According to Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, here in Cancun, Mexico we are in the land of the ancient Mayan goddess Ixchel, who, along with reason and weaving, is the goddess of creativity. I believe that the latter of these three virtues, creativity, is certainly a key to success at these negotiations and beyond if we hope to solve the global climate crisis. 

One of the most important outcomes from last year’s negotiations in Copenhagen was that developed countries pledged to provide “new and additional resources” to fast track and long-term climate financing in support of mitigation and adaptation, approaching $30 billion by 2012 and $100 billion by 2020. Obviously, it is not easy to raise these large amounts of money, but a new report shows that while challenging, it is feasible to raise $100 billion, if not more, by 2020. 

In his welcoming remarks at a December 8th press briefing about the findings of his high-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon stated that, “climate change financing is not about charity… but ultimately an investment in a safer, more stable, more prosperous world for us all.” 

The advisory group was tasked with identifing additional sources of funding to meet the goal of $100 billion by 2020, and a creative inventory of financing mechanisms was the result. The group did not look at the delivery of the mechanisms in detail-- that is for the countries to determine-- nor did they suggest what the balance of public vs. private funding might look like. Their intention was not to make policy decisions but rather, “to provide a toolbox for the decision making process,” said panel member Ernesto Cordero Arroyo, Mexican Minister of Finance. 

According to panel co-chair Jens Stoltenberg, Prime Minister of Norway, the report findings are, “a kind of menu where we as decision makers and governments can choose.” There is not one single solution to generate these funds, rather, it will need to come from a variety of sources, and private funding will need to be combined with traditional and new public funding. 

Instruments in the report include auctioning emission allowance (a not-so-new idea, which could raise $30 billion), C02 taxation for international transport (aviation and shipping industries, coming in at $10 billion), and the redirection of funds allocated for subsidizing fossil fuels (raising a possible $10 billion).

Carbon pricing appears to be an important item on the panel’s menu of financing options. Panel co-chair Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of Ethiopia, began by noting that it would be difficult to generate these funds in an environment where the cost of carbon is too low, and Stoltenberg reminded that carbon pricing will not only raise revenue, but also give the right incentives to the developed world to reduce emissions.

While the long list of financial instruments offered by the panel is impressive, also worth noting is that such a varied group was able to come to agreement. Aside from the fact that so few women were involved (not a minor oversight as pointed out by Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, during the Q&A), the 21-person panel included members from the developed and developing countries, and the private and public sectors.

This brings me to the second key to success: flexibility. Several comments at the briefing alluded to the challenges that this diverse group faced while coming to agreement on the report’s findings. But while each member may not have been 100% satisfied with every detail, they exercised flexibility and respected the views of other members ultimately coming to an agreement. Those at the press briefing were openly pleased with the final report and proud that such a diverse group had produced it.

Informal hallway conversations with conference attendees today provided a mixed review regarding which countries have been flexible vs. which have not. Many shared the opinion that the U.S., China, and Japan were among the least willing to compromise, and others noted that Bolivia, Chile and India showed willingness to negotiate outside their comfort zone. With the 16th Conference of the Parties formally closing tomorrow evening, time will soon tell what countries have or have not acknowledged creative new ideas and found the flexibility to reach around political obstacles. After all, as the Secretary-General has reminded, “Nature isn’t waiting while we negotiate.”

Watch an interview from OneClimate.net with UN Fair Play's Charlie Young on the inequalities of negotiations:

Developing countries are hardest hit and not yet served by funds that should be helping them.  

On the first day of week two of the UNFCCC climate negotiations, things are busy at the Cancunmesse exhibition hall, which is filled with hundreds of booths staffed by NGO, IGO, and national representatives. Among them are antipoverty development organizations such as Oxfam, WEDO, and CARE who are calling for the establishment of a fair global climate fund that will meet the needs and rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities. They, and scores of other attendees at the conference, believe that climate change poses an unprecedented threat to poor people who are already struggling to sustain their livelihoods and maintain food security, and that women and other marginalized groups are most vulnerable.

