Drops during COP 15

stories by pictures 看图说话

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 sth 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. Mekel 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 and have sth 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 sth 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, skyping 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 dont 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.

Requiem For A Crowded Planet—Guardian.com

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/21/requiem-for-a-crowded-planet/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email

recommended to me from a friend at Center for Science and Environment, New Delhi. It is a rather clear-headed comment on the outcome, I think. How many more rounds of talks can we wait?

a Mexico women in the far left, heading away from the Bella Center where the sun set, heading home for Mexico?

By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 21st December 2009

The last time global negotiations collapsed like this was in Doha in 2001. After the trade talks fell apart, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) assured the delegates that there was nothing to fear: they would move to Mexico, where a deal would be done. The negotiations ran into the sand of the Mexican resort of Cancun, never to re-emerge. After eight years of dithering, nothing has been agreed.

When the climate talks in Copenhagen ended in failure last week, Yvo de Boer, the man in charge of the process, urged us not to worry: everything will be sorted out “in Mexico one year from now.”(1) Is Mexico the diplomatic equivalent of the Pacific garbage patch: the place where failed negotiations go to die?

De Boer might pretend that this is just a temporary hitch, but he knows what happens when talks lose momentum. A year ago I asked him what he feared most. This is what he said. “The worst-case scenario for me is that climate becomes a second WTO. … Copenhagen, for me, is a very clear deadline that I think we need to meet, and I am afraid that if we don’t, then the process will begin to slip, and like in the trade negotiations, one deadline after the other will not be met, and we sort of become the little orchestra on the Titanic.”(2)

We can live without a new trade agreement; we can’t live without a new climate agreement. One of the failings of the people who have tried to mobilise support for a climate treaty is that we have made the issue too complicated. So here is the simplest summary I can produce of why this matters.

Human beings can live in a wider range of conditions than almost any other species. But the climate of the past few thousand years has been amazingly kind to us. It has enabled us to spread into almost all regions of the world and to grow into the favourable ecological circumstances it has created. We currently enjoy the optimum conditions for supporting seven billion people.

A shift in global temperature reduces the range of places than can sustain human life. During the last ice age, humans were confined to low latitudes. The difference in the average global temperature between now and then was four degrees centigrade. Global warming will have the opposite effect, driving people into higher latitudes, principally as water supplies diminish.

Food production at high latitudes must rise as quickly as it falls elsewhere, but this is unlikely to happen. According to the body that summarises the findings of climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the potential for global food production “is very likely to decrease above about 3C”(3). The panel uses the phrase “very likely” to mean a probability of above 90%(4). Unless a strong climate deal is struck very soon, the probable outcome is a rise of three or more degrees by the end of the century.

Even in higher latitudes the habitable land area will decrease as the sea level rises. The likely rise this century - probably less than a metre - is threatening only to some populations, but the process does not stop in 2100. During the previous interglacial period, about 125,000 years ago, the average global temperature was around 1.3 degrees higher than it is today, as a result of changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun. A new paper in the scientific journal Nature shows that sea levels during that period were between 6.6 and 9.4 metres higher than today’s(5). Once the temperature had risen, the expansion of sea water and the melting of ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica was unstoppable. I wonder whether the government of Denmark, whose atrocious management of the conference contributed to its failure, would have tried harder if its people knew that in a few hundred years they won’t have a country any more.

As people are displaced from their homes by drought and sea level rise, and as food production declines, the planet will be unable to support the current population. The collapse in human numbers is unlikely to be either smooth or painless: while the average global temperature will rise gradually, the events associated with it will come in fits and starts: sudden droughts and storm surges.

This is why the least developed countries, which will be hit hardest, made the strongest demands in Copenhagen. One hundred and two poor nations called for the maximum global temperature rise to be limited not to two degrees but to 1.5. The chief negotiator for the G77 bloc complained that Africa was being asked “to sign a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”(6).

