Swarthmore at COP29

The third day of COP23 was packed to the brim with dozens of informal negotiations, party roundtables, and side events hosted by some of the many non-party stakeholders attending the conference. This COP has about 19,000 attendees, including more than 11,300 party delegates and about 6,000 non-party stakeholders, and there are complicated rules about which events are open to which participants.

According to someone I talked to who had been to many previous COPs, almost all negotiations (except for the most informal discussions) used to be open to anyone with access to the conference. As the size of the conference has grown, the negotiations have become more intense, and information is more quickly distributed, the parties have become more hesitant to allow non-party stakeholder observers into negotiations. At the same time, many of these stakeholders have cultivated personal relationships with career diplomats who attend many consecutive COPs, and so while more meetings are now technically closed, exceptions are often made on the request of party delegates.

Countering the trend of increasingly limited access and ability to influence negotiations directly, the Fiji Presidency has made it a point to engage non-party stakeholders in productive dialogue. The highlight of this approach was the Open Dialogue, a discussion that took place this morning with several dozen party delegates and representatives from the nine non-party constituencies. Two of the most relevant of these constituencies are YOUNGOs (YOUth NGOs) and RINGOs (Research and Independent NGOs); Aaron, Jennifer and I have been attending their daily meetings. During the Open Dialogue, delegates from both parties and non-parties agreed that connections between civil society and government, both domestically and during climate negotiations, were critical to enhancing the ambitions of the Parish Agreement. That being said, despite being labeled a dialogue, the meeting could have been more aptly described as Stakeholders Reading From Written Statements, and little to no substantive outcomes were reached. Clearly, more dialogues are needed.

In addition to the Open Dialogue, NGO constituencies get a brief amount of time to speak in what is called an intervention at specific negotiating meetings called open plenaries. One of the highlights of my week so far was frantically editing an intervention about climate finance for YOUNGO in the back of an open plenary meeting, minutes before our representative read it to the parties and observers at the meeting.

Beyond formal interactions between parties and non-party stakeholders, many climate action organizations are engaged in a massive effort to lobby delegates, shame uncooperative parties, and shape the topics of discussion. With the help of the Swarthmore hub of the Sunrise movement (shout-out to Aru), I have recently become a member of the Climate Action Network, a network of climate action organizations that work together to influence the negotiations and push a progressive climate agenda. As a result, I have seen some of the incredible behind-the-scenes work that goes into maintaining a coherent and consistent climate action campaign. For example, the Climate Action Network organizes a daily event at 6pm titled “Fossil of the Day,” in which a theatrical man dressed in a skeleton sarcastically presents an award to the party that has acted poorly or stalled negotiations. While very silly, shaming countries into behaving more constructively is important, especially when one party can hold up progress on any agenda item.

In the end, the Paris Agreement can be signed only by parties, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) are determined by national governments, and the COP by definition designates the Conference to be “of Parties.” But even in the short time we have been here, it is clear that non-party stakeholders have a serious role to play in framing the conversation and applying pressure with the goal of concrete and ambitious climate action.

Today I attended the Opening Plenary of the APA, the Ad Hoc Working Group of the Paris Agreement that is tasked with operationalizing the prescriptions set forth in the treaty. Delegates face a 2018 deadline for crafting draft language that will be finalized during the Talanoa Dialogue next year at COP 24 in Poland. Throughout this week, delegates will participate in informal consultations to hash out complex implementation details covering mitigation, adaptation, transparency, and the global stocktake (the five year review process for the Nationally Determined Contributions). Being the policy wonk that I am, I find these technical negotiations very interesting–I hope to observe the consultation on mitigation tomorrow (crossing my fingers that I will be able to get tickets)!

Some delegates at the Plenary also gave striking opening statements. Syria announced that they have joined the Paris Agreement, leaving the US as the only nation opposed to it (albeit, we cannot formally withdraw for three years). Venezuela was the only country in their opening statement to allude to the US, and the Venezuelan delegate did not mince words when he demanded that other industrialized countries compensate developing countries for the lack of climate action effort from a particular geopolitical problem (aka the Trump administration). Small island nations and developing countries reiterated that industrialized countries need to do more to finance and support poorer nations as well. It will be interesting to see how this mantra plays into the negotiation process.

