Swarthmore at COP29

Being at the COP has made me so much more aware of just how many countries there are in the world. Sure, 197 is a number that is not to hard to think about but do you actually know what you’re imagining when you think of 197 countries? It’s surprising that any negotiations get worked out at all given the sheer amount of languages spoken, though it is certainly heart warming!

I have had several experiences this week that have made me think of the extraordinary ways in which the COP delicately (and maybe sometimes indelicately) handles culture clashes.

 

What is it with every single speaker thanking the previous speaker for their “kind words”, congratulating the previous speaker on being appointed to a certain position, and addressing each other as “your Excellency”?

At first, I thought the formal ways in which people spoke to one another here was quite over the top and in some cases, frankly, a waste of time. Just get to the point already! But I think that these ways in which people speak to one another is a form of showing deep respect and to avoid certain confrontations. It also shows the appreciation that people have for one another during these talks and exhibits ways in which climate negotiations are supposed to unite us and not divide us.

To me, the COP is not a tourist attraction and is not even supposed to be, but that’s not what other people seem to think. 

I can get behind the fact that people want to document that they were at the COP and that they were with their delegation presenting at a certain side event or something but sometimes, it seems like some delegates are putting on too much of a show. For example, I literally saw a panelist leave the panel, give his phone to a random stranger, go back to the panel and pose thoughtfully as the stranger took a photo of him, all while the actual panel discussions were ongoing. No one batted an eyelash. I think something like this just goes to show the extent to which people want to document their time at the COP, and hey, in the 21st century when social media is king, there is no better way to get the word out than a snazzy picture on instagram. This is also surely the first time that a lot of people get to visit Poland and be so far away from home so if they have to spend most of their time at the COP, then that’s what they are going to take pictures of. The privilege I have of being able to travel as much as I have has been checked. 

 

Please please please will anyone address the fact that most of the events are held in English!!!

I could not be more grateful of the fact that I can understand most of the events that I go to. Only one event I have been to has completely been in a different language and in the negotiations, only those delegates who absolutely cannot speak English will not. However, what does it mean that the COP is in English? I know that the UN has six official languages, but these languages do not seem to be exposing themselves that much throughout the COP. What sort of messages of power are relayed when everything is in English? I had to leave an event just because I could not understand the broken English that people were using and I felt really bad because I was so sure that the topic they were speaking about was just as important for me to learn about as a topic that was presented on by fluent English speakers. I think it’s beyond the scope of this blog to go more into detail about this but it is definitely worth thinking about some more.

Today was intergenerational youth day at the conference! While themed days don’t affect the actual negotiation discussions too much, they do make it so that more of the side events at the conference center on this topic.

One event I went to for intergenerational youth day was a celebration for a new Guinness World Record of 100,000 climate change postcards put on a Swiss glacier. The celebration took the form of a panel in which NGO youth leaders from Uganda, India, and Switzerland discussed how they encouraged schools and youth organizations to write postcards against climate change, which were eventually put on a receding Swiss glacier to advocate that youth deserve a future too.

Personally, I felt a little skeptical about the initiative. While I absolutely think it’s inspirational that youth are speaking out against climate change, I questioned if there were too many negative impacts of putting postcards on the glacier. I wonder if school children would have felt as engaged if the postcards were sent to policymakers instead. I also found it a little sad when Switzerland said they had a hard time getting schools and youth organizations to join onto the initiative, as this is the reason they reached out to Uganda, India, and other countries to get more postcards in the first place. I wonder if the engagement of young children in the climate change movement may be lacking. Perhaps we could be doing more in schools to teach children the urgency of climate change. While this may seem a little far from the goal of the actual negotiations in implementing a rule book for the Paris agreement, it has potential to have similar importance in the future.

I think this is the first side event at the conference I attended where I was left feeling a little disheartened, or a little unsure about the impact of a supposed climate action. I was also left feeling like a lot more needs to be done in educating young children about the importance of climate change. I’d actually be really curious to hear others thoughts on this issue, if anyone has any reactions.

 

For those of you not at COP-24 and who want a source of the day to day outside of what we are giving on the blog, you may find the daily newsletters from ECO interesting and useful:

http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco-newsletters

Today the entire group went to visit Auschwitz. We know this isn’t why we came to Poland, but we all felt very passionately about taking the time to visit this important landmark. The site isn’t far away, only about 35-40 km, so we made the trip and spent a long time visiting. To say the least, it was powerful and emotional. By the time we were done at the main site, we didn’t have time to visit Birkenau, which was disappointing. It wasn’t an easy visit, but I think we were all glad we went to pay homage to the terrible atrocities that were committed there. I was proud that we were all able to talk about our emotions on the way home and over dinner as well, and to share some about what the visit meant to us.

