La Trobe University and Carbon Neutrality?

Becoming carbon neutral?

There has been talk of La Trobe becoming carbon neutral, but what does it mean?

What steps is the University taking to achieve carbon neutrality? Will it be difficult to achieve?

The Office for Sustainability has compiled some information about carbon neutrality and the work that has been initiated to achieve this long term goal but what is carbon neutrality? To be carbon neutral means that the net emissions associated with the University’s activities are equal to zero. How do we become carbon neutral?

To become carbon neutral, La Trobe University would be required to:

1. Measure greenhouse gas emissions associated with the University’s operations

2. Monitor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the greatest extent possible

3. Offset the remaining greenhouse gas emissions through purchasing and retiring eligible offsets 1.

Measuring our greenhouse gas emissions with other divisions (including Infrastructure & Operations and Finance & Resources) the Office for Sustainability will prepare a baseline Greenhouse Gas Inventory using 2009 data. The inventory will outline our greenhouse gas emissions, divided into three scopes:

* Scope 1 – all direct greenhouse gas emissions occurring from sources that are owned or controlled by La Trobe University. Sources include gas, fuel associated with business travel, fuel used by our car fleet, fuel used by generators and other operational equipment.

* Scope 2 – indirect greenhouse gas emissions from the consumption of purchased electricity. Scope 2 emissions are defined as indirect as they physically occur at the facility where the electricity is generated (e.g. a coal fired power station).

* Scope 3 – other indirect greenhouse gas emissions that occur outside the scope of the University’s operational control. Sources include staff and student commuting, waste disposed to landfill and paper use. Source 3 emissions are defined as indirect as they occur as a consequence of La Trobe University’s operations, but occur from sources not owned or operated by the University.

As outlined in Vision 2015, there is a plan for our University to grow. To monitor the progress of the University’s greenhouse gas emissions, three key performance indicators (KPIs) are being established. The KPIs are measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide gas equivalent (tCO2-e) per specified metrics. These will allow us to measure our progress year on year while taking into account the growth of the University over time.

* Facility greenhouse gas emissions (tCO2-e) per capita (FTE staff + EFTSL students) and per m2 Usable Floor Area (UFA)

* Staff Business Travel greenhouse gas emissions (tCO2-e) per FTE staff

* Staff and Student Activities (tCO2-e) per capita (FTE staff + EFTSL students) The Office for Sustainability is also establishing reduction targets for the University that align with the Kyoto Protocol and Australian greenhouse gas emissions targets (see – www.climatechange.gov.au/government/national-targets.aspx).

These are scientifically arrived at and based on achieving a concentration of 450 parts per million (ppm) of greenhouse gas emissions in the earth’s atmosphere. The 450 ppm concentration target aims to limit the likelihood of climate change events in the future. The draft targets based on a 2009 baseline are:

* 6% reduction on 2009 levels by 2011

* 17% reduction on 2009 levels by 2015

* 32% reduction on 2009 levels by 2020

These can be compared with targets set for the English Higher Education sector in www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2010/10_01/.  It is anticipated that these reduction targets will be tough but achievable for the University. We will need to change how we behave and work in order to achieve them. The target will require investment in energy efficiency technology and renewable energy. A benchmarking exercise was recently conducted through the Sustainable Campus Group which compared higher education institution’s Facility GHG emissions per EFTSL students. Initial data suggests that La Trobe University has a fair way to go in reducing its emissions.

To plan the reduction of La Trobe University’s greenhouse gas emission, the Office for Sustainability will be developing an Emissions Management Plan, in conjunction with Infrastructure & Operations, Finance & Resources and ICT. The Emissions Management Plan will outline an emissions reduction strategy, including measures that can be implemented to reduce our emissions. 3. Offset remaining greenhouse gas emissions To claim carbon neutrality, La Trobe would need to purchase and retire a sufficient quantity of offsets to reduce the remaining emissions to zero.

