Yesterday, I had written about Christiana Figueres, the rather high-handed Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and her perception (for want of a better word) that:
governments have decided that they need to listen to science.
I had also noted, in passing, that there seems to be very little “science” content in these annual 2 week COPs and
MOPs CMPs … Sorry, it seems that the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) holds COPs which also serve as MOPs (Meeting of the Parties) while the UNFCCC has COPs which also serve as CMPs (Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol). But I digress (sorting out which UN acronym belongs where can divert one’s attention) …
Consider the following from the “Schedule Overview” (as of November 22) … but it’s only “indicative” in order to “assist participants with their planning prior to the sessions”
First there are the “Pre-sessional meetings”:
- 70th meeting of the Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board (19 to 23 November)
- Least developed countries Preparatory Meetings (20 to 21 November)
- Small island developing States Preparatory Meetings (22 to 23 November)
- African Group Preparatory Meetings (22 to 23 November)
- Informal pre-sessional meeting of Parties to exchange further views on the possible recommendations on loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change (24 November)
- G-77 & China Preparatory Meetings (24 to 25 November)
Then, on November 26, the real fun begins:
Eighteenth session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 18)
Eighth session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 8)
Thirty-seventh session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 37)
Thirty-seventh session of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 37)
Seventeenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (second part) (AWG-KP 17.2)
Fifteenth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (second part) (AWG-LCA 15.2)
First session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (second part) (ADP 1.2)
Good to see that the Durban Platform now has its very own acronym, isn’t it?!
Nonetheless, there was some question (at least in IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri’s mind when he spoke to a reporter sometime prior to November 17) as to whether the IPCC whose “main client” is the UNFCCC had been invited to speak at this confab in Doha. But, as I had noted in a comment prompted by an observation from Alex Cull on my previous post, the IPCC straightened him out via a Media Advisory dated November 19.
Yes, he’ll be there after all! Not in a prime-time slot, as far as I can tell, but who knows, eh?! I wonder if he will expand on the following (circa July 5, 2012) post Rio+20 exhortation:
By Ed King
The world’s leading climate scientist says governments’ reluctance to tackle the causes of climate change means they should be bypassed in favour of global ‘people power’.
Climate change was marginalised at the Rio+20 talks, in an apparent attempt by the hosts Brazil to make coming to a final agreement as straightforward as possible – mindful of how controversial the topic has become.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that the experience of Rio proves that the political will to take action simply isn’t there – and argues that a new form of activism is the only answer.
“I would submit that the time has come that we shouldn’t really wait for governments,” he said.
“Climate change is in a sense the 10-tonne gorilla which is in the room and you’re not going to get rid of him easily.”
[emphasis in original -hro]
“We shouldn’t really wait for governments“???!
Now, if I were the leader of one the 194 governments that constitute the IPCC, I’d be somewhat, well, alarmed at this pronouncement from “the world’s leading climate scientist”, and I’d be wondering what I might have missed in the IPCC’s new, improved “Communication Protocol” that empowered him to make such a “non-policy prescriptive” assessment. Wouldn’t you?!
Granted, this is not exactly an original thought on his part. It could be that he was simply echoing other “expert” voices – including that of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s earlier exhortation:
“The truth is I am disappointed with the negotiations. They are not moving fast enough. That is why I need you,” Mr. Ban told students attending the 13th Annual Global Classrooms International High School Model UN Conference, taking place at in the General Assembly Hall at UN Headquarters in New York, on Thursday evening. “When I say make some noise, I mean raise your voices. Demand real action. Shame those governments into doing more.”
OTOH, he seems to have “redefined” the word “govern” since he spoke to The Economist in Feb. 2010 regarding the IPCC’s lack of a conflict of interest policy:
Dr Pachauri: I think if the governments who govern the IPCC determine that there should be something of this nature I’m sure that will be put in place.
But perhaps Pachauri subscribes to climatologist, Myles Allen’s “definition” of the IPCC. During the course of a presentation last May, Allen had informed his audience:
The IPCC or us scientists, so to speak
So, just who’s in charge here, folks?
Christiana Figueres? Shoot from the lip Pachauri? The scientists who diligently and devotedly make sure that the “range of views” incorporated in the IPCC’s reports (on which the UNFCCC supposedly depends for its “science” content) is quite limited? Or the IPCC’s “governing” body of “governments”?