In the afternoon, I went to a press conference held by Dr. James Hansen. In his brief talk he discussed his argument for a carbon fee and dividend policy to put a price on carbon and therefore make the major carbon players pay for the pollution they emit. He and his granddaughter are even involved in a lawsuit (Juliana v. United States) to try to hold the US accountable for failing to take action on climate change. Also, according to Hansen, the 1.5 degree Celsius goal is still attainable, but only if we reduce emissions by three percent each year (which is only feasible if significantly more countries, including the US, implement a national carbon pricing system). I am not, however, optimistic about the probability of that happening.

On a lighter note, we went out to a cozy German restaurant in downtown Bonn to unwind after a long but productive day. Cheers!

Also, if you want, you can tune into some of the conference talks On Demand here!

Bula Vinaka!  The 23^rd UNFCCC Conference of the Parties started in Bonn today, presided over by Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama of Fiji.  Over 20,000 people are expected to attend what is being called the “Pacific COP”, the first of these meetings to be hosted by one of the island nations most vulnerable to storms and sea-level rise.  The COP 23 President focused on several themes during his opening statement: urgency, “talanoa” (understanding and respect), involvement of non-parties, and assistance to those affected by climate change.  These themes reflect the goals of this COP, which is expected to be a more technical meeting focusing on implementing broader goals set at prior meetings.  This work will lead up to the 2018 meetings, in which Paris signatories have committed to take stock of their collective efforts and progress.

Today I attended an event hosted by Climate Action Network-International on the “Yardsticks for Success” of the Pacific COP 23.  The panel emphasized two parts of the work being done at the COP this year.

First, COP 23 aims to complete the design of the 2018 Talanoan Dialogue (Facilitative Dialogue).  This is a process over the next year for Parties to collectively take stock of their efforts toward reaching their Paris goals and to inform the preparations of new nationally determined contributions for COP 24.  The Fijian presidency has taken a strong hand in shaping this process already, renaming it using Talanoa – a traditional word used in Fiji and the Pacific to indicate inclusive and transparent dialogue meant to build empathy and trust.  The dialogue will address the questions of: ‘where are we?’, ‘where do we want to go?’, and ‘how do we get there?’ in the months leading up to COP 24.  The goal is to assess whether Parties are on track to meet their NDCs and to reevaluate their commitments, which are considered to be well-under the reductions needed to meet global climate goals.

Climate finance is another theme of the work this year.  Fiji has emphasized the need to establish financing for “Loss and Damage” due to climate change, with a focus on natural disasters.  (The logo for the conference shows a small island being submerged by a cyclone-shaped wave).  Delegates also aim to increase the transparency around these funds, including agreeing on accounting conventions that reflect the climate relevance of funded projects.  We’ll hopefully get to see how the process stands at the end of week 1 before we leave, and Sam, Shivani, and Chris will get to see what comes out of the second week of negotiations.

Finally, the Fijian focus on engaging non-Parties and subnational actors is particularly interesting in light of the unusual US participation in the negotiations this year.  The US has sent a formal delegation to the negotiations, which it is still a party to despite President Trump’s announcement of his intention to withdraw from the agreement in 2020.  The Fijian presidency appointed California Governor Jerry Brown as a special advisor to COP 23, who notably launched “America’s Pledge” with Michael Bloomberg in July.  The subnational US delegation seems likely to be a significant presence at the meetings.  The US Federal Government is not hosting a pavilion for the first time this year: instead the “We Are Still In” coalition is hosting the US Climate Action Center, financed by and highlighting US subnational actors.  It will be interesting to watch how these two groups participate in the meetings and how other countries respond to the two groups over the course of the week.

This begins our blog series about the Swarthmore delegation’s experience at the Conference of the Parties (COP) in Bonn, Germany.  The COP is a yearly conference that has been held every year since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was created in 1991 (this year is number 23, hence COP 23). We’ll be talking more about various aspects of the UNFCCC and the goals of COP 23 in the upcoming days, but we wanted to start with a brief travel update.

We made it! After a red-eye Lufthansa flight with not enough legroom and little sleep, we (students Aaron Metheny and Kyle Richmond-Crosset, and Professor Jennifer Peck) arrived in Frankfurt, Germany at about 7am Sunday.