There is a list of eligible offsets specified by the National Carbon Offset Standard (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/national-carbon-offset-standard.aspx). It is anticipated that if La Trobe University does not significantly reduce its GHG emissions, then the purchase of these offsets would be expensive for the University. If offsets are purchased, preference should be given to locally generated (Australian) offsets. Australian carbon offsets not only contribute to reducing national greenhouse emissions, but often have secondary benefits within Australian communities.

PROFESSOR MOLESWORTH’S 1ST OPINION PIECE – Thursday 9 December 2010

Cultural Integrity imperilled by Climate Change

As the  the sixteenth ‘Conference of Parties’ (COP16) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) reaches its second week in Cancun, one noticeable failure in proceedings has been the lack of dialogue regarding issues of cultural integrity and climate change — thirteen years after the Kyoto Protocol agreement at COP3, something needs to change. One hundred and ninety-four nations are represented at COP16 discussing human-induced climate change, so one would think issues of culture must invariably play a part, but the focus is mainly on environmental rather than cultural issues of climate change. The purpose of the UNFCCC is to set out a framework for action that seeks to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and to minimise human-induced impacts on the environment. It does not seek to address or deny the accepted phenomenon of natural climate change — simply it addresses human aggravation of these natural systems. My argument is that, in areas of cultural integrity, the COP16 processes are flawed by insufficiently considering cultural implications of climate change when debating UNFCCC and  it’s Kyoto Protocol.

In 1997, COP3 convened in Kyoto, and saw the Kyoto Protocol come into existence. The Protocol committed industrialised countries (and those in transition to market economies) to specified emission reduction targets. Forty-one of these countries, including Australia and New Zealand, which were identified  as Annex 1 parties by the UNFCCC. The Protocol came in to effect in 2005 with Russia’s ratification. Although ratification by the United States has not occurred, the nations who have ratified the Protocol comprise a huge diversity of cultures, so why aren’tissues of culture more central to UNFCCC debates?

A flaw in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol processes is that the effect of climate change on the culture  of humans is given insufficient consideration. One of the reasons communities worldwide are struggling with the concept of climate change, and why so many fail to understand that changes to natural systems are critically relevant to them, is because they fail to  appreciate the cultural implications humanity faces if we do not tackle climate change effectively.

The UNFCCC scarcely acknowledges the capacity of climate change to substantially; if not totally, undermine the integrity of the world’s cultures. If a culture suffers from the effects of climate change, the consequence will be social dislocation and instability. Thus, the current generation will breach the fundamental principles of intergenerational equity — a culture destroyed or diminished within the time of the current generation will mean that future generations will be deprived of the right to their cultural inheritance. The opportunity to understand, celebrate and cherish one’s culture is an inherent component of the social stability of all nations and all peoples. History has shown that the most effective aggressors and conquerors are those that obliterate the cultures of the suppressed. Their strongest weapon has been one of social annihilation, where the connection between a people, their place and their history is destroyed. To remove a society’s ‘a sense of place,’ something unequivocally important to culture, is to damage it irreparably. ‘Place’ engenders pride and a spirit of ownership. It is the cause of war and explains why people celebrate nationalism.

Climate change is this generation’s most fearsome aggressor, the one most likely to undermine the integrity of all cultures. Consider one implication that is dear to the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS): if a nation such as Tuvalu, the Maldives or Kiribati is overwhelmed by rising sea levels, then people of these nations will be forced to a new location, simply, to higher ground. The generation that moves may survive physically, but what of their culture? What of the connectivity to their ‘place’ and the cultural roots passed on through storylines between generations? What happens when this disappears under the waves — a new Atlantis? Will future generations have to suffice with a distant cultural memory fading into irrelevance — one they may have to experience from relocated residences in enclaves in the outskirts of Australian cities far from the homes of their ancestors?

History has shown that dislocated and dispossessed people are the most dysfunctional in any politico-geographical location. The dislocation of cultural integrity by climate change can only increase as forest peoples lose their forests; as polar peoples lose their seasons; as desert peoples move from increased desertification; as coastal peoples must move inland; and urban communities try to breathe increasingly intolerable air.

