<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: COP15 Postmortem: Part I the UNFCCC process</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ghginstitute.org/2009/12/23/cop15-postmortem-part-i-the-unfccc-process/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ghginstitute.org/2009/12/23/cop15-postmortem-part-i-the-unfccc-process/</link>
	<description>Online Training</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:51:01 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim Stumhofer</title>
		<link>http://ghginstitute.org/2009/12/23/cop15-postmortem-part-i-the-unfccc-process/comment-page-1/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Stumhofer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 18:52:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ghginstitute.org/?p=1683#comment-79</guid>
		<description>Ian and Hector:

Thank you kindly for the comments. Please accept my apologies for being tardy in responding over the holiday.


@Ian 
I think your comment hits squarely on the importance of having large emitters on the same page going into full-scale negotiations. There has long been a push for engagement at this level in a variety of fora outside of the UNFCCC, with mixed results. The value of such meetings, however, must be balanced to ensure that smaller and developing nations are not systemically excluded (or even perceive that they are being marginalized). 

I would suggest that both issues underscore the difficulty of managing collective action with so much at stake, from the parochial politics of sharing mitigation costs to the ethical concerns of climate impacts. 


@Hector
Indeed I think everyone was surprised at the sheer scale of civil society’s involvement in Copenhagen (the UNFCCC secretariat and Danish government included!). Your cynicism with respect to the legitimate need for so many NGOs to participate in the COP is well founded, particularly amidst the larger trend amongst NGOs to tack on climate change programming to “stay relevant,” in effect leveraging the notoriety of the COP for what could be viewed as self-promotion. Playing devil’s advocate, I think we’d all welcome increased *substantive* engagement on climate change from all parties (including the diverse interests represented by civil society). As your comment suggests we’re perhaps not quite there yet, but the UNFCCC process and its spirit of openness has fostered increased activity …though, as you say, there may have to be some retooling of the technical logistics if we’re to continue to welcome so many under the COP tent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ian and Hector:</p>
<p>Thank you kindly for the comments. Please accept my apologies for being tardy in responding over the holiday.</p>
<p>@Ian<br />
I think your comment hits squarely on the importance of having large emitters on the same page going into full-scale negotiations. There has long been a push for engagement at this level in a variety of fora outside of the UNFCCC, with mixed results. The value of such meetings, however, must be balanced to ensure that smaller and developing nations are not systemically excluded (or even perceive that they are being marginalized). </p>
<p>I would suggest that both issues underscore the difficulty of managing collective action with so much at stake, from the parochial politics of sharing mitigation costs to the ethical concerns of climate impacts. </p>
<p>@Hector<br />
Indeed I think everyone was surprised at the sheer scale of civil society’s involvement in Copenhagen (the UNFCCC secretariat and Danish government included!). Your cynicism with respect to the legitimate need for so many NGOs to participate in the COP is well founded, particularly amidst the larger trend amongst NGOs to tack on climate change programming to “stay relevant,” in effect leveraging the notoriety of the COP for what could be viewed as self-promotion. Playing devil’s advocate, I think we’d all welcome increased *substantive* engagement on climate change from all parties (including the diverse interests represented by civil society). As your comment suggests we’re perhaps not quite there yet, but the UNFCCC process and its spirit of openness has fostered increased activity …though, as you say, there may have to be some retooling of the technical logistics if we’re to continue to welcome so many under the COP tent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hector Ginzo</title>
		<link>http://ghginstitute.org/2009/12/23/cop15-postmortem-part-i-the-unfccc-process/comment-page-1/#comment-51</link>
		<dc:creator>Hector Ginzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:06:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ghginstitute.org/?p=1683#comment-51</guid>
		<description>Fine blog! An amazing surprise to me was the huge number of civil society&#039;s organisations of every stripe pushing for a place in the Bella Center. I guess many of those organisations were a mere rubber stamp in the international constellation of environmental groups that were jostling to get some publicity to escape from nothingness. Probably they will be present in every major UNFCCC meeting, which forecasts surmounting phenomenal organisational hurdles to accomodate them all. Just for fun, really.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fine blog! An amazing surprise to me was the huge number of civil society&#8217;s organisations of every stripe pushing for a place in the Bella Center. I guess many of those organisations were a mere rubber stamp in the international constellation of environmental groups that were jostling to get some publicity to escape from nothingness. Probably they will be present in every major UNFCCC meeting, which forecasts surmounting phenomenal organisational hurdles to accomodate them all. Just for fun, really.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Moss</title>
		<link>http://ghginstitute.org/2009/12/23/cop15-postmortem-part-i-the-unfccc-process/comment-page-1/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Moss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Dec 2009 16:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ghginstitute.org/?p=1683#comment-49</guid>
		<description>The focus on a smaller number of countries concerned with the bulk of the emissions seems so sensible; it seems obvious that they should have settled their differences before any convening of a larger group. Why was this not the case in the first place?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The focus on a smaller number of countries concerned with the bulk of the emissions seems so sensible; it seems obvious that they should have settled their differences before any convening of a larger group. Why was this not the case in the first place?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

