Looking for a view of the forest through the trees

There are lot of well intentioned skeptics about this process. There are the doom-sayers who think our lack of adequate immediate action means the end of days for mankind. There are pragmatists who see the UNFCCC only for its faults and inefficiencies, writing it off just one more example the over 500 multilateral environmental agreements signed in the last 40 years that have failed to permanently save the environment from human-caused degradation.

Yesterday and today as we sit through hours of presentations about the national actions pledged by developed and developing countries alike - actions which taken together, fall far short of addressing climate change to the extent required for environmental sustainability or for human security - it’s hard to not to be one of those skeptics. Indeed, our lack of adequate action has already had huge direct implications for the world’s most vulnerable people, and indirect implications for everyone - from the cost of our food to the quality of air. Indeed, the UNFCCC is a slow-moving beast, and if anything clear has emerged from decades of work on climate & energy issues, it’s that there isn’t a single solution for any global problem.

Reflecting on the first day talks in my third year of following this process, I think back to my hopes for the potential of a renewed spirit of global cooperation in the lead up to Copenhagen - unrealized. I sit and listen to hours of deep dives into national action plans that so far add up to a trajectory of too little too late. I wonder, what is all this about?

Well, perhaps it’s ironic that the voice that gives me the most solace is the same one that’s caused me the most consternation in the last three years. The voice representing my country in these talks - who’s been the messenger confirming so many of my hopes unrealized since Obama took office - the US lead negotiator in this process, Jonathan Pershing:

“It is clear that if we stopped with today’s numbers, in 2020 we would fall wildly short of 2 degrees [average global temperature rise]. But I am not aware of a single country, and in that I include the United States, that believes that this effort is to stop with the current set of pledges, the current set of actions, the current set of commitments.”

Our steps to date are wholly inadequate, but they’re steps in a long process… I agree. But he continues:

“In my mind, reaching agreement on the implementation of the decisions reached in Cancun are exactly the right place to start. What they do is provide global transparency, and in providing transparency they build confidence. What they do is they provide a mechanism for financing and in doing so they change the technologies around the world, and those apply not just to those who get them but to those who manufacture them. …This clearly speaks to a trajectory, it speaks to the need to maintain a longer term program. It does not in my mind speak to a set of actions in the United States that are likely to change in the next year [but] it speaks to a set of things that will drive the long-term program in the US.”

We’re taking stock of where things stand. We’re acknowledging inadequacies in a formal process, and that acknowledgement is a basis for action that has led and will continue to lead to real change. In fairness to my skeptical side, Dr Pershing said a lot of stuff on behalf of the United States that irritated old wounds. He cautioned that we need to walk before we run - the US is walking when we clearly need to run. But his bigger message reminds me of the forest among the trees. The pace of progress in this fora is frustrating. The scale of the challenges we’re confronting are immense. But so too is the scope of the impacts of any outcomes. The UNFCCC is an important part of moving together as a global community to confront a global challenge. I’m hopeful that the outcome of this week is a concrete step forward in that direction.