UK Ambassador to Mexico speaks at Funding the Future press conference

• Be established under the authority of the UNFCCC, a legitimate forum where all countries are represented. 
• Have equitable representation for developing countries on the board and not be donor country dominated. 
• Ensure consideration is given to gender and multicultural balance on the board.
• Guarantee at least 50 percent of the resources of the fund are channeled to adaptation.
• Be a one-stop shop with the vast majority of climate financing passing through the fund.
• Ensure that vulnerable communities, especially women and indigenous populations, participate fully in decisions on uses and monitoring at the national level.

"There's a problem with the current system," explained Gore. "We think that the current arrangements for managing climate finances are really broken. They're not delivering the money to those that need it most and can spend it best."

Cate Owren, Program Director for WEDO, noted that, while climate financing is politically challenging, it should not be economically challenging because investments now save money in the future. She also reiterated that design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the fund will be crucial and will help prevent a negative impact on women and marginalized groups. Stories of climate adaptation needs and successes were shared by Alcinda Abreu, Mozambique’s Minister for Coordination of Environmental Affairs. 

The briefing began and ended with the message that the establishment of this fund in Cancun will not only help developing countries adapt to the changing climate and adopt low-carbon development pathways, but also help rebuild trust in the negotiations. While a legally binding climate agreement seems almost certainly not on the cards for this round of negotiations, a fair global climate fund will hopefully produce tangible, concrete outcomes by Friday that addresses the need for both mitigation and adaptation assistance.

As the UN Climate Change Conference in Tianjin comes to a close this week, the gridlock between the U.S. and China reached a fever pitch in the final negotiations before year-end talks in Cancun. While there has been a general consensus around the need for a "balanced package" (the conference catch phrase), the definition of this phrase varied between conference delegates. The U.S. wants a transparent deal that includes Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV), while China maintains that the U.S. and all developed nations must make binding commitments before it will join an international agreement. The two nations have emerged from talks as major players in the climate change impasse.

Despite U.S. criticism that China is not making serious commitments, hosting the current round of talks has given China a bigger platform to proclaim its impressive clean energy advancements. China has made tremendous progress in wind and solar energy, taking the lead on investment, use and production of renewable energy, and mobilizing to cut carbon intensity in half by 2020. The problem? China may prefer to make technological advancements and set emissions reduction targets on its own terms. China recognizes the opportunity of a green future, but doesn't necessarily feel the need to take on a leadership role in saving the climate.

China is a developing country, but it is also the world's greatest polluter. So while it stands to make the most progress, it also has the greatest responsibility. And so does the U.S. Touting global leadership status and producing the most emissions per capita also comes with great responsibility. According to Karl Burkart of the Global Campaign for Climate Action (GCCA) and Tck Tck Tck, U.S. pledges pale in comparison to China's:

• Per capita CO2 emissions 2008: U.S. 19 tons, China 5 tons
• Pledged emissions reductions: U.S. 0.8 gigatons, China 2.5 gigatons (UNFCCC)
• National gas standard:  U.S. 27 MPG, China 34 MPG
• Investment in clean energy 2009: U.S. $19 billion, China $35 billion

During a Climate Action Network (CAN) press conference on Day 1 at Tianjin, a Chinese Greenpeace activist may have said it best when she asked the question, "What kind of role does China want to play in [raising] the international ambition in the international process? Does China want to be part of the driving force, or get a free ride? It's impossible that an elephant as big as China will get a free ride."

To learn more, watch daily reports from the UN Climate Change Conference in Tianjin and tune in for the remaining LIVE coverage from our partners at OneClimate.net.

