• Introduction
• Lord Browne's Keynote
• Heads of State Session
• Bringing About Change
• Worksessions
• Economy/Emissions
• Worksessions
• Infrastructure
• Worksessions
• Conclusions
• Al Gore (timesonline.co.uk)

Bringing About Change plenary session

Professor Laurent Mermet
AgroParisTech, France

Cultural Change

Professor Mermet's address focused on three preliminary points. Firstly, he urged us to ask: who is the 'we' that is the subject of so much climate change discussion? Secondly, he drew attention to the contradictory paradigms of collective action, and thirdly Professor Mermet highlighted the ambiguous nature of cultural change. To solve the problems posed by climate change would require a focus not only on ambition but on the details of action. The emphasis that was currently placed on the importance of humanity as a collective player, acting as one, should be interrogated more deeply, he said. He added that the 'united we' that is often used in climate change discourse should be analysed more closely as all the people around the world would not have the same changes to make. It was therefore necessary to ask: who is the 'we' who must do all these things? He identified five paradigms of collective action to bring about cultural change: government, governance, coordination, minority action for change and revolution. It would be necessary to be alert to these underlying stakeholders and the way they entered into the complexity of discussions. As members of the governance crowd, he encouraged the audience to recognise that we were building a shared culture that began in the 1980s with the climate change village and recently evolved into a town. To strengthen this we needed to reflect on the blind spots and the limits of the culture we were building. Cultural change offered an opportunity to bypass the political and bureaucratic constraints which often created walls of resistance. However, we should also be aware of the ambiguities of our calls to action and motivation, and be responsive.

Dr Ulrich von Deesen
BASF, Germany

Technological and Institutional Change

Dr von Deesen's presentation was guided by two underlying questions: how can a company react to the problems of climate change and what types of instruments are needed to implement strategies to do so. Drawing from his own experience as climate protection officer at BASF, Dr von Deesen described the steps his company had taken to meet its sustainability objectives. For example, through the creation of a sustainability council, by setting climate protection projects and by monitoring the company's carbon footprint over its entire production network. The key to change, emphasised Dr von Deesen was an openness to technology. Companies must also see climate change as an opportunity rather than a burden. Adaptation and mitigation have the potential to be costs but also have huge cost saving potential. In conclusion, he stressed that climate change was not just an issue that concerns governments, but one that affected companies and their operations.

Lord Anthony GIddens
LSE, UK

Global Governance

Lord Giddens opened with the assertion that the 'we' (collective humanity) were not yet where we needed to be to produce the instruments of global governance needed to manage climate change. International institutional change had not matched the pace of increasing global interdependence and in many cases the authority of institutions such as the UN has actually declined in recent years. Lord Giddens said forthcoming climate talks in Copenhagen had the potential to be more successful than Kyoto because we were now able to build on the failures and lessons learnt in the years since Kyoto was agreed.

Furthermore, there had been an accelerating awareness of the significance of climate change, and the new leadership in the US presented an opportunity for furthering multilateral engagement. Nonetheless, one should also have serious doubts about the effectiveness of Copenhagen and consider it part of an ongoing process. When a large number of nations attempted to reach an agreement, this was likely to be at a very low level with issues of enforcement and compliance remaining problematic. Furthermore, large developing companies were being asked to sign binding agreements limiting their emissions which they appeared unlikely to do because of concerns over social justice. Instead of focusing on the amount of work there is to do in the developing countries the spotlight instead should be on the developing world. In concluding, Lord Giddens emphasised that power imbalances and the interests of the many parties involved had to be recognised if we were to tackle climate change globally.