Most of this was due to an extensive comment by China. Speaking rapidly and passionately in Mandarin (though he was completely fluent in English), the Chinese delegate expressed his intense dislike of the COP15 logo (check it out here). He had two issues: first, in emphasizing the COP, it failed to mention the CMP, the body in charge of dealing with the Kyoto protocol. This, he said, created the impression that the Kyoto protocol was extinct. His second criticism was of the image, which he said represented a fragility of the Protocol, a negative association he disliked. (The COP president later responded that the logo had been in circulation for comment for over a year, but this did not stop the Chinese delegate for requesting—demanding—an alteration in the next week).

This delegate paused, then stated, “I was unhappy yesterday.” Then in English, he continued, “I am more unhappy this morning.” He paused again, and then reverted to impassioned Mandarin, accusing the United Nations of refusing entrance to a Chinese government minister who had experienced difficulties with entrance security. More than slightly threateningly, he mentioned a Chinese saying along the lines of: “Things can happen once. They can happen twice. But three times…” Of course, the COP was not the proper venue to present this frustration, but the power play on China’s part was obvious: they wanted to chastise the Secretariat publicly. Saudi Arabia chimed in, expressing his sympathy for the Chinese Minister and his unhappiness with COP15 logo. The efficacy of Kyoto had been destroyed by “certain countries”, he said (wonder which those are?!)—did COP15 support that?

This all was very dramatic and impassioned, though I was confused—why bring up Kyoto now, when it’s clearly not relevant to the item at hand (which was Mexico hosting the next COP—China’s segue was ostensibly warning Mexico against a similar logo travesty), and when neither party had expressed dislike of the logo before?

Their motives became clear with the third agenda item, which was to discuss Article 17 of the UNFCCC, or the section that allows parties to present Protocols. Protocols are binding modes of action, such as the Kyoto protocol, that are the heart of any effective international treaty (one that goes beyond expressing “deep concern” or a “commitment to caring” or some other noncommittal nonsense.)  There had been 5 protocols submitted and passed around to delegations six months before, and now was the time to discuss them.

The small island state Tuvalu presented the most compelling protocol, a compliment to Kyoto which followed the Bali Action Plan laid out at COP13. The delegate from Tuvalu laid out some of the basics: it called for limiting temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius and atmospheric carbon levels to 350pmm (these numbers are on the low end of what have been discussed, and are what countless activist groups have been pushing for years). He eloquently talked about provisions to protect at risk populations, such as the poor, women and children, as well as financing and technology transfer mechanisms for LDCs and developing nations. His intention, he said, was to leaving COP15 after “signing a legally binding document, nothing less” in order to “guarantee the futures…of millions of people around the world.” Naming this presentation the Copenhagen Protocol, he told delegates that the time for procrastination was over.

Extensive applause followed this statement, and, in between the other four countries much more briefly presenting their protocols (Japan, U.S., Australia, Costa Rica), small island states took the floor to express their support of the Tuvalu proposal. Grenada, representing the Association for Small Island States (ASIS) began, while members such as the Solomon Islands, Jamaica, Cook Islands, Barbados, Fiji, Palau, and many more all strongly supported the proposed action. Cape Verde’s speaker was particularly eloquent, claiming that he and his brothers in island states were “entitled to survival,” and noting that the current “nature of the world will result in our disappearance.”

Directly after this, however, India spoke. “We already have a proposal,” the delegate said. “A good one.” India, he said, will not support the adoption of any new protocol, preferring to stick with the existing Kyoto Protocol. Other countries supported this—China actually mentioned that they “doubt the intentions” of some new proposals, and chastised the COP for already spending too much time discussing this. Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, South Africa and others also agreed with the India stance.

So. Let’s review. Small island states and many nations facing extreme desertification, the “front line of the devastation of climate change” in the words of the Marshall Islands delegation, call for a meaningful, binding, strong treaty upon the conclusion of these two weeks. Meanwhile, rapidly developing nations (China/India bloc) and those whose economies are based heavily on oil (notice the OPEC representation?) call for a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, which requires a minimal decrease in emissions, currently expires in 2012 and has very few obligations directed toward developing nations. China also then gets to blame the U.S. (remember the side comment in the beginning) for any failure to take action. Sounds like a good deal to me!

I went to other side events throughout the afternoon, including a talk given by Lisa Jackson, current administrator of the EPA. She was incredibly articulate…but she said nothing of substance. She threw around a lot of numbers—1000 Megawatts! $3000! 4 billion gallons!—but nothing was in context. She was mainly a mouthpiece for Obama, it seemed, citing his accomplishments to far in the environmental sector (that’s where the 1000 MW came in, which, incidentally, is just 4% of only Los Angeles energy consumption) and quoted him from town hall meetings in France.

To be honest, today I was pretty disappointed. It seemed that no one—and certainly not important world powers like China and the U.S.—are in any way deviating from the party line. I hope that this will change as more people with real authority arrive, but it seems that we are merely wasting time—which we cannot afford to do. Everyone knows that China doesn’t want to be forced to reduce emissions, and that the U.S. thinks they should. What was the point of coming to Copenhagen just to reiterate these obvious points? I look forward to seeing what happens next week, and hope that this first week is more the product of peacocks strutting than an actual unwillingness to compromise at all.