The immediate reason for the failure of the talks can be summarised in two words: Barack Obama. The man elected to put aside childish things proved to be as susceptible to immediate self-interest as any other politician. Just as George Bush did in the approach to the Iraq war, Obama went behind the backs of the UN and most of its member states and assembled a coalition of the willing to strike a deal which outraged the rest of the world. This was then presented to poorer nations without negotiation; either they signed it or they lost the adaptation funds required to help them survive the first few decades of climate breakdown.

The British and American governments have blamed the Chinese government for the failure of the talks. It’s true that the Chinese worked hard to mess them up, but Obama also put Beijing in an impossible position. He demanded concessions while offering nothing. He must have known the importance of not losing face in Chinese politics: his unilateral diplomacy amounted to a demand for self-abasement. My guess is that this was a calculated manoeuvre guaranteed to produce instransigence, whereupon China could be blamed for the outcome he wanted.

Why would Obama do this? You have only to see the relief in Democratic circles to get your answer. Pushing a strong climate programme through the Senate, many of whose members are wholly owned subsidiaries of the energy industry, would have been the political battle of his life. Yet again, the absence of effective campaign finance reform in the US makes global progress almost impossible.

So what happens now? That depends on the other non-player at Copenhagen: you. For the past few years good, liberal, compassionate people - the kind who read the Guardian every day - have shaken their heads and tutted and wondered why someone doesn’t do something. Yet the number taking action has been pathetic. Demonstrations which should have brought millions onto the streets have struggled to mobilise a few thousand. As a result the political cost of the failure at Copenhagen is zero.

Is this music not to your taste sir, or madam? Perhaps you would like our little orchestra to play something louder, to drown out that horrible grinding noise.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. Yvo de Boer, 19th December 2009. http://unfccc.int/2860.php

2. From transcript of video interview for the Guardian’s “Monbiot Meets” series. You can watch the edited discussion here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/dec/08/monbiot-yvo-de-boer-climate

3. IPCC, 2007. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Table 19.1. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter19.pdf

4. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

5. Robert E. Kopp et al, 17th December 2009. Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the last interglacial stage. Nature Vol 462, pp863-868. doi:10.1038/nature08686

6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/20/copenhagen-obama-brown-climate

China-US youth joint press release

Dec. 21:

I could not find the actual word by word document of what we said, but UNFCCC has the recording here:

http://www7.cop15.meta-fusion.com/kongresse/cop15/templ/create_sse.php?id_kongressmain=1&theme=unfccc&id_kongresssession=2524

In fact, for anyone interested in all the press release, side events and open negotiation meetings, you can find it on UNFCCC's website. They are of good quality, presentation slides provided as well. I'd highly recommend skipping through the side events as I found them more pragmatic, promising and informative than the actual negotiations. These side events focus on the groundwork that has been done by various actors under the Kyoto Protocol in addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Left: Holly Jones, we had a great conversation together as we were seated in the same small group at the US-Chinese youth dinner workshop. We were also interviewed together by a freelance journalist writing a story for Wall Street Journal about college students participating in COP 15.

Right: You Zhang, a high school student in Beijing, aged 16, the youngest in our team, but not necessarily the smallest~

Left: our team manager, Holly Chang, a San Francisco born Chinese American, CEO of Goldbridges, a nonprofit organizations dedicated in bridging outside philanthropist/nonprofit organizations with local Chinese grassroots nonprofits.

Right: Ben Wessel, a leader of the SustainUS American youth delegation.

Two our of team photographers shooting each other. Me in blue. A journalist from China Daily asking question. I forgot the content, you can find it toward the end of the press release.