Chris, representing the entire COP-24 Week 1 Delegation

This afternoon, I attended two extremely interesting side events that focused on incorporating Indigenous rights in the language and implementation of the Katowice Rulebook (the goal of this COP is to establish this Rulebook to actually implement the commitments set forth in the Paris Agreement). The first event, titled “Realizing the Vision of Paris: Incorporating Rights in the Implementation Guidelines,” consisted of panel members from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), Earthjustice, Women’s Empowerment and Development Organization (WEDO), Amnesty International, and Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP).

The most impactful speaker in my opinion was a man representing AIPP, who emphasized how Indigenous Peoples face impacts from not only climate change, but also the mitigation and adaptation measures designed to address it. One example is the expansion of protected areas — a measure designed to protect forests and their crucial role as carbon sinks. While seemingly wonderful, in acquiring additional land to expand the reach of protected areas, this approach displaces Indigenous Peoples and strips them of their access to ancestral lands and culturally significant resources.

One of my greatest passions with respect to environmental protection and social justice is the exact issue of how conservation initiatives affect Indigenous Peoples. While I have previously focused a great deal on this in terms of existing national parks and protected areas, I had not thought about these issues in terms of the climate-related expansion of these initiatives  It was eye-opening to learn about the flaws and inequity of seemingly good solutions to the climate crisis, and this event really expanded my understanding and altered my perspective of currently proposed mitigation and adaptation initiatives, including REDD+ and other carbon offset schemes.

After this panel, I went to another side event, titled “Megadrivers, Climate Funds, and Indigenous Peoples.” This event was organized by representatives from several Indigenous Peoples organizations in Peru. Each of the speakers emphasized the urgency of the challenges that they are facing in the Amazon and how integral it is to maintain and ensure Indigenous control of their territories. This event detailed several climate funds that exist in the Amazon, including the DGM, FCPF, FIP, ONU REDD, and DCI. The panelists discussed the current problems that exist with respect to these funds, including the prioritization of state mediation, the lack of inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in these conversations, and the state’s continued support for extractive industries and anti-climate investments (i.e., agribusiness, hydrocarbons, mining, wood felling). The panelists then discussed some experiences and achievements of Indigenous Peoples with respect to land titling, reduced deforestation due to resistance to extractivism, investment in Indigenous economies with standings forests, and Indigenous REDD+. The event concluded by proposing Indigenous alternatives on climate finance, which highlighted the importance of territorial organizations and learning from previous Indigenous-centered successes.

Another interesting thing to note about this event is that it was entirely in Spanish, which I found very exciting and powerful because most other side events are held in English; it was clear that this event was focused on the people who it was trying to reach, and in asserting the rights (and language) of the panelists, rather than submitting to the sense of Western, English, and American superiority that is so pervasive at these negotiations.

Coming out of today, I am extremely interested in learning more about just and viable alternative approaches to mitigating and adapting to climate change without perpetuating colonialism and human rights violations with respect to Indigenous Peoples, as well as how such mechanisms and financing can be used to uplift and support Indigenous Peoples in implementing their own self-driven initiatives. Stay tuned as I continue to investigate these crucial questions this week!

— Shana

As you may or may not know, an umbrella group of Non-Governmental Organisations, Climate Action Network (CAN), has been organizing awards called “Fossil of the Day” at the COPs since 1999 which is an award given to the country that has done their ‘best’ to block progress in the negotiations on each day of the COP. Members of CAN vote each day on which country can claim this prestigious prize and today….

the award went to…. Poland!! CAN cited the Polish President who said that there was “no contradiction between climate protection and coal” during his Plenary speech yesterday. Today he further stated that “Poland has enough coal to last for another 200 years”… and that the “Polish mining industry and mining constituencies were the foundations of the Polish economy determining the country’s energy security and are a greater extent towards energy sovereignty.”

As it is only the first day of negotiations, I do not know how much we can really look into the significance of this award and there are plenty more days ahead for other countries to take a lead in blocking negotiations. I do think that as the hosts of a COP, there is a lot of pressure for Poland to “put on a good front” and there are a lot of people very willing to critique the COP itself (just how much carbon was emitted to get 197 countries to convene?) and looking for any sort of juxtaposition between what states say compared to what they do. I did not attend any high level negotiations today so I am not able to say whether I think Poland is more deserving of this award than any other country but somehow I can’t help feeling that Poland only got this award because it’s been under the microscope more so than other countries today and yesterday.

There’s a lot to unpack in this award, that’s for sure but here are just a few questions I am thinking about:

• Do you think Poland’s stance on supporting the coal industry is worse than a country’s support for fracking or nuclear power? (Can’t we critique every country for a bad climate policy decision?) Or did Poland win the award because it was selling the ‘wrong’ sorts of ideas to the wrong audience?
• As a host of COP, is it really Poland’s job to be at the forefront of climate policy? Afterall, isn’t the point of having different countries host the COP so that different voices can be heard and different cultures experienced?

