Eg håpar dykk har alle lest bloggen Lizzy skreiv for nokre veker sidan. Vi var i Brussel på ei helg som førebudde oss på klimatoppmøtet i Doha. Før eg fortel meir vil eg skifte til engelsk slik at alle som var med i Brussel kan forstå kva eg skriv.
From the 19th to the 21st of October Lizzy and me participated at a preparation weekend together with 15 other youth from eight different European countries. Throughout the weekend, we heard experts talked about climate change politics, simulated the climate negotiations and were divided into three different strategy groups; mitigation, adaptation and article 6. We gathered to prepare for the climate top meeting, where nations meet to come up with a solution to the increasingly rapid climate changing the world is facing. The climate top meeting’s real name is the conference of the parties which again is often refered to as the convention.
Laurence from UKYCC and me worked together on preparing the strategy meeting on adaptation. Some skyping and then working together in google docs made us somewhat ready. Adaptation is a huge theme, and it concerns so much of the negotiations, so to get an overview, our strategy group started by using post-it notes to map out all the different places within the negotiations where adaptation is being worked on. That was a good exercise as we all got a visual overview over the process; also we got to know the UNFCCC’s webpage better, which can be quite tricky.
Working on adaptation is very closely related to working on money. As we know, those nations who are experiencing the least harmfull effects of the climate changes are the same ones that have contributed the most to them in terms of green hous gas emissions. This means that adaptation to climate change by the nations worst effected should be funded by those responible for the changes.
Now it’s not that easy, just coming up with money doesn’t happen over night. Two years ago the negotiators at the climate topmeeting in Cancun decided they should start giving 100 billions annually from 2020, they also decided to create a fund that would handle the money, called the GCF (the Green Climate Fund, it even has its own site). So 100 billions a year, that will take some planning. The structure of the fund itself on the other hand does not need that much planning as the convention already know how to set up funds.
So we figured the most strategic thing we can do is to help the parties (parties means nations) understand where such funding can come from. They need to start discuss who should provide what amount of funding, and also what the specific source of the funding should be. When talking about this issue many people point to the fact that funding should come from different sources, which we agree upon. Last year youth worked with promoting the financial taxation tax (also known as the Robin Hood tax) as an innovative source. This year we want to make a small book that gives an overview over all the different sources. We know there are many, and we know they might be hard to understand, so by making it with pictures and an easy language we believe it will be easier to conceptualize the whole funding issue. I think it will be good, and I’ll update you on it as the work continues. If you have any cool ideas for our work I would love to hear them! Just send me an e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Well enough information for now, I’ll let you know how the work goes, and please if you think this sounds interesting, or if you want to learn more, please check out the climate groups site, or come to one of our meetings (they are every tuesday at 18.00).
– Kine Gjerstad Eide (organizational deputy and climategroup coordinator)