We were supposed to release a joint statement declaring our shared stance to our leaders in pushing for a FAB agreement at Copenhagen. Yet we never delivered, just like our expectation to COP. We could have released way earlier, but there was some disagreement with the US counterparts at the time. And the towards the end of negotiation, we found ourselves in dilemma as whether we should do it at all--when Hillary announced 100 bn USD promise, on condition that China agree to MRV (ie. providing measurable, reportable and verifiable emission reduction data and open to international examination). Hillary totally turned the table against China at the last moment, leaving the choice for China to either loose its face and save the deal or save its face loose the deal (this is a rather obvious question for many of us but for many present leaders in China, face is more important than anything else). We were afraid any statement we have could be used against the Chinese government (eg. even the Chinese youth is pressuring its own government, which put the whole team in some kind of jeopardy, or were bribed by the US government, etc.). We were aware that we did not have this sort of brand opportunity to publicize and manifest our hope for a shared understanding and future, minimizing the cultural and political barriers. We made decision to step out of the muddy water and seek some other chance to deliver the statement.

I have the draft statement but I am sure if I should post it here. Anyone interested could ask me for it and any inputs will be appreciated.

I'd highly recommend this blog if you are interested in more COP 15 and green economy issues in general related to China http://greenleapforward.com/

Inside Bella Center: the wonderful campaigners!

One day at 3:50pm, everyone paused for 1 minute, symboling the cease of CO2 at 350 ppm. I promise they really stoped, not just the snapshot!

well this one is in motion

insiders' notes of the meeting on Saturday morning

i posted a few countries' speeches here, the original update was rather long. It is interesting to see the reactions inside the conference hall, in an all-night meeting. Despite the unfruitful result, I do respect these delegates' efforts, given they are human beings as well.

Su Wei, one high level Chinese delegate, still took time to sign a petition to let some Chinese NGO reps into Bella Center, after not sleeping for a couple days. Maybe the inefficiency came from the tiredness, but there does not seem to be other way. The whole world was watching, putting pressuri on, especially when Hillary totally turned the table against China, forcing it to agree to UN verification of its reduction results (so called MRV).

Rasmussen opened and then suspended the COP very quickly. He then raced through the CMP and put forward the infamous "President's Text". [ Note for those of you who haven't followed, check out http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/12/18/a-meaningful-and-unprecedented-breakthrough-here-copenhagen - where Obama shares his "text" created with consultations with a few key countries (China, India, Brazil) He gave countries an hour to review the text and suspended the meeting even as Richard Kinley (Secretariat) leaned over and told him of an impending point of order. Rasmussen replied: "There is no point" (WTF)

As Rasmussen et al. were leaving Venezuela started banging its plate on the table and the whole room started clapping. Rasmussen sat back and watched the chaos unfold! He apologize and said that he hadn't noticed there was a point of order.

The rest of the countries that follow are responding to the process that Rasmussen proposed - in addition to the content of the document that Rasmussen (and the US) proposed.

Tuvalu:

Calls on Ban Ki Moon's presence to recognize that UN Processes are democratic, but what we've seen happen in COP15 has been completely undemocratic, conducted in closed door sessions.

Beyond that, Tuvalu had major problems with the content of the text:

- The text fails to recognize Kyoto Protocol

- International Insurance Mechanism isn't mentioned

- Review by 2015 (too late for our future)

- Science based targets mean 1.5 degrees for Tuvalu's survival, rather than the 2 degrees that is outlined in this document

- Using a biblical image, we're being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people

- OUR FUTURE IS NOT FOR SALE

- Tuvalu cannot accept this document

Bolivia:(note: Bolivia is rather applauded for its ambitious reduction commitment as a developing country)

- We are most offended by the process: we haven't had time to read this document; we've just now seen that it is a two page document and without putting this before us - those of us who represent OTHER people.

- Can one hour actually allow us the time to consider the implications for the people we represent?

- Does this represent the democracy of the United Nations?

- Can one hour allow us the time to make such a decision? To consult our constituents?

