Author: Max Katz-Balmes

Hi everyone! Today marks the end of our time at COP 25 and on this blog, facts that may result in sadness for some and relief for others. Luckily, Swarthmore will be sending another delegation for week two of the conference, so those of you enjoying our posts should look forward to hearing from Chris, Nancy, and Isabel!

This morning, I attended the opening of the US Climate Action Center at the WWF pavilion. The US Climate Action Center hosts the #WeAreStillIn delegation, a network of subnational government, tribal, business, college, healthcare, and cultural professionals committed to collaborative climate action in the U.S. The work of the #WeAreStillIn campaign operates in direct opposition to the current federal administration’s anti-environment position and policies.

From today until next Tuesday, leaders from the #WeAreStillIn delegation will present best practices, models, and frameworks for continuing and furthering climate action in a number of sectors across the U.S. The coalition represents nearly 70 percent of U.S. GDP and 65 percent of the U.S. population and thus forms a powerful voice in mobilizing U.S. society to enact policies and programs to promote the green economy and limit our carbon output.

The #WeAreStillIn campaign is also committed to engaging with foreign leaders and delegates at the COP in a (seemingly) more meaningful and collaborative way than our State Department delegation. They are working to bridge the developed/non-developed divide and provide funding sources for cities and regions in developing countries.

As much as I am not proud of our federal climate policies, I am proud that so many of our civic and industry leaders recognize the urgency of the climate crisis and are forming coalitions to mobilize support for and further climate action.

Sadly, we are nearing the end of our time in Madrid. We have all had an amazing (and hectic) week navigating the COP and this beautiful city.

Today, I attended a fascinating panel on nature-based solutions (NBS) in cities. Nature-based solutions have formed a large part of this year’s COP and refer to measures taken to protect, create, and restore ecosystems (in cities NBS essentially refer to green spaces, roofs, and infrastructure). Nature-based solutions are hugely important as they are often cost-effective and provide multiple environmental and social co-benefits. For instance, green spaces in city squares can simultaneously increase social interaction and pedestrian traffic, cool cities, and remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, nature-based solutions can also result in negative outcomes —most importantly “green gentrification” — which is especially important to me given my parallel interests in social justice and environmentalism. Green gentrification is a tricky issue. While urban areas, especially poor urban areas, lack access to environmental amenities, those same environmental amenities can drive up property values and result in displacement (think the High Line or Prospect Park in New York City).

As of now, I want to dedicate my life’s work to the planning of green spaces and thus am generally supportive of NBS measures. I am just fascinated by the fact that the activation of public spaces can transform cities from dark and imposing to beautiful and social. For instance, one of the panelists today outlined work that his company had completed in Germany. They had essentially placed a small, mobile park in the middle of an empty square, and, by the next day, the previously unused square had become the center of urban activity. The large impact of such a small action amazes me, especially given its environmental co-benefits (carbon uptake, increased walking, etc.).

Importantly, however, citizens of a city must never be left behind, even if we lose some environmental benefits. Thus, NBS measures should include participatory planning processes and must be implemented with ALL city citizens in mind. If not, a network of NBS will only be helping to solve one problem (e.g. climate change) while creating another (e.g. displacement).

P.S. One quick note from the presentation that I found fascinating: NBS planning must account for climate change. Generally, we plan for how nature-based solutions will positively impact the environment. We must also, however, take into account how an environment might be altered in response to climate change and thus plan to implement an NBS that can adapt to and perform in a changing or new environment.

At this year’s COP, my focus is on subnational actors and their role in both official negotiations and in promoting climate action more broadly. As more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas and cities emit 75 percent of global CO₂ emissions, municipalities play perhaps the most important role in combatting the climate crisis on the ground.

Luckily, unlike many countries, cities are increasingly committed to climate action. For instance, almost 100 megacities across the globe have joined the C40 Climate Cities Leadership Group, which commits all of those cities to a Global Green New Deal and to developing climate action plans by 2020. Thirty C40 cities have peaked emissions and 25 have pledged to be emissions neutral by 2050. Similarly, almost 2000 small municipalities are members of Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), which is a big proponent of data sharing, greenhouse gas inventories, and future emissions predictions. Together, these networks of municipalities are fighting for a greater role in the Paris Agreement, perhaps through LDCs (locally determined contributions) as a supplemental mechanism to NDCs. They are also working to improve urban climate finance mechanisms, especially in developing countries, as well as to pressure their national governments to up their NDCs.

Today, I attended an interesting talk on how many cities across the globe are aligning their policies and plans with a 1.5C pathway. One of the speakers at the event was Susan Aitken, who serves as the leader (mayor) of Glasgow, a city that will host next year’s COP. Susan, as she preferred to be called, outlined Glasgow’s plans to become the UK’s first net-zero carbon city (by 2030). She discussed a public-private partnership with Scottish Power to boost investment in renewable energy production and storage, as well as to promote the use of electric vehicles.

