represented, and sometimes negotiators break into smaller working groups to thrash through a specific issue (the AWG-KP currently has four such groups).

Mainly negotiators work from texts that could form the basis of an eventual treaty, but at the moment they're working from "non-papers" - issue-based documents that do not have the status of official text.

Aside from these two "tracks", there are the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). [the earlier session about the CDM and CCS was one of such]

Lots of technical assessments happen there - although still firmly influenced by politics, of course - on issues such as whether "clean coal" should be eligible for funding under theClean Development Mechanism.

But this is just the formal stuff. Most of the really interesting and important stuff happens behind the scenes, in closed rooms, where positions are adopted and deals are done.