Widespread cultural disorientation and social instability is a nightmare scenario that is increasingly likely. If the maintenance of cultural integrity has historically been the cause of nations going to war, why then is climate change not tackled in the same manner?  United we must confront climate change as if it is a war, but hopefully emboldened by the fact that there is a fundamental difference in this case: all of humanity is allied. For the sake of future generations, the climate change issue must be tackled collectively, not just because of changes in the physical environment or for reasons of sustaining human health and welfare, but to recognise that the core strength and connectivity of all human socio-economic systems is the continuation of cultural sustainability. To do nothing or act insufficiently will mean the cultural legacy we leave will be irreparably diminished. Is that how the current generation of humanity wants to be remembered?

One remedy is to more effectively weave into the UNFCCC the acknowledgment that the integrity of all cultures and all people of the world will be threatened by climate change. In terms of cultural integrity, wider community understanding and support for climate change action (be it mitigation or adaptation) should make it easier for government leaders to make responsible decisions. Frequently leaders speak of consultation and community consensus, yet in simple terms, awareness about impacts just on the physical environment (even through linked to  human health and welfare) will fail to see communities in the developed world stir into action.

In many Annex 1 countries, there is still a common lack of perception between the physical environment and lifestyle. If climate change continues to be discussed solely in terms of environmental impacts, then consensus for action in these Annex 1 countries will always be undermined. If future discussion recasts climate change in terms of the irreparable harm it will cause to cultures worldwide, then surely we will achieve a greater understanding of the challenges we all face as the spectre of worsening human induced climate change approaches.

Simon’s blog Monday 6th December from COP16

Report No.9 from COP16 – Monday 6^th December, 2010

The highlight of my day today was attending  a session titled the COP President’s Initiative on Stakeholder’s Engagement in Climate Action. This session chaired by Ambassador Espinosa, COP President, was addressed by H.E. President Calderon of Mexico and representatives of stakeholders all of whom provided inputs from their search for solutions to the challenges of climate change. The majority of the stakeholder groups were from Mexico and Latin America, representing a broad cross-section of civil society, the business community, the unions, NGOs and indigenous people. Again, the Mexican President did not disappoint, delivering a stirring speech highlighting the exemplary leadership Mexico is demonstrating by embracing challenging measures/reforms so that the country moves as rapidly as can towards taking the maximum response to climate challenge.

Amongst the keynote speakers was a person representing Oxfam for Central America. Pointing out that Cancun’s COP16 provides an enormous opportunity to reach the agreement that the world requires, to take a significant step forward. Stressing that for the sake of the poorest nations, for rural communities the world over, for women and indigenous communities, it is clear that an agreement to fix temperature rise to 1.5C degrees and no more was what is really required.  An interesting perspective was delivered by an Englishman speaking on behalf of the global Civil Society. He said that there is only one remaining superpower and that is public opinion. It was now beholden of the pasrty negotiators to “engage in diplomacy with that superpower. He said that for those within the Climate Change Forum, a forum dedicated to improving global communication about climate change, the engagement must be with the six to seven billion people of world – so that we can leverage the power of the people. The representative of Mexican businesses that there will only a prosperous Mexico if it becomes a “green” Mexico. He stressed that the public and private sectors are genuine allies in achieving a low carbon economy. In all sectors, the opportunities of new technology, low carbon approaches to industry and of optimizing energy efficiency, would lead to a greater flow of investment.

Echoing these themes of cooperation and the exciting opportunity for economic growth that climate change presents, the Mexican President explained that already 26% of all of Mexico’s electricity comes from renewable sources and that from wind energy alone, the capacity will increase to 2,000 MW generating capacity in the next few years. He explained, as an example, that they are proactively pursuing a light bulb exchange programme so that all Mexican homes and industry will have converted to low energy lighting in the immediate future. He reiterated that government can’t do it alone so it must work with civil society and business

After the keynote speeches, the 1000 person plus audience were invited to address questions to the Mexican President. What followed was a vigorous demonstration of engagement with people from all over Latin America, especially indigenous peoples in Mexico, stating their positions while seeking a response from the President. It is clear he is a very popular leader and is prepared to speak frankly and with commitment.