Refreshingly, she also spoke in depth about a moral responsibility for climate justice and a just transition, especially given that Glasgow’s bad air quality is concentrated in poorer areas of the city. She emphasized the need to expand the city’s public transportation networks to poorer neighborhoods, as well as to promote access to green space and recreation in those areas. Importantly, she stressed the importance of including citizen voices in any sustainable planning processes.

It was really interesting to learn about Glasgow’s innovative leadership role in combatting climate change — both through the private sector and through participatory planning. It also made me excited about next year’s COP (even if I won’t actually be there). Hopefully at COP 26, Glasgow emphasizes the importance of including subnational actors more directly in the COP process. I also hope that being in Glasgow will provide other subnational leaders with a model on how to decarbonize former industrial cities. Glasgow was where James Watt conceived of the modern steam engine. Now it is becoming a pioneer in new, participatory, just environmental technologies and policies. The city has come a long way from its industrial roots.

Quick video summary of Glasgow’s net-zero efforts here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANLdqvzi44s.

Wow! Today has been a whirlwind. My day began at 9am at the YOUNGO Spokes meeting, which is a daily meeting of youth representing NGOs at the conference. I then proceeded to attend negotiations sessions on two key issues at COP 25 — Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (which Jenn talked about in her latest post) and the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (which Allie discussed yesterday) — as well as two side events at country pavilions and two official side events hosted by the UNFCCC, before leaving the venue around 8pm.

Since there are so many venues and meetings at the COP, I thought it would be helpful to provide visuals and descriptions of the different types of events and negotiations.

Official Negotiations – Plenaries and Contact Groups

Plenaries: Plenaries are open to all in attendance. They are held in large halls (see below) and are used as forums for public speeches, the adoption of agendas, all procedural issues, and the adoption of any decisions/conclusions.

Contact Groups: When agenda items in plenary warrant further discussion (they almost always do), contact groups are formed. Contact group discussions generally take place in smaller settings (though not always as you will see below). Contact groups work out detailed texts that are then adopted/approved in plenary. These events are sometimes open to observer organizations and sometimes not.

It is also important to note that “official” negotiations continue outside of these sessions informally in negotiating blocks, bilaterals, and multilaterals.

Informal Proceedings – Side Events and Exhibits

Official Side Events: These are thematic talks sanctioned by the UNFCCC. They serve as opportunities for observer organizations — which are limited in official negotiating capacity — to engage with the conference, share information, and promote climate action.

Pavilion Side Events: Similar to the official side events, pavilion talks are opportunities for observer organizations to share their work and engage with the conference. These events, however, are curated based on the pavilion host’s (an NGO, UN body, or country) positionality on the climate crisis. Below are pavilions from two countries, the IPCC, and a NGO representing a coalition of development banks.

Official Exhibits: These serve as additional opportunities for observer organizations to share their work with the conference attendees. They function almost as rotating poster sessions (as the exhibits shift every couple of days).

Hello friends! Today marked the relatively quiet opening of COP 25 in Madrid, but the preparations for the annual conference were anything but calm.

COP 25’s original host, Brazil, backed out of its role in November of 2018 after the election of Jair Bolsonaro, whose foreign minister has stated, “there is no climate change catastrophe.” In the wake of Brazil’s withdraw, Chile offered to stage the UN event in Santiago. About a month before the conference was set to begin, however, increases in metro fares and living costs in Chile sparked nationwide protests that culminated with the Chilean government withdrawing Santiago as the host city for the COP. After Chile stepped down from its host role, our contact at the State Department, former Swarthmore professor Liz Nichols, informed us that a 2019 COP was unlikely to take place. Surprisingly, Spain almost immediately agreed to take over hosting duties and here we are!

I write all this not to give a general overview of how our delegation and the COP arrived in Madrid, but rather because the changing location of the conference has negatively impacted the proceedings. Importantly, an activist presence was notably missing from today’s session. In large part, this is a result of Chilean environmental justice folks being unable to regroup and pay for plane tickets to a new venue in a new city on a different continent. Instead of folks pushing negotiations to question market mechanisms and radically work towards 1.5C, most of the voices today operated within the conventional neoliberal models that have contributed to our climate crisis. In fact, we only observed one concrete counter-COP demonstration (see below).

It is especially important to note that fighting for climate action and protests like those in Chile are parallel struggles — against exploitation of markets. The same policies that and people who enable big polluters to exploit the planet and grow rich also force poorer people to contend with stagnating wages and higher costs of living. We will only solve our climate crisis when we begin to alleviate economic inequality and vice versa.