[LINK] Internet enhanced meetings for post-Copenhagen

[Stephen Wilson]

The Copenhagen meeting had a chance of working.  My point is that 
negotiating tough issues over the Internet has no chance at all of 
working given the state of the techniology (not to mention the 
unfamiliarity of the participants).

Roger, if you're impugning the motives of the majority of the Copenhagen 
participants as having more to do with frequent flyer points than 
genuine interest in climate change, then that's a level of cynicism that 
is truly self defeating.

Plenty of very good people went with realistic hopes of a meaningful 
outcome.  The failure of the conference can be attributed to many 
complex factors, but surely nobody could contend that the result would 
have been better if they used video conferencing and Google wave? 

Cheers,

Steve.


Roger Clarke wrote:
> At 21:10 +1100 22/12/09, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>   
>> Anyone who seriously wants to consign an exercise as important as
>> climate change negotiation to what is really a beta test of online
>> collaboration tools barely out of the lab, has got their priorities
>> totally arse-about.
>>     
>
> Whereas anyone who champions a gab-fest involving vast numbers of 
> both people and frequent-flyer points is, um, a switched-on realist?
>
> ________________________________________________________________
>
>   
>> Marghanita da Cruz wrote:
>>     
>>>  Ivan Trundle wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>>  On 22/12/2009, at 8:42 AM, Tom Worthington wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>>  "The Copenhagen climate change negotiation involved tens of thousands of
>>>>>  people travelling.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>  And speaking, and talking with each other. It is impossible for 
>>>> me to believe that CoP15 could be done BETTER online.
>>>>
>>>>  Which is a pity, since I work in this field, and derive my income 
>>>>         
>>> >from EXACTLY such things that Tom postulates.
>>>       
>>>>  Having just picked up a delegate from Sydney Airport this very 
>>>> morning, it's clear to me that online communication is not the 
>>>> answer. 35,000 people need co-ordination on a scale which cannot 
>>>> be achieved through online activity alone, even in Tom's pipe 
>>>> dream.
>>>>
>>>>  One other thing: people think that political leaders are the key 
>>>> to such events - they're most certainly NOT. It's the plenary 
>>>> activities carried out by skilful negotiators, who bond with 
>>>> like-minded individuals offline, who negotiate in a pragmatic way 
>>>> which belies the effort that they put into these things, and 
>>>> suggests a social activity which I doubt that I will ever see 
>>>> become effective online. Face-to-face is the only way to further a 
>>>> cause.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>  <snip>
>>>  Such a forum of world leaders is a
>>>  costly exercise in terms of dollars and
>>>  CO2 emissions. The organisers seemed to
>>>  be unhappy about the hordes of uninvited
>>>  guests (though it sounded like a great
>>>  party!)
>>>
>>>  As I understand it this was a drafting
>>>  exercise, plenty could be done online
>>>  (perhaps using google wave) and via
>>>  other forums...but if attending parties
>>>  is your penchant, no amount of video
>>>  conferencing is going to cut it.
>>>
>>>  An interesting analysis (video, audio
>>>  and transcript) of the talks here:
>>>
>>>       
>>>>  RAY SUAREZ: The Europeans were scratching their heads when it was 
>>>> all over, because they're among the largest emitters, still. 
>>>> Europe wanted some credit and some recognition for having taken 
>>>> very serious steps toward limiting their emissions just in the 
>>>> recent past, creating a continent-wide architecture for bringing 
>>>> down the release of greenhouse gases into the air.
>>>>
>>>>  But you saw that picture at the end. Who was it? Jacob Zuma, the 
>>>> president of South Africa, Lula da Silva, the leader of the 
>>>> Brazilians, Wen Jiabao, the premier of China. It was the new kids 
>>>> on the block, in effect, the ones that are going to be the biggest 
>>>> global emitters in 2020 and 2030 that were sitting around that 
>>>> table with President Obama.
>>>>
>>>>  JEFFREY BROWN: All right, now, looking ahead, there are clearly 
>>>> some -- some calls for changing the process, right? We saw that 
>>>>         
>>> >from Gordon Brown. What does that mean, actually? What are people 
>>>       
>>>> calling for to look ahead toward some of these next meetings?
>>>>
>>>>  RAY SUAREZ: Well, everybody is pointing to the fact that there 
>>>> were 192 states gathered there, and everyone spoke as if the 
>>>> smallest countries with very few emissions were the same as the 
>>>> biggest countries with the biggest emissions, not when it came to 
>>>> responsibility or who would pay what, but having a voice in the 
>>>> proceedings.
>>>>
>>>>  And there's some speculation about how to do the spadework in 
>>>> advance of the conference, so that the smallest countries in the 
>>>> world, those, in fact, who have very little industries to cut back 
>>>> emissions from, don't get to gum up the works by being able to 
>>>> intrude on the councils of the biggest countries that have to 
>>>> actually do the hardest work to get anything done.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>  ...
>>>
>>>       
>>>>  RAY SUAREZ: Some columnists over the weekend pointed out that 
>>>> this may be the model that proves that the model doesn't work, 
>>>> that Copenhagen may be the example that people point to years from 
>>>> now and say, look, when you have got a problem as vast as this 
>>>> one, as complicated as this one, getting 192 voices into the room 
>>>> maybe isn't as useful as getting 20, 25 or even 40, when you need 
>>>> to do something quickly and you need to do something comprehensive.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>  <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/july-dec09/climate_12-21.html>
>>>
>>>  Marghanita
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Link mailing list
>> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
>> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>>     
>
>