Maldives:
I commend the work that the Danish Prime Minister is doing and has done to bring a fruitful conclusion to COP15
We have a real danger of UNFCCC talks going the same way as WTO talks or other such multilateral talks. In many issues, this can be tolerated, or can be allowed. Scienc shows that in climate change, this is just not possible. We have a window of seven years. If real, actual measures are not take, gross climate can reach tipping points.

Engaged with more than 25 countries; big emitting countries are refusing to raise their ambitions high, neither are they allowing us to raise our ambitions to a level where world temperatures will not rise over 1.5 degrees. Above 1.5 degrees, many such islands would vanish. This is why we ahve tried so hard for 1.5 degrees to be in the text, and we can migrate from this document to many of our aspirations.

If we cannot have a basic understand of the parameters, we will never have any fruitful decision of these talks. I call on all governments to back this document and not to allow these talks to collapse.

Spain:
- Govt from Sudan

Canada:
- Offensive for government Sudan to associate climate change with the Holocaust and these remarks should be withdrawn

Australia:
- Cynical way that this document has been reviewed by all governments in the room
- Governments made commitments to finance
- That they could be so belittled is adisgrace to this organization and conference - we are not going to ignore the pleas of the Maldives, but we are going to keep on trying

France:
- My country will sign this declaration, we defended the inclusion of 1.5 degrees Celsius because the islands of Maldives should be heard here and only one big emitter country was opposed to that. We found it useful, Mr President, to ahve this type of text, because normal procedures of the UNFCCC leave us in a deadlock, we thought we were facing failure. Heads of States do represent 4 billion people started working, trying to help us, and of course, this text must be imperfect and we can improve these drafts and these texts but we are deeply wounded by accusations and suspicions as we did just try to break the deadlock. We believe that we will be able to use this document to help millions.

Sweden:
On behalf of EU, I want to express strong support for President of the Maldives statement. The reference to the Holocaust in this context is absolutely despicable.

UK:
There is a document that has been created in good faith under a process supervised by you; it is by no means perfect and it certainly has problems for many people. However, in substantive ways, it will make the lives of those around the world better (30 billion short term and 100 billion long-term finance). We can accept this document and get the money flowing OR we can follow the
- Taking this document as a "for information" document will not help

The President of the COP "I am not familiar with the processes here. Can I see how many people would oppose this process?"

United States: there is nothing to apologize for in participating in the Friends of the Chair. This included Heads of State meant to build on what had been going on over past two years and bridge important gaps in what had been done in the past. There was broad participation between about 25 - 30 countries. The President of the US was one of those who attended, and as a part of that meeting that went on for many hours, the President met with leaders of india, China, S Africa and Brazil in a highly engaged process, designed to bring people together.
The results were not perfect, but they are important. A limit of 2 degrees in temperature. It did
Accountability, transparency in all parts
Very substantial financin

From a fellow youth delegate:

I was outside in the Reclaim Power in the march, and one of my colleagues and I from the Canadian Youth Delegation was able to capture a lot of thefootage of the police brutality.

This happened right before I came to Bella Center around noon. Who are the police angry with?

towards the end of Copenhagen

1:50 pm, Dec 18. Last day of the Copenhagen Talk. I don't know when the negotiations will continue on today. It is definitely not looking good. I am posting internal communication emails here for the first time to just show how things "progress" and state of emotions of the few youth delegates inside Bella Center

The youth constituency under UNFCCC was angry and frustrated.

3:30 am December 18

>interesting developments tonight. as the drafting groups were meeting
>and agreeing text, the president was drafting another text that could
>serve to undermine the work. the powers that be are still trying to
>force a single outcome and have floated a text that joins KP and LCA
>despite numerous statements by the G77 and China that they want a two-
>track outcome, and a two-track process. the G77 still is insisting on
>an open process, with documents drafted out in the open rather than
>behind closed doors. there were G77 consultations with the result
>that the G77 again requested a two-track outcome with a friends of the
>chair process where representation in the group was transparent and
>acceptable.
>
>it's getting interesting, but not necessarily pleasant. the G77
>continues to be angry at the untransparency of a process where the
>president says one thing is happening and the next thing you know
>there is a new text drafted by some unknown group put on the table.
>

11:30 am

The Danish government produced a document, lets say a political declaration

to be signed by all the heads of states and government

of less than 3 pages. It seems that all the discussions we attended this night

were just a show, just a manner to occupy the delegates with something.