Also, I think it’s really interesting to think about how the Fossil of the Day award can be used as a climate negotiating tool.

• Do you think that the award would make more people engaged with the COP and would a daily spotlight on a specific country help the public follow the COP events that much more?
• What do the countries who win this award think? It’s not a great award to get, that’s for sure, but will it change the way in which, for example, Poland will think about it’s message?

As CAN stated, it has definitely been “a hot welcome from the hosts of COP24!” Seriously, it’s cold in Poland but not as cold as I thought it would be…

— Marianne

P.S.I You can follow more of the Fossil of the Day COP24 awards here on their facebook page! Or, to learn more about CAN, click here.

Despite warnings that the side events at COP24 tend to be more interesting than most of the actual negotiations, my decision this morning was to attend both an informal and a formal negotiation meeting. The first negotiations meeting I attended was an informal conversation with the SBSTA (Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice) about the timeline countries should have to implement the rule book for carrying out the Paris Agreement. They were discussing whether countries should have 5 years, 10 years, or the ability to decide their own timeline.

I definitely see why people say the meetings can be difficult to sit through. There was a lot of jargon and sometimes tedious arguments that seemed a little trivial if you weren’t part of the United Nations (EX: one delegate from a country spoke about a small phrase in paragraph 5 of Article 4 that needed to be deleted.)

Still, I am so happy I spent time this morning orienting myself with a negotiations meeting. It was SO interesting to watch how a United Nations meeting works in practice. Basically, countries take turns raising placards with their country’s name on it when they want to speak.

Most countries seemed to support implementing a 5 year timeline for the Paris Rule book. The Marshall Islands and South Africa advocated strongly for this. But, the timeline decision is more complicated than it sounds because no one is sure when the 5 year deadline should be implemented, especially since there is no rule book yet. The informal meeting was more of a discussion with countries raising their arguments and voting to see what is agreed upon, but no official policies were adopted.

Afterward, I contrasted the informal meeting with a formal negotiations meeting about climate finance. As Chris mentioned in his post, it was interesting to watch South Africa get pretty heated. The formal negotiations meeting was a lot more structured, had more strictly imposed time limits, and seemed a lot more tense than the informal negotiations session. I wonder how the atmosphere in both informal and formal negotiations will change on certain issues, especially as sessions progress and the stakes become higher throughout the next two weeks.

Today at the COP there was a joint SBSTA IPCC special event to discuss the findings in the most recent IPCC report. The event was held in the largest plenary room at the conference, and it was filled with both conference delegates and observers. I found the event on the whole very informative, and it was clear the effort the scientists were going to to present their results in a way that would assuage the apocalyptic descriptions of the report in the popular media after its release. I really enjoyed the data although I was left with some methodological questions, which I will research after recover from sleep deprivation. I also had the opportunity to ask a question to the panel, and I have never shaken so much in my life!

Today was another great day and filled with lots of different experiences, including an interesting session related to climate finance that the South African delegate tried to blow-up and an informational meeting on the content of the recent IPCC report. Regarding the report, I found it very positive that a lot of delegates were affirming their commitments to meeting a new, 1.5 C target and that the take away wasn’t doom and gloom, but a reorientation of the challenge. I thought it was a very positive meeting.

The thing that was most exciting for me today is that I took place in my first protest! Ben Goloff ’15 help organize an action with the People’s Demands for Climate Justice and I went to support him. I ended up holding a sign and chanting. The Polish government is pretty strict about demonstrations, so this was inside the conference site and not out on the streets. But it still drew a crowd. I think the message of the cause is pretty important as well, so I was happy to take part. You can learn more about the movement here: https://www.peoplesdemands.org/ but the six demands are:

• Keep fossil fuels in the ground.
• Reject false solutions that are displacing real, people-first solutions to the climate crisis.
• Advance real solutions that are just, feasible, and essential.
• Honor climate finance obligations to developing countries.
• End corporate interference in and capture of the climate talks.
• Ensure developed countries honor their “Fair Shares” for largely fueling this crisis.

 

 

I did quite a few fun things today, but the one I was most excited for was the Inauguration of the Climate Action Hub, mainly because the person who impacted me most at COP-23, Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, was speaking along with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ibrahim is an Indigenous Leader and was instrumental in the establishment of the Indigenous Peoples platform at the last COP, and I really enjoyed listening to her viewpoints. Unfortunately, this event was a lot of fan fair for Arnold and was packed, so it was hard to hear any wisdom Ibrahim had to share. The differences in view points betweenSchwarzenegger’s privileged CA life (he talked about converting his 4 hummers to electric) and Ibrahim’s work with women in Indigenous communities was stark and it seemed like the event was a bit more focused on the former.  I was a bit disappointed because I think that Ibrahim has a lot to share, but I am hopeful I’ll get to hear more from her as the COP goes on.