It is very apparent that the fusion between the natural environment and culture is most apparent when indigenous people speak of their concerns about climate change. As I witnessed in Copenhagen, there are many indigenous people participating at Cancun. Sadly, I don’t believe the current terms of the UNFCCC adequately focus on cultural considerations and the implications of climate change within that context. One only needs to consider Article 2 of the Convention which sets out its objective and simply concludes with the words: “to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”. The whole Convention then hinges on the definition of “adverse effects of climate change” which focuses on changes in the physical environment in the context of “the composition, resilience or productivity of natural or managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare”.  So when listens to an Amazonian Indian from the Bolivian Environmental Society speak, saying that she is here to “fight to defend our motherland for our children and grandchildren. We are defending the rights of mother earth. We need to defend the rights of mother earth and we will do so through the First Nations Coalition”. In my opinion, that Bolivian woman was expressing an opinion which is at the one time about spiritual and philosophical considerations, about both her intangible and tangible cultural heritage.

In responding to these statements, President Calderon spoke of the fact that most of the forests in Mexico belong to indigenous people. He stressed that these people and their way of life were entitled to their dignity and that there should be due recognition of their way of life and that climate change threatens them (due to cultural destruction and so a complete change to their traditions) with poverty.

The President was pressed by a woman from Honduras to fight for limiting the temperature rise to 1.5C degrees rather than the 2.0C degrees preferred by the Annex 1 countries. She said that the Latin American countries were united as allies and that he should give priority to their needs. The answer the President gave was a telling one, with the president of COP16 nodding in agreement. He agreed that the global community should not be allowing the world to get any hotter. In particular the plight of the islander communities in the AOSIS group, facing a total obliteration of their entire nations, convinced him of that need. So he said that he would of course like to achieve the target of a 1.5C degree limit. That would be the perfect solution in his view. However, the trouble if you seek 1.5C degrees or less (this week at Cancun) you may not get any agreement at all. If one sought 1.5C and failed, it would (play right in to the hands of some who would like there to be no agreement, no fixed target). He said it would be “an ideal pretext for no agreement if we are striving for 1.5C degrees rather than 2C degrees”. He suggested that if the agreement is reached on a limit of 2C degree rise, then later science can explain why it is still better to then aim for a 1.5C limit. And then at that time, the next step can be taken.

In the context of a 1.5C degree limit being the ideal, but a 2C degree limit being more realistic or achievable, he concluded by asking all those present to carefully consider the maxim: “The ideal can be the enemy of the perfect”. Finally, he said there was an ancient Chinese proverb “The journey of a thousand leagues starts with the first step”. So he implored all present to, in effect, accept that the first step needs to be taken, before an ideal solution can be sought.

Simon’s blog Saturday 4th December

Report No.7 from COP16 – Saturday 4^th December, 2010

Today was another critical day of negotiations as the world leaders begin to fly in to Cancun for the COP16 High Level Segment of the COP. Commencing on Tuesday afternoon, the 7^th, running through to Friday 10^th, each negotiating party’s delegation will be joined by their senior political leaders. A preliminary agenda for the presentations has been released, revealing that to date some 29 presidents and prime ministers, some 18 deputy prime ministers and over 140 ministers for climate change (an/or environment) have requested their right to present a 3 minute long statement of position on behalf of their respective nations. Australia’s Minister for Climate Change & Energy Efficiency, Hon Greg Combet AM MP, has arrived in Cancun and will from Monday lead Australia’s participation. Minister Combet will actually presenting two statements to the High Level Segment: on Tuesday on behalf of the “Umbrella Group” (a coalition of seven countries comprising Canada, Japan, Kazakhstan, Norway, New Zealand, the Russian Federation and itself); and then again on Thursday on behalf of Australia itself.

