This is the first time I've posted the second half of the headline over a UNFCC/Conference of the Parties story.
What a long strange trip it's been.
From CityAM, December 12:
From bad pick up lines from sustainable fashion founders to fossil fuel firms, Cop28 has become the summit to be seen, writes Robyn Scott
Here at Cop28 in Dubai, I attended a “nightcap” hosted by two of the world’s largest corporations – just one of dozens of networking parties across the city’s gleaming hotels and swanky nightclubs taking place as part of the climate conference. The event was packed. “Nice dress,” someone said as I edged sideways through the crowd. After this unsubtle pick up line, he proceeded to describe his large sustainable fashion business, though he seemed uninterested in whether my dress was sustainable.
There’s a distinctly Davos-by-Dubai vibe to the whole event this year, including the parties. A famous climate negotiator and the heads of two giant multilateral organisations were chatting to a few celebrities, encircled by business leaders. Watching them, the chief executive of a well known global NGO remarked on what she saw as the biggest shift between Cop26 in Glasgow and this year’s event. “I’m interested in the presence of business,” she said. “They’re here, and they’re engaged.”
From relatively niche beginnings it now seems the climate summit is for everyone; the more sceptical say it has become more of a trade show than a climate event. It’s correct to be wary about this, especially when it comes to business and the risk of swaying the debate towards short-term stock price geared goals. As has been widely reported, there may well be some objectives by businesses and governments alike which run in direct opposition to the good work of so many. But even with this in mind, it’s better for everyone to be in the room – for government, business and civil society to be talking to each other. Climate change is everyone’s challenge, so it needs to be everyone’s business....
....MUCH MORE
And from Gideon Rachman at the Financial Times, July 8, 2008:
Some readers may wonder why I chose to write my column this week about the International Criminal Court, rather than the obvious subject – the G8 meeting in Japan.
The reason is that I had a thoroughly discouraging lunch with my colleague, Alan Beattie. When I mentioned that I might write about the G8, he said – “Let me guess, you will say…” and proceeded to reel off a string of cliches, which had indeed been the basis of my putative column.
Alan then forwarded me a generic column on international institutions that he has written. It really says it all – and I think I may simply reproduce it, every year, round about G8 time.
It goes as follows:
By reporters everywhere
An ineffectual international organisation yesterday issued a stark warning about a situation it has absolutely no power to change, the latest in a series of self-serving interventions by toothless intergovernmental bodies.
“We are seriously concerned about this most serious outbreak of seriousness,” said the head of the institution, either a former minister from a developing country or a mid-level European or American bureaucrat. “This is a wake-up call to the world. They must take on board the vital message that my organisation exists.”
The director of the body, based in one of New York, Washington or an agreeable Western European city, was speaking at its annual conference, at which ministers from around the world gather to wring their hands impotently about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organisation has sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has recently gained most coverage in the global media.
“Governments around the world must come together to combat whatever this year’s worrying situation has turned out to be,” the director said. “It is not yet time to panic, but if it goes on much further without my institution gaining some credit for sounding off on the issue, we will be justified in labelling it a crisis.”
The organisation, whose existence the White House barely acknowledges and to which hardly any member government intends to give more money or extra powers, has long been fighting a war of attrition against its own irrelevance....MORE
