Climate Changes. The Miracle of Copenhagen

Revised 15 January 2010

MANILA - Are you looking for a miracle in Copenhagen in December? So am I. Only a miracle can save the day for climate change in that premier city of Northern Europe, Scandinavia's "most fantastic city" (Copenhagen.com). This city has the oldest monarchy in the world. Some things never change.

Know what? Climate change is too big for Copenhagen, that's why we have to pray to God for a miracle - and then we have to go ahead and work for it anyway so that God will answer our prayers. We have to have an unshakeable faith like a child.

On November 19, I reported the call to the Copenhagen leaders from 64 agriculture scientists and leaders: "Food Security And Climate Change: A Copenhagen Call For Commitment And Preparation." Director General William Dar of ICRISAT was one of the signatories. The 64 had signed the call because they saw that the UN Climate Change Conference had completely ignored the threat of climate change to food security.

In the month before that, ICRISAT had come up with a statement about the need to brace ourselves for "a perfect storm" that loomed large over the poor, especially in the semi-arid tropics. The perfect storm was "a confluence of crises brought about by climate change, desertification, high-energy demand and exploding populations.

Dar noted that agriculture releases the 3 major greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. "The challenge, "he said, "is therefore to design an agriculture that adapts to the changes in climate, as well as reduces greenhouse emissions."

ICRISAT walked Dar's talk. It worked on crops (chickpea, groundnut, pearl millet, pigeon pea and sorghum) that have tolerance to stresses such as high temperature, drought and salinity.

ICRISAT had signed the Copenhagen Communiqué which called for a globally equitable deal on climate change.

So now all roads lead to Copenhagen, and hardly anybody is paying attention to somebody else. Everybody's talking at the same time. Some climates never change.

For one, nobody seems to be listening to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, who is in charge of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to be held 7-18 December 2009. I expect extreme weather at that time, intellectually speaking.

The latest I know who have spoken strongly, aiming to greatly influence the forthcoming Copenhagen conference, are 64 of the world's intrepid agriculture scientists and leaders; they have just come up with a statement, "Food Security and Climate Change: A Call for Commitment and Preparation" (croptrust.org), all of 421 choice words (including title). Their main message is this:

No credible or effective agreement to address the challenges of climate change can ignore agriculture and the need for crop adaptation to ensure the world´s future food supplies. We urge countries at the Copenhagen Conference to give due attention to crop diversity conservation and use as an essential element of the commitments they will make for climate change adaptation.

What they are saying is that the Treaty of Copenhagen cannot ignore the science of agriculture. It can but shouldn't. And why the emphasis on the multiplicity of crop species? They say:

Crop diversity is the raw material for crop adaptation. This diversity, primarily found today in seedbanks, contains the traits that plant breeders and farmers will need to incorporate into tomorrow´s resilient, climate-ready crop varieties. Agriculture - and people - cannot do without it.

Diversity is the spice of life, not only of science. We can live without science, but not without spices.

What I'm worried about is the diversity of the crop of opinions and statements about Copenhagen in December. I have written on this previously (see my "Climate Redux. Adapt, mitigate or reduce risk?" americanchronicle.com), pointing out among others that:

(1) While the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP talks about "UNDP Adaptation Strategy," it fails to state clearly what that strategy is.

(2) The Norwegian Church Aid is financing climate change adaptation in developing countries now; it argues that mitigation will make a difference only in 2030. I see that they haven't been to the Philippines since Typhoon Ketsana. Let them read my "Ketsana Madness. Marikina? A River Runs Through It" (americanchronicle.com).

(3) There is confusion leading to Copenhagen. I have yet to meet any warm body who has differentiated adaptation from mitigation. The problem with that is that they talk about adaptation and yet mean mitigation, and vice versa. If they don't define their terms properly, how can they discuss properly? To adapt is to modify one's behavior in response to an event that you know will happen again; to mitigate is to reduce the impact of that event the next time it does happen.

With climate change, crops need science today to adapt rapidly; people can adapt and mitigate on their own but they have to be able to differentiate the two. Clarity is necessary in management. While adaptation is long-term and mitigation is short-term, climate change compels us to address both needs simultaneously.

I have read at least 100 Web pages on climate change. Not only the diversity of minds on Copenhagen boggles me; climate change dwarfs the minds of even the mightiest countries in the world. So I'm not surprised that some people have come out with what appears as the hidden agenda of this United Nations conference: a super-government.

Janet Albrechtsen asks, "Has anyone read the Copenhagen Agreement?" (online.wsj.com) and then points out that Christopher Lord Monckton, adviser to Margaret Thatcher in those days, has revealed that there is already a rough draft of the agreement, the UNFCCC itself, dated 15 September 2009, that is 181 pages long, and that the draft treaty aims to establish a new transnational "government" that will "directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Treaty of Copenhagen." They're asking for another miracle.