The President of COP16, H.E Ambassador Ms Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, chairing a session of the COP described as an “informal stocktaking plenary”, repeatedly stressed that the time had arrived to put aside national positions but rather adopt an international global perspective. She expressed her confidence that significant agreement can be reached at Cancun. She said: “We do not yet have it, but it is a real possibility. I call on all of you to work with a sense of urgency”. With all sensing the critical need to keep the pressure on the parties, the session that was scheduled to conclude at 4.30pm was extended till well after 8.00pm. At its conclusion, the president said the COP would reconvene at 11.00am Sunday morning, a day that had been reserved without any scheduled meetings. During the course of the evening other telling statements from the president confirmed the urgency of the situation: “We must find the common ground. We are at the last stages of Cancun negotiations” and in closing the session: “We can take the decisions here at Cancun. We must ensure we give greater credibility to this multilateral decision making process (by succeeding here in Cancun). I call on all nations to go beyond their statements of national position”. She called on all delegates to use the time that remains to find agreement and that all should focus on the greater global good.

As it has been throughout the Conference, the critical issues were focussed on the post 2012 situation, the period following the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. As reported in my fifth Cancun blog, there is huge concern amongst the developing nations (indeed most of the world’s nations) that with the Japanese categorical uncompromising statement to the plenary on Wednesday that there were no circumstances by which it would support the continuance of the Protocol, there would be a gap or nothing at all following the cessation of the first commitment period. So throughout the afternoon each of the statements to the COP16 plenary was clearly intended to be a clarification of position: whether they were for or against the continuance of the Kyoto protocol.

On Friday morning, during an informal consultation by the COP President with the heads of each party delegation, the situation became very tense after the ambassador from Venezuela stormed out saying they completely washed their hands of the whole process.  Venezuela, upset at the stance adopted by Japan and demanding that the Kyoto Protocol be kept alive with the Annex 1 nations agreeing to further and greater commitments after the cessation of the first commitment period, literally stormed out asserting that Australia was, effectively, a spoiler of the process in cahoots with Japan and supported by Canada and Russia. As Australia’s position is a pragmatic one that the Japanese attitude had to be taken very seriously, it is accepted that that reality must be understood as a relevant context in trying to find a way forward. So when the Saturday plenary session got underway, Australian stated its position.

Australia made a very clear, unambiguous statement. It confirmed that it had long maintained the position that it supported post 2012 commitments from all major economies. It seeks legal commitments from all major economies. With respect to the vehicle by which the legal commitments are fixed, Australia can accept a single treaty which will build in or on the Kyoto Protocol. Alternatively Australia can contemplate a new legal treaty which builds in the Kyoto Protocol commitments with the addition of a second commitment period. A commitment was given to participate in whatever discussions are necessary to achieve these ends. The Australian statement concluded that the critical task is to find a way forward, so that the parties can (have certainty as to the process) so that they can quantify their own commitments (regarding limitation of emissions) on that path forward.

Analysing the Australian statement, reading between some of the lines, I believe there were some messages being conveyed. First, in addressing who should give post-2012 commitments, there was no reference to “Annex 1 parties”, nor was there a reference to “developed countries”, instead the term used was “all major economies”. Although not spelt out, in my opinion, all major economies must surely include nations such as China and India. Secondly, it was clear that the Kyoto Protocol commitments are not being let go, rather they will be the starting point of the commitments for post-2012, whether in the form of a continuance of Kyoto or enshrined in to an entirely new legal agreement. Thirdly, it is clear that Australia is not interested in flexible weasel words, as each time there was a reference to future commitments the reference was to a legally binding agreement containing the new commitments.

I noted down the comments of about three dozen countries in the course of this plenary session, but I’ll quite just four to illustrate the views of some of the most critical. The European Union, on behalf of its 27 member states, said that it was hopeful of a balanced and comprehensive package on both negotiating tracks. (The two tracks referred to are the long term commitment track under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol track with respect to the post first commitment period). The EU confirmed that it is willing to commit to a second commitment period following 2012, while engaging the major economies. With respect to the LCA negotiating track under the Convention, the EU said that a spirit of compromise and cooperation was sought from all sides in order to achieve a responsible outcome.