Despite the recent slew of natural disasters and extreme weather plaguing various parts of the world, optimism about the impact of this winter's annual climate change conference is scarce. Set to take place in Cancun, Mexico this November 29 - December 10, 2010, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 16) is evoking eye-rolls and sighs over what's expected to be yet another failed attempt at securing a global treaty on combating climate change. This apprehension is a stark contrast to the passionate buzz surrounding last year’s talks in Copenhagen. The vigor with which many world leaders, organizations, and activists attended the uniquely accessible event in Denmark was truly inspiring, and could have instilled hope into the hearts of even the most skeptical of commentators -- if not for the disappointing outcome. Ultimately, only five nations, including the U.S. and China, had any real say in the document that emerged from Copenhagen, which left many unsatisfied with the resulting level of ambition and jurisdiction.

While the U.S. Congress was unable to pass legislation prior to last year's talks (which would have added much-needed clout to President Obama's resolve on combating climate change), the U.S. did pledge to help raise $100 billion in global climate aid for vulnerable countries, as part of the non-legally binding Copenhagen Accord. To date, however, little progress has been made towards raising these funds.

The Accord, described as flimsy and inadequate, did not elaborate on the “how”, so much as the “what”, particularly regarding the $100 billion pledge, and accountability for industrial nations setting limits on emissions to prevent a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius. Thus, the focus of this year's conference will likely be on financing: who will be responsible for what, and how funds will be raised and allocated.

But will the talks result in significant emissions cuts and an effective pay system to compensate low-emitting countries who are hit hardest by climate change? Or will they remain just that…more talks? It's time rich and high-emitting countries, particularly those who tout their leadership roles, walk the walk, too. Last year, an unprecedented number of world leaders came to the table, which proves the urgency of climate change has been acknowledged.  Perhaps now that business leaders are starting to direct the conversation towards the economic opportunities that climate change affords (a language those rich and high-emitting countries standing in the way can understand well), that urgency can finally translate into a binding agreement.

Or, perhaps China will save the day as they host their own summit in Tianjin this October. These final preparatory sessions leading up to the Cancun talks present a unique opportunity for China to step up as a leader in achieving a binding climate treaty. China is already the biggest global player in clean energy, but unfortunately, it’s also the largest carbon emitter. Tune in to see what happens, when Link TV brings you live web coverage of the UN Climate Change Conference this October 4 to 9 in Tianjin, China, at LinkTV.org/Tianjin.

With all the reports, controversy, and rumors that have been swirling over the past two weeks, it's been a challenge keeping up with and making sense of what really went down in Copenhagen. Various parties involved hold very contrasting views over how negotiations turned out. China, UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon and even the vulnerable country of Bangladesh took a positive outlook, while Sweden, Bolivia, Brazil and others felt the resolution was unacceptable and demanded much stronger regulations and emissions cuts than what the U.S.-brokered "Copenhagen Accord", reached Saturday, calls for. Nonetheless, here is an attempt to break down the accord, in terms of both potential pros and cons:

PROS: During negotiations major countries, including China, the U.S., India and Europe, agreed that the risks of climate change could not be left unchecked. Included in the final Copenhagen Accord was a goal to restrict global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Celsius. Another section of the accord covers the commitment to support climate change adaptation projects in developing countries through a collective international fund of $100 billion per year until 2020.

CONS: The non-legally binding Copenhagen Accord, however, was not adopted by the UN -- only "taken note of" -- and it was not supported by all countries represented at negotiations. The accord was labeled by the Sudanese Chairman of the G77, the largest developing country bloc represented at the COP15, as comparable to a "suicide pact" -- which he would not be entering into. Also, the accord's emissions targets do not fall in line with what science says is necessary to actually meet the goal of keeping global temperature rise under 2 degrees Celsius.

While this may be oversimplifying things, all in all it seems that though hopes for a global treaty were high prior to last week's summit (a potential climax of decades of debate), realistic expectations were probably quite a bit lower. Perhaps a more realistic goal for the close of Copenhagen was the laying of groundwork necessary to continue talks of a binding treaty into 2010. This goal may indeed have been realized, as historically speaking no preceding summit has reached such a consensus on the urgency of climate change. As stated by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer, "We now have a package to work with and begin immediate action.” Only time will tell.

For more on the summit outcome via a first-hand account from the Mother Nature Network's blogger Karl Burkart, click here.