It seems that this will be the only outcome,

I didn\t read the texte yet, it\s being negotiated now

but they did exactly what they were accused of being trying to do

no new period under kyoto, no commitments

may be everything is being postponed!

A very non-transparent process!

manipulated everyone,,,

didn't hear our voices,,,

Youth Statement to the High-Level Segment of COP15*
To be presented by one of these four plenary-admitted youth, between 12:00 and 14:00 today:

Good afternoon my fellow human beings.
>
>My name is X, and in the year 2050 I will be X years old.
>
>I am proud to represent the International youth climate movement.
>
>Christina Ora, a 17 year old from the Solomon Islands, addressed the opening
>plenary last Monday. She said *"I was born in 1992. You have been
>negotiating all my life. You cannot tell us that you need more time."*
>
>We have worked the past two years promising to reach a conclusion in
>Copenhagen. Now it seems you will not get it done.
>
>*This is unacceptable, you should be ashamed.*
>
>The United Nations was created to solve humanitarian and social crises, but
>instead of standing united, you are now the Divided Nations.
>
>Humanity can and must do better.
>
>Mother Nature will not negotiate with us.
>
>You must set targets to get us back below 350parts per million.
>
>You must agree on fair and sufficient financing - 5-7% of GDP - to pay back
>the ecological debt to the most affected.
>
>We the youth dream of a sustainable future shared by all humanity.
>
>There is wisdom in the people's hearts, and people are ingenious. We CAN
>solve this crisis - IF ONLY we choose to.
>
>We do not accept the 3-degree deal that the current proposals on the table
>are bringing us to, and we support those nations who won't sign this suicide
>pact.
>
>We call on all nations not to accept anything that does not guarantee
>survival and climate justice for all.
>
>There must be no decisions about us, without us. We refuse to have our
>futures sold and 'offset' by polluter lobbyists.
>
>The Youth believe that you care enough for the future of your children and
>grandchildren to sign a legally-binding, fair and ambitious, inspiring
>agreement which reflects 'the fierce urgency of now'.
>
>Rest assured that we the youth will keep on working, and we will keep on
>pushing you harder and harder, until that necessary deal is sealed.
>
>Thank you.

Al Gore's speech on Wednesday

he especially applauded the meeting between the Chinese and U.S. young delegates as an example of collaboration/agreement between the youth of the world and our commitment to a shared secured future--if, the leaders of the present, can act now.

Youth Sit-in for Real Climate Treaty Ends With Global Call to Action

As youth, we'd love the wide circulation of this article to raise our voice from inside out! Thanks!

COPENHAGEN, Denmark – As the high-level segment of the Copenhagen climate talks began last night, a group of thirty young people from fourteen countries staged a sit-in in the heart of the conference center.

“The world needs a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding deal that will avoid dangerous climate change,” said Laura Comer, age 21, of Strongsville, Ohio, USA. “We decided it would be irresponsible for us to leave the conference center until we had a deal that would ensure the safety and survival of all people worldwide.”

Sitting in the hall for more than nine hours, the youth read the names of over 11 million global citizens who signed a petition calling for a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding deal. The action received unprecedented support from inside and outside the UN climate summit, with a positive endorsement from political officials, and thousands of supporters following the action via a live webcast and social media. At about 2:00 AM, after receiving an ultimatum from UN officials, the youth chose to end their sit-in.