India stated that it was committed to make progress on the Kyoto Protocol track including the substantive follow-on period. It observed with respect to Kyoto, the second commitment period remains under a cloud. The Indian ambassador then said that what the Annex 1 countries need to do and what the developing countries need to do is fundamentally different.

China said it was fully committed to the Kyoto process. The Kyoto Protocol is the only document that provides for true commitments from the developed countries. The second commitment period must be given effect in law. China wants a balanced outcome in Cancun including a legally binding outcome ASAP. Without the second commitment period being agreed, there will be no balanced outcome. There can be no compromise on the two track negotiations; there can be no compromise on commitments from the developed countries; and there can be no compromise to need to see contract for the second commitment period.

Japan said that with just one week left, a comprehensive emphasis was required. Japan is ready to make commitments. There position with respect to the second commitment period was swell known. With only 27% of the world’s emissions from the Annex 1 countries, it is not sufficient just to provide for their commitments. It is neither fair nor constructive. Japan is of the view that there should be adopted a new legally binding contract reflecting a balanced outcome. With respect to Kyoto, it should be enforced for the balance of the first commitment period.

Simon’s blog from Friday 3rd December from the COP16

Report No.6 from COP16 – Friday, 3rd December, 2010

In my third blog report, I described some aspects of the Moon Palace Golf & Spa Resort which is the primary venue of the COP16 negotiations. Today I want to focus on some excellent aspects of Moon Palace which demonstrate a determination on the part of its designers and managers to create a resort that adheres to sustainability principles. May I suggest that what follows describes the model for the modern, environmentally sustainable, hotel.

Starting within the private rooms, there are the usual advisory signs that one comes to expect now in modern hotels seeking to establish their green credentials: how to save on laundry and on room service by reusing barely soiled linen etc, saving on water and detergents etc.  In the public facilities, all the taps, soap dispensers, paper dispensers and flushers are all movement sensitive, so you don’t actually touch anything and the individual allocation has obviously been carefully calculated so as to avoid waste. Not surprisingly, all the paper dispensed is clearly made of recycled material.

Secondly, in the midst of the Resort there is a large silent industrial plant that produces the water which is consumed within the whole resort. It is a reverse cycle osmosis plant that removes the salts and impurities from non potable water in order to produce what they promote as the purest, cleanest water. As I had long heard that in Mexico if you drank the water you seriously ran the risk of contracting any number of water borne illnesses just as dysentery, described to me as Montezuma’s curse, I was impressed that a complex with 8,000 or so apartments in tropical humid Yucatan could achieve such a level of water purity. In another part of the grounds, there is a reasonably large sewerage treatment plant that presumably is designed to cope with the needs of the Resort as far as waste is concerned.

Thirdly, in the week leading up to COP16, the Mexican President had opened a new giant wind turbine which is on the freeway about midpoint between the Moon Palace and CancunMesse. In the promotional material regarding this wind turbine, it is explained that in the course of the COP it will produce more clean, green electricity than the entire electricity usage associated with the conference. Further, in November, the European solar energy company Enel Green Power, in collaboration with Mexican Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and the Italian Ministry of Environment Land and Sea, installed 130KWp solar power plant at the Moon Palace Resort. The Unisolar 144W flexible thin film PV panels cover some 2,500 sq m of the Moon Palace. The nett generation of this solar plant will be 220 megawatt hours per year, saving some 110 tonnes of CO2 per year. You might ask why the Italian Ministry was involved with the project, well, as the literature in our rooms explains, this solar project is a “concrete example of technology and know-how transfer between Italy and Mexico according to the principles established in the Framework of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol”.

