Copenhagen is all about country sovereignty, and how much each country is willing to give up of their right to pollute the atmosphere, or even their right to carbon-intensive development. While Canada, Saudi Arabia, the US amongst others might be singled out as the biggest offenders in wanting to give up the least, each and every nation state is an equal offender in the error of only defining this as a problem of what they must give up, rather than what they could gain.

Day 4 has hit and run. As the Bella Center starts winding down, I am starting to realise how the negotiators and all involved here can suffer from fatigue. This morning in the Inter-generational Inquiry on Climate Solutions, Yvo de Boer posed the following question to the audience: ‘Have you ever started something, and then wondered, further down the process, why you started it?’. While it was slightly worrying to hear this comment escaping the lips of the man responsible for the UNFCCC, his sentiments were slightly more positive.

This is an article starts with the common debate about the lack of political will and other complexities of the problem of climate change from a social point of view, which leads to the ultimate solution that would bring much quicker results before the COP finish their rounds of debate on procedural matters…

Three wise women have been meeting for the past 3 years to discuss the kind of deal we need to get in Copenhagen. The involvement of younger actors in the 3 different working groups did yield some real interest in our comments, and in some cases the inclusion of our interventions into the final communique. Great stuff.

The conference “Science for Peace”, held recently in Milan, hosted inspiring speakers with important messages for young people who aspire to make positive change.

Here I am: Beatrice, on of your G-1 Billion writers! This short introduction will present readers my interests, areas of research, and aims at Copenhagen. It will introduce what my future posts will be about, and open a space for dialogue and debate.