“The world has spoken and we felt compelled to deliver that message in Copenhagen on their behalf. But we were told that if we didn’t leave the center, civil society would be excluded from the negotiations for the remainder of the talks,” said Sanka Chandima Abayawardena, age 25, from Divulapitiya, Sri Lanka. “Without any participation from grassroots civil society in the negotiations, we felt it would be impossible to secure the sort of deal that my country and the world so desperately needs.”

The youth from yesterday’s sit-in are now mobilizing a global call for all people around the world, particularly young people, to organize similar actions of non-violent civil disobedience targeting obstructive governments, destructive industries, and fossil fuel financiers.

“The global support for our sit-in is undeniable evidence that the world is calling for change. We must actively pressure our governments for a just, ambitious, and binding deal that listens to science and is led by the voices of those most directly impacted by the climate crisis,” adds Janice Grey, age 20, from Nunavik, Canada, “We can no longer allow our governments to wait, stall, or block progress. Now is the time to take our future back!”

Copenhagen Day 10: red flag up!

Just follow my pictures of my day today. It was supposed to be the last day NGOs can get into Bella Center. I was to enter around 1 o'clock to atten an side event on women as agent of change. I knew something would be going on outside Bella around noonish, somthing big and heavy. I went anyway, despite that my colleague who I was taking the secondary pass from, called me not to as she was almost pushed into the river outside the entrance in the demonstration crowd. Why not come? Despite the heavy snow, if the world is burning, I am burning with it.

At metro station, the sign said "demonstration is ongoing." The train did not stop at Bella Center anymore. I had to walk one more stop.

A Beijing based film producers was shooting a documentary about China's role in climate change. He was following two folks from the National Reform and Development Committee. He just included me all along in his filming asking me to talk about my state of mind--why I am here in Copenhagen, why I am going to the Bella Center knowing the fact there is a demonstration, etc.It was my first time jumble along in front a video camera. I spoke very fast, in bad English. I was cold and hungry.

NGOs outside Bella Center shot at the Middle East folks to go back home and quite oil. I don't know if they are the solution. But people were angry.

There was drumming behind the the politi cars, the whole road was blocked.
They've been here for a while. I just never had a chance to shoot them. Perhaps not the courage.
Standing quietly, cold and hungry, I waited outside the entrance for almost an hour. The police had not let single one NGO in. I was about to leave and the English film maker called me to wait for him for a few more filming and questions. Meanwhile, I took pictures of a group of vegan/vegetarian advocates. They have been here everyday since the start of the conference, morning to evening. They handle out flax bags that says go veggie and videos of all sorts of celebrities talking about they they went veg-- and scientists on why.
Despite the TV screen, they are a quiet group, composing mostly of Asian women, sometimes dressed in animal customs. I decided to include them in my blog today, as in violence and chaos, they offered us peace and elevation.

This also spoke to me as my frustration of not being able to have much vegetarian meal choice during my days here. Within Bella Center, the only veggie choice is salad (sometimes they provide cheese which I dont like) and ocasionally you have cold egg or humus sandwich. In Burger King, only one veggie burger with only veggie in it, no protein. In a Chinese restaurant takeout, they only have veggie fried spring roll as your veggie option. No protein. And I have not seen tofu anywhere. Yes cheese, but usually with meat. I am not a pure vegetarian; I eat fish. I'd left with cheese and very expensive nuts here as my alternative. I was told you got understand this is northern Europe. I don't. I am for one time, proud of where I am in the U.S., when we are provided with many vegetarian options (regardless the heavy marketing of soil products led by the soil plantation industry).

Meanwhile meat consumption is soaring in China, reaching 53 gram per day in 2005. Yet it is small compared to 70-130 g/day in developed countries. But China is by far the largest meat producer in the world (China Daily). Folks at home are all rather concerned about me not eating meat rather than limited fish. I find it hard to prove to them my energetic and clear-head (or maybe despite my forgetfulness of personal belongings) spirit and healthy happy being.