Fourthly, throughout the Resort, the majority of the maintenance vehicles and small guest transport vehicles are electric. In a resort as large as the Moon Palace, there are many hundreds of these vehicles. As one walks around the Resort at night, one passes many recharging stations with all the vehicles lined up being quietly recharged overnight. By day, despite the volume of traffic associated with these vehicles, they are virtually silent. With respect to the larger buses or coaches that are being used to transport the thousands of conference delegates between the various venues, most of them are proudly painted with signage indicating that they use 100% biodiesel fuel. Other buses are electric.

Fifthly, I am told that before conference commenced some authorities thought that there was potentially a safety issue if bicycles were allowed to be used on the myriad of crisscrossing paths that traverse the Moon Palace (despite the Moon Palace usually providing bikes for their normal guests). Given the scale of the place, by the third day the cry of protest from COP delegates was so loud (given the waste of time moving from place to place given how long it took on foot) the bike ban was lifted and instead the Conference Secretariat requested the Mexican hosts to provide them. Overnight bike ranks appeared throughout the Moon Palace with many hundreds of bikes suddenly being available on a free exchange basis. Now throughout the Moon Palace there is a constant traffic of hundreds of conference delegates riding from venue to venue. I must admit, I have never found myself enjoying a conference venue more than I have these last few days riding along the beachside paths, or through landscaped gardens, under waving palm trees or other tropical trees, in perfect weather looking out at the crystal blue waters of the Caribbean, as I move from one presentation or meeting to another. Environmentally sound and healthy at the same time!  I should also say that the literature we have all now received regarding the bikes states that the Centre For Sustainable Transport Mexico and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledges the sponsorship of the Shell Foundation and the Deutsche Bank Americas Foundation without whose support the bicycle lending system in the Moon Palace could not have been possible. This is clearly another instance of international cooperation.

Finally, as described in an earlier blog, the Moon Palace sits within that part of the Yucatan Peninsula coastline environment that has much of the original vegetation remaining in large swampy stretches of land. Such areas are in and around the whole Resort. Along all the major access roads there are numerous signs advising drivers to be aware of wildlife. Advisory stop sign abound with illustrations of a range of different creatures depicted which are quite unfamiliar to me. Luckily for me, with my camera in hand, I have now spotted a number of these animals. It is clear that the biodiversity in and around the Moon Palace remains diverse. Whether it is sufficiently protected or managed I cannot say, but obviously the signage is a good start.

So far within the Resort, apart from dozens of birds I cannot name, I have seen a crocodile, a coati, a white nosed coatimundi, and a wide variety of lizards, including the most impressive perentie monitor lizard (one of which was over a metre long) which looks like a steel grey iguana. I have had little knowledge of the detail of the biodiversity of Mexico, although I knew it to be rich. With the web being such a good instructor, I now know that Mexico is one of only twelve countries in the world which is described as “megadiverse” (as is Australia too). The country has 10% of the world’s species, with some 65,000 scientifically described and 200,000 species expected to exist. The breakup is interesting: Mexico is the first in the world for reptile diversity; second in the world for mammal diversity; fourth in the world for both amphibians and vascular plants diversity; and tenth in the world for diversity of birds.

Simon Molesworth blog from COP16 Thursday 2nd December

Report No.5 from COP16 – Thursday, 2nd December, 2010

Each day the Australian Ambassador for Climate Change, HE Louise Hand, together with many members of her Australian Government delegation, convene a briefing meeting at 1.30pm in the Australian Delegation offices, in order to brief Australian stakeholder representatives on the latest developments of the COP16 negotiations. This is a very useful exercise as it enables attendees to gain a first-hand in-sight on the current state of affairs. Much of what is discussed is subject to Chatham House rules, so I am unable to recount precisely what is said in the course of the briefings, save that I am able to pass on general overview comments.

