Not sure about you, but I always thought of a “pavilion” as being a physical structure. However, as you can see, in United Nations (UN)-speak it obviously means something completely different!
The “Rio Conventions Pavilion” (RCP) was evidently dreamed up to:
raise awareness and disseminate information on best practices and scientific findings on the benefits realized from joint implementation of the three Rio Conventions: the CBD [Convention on Biological Diversity]; the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).
The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), the UN’s quasi-official rapporteur, has been dutifully reporting on the proceedings of the RPC; the above quote is taken from their introduction to the Summary Report [pdf version available here], dated Sunday, October 21.
Considering the context, one might expect all three “pillars” of this “Pavilion” to be given equal treatment in the proceedings and report thereof. Let’s take a look at the word-counts in the IISD’s Summary Report:
There can be little doubt that, in the grand scheme of things, consideration of CBD unequivocally outweighs that of both the UNFCCC and the UNCCD. I wonder how the experts ooops … sorry, “objective, transparent, inclusive talent” who are busy compiling the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) feel about the conspicuous absence of any mention of the IPCC.
This must be somewhat galling in light of the fact that the IPCC’s younger “sibling”, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the ascendancy of which I wrote about two years ago (here, here and here), was granted no less than nine mentions.
That CO2 rates only one mention in this Summary Report – and “greenhouse”, two – may prove to be somewhat, well, alarming to the “non-policy prescriptive” IPCC’s stable of “objective, transparent, inclusive talent” … as well as to the “climate hypochondriacs” [h/t Eduardo Zorita] whether they are “Regional” [20 mentions], “Global” [58 mentions] or “Local” [72 mentions]. Incidentally (as noted below), like its progenitor, the IPCC, “global warming” rates a big fat zero mentions.
Just for the fun of it, let’s take a look at the BIG word picture in this Summary Report:
* Includes 4 “bioeconomy”
For the graphically-inclined, the above word-counts demonstrate overwhelming evidence of a clearly emerging signal: “Biodiversity”, “Ecosystem” and “Sustainable/Sustainability”. Alas, “Climate Change” and “Science” appear to have been relegated to what might be appropriately dubbed the Mid-Agenda Warm Period, while “Green” and “Model” are very much on the lighter side of pale.
Ladies and gentlemen … drum-roll please … welcome to the Age of The Biodiversity Hockey Stick ;-)
Note that “climate change” and “science” appear to have been relegated to the Mid-Agenda Warm Period, while “global warming” has dropped out of the statistical picture.
The View From Here 
Heh. Interesting that, in operational terms, protecting biodiversity means “Stop evolution and adaptation in its tracks! Preserve every extant species, and prevent any and all extinctions! (And pay no attention to that bloke counting new species found and muttering that their count exceeds documented extinctions by a large factor.) “
This is fascinating, and reminiscent of Kremlinology during the Cold War, your excellent word count analysis being the equivalent of reading carefully between the lines in Pravda. Before this, I would have put my money on sustainability being the overarching umbrella for everything, rather than biodiversity, and am still trying to work out their angle. What’s going on, behind the scenes at the pavilion?
There’s an article I read today by Matt Ridley (author of The Rational Optimist) in which he argues that by focussing on CO2 mitigation rather than on countering exotic pests and diseases (such as Chalara dieback, which is beginning to kill off the ash trees here in the UK), environmental organisations are actually making things worse for the plants and animals they profess to care for.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/diseases-and-pests-are-the-real-ecological-danger.aspx
It’s intriguing, though, how far global warming has slipped down the chart. It’s certainly looking as though COP18 in Doha will be very low key. There’s barely a whisper about it in the media here in Britain, even though it’s only a few weeks away.
Alex, I don’t think that “sustainability” has fallen from its position as “overarching umbrella” … it’s just that “sustainability” alone doesn’t lend itself to “scary stories” in the way that either “climate change” (now fallen from grace) or “biodiversity” (now, evidently, on the rise) have “performed”!
Nonetheless, while the “climate hypochondriacs” [h/t Eduardo Zorita] continue to desperately indulge their “carbon fetish” [h/t Matt Ridley in the excellent article you linked to above], as they seem to be doing in their attempted transmogrification of “Sandy”, the UN has pulled together yet another “High Level” gathering from the “maze” – although this time it was a 2-day “Forum”, not a “Panel” meeting:
SE4ALL is quite catchy, isn’t it?! In fact it’s catchy enough that evidently the UN General Assembly have declared:
And to think we almost missed SE4ALL ;-) Amazing, eh?!
I searched on Twitter for #SE4ALL and there are around 24 tweets, none dating to before 29th October. It seems to be more a sort of “International Two Months of Sustainable Energy for All”, really. I agree – not one of their most noticeable efforts!
So it would seem that the catchy acronym did not evolve until quite recently! But, now that I think about it, I had actually commented on this “initiative” back in August when I first stumbled across Ki-Moon’s Jan. 27/2012 remarks:
Remarks at Panel Discussion on the Sustainable Energy For All Initiative
There is a website (which isn’t particularly up-to-date as far as I can tell … no mention of SE4ALL, just the long version!) But SE4ALL is mentioned in:
UN Secretary-General Announces New Leadership for Sustainable Energy for All initiative:
I’m not sure how “significant” a “High-level Event on the margins …” might be. But, perhaps they intended to type SE$ALL ;-)
This is an interesting development – Dr. Pachauri states that the IPCC has not been invited to COP18 in Doha:
http://www.thegwpf.org/wanted-ipcc-invited-climate-summit/
‘…he told Gulf Times he did not know why the IPCC has not been invited to COP18, something that has happened never before.
“I don’t know what it is. The executive secretary of the climate change secretariat has to decide. I have attended every COP and the chairman of the IPCC addresses the COP in the opening session,” he explained.’
Wow! That’s a fascinating development, if ever there was one!
It seems to have been foreshadowed by the word-counts I’ve collected pre, during and post Rio+20 … but I’m sure it must just be “coincidence”!
No doubt, though, that Pachauri will soon find a way to blame it on the skeptics and/or the media – as he has in the past, e.g. Pachauri’s three shades of gray/grey …
Considering his literary endeavors, I wonder how long it will take him to increase the count to 50;-)
Mind you, it must be somewhat disconcerting to die-hard IPCC defenders that the IPCC’s “main client” (according to Pachauri) seems to have lost interest – or been very disappointed – in Pachauri’s performances.
It’s also interesting to note that earlier today the GWPF had reported that:
Needless to say “I, Chrstiana [Figueres]” head honcho of the UNFCCC – who stepped into the shoes of Yvan de Boer had declared: