By Gisele McAuliffe

The latest of a multi-year series of United Nations conferences to determine how national governments should respond to the environmental threats posed by climate change recently ended (November 17th) in Nairobi, Kenya. For the first time in a decade, I also attended the negotiations on behalf of a U.S.-based climate change policy think tank that made a special presentation to government delegates from around the world.

After walking the halls and meeting rooms of the Nairobi U.N. conference center for several days, I found myself struck by how much world views and government policies on climate change had shifted from when I first began working on the issue in the mid-1990s – and how far the U.S. lags behind most other developed countries in taking action to help alleviate the problem.

The biggest change I saw compared to a decade ago was the leadership role now played by private industry (including the green building movement), rather than national governments, in adapting to and mitigating the impacts of global warming.

When the initial climate change treaty was agreed to in Kyoto, Japan in 1997, efforts to combat climate change appeared to be best understood and led primarily by national governments. Private industry at that time appeared to closely monitor the U.N. climate change negotiations with a mix of outright denial or skepticism that climate change was really happening. They also expressed concerns about how new government policies might impact their business sector.

Today the situation appears to be reversed in many regards, At the Nairobi conference, numerous government representatives candidly admitted that negotiations between national governments on combating climate change were stuck as nations continue to dig in their heels refusing to aggressively reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change because of fears that doing so would require actions that would undermine their competitive standing in the global marketplace. Additionally, I heard many private discussions among attendees to the Nairobi meetingabout how private industry now was leading the way in developing economically practical solutions.

I also learned that some major developing nations, such as China, Brazil and India, have taken unilateral actions to cut GHG emissions (similar to actions taken by at the state and local levels in some regions of the U.S.) even though they are not obligated to do so under the Kyoto Climate Change treaty. Just as U.S. lawmakers in states like California are no longer willing to wait for federal government-led action, likewise some nations are voluntarily taking unilateral steps to combat climate change despite the lack of progress in cutting emissions by some of the world's largest GHG emitters, like the U.S. and Canada. They are doing so out of concern for air pollution, human health and the urgent need for government and businesses to plan future investments that adequately gauge climate change impacts.

The conference setting, in the developing country of Kenya, also served as a good reminder of the complexity of the challenge involved with reducing emissions. This visit was my first trip back to Kenya in 20 years when I lived there for several months while working as a journalist in the mid-1980s. During this visit, I saw many positive changes such as the influx of professional-level working women, a larger middleclass, repeated examples of black and white Kenyans working together in management-level jobs and larger crowds of children of all ages attending school.

On the other hand, I also saw that Nairobi slum neighborhoods (carefully masked from view by most tourists) appeared to be significantly larger than they were in the 1980s and violent crime also had increased significantly.

How do my observations relate to protecting the environment and climate change? Reducing GHG emissions that cause global warming requires actions that directly impact industry and national economies. For developing countries endeavoring to improve the quality of life of their citizens through expanded education, job opportunities, and the provision of basic utilities such as water and electricity, potential curbs on economic development as a result of mandated policies to combat climate change are perceived very negatively. This economic disparity between developed and developing nations is the key reason why the Kyoto climate change treaty exempted developing nations from accepting mandatory cuts in their emissions.

From my perspective, it seemed as if the economic growth of the past two decades in and around Nairobi, although significant, could not keep up with the continued rapid increase in population. It underlined to me the realization that while the biggest developed nations may remain unwilling to meet their goals for reducing GHG emissions out of concerns of global market competition, developing nations today are more motivated than ever to lead the way in creating affordable new technologies and other economically feasible solutions for combating climate change.

And in connection with the green building movement, Christine Ervin, this month’s featured expert interview in DestinationGreen, explained it best when she stated:

“In the past 18 months, the debate (about climate change) has shifted from questions over the science to what we’re actually going to do about it and when.  Part of that shift reflects the stunning accumulation of data that emerged in 2005—particularly the acceleration of ice loss at the poles.  Suddenly, there was a heightened sense of urgency.  And as a result, the buildings sector emerged as a prime opportunity.  Not only because of their contribution to emissions—48 percent through energy use and imbedded energy—but because the green building market proves that dramatic reductions are imminently possible and affordable.   The old argument that cutting emissions puts a serious drag on the economy is simply uninformed.”

About The Author:
Gisele McAuliffe directs communications for The Ashkin Group.  She has 26 years of communications experience in journalism and public advocacy at all levels – both in the United States and overseas including producing and reporting for CNN, United Press International Radio, Voice of Germany and Radio France International. Also, McAuliffe directed communications for the American Red Cross disaster services, The World Wildlife Fund’s international climate change campaign and The Wilderness Society.

In addition to her innovative role at The Ashkin Group, McAuliffe continues to preside over her own communications consultancy, Advocacy Communications International, Inc., providing strategic communications services exclusively to socially responsible organizations.