Today I attended the briefing. In summary it was clear that “everything hangs in the balance”. There is a determined spirit of cooperation amongst many nations, Australia being one, with the view being expressed that every effort needs to be made to make it easier for countries to come on board (and reach agreement) and not harder. One of the critical targets for Cancun is to reach agreement on the on-going process, so that “we can all get to COP17 in South Africa”, in which case the substance (of the negotiations) can follow. In short, the message was clear that COP16 will not see agreement reached on many of critical aspects of the Convention, but it was critical that a process for going forward was agreed so that the negotiations on the critical measures can go forward. No one doubts that the worst scenario of all would be for the whole process under the UNFCCC to fall over and for us then to see negotiations between parties grind to a halt. The scenario of the whole process failing is not an unreal one, although I don’t believe there is any question of the Convention itself being at risk, rather it is the Kyoto Protocol process that is at risk. Given, for instance, Japan declared yesterday that “under no circumstances” would they agree to seeing the Kyoto Protocol continuing past the first commitment period which concludes in 2012, the concerning question is what is going to happen after that year. No one doubts that Japan has a commitment to real action, it is just that they have lost any confidence in the Kyoto Protocol process being the best means of achieving the required outcomes under the Convention. Whereas last year at COP15 there was the most widespread concern, especially amongst developing nations, that the possible abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol (due to the parties not being able to agree on commitments to reduce CO2 in subsequent periods of commitment after 2012) was a scenario to be forcefully resisted, essentially because any commitment from the Annex 1 countries was better than no commitment, it is clear at COP16 that there is a more widely held view that the Kyoto Protocol is failing and that perhaps an alternative Protocol ought be negotiated – most likely at COP17 in South Africa. Given that the US remains outside Kyoto and that, in part, causes China to continue to play hard ball, the Japanese exasperation is understandable. Given my discussion above, I think I should just take a moment to explain the interrelationship between the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”) was adopted in 1992 and came in to force in March 1994. Currently there are 194 “parties” to it, which means 194 nations have signified their agreement to be bound by its terms.

The Convention sets out a framework for action which seeks to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases so as to avoid dangerous human-induced impacts on, or dangerous anthropogenic interference with, the natural climate system. In order for the Convention to be implemented, by Article 17 the power is provided for the parties to agree to protocols so that ground rules for implementation of the Convention can be set down. In short, the details of CO2 emission reduction are set out in the Protocol.

It was at an earlier COP (“Conference of the Parties” to the Convention), the third, convened in Kyoto in 1997, that the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. This Protocol committed industrialised countries, and countries in transition to a market economy, to achieve specified emission reduction targets. There are 41 of these countries, including Australia and New Zealand, which are known as Annex 1 parties as they are so listed in the UNFCCC. The Kyoto Protocol came in to force in 2005 and now has 192 parties. The USA is not one of them. It is clear that the debate is whether the retention of Kyoto Protocol and trying to make it work is better than abandoning it and starting from scratch. Repeatedly parties are stressing that a legally binding agreement is what is desired. Some say the Japanese approach so designed to force the USA and China to realise that it is better to cling on to what is half achievable rather than venture forth in to the great unknown. Clearly to have got the Kyoto Protocol up in 1997 was a great achievement, hard fought negotiations that wrestled out an agreement which gives some structure to going forward.

Clearly it is not a perfect process, but given the prospect that it would be a workable process if more nations were prepared to come within it, surely it is more desirable to hold on the ground so far gained and try and build from there. Consider, for instance, how the whole picture would change if the USA came within the Protocol. In quick succession we would most probably see just about every other nation putting aside their differences. Unfortunately, with the state of politics in the US of late, that scenario of the USA coming on board is an instance of me dreaming. So if that scenario is unrealistic, we can but call for some real exemplary leadership from some quarter: if the USA won’t abide by the Kyoto Protocol, if Japan consequently abandons it, then one of them needs to come up with a workable and legally binding alternative – for the sake of the planet.

Just a reminder!

Hi All,

Hope your all enjoying Simon’s blog from the COP16 in Cancun.  Just a reminder  you can also follow us on Facebook: http://on.fb.me/eDDzzT and twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/ltugenerations or our website: www.latrobe.edu.au/sustainability

So check us out there!