47 THE NEXT... ENVIRONMENTAL STAGE
NEW C02 TARGETS

What’s next for the planet does not bear thinking about if December’s UN conference on climate change proves a failure. As the man hosting COP 15, Yvo De Boer, is the first to recognise, time is running out for a deal on emissions: “We’re being confronted by a window of opportunity which is rapidly decreasing in size.” Time is also almost up for the politicians, particularly from wealthier countries, who have left De Boer distinctly unimpressed by their commitment. “In political terms, they’ve basically got until Copenhagen. If you fail to see an outcome, the process is going to lose a great deal of momentum, different things will start emerging on the political agenda and it’s not going to become easier.”

The conference, which is charged with delivering a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases, will be an enormous talking shop. Along with the leaders of 192 countries at the conference itself, there will also be plenty happening on the sidelines between NGOs and environmental groups, while an anxious world waits for the verdict. For his part, De Boer is clear about what he wants to achieve: an ambitious set of reduction targets for industrialised nations; a clear statement from developing countries – notably China and India – on what they will do to limit emissions growth; clarity on the financial support to help cut emissions and deal with the effects of climate change; and a management structure to oversee how this money is spent. Though it will make for a wide-ranging agreement, De Boer says: “I don’t expect it to be comprehensive in all of the detail in relation to those issues. Basically, what Copenhagen must do is define the architecture – the building blocks – of a workable, long-term response to climate change and then the operational details can be filled in later.”

In his desire to cut a deal, De Boer revealed a softer position on just where those emission reduction targets should be set, but a toughening of his attitude towards industrialised nations. Though scientists have warned that emissions need to fall by between a quarter and two-fifths by 2020 from 1990 levels, De Boer was less prescriptive: “I prefer to see that 25%–40% range as a sort of beacon, a guiding light, rather than a very clear and precise target that you have to end up within. Having said that, the offers on the table at the moment from rich nations are clearly not within that range; they are not ambitious enough if you look at the consequences that the scientific community is pointing to.”

Along withemission cuts, the financial aid package is also bound to be a keenly debated issue. De Boer wants to see money being delivered to where it’s needed immediately and for a formula to be found for raising that money on a regular basis, thereby avoiding the spectacle of poorer countries having to go cap-in-hand for years to come. As De Boer puts it: “You don’t have to have a donor conference every year to negotiate how the money is going to be mobilised: you have a stable and predictable formula for generating financial resources.” Judging by his list of possible criteria for that formula, though, De Boer clearly expects wealthier nations to foot the larger share of the bill. “It could be based on countries’ GDP, their historic contribution to the problem, their ability to pay, or the energy intensity of their economy,” he suggests.

De Boer’s frustration with wealthier countries clearly runs deep, and resurfaces when it comes to discussing the problem of reconciling the different agendas in Copenhagen. Few would envy his task of finding common ground among countries variously looking to emerge from poverty, to defend their current standard of living or to safeguard resources ranging from oil wealth to rainforests. Instead, De Boer prefers to see what these countries all have in common: an awareness of the impact of climate change, a desire for economic growth, a need to ensure stable energy prices and supplies, and an interest in technologies that are more energy-efficient. “I think the list of commonalities might even be longer than the list of divergences,” he ventures. “And it is the reason why people are going through this Herculean effort of reaching an agreement with 192 countries at the table.”

However, if countries have so much in common, it’s a wonder why there has never been a more positive approach to climate change. Says De Boer: “That’s because we’re not seeing the wholehearted engagement to get to that result. I’ve been reading statements in the media that the EU has called on South Africa, China and India to be leaders in the fight against climate change. Those three countries would argue that rich nations have not delivered on their emission reduction commitments, have not delivered on their promises to provide support for developing countries and are not being clear on what support will be available to developing countries in the context of a Copenhagen agreement. I believe there is this agenda of common interest, but we can only get to that agenda if we see sincere delivery on a number of points.”

The sense of different interests being interlinked is a recurring one in the field of climate change and one that will be profoundly felt in Copenhagen. A deal could collapse if richer nations fail to show the kind of initiative that has so far been conspicuously absent. “Without industrialised country leadership you will not see developing country engagement to limit the growth of emissions; and without that, a Copenhagen agreement becomes very difficult to ratify in the United States and probably also in Europe,” says De Boer. Though the logic could not be simpler, the implications could not be more dramatic.

48 THE NEXT... FUNERALS
ONLINE

WHAT IF you could attend a funeral without actually attending a funeral? Sites such as Otrib.com, Tributes.com, and Legacy.com now provide online memorials where friends and relatives can post well-wishes and share memories; while other sites, such as FuneralOne. com and FuneralRecording.com, offer live webcasts of funeral services for those not able to attend in person.

“The inspiration for Otrib.com began in 2000, the year my grandmother died,” says Sam Tharp, Otrib.com founder. “I felt tremendous grief, mourned her passing and then decided to pay tribute to her life by producing a tribute film. This began something, which grew into Otrib.com. I created Otrib.com to help people through the funeral planning, notification, tribute and grieving process.”

Michael Schutzler, a web expert who runs consultancy Blueseven Partners, says online funerals are in an embryonic state, and are just another part of the changing face of the industry. He says other trends include “green burials” that are eco-friendly; a decline in newspaper obituaries due to the use of Facebook and other social networks to share sympathies and report on a loved one’s mark on the world; and creating a digital legacy for the deceased with photographs, videos, and documents about their life. He says we will begin to see more “alternative funerals” as a younger generation separates from the traditional approach.