Lord Monckton also says, "But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He is alarmed. I am not. I have already dismissed Copenhagen in my mind (see "I know what will happen in Copenhagen, americanchronicle.com). Truth to tell, in that essay I was encouraging a kind of Atlas Shrugged in reverse: the intellectuals of the Third World silencing the intellectuals of the First World with their own arguments against climate change.

Yes, may I know how can the United Nations create a super-government that can upset even the UN itself? The UN can hardly upset the affairs of a member country.

I doubt the United Nations is thinking of putting up "another" government - it cannot because it's too weak; it cannot even govern itself. The UN is the biggest example of runaway management - running in all directions. To my mind, the only UN agreement worth celebrating is the report of the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change, IPCC. Those UN managers should go back to school (say Harvard), or study strategic management the way the most successful Harvard dropout did it: Bill Gates.

That is to say, we ought not to pin our hopes on any Treaty of Copenhagen. 181 pages, my God! Probably single-spaced, probably pdf. Even with a new, fast and gorgeous Adobe Reader 9, or even if you can convert with one click of the mouse into Word 2007 for quicker access, who would like to read online or onscreen a treaty that long, much less think well enough to sign it? "Brevity is the soul of wit," says Lord Polonius (Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2). So, is the Treaty of Copenhagen the soul of without?

Imagine it happening in the Philippines in the 16th century when a treaty was being signed between ambitious Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan and determined Filipino chieftain of Cebu Rajah Humabon - a blood compact was called for, and if they would have to sign 181 quilt-written pages with their blood, they would die before they could shake hands and vow to keep their word.

I raise the issue of blood because if you want a treaty to be respected, it would have to be signed with everyone's own blood, not with somebody's pen, whether Parker, Sheaffer or Cross.

So, I prescribe a blood compact for Copenhagen, to seal the treaty. And to save everybody the trouble of seeking order out of the chaos of 181 electronic pages, I say, "Delete!"

To save blood, in lieu of verbosity, the universe of reasonable minds, I prescribe creativity, the universe of fertile minds, that is, only 5 pages for the Treaty of Copenhagen. First page is Preamble; the next 4 pages are from the advice of Yvo de Boer, who insists that there are only "Four essential steps to the Copenhagen agreement" and clarity is essential in each one (project-syndicate.org); and I happen to agree with him. So here is the modern Treaty of Copenhagen as I see it myself and through the eyes of the UNFCCC chief, who has called for clarity:

Cover: Title and Preamble to the Treaty of Copenhagen


Page 1: Developed countries - Clarity of targets: "We promise this much to reduce our emission of greenhouse gases. No more, no less." (Adaptation)


Page 2: Major developing countries: Clarity of limits: "We promise this much as limit to growth to regulate our emission of greenhouse gases. No less, no more." (Adaptation)


Page 3: Developed countries: Clarity in financing: "Now then, this is how the developed countries are going to finance the necessary adaptation and mitigation programs in the developing countries." (Both)


Page 4: Developed countries: Clarity in governance: "And this is how we are going to manage the funds."

By the way, you have a huge saving of 97.24% of the paper if you have a treaty that is only 5 pages long instead of 181.

Let them debate 7-18 December on those broad terms. I'm sure Copenhagen will draw blood, lots of blood. Notice that 3 out of 4, the developed countries are on top of everything. They wouldn't agree without battle, would they?

And should the Big Guys renege on their promises, the Treaty of Copenhagen will remain on paper. At least, it's environment-friendly. It's only 5 letter-size sheets of bond paper, not too much waste of tree.

Even so, whether the Treaty of Copenhagen that everybody wants will come out, or a blood compact will happen, or nothing will, in the end it will have to be the countries themselves who will have to help themselves. Copenhagen in December is not for mendicants! For no countries are so poor that they cannot help themselves, or none are so rich that they can only help themselves. Some climates should change.

In the end, the rule is: Think globally, act locally. The best example of that in climate change is the Cities for Climate Protection Adaptation Initiative of Australia, as they have come up with the "Local Government Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit" to prove that they mean what they say and say what they mean (click the link if you want to download the pdf from iclei.org). With some adaptation, I want to communicate that the Australian toolkit should prove valuable here, there and everywhere.

Don't forget the wisdom of the ages. And don't forget the mass media: They too have the right to be taught what they don't understand.

In communicating the knowledge of science and certainty of folklore towards application for climate change, I respectfully offer the old AIDA technique. A for Awareness, I for Interest, D for Desire, and A for Action. In advance, I give Copenhagen in December A for Awareness, that's it, that's all. Actually, the 3 others make up political will; the Interest, Desire and Action will not emanate from Copenhagen; it will emanate from us. If we will.