We had some logistical difficulties, including a baggage claim scare and missing the stop on our train from Frankfurt to Bonn (note to Week 2 delegation: it turns out there is a stop between Frankfurt and Cologne!), but we eventually made it to Zur Post, a small, delightful hotel about 4km from the city center in Bonn. We found a great Greek restaurant nearby for lunch and then promptly took three-hour naps.

In the afternoon, we took public transit to the Bula Zone (where the deliberations, meeting, and negotiations will take place) to get our registration badges, and then we sat down for dinner at a yummy Asian restaurant in the city center. Altogether, a very successful first day, and we’re looking forward to the start of a busy week!

If you’re particularly curious about a specific idea or topic, or there’s an event you want to hear more about, post a comment and we’ll see what we can do.

-Kyle Richmond-Crosset

As a student with an interest in the science of climate change, I was excited to have the opportunity to broaden my horizons and engage with the policy and activism aspects of climate change at COP22. My focus for the week was understanding the role that scientists play in creating and guiding climate change legislation, as well as their methods of effectively communicating their work and the seriousness of the situation.

I was luckily able to participate in Earth Information Day, which was designed to be a discussion of the up-to-date state of the climate and an opportunity to optimize engagements and connect information between the scientific community and party delegates. Held in one of the two giant plenaries on site, I looked forward to what the forthcoming discussion held.

Many of the talks given by the scientists focused on their new data sets and models of projected temperature increases. The main overarching theme was that more money and resources were needed for research and measurements to go from a global background level to a higher resolution regional scale, with the ability to pinpoint accurate levels of carbon emissions and temperature increases in specific areas.

A delegate from Mali asked why the goal of keeping temperature increases below 1.5 °C was no longer possible. I was shocked to hear one of the scientists on the panel respond that the goal of 1.5 °C or below was still a possibility. Throughout the conference, the scientists pushed the message that we could limit temperature increases to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. I was distraught to see this because the honest truth is that even if we completely stopped carbon emissions today, we would still surpass 1.5 °C and probably 2 °C. It was difficult for me to discern if the scientists legitimately believed this or if this was a message meant to maintain hope. While the numbers of 1.5 or 2 °C hold symbolic value, I think that they focus people on goals that are unrealistic and divert attention from pressing issues such as how vulnerable countries will adapt. Sure, these are numbers that can be advertised and sound really nice to everyone. But they assume that future technologies such as carbon sequestration will play a big role in limiting emissions to the atmosphere and that as part of the Paris Agreement opt-in system, countries will continue to enhance their emission limits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although more detailed data would certainly be helpful, I was frustrated that this was the main talking point. Doing more research is the easy part; as scientists, we can all continue to play our usual parts and produce more data. What is far more difficult, but more necessary, is to shift our focus towards advancing our science into social realms to ensure that our data are taken seriously and properly translated into public policy. If the data clearly show that climate change is occurring due to anthropogenic influences and that there are exponentially increasing temperatures, shouldn’t our priority be to make sure that climate change policy meets the requirements of what our data demand to avoid catastrophe? How do we clearly communicate important results such as the fact that the last time we were this warm 125,000 years ago, global sea levels rose 5 – 9 meters (Dutton and Lambeck, 2012)? We must transition away from remaining impartial and begin to engage with policy makers and the public, even if it will require time and for us to move out of our comfort zones.

Unfortunately, none of the speakers seemed to discuss techniques for communicating science and effectively making sure that policy reflected the increasingly dire outcomes for people and biodiversity around the world. As a result, at the end of the first discussion session I clicked a button to activate my microphone and asked the panel of scientists how well they thought policy makers incorporated their data. It wasn’t clear if they didn’t want to answer the question or didn’t take me seriously as a college kid, but they skirted around my question and responded that they believed governments took the issue of climate change very seriously.

At the end of the day, the bedrock of the UNFCCC process is fundamentally based on high-precision science. More research needs to be done to understand how climate change will affect diverse ecosystems around the world and how deleterious effects can be mitigated.

However, that is simply not enough.

As a scientist, I am used to being able to put in the time and effort to do experiments and accomplish my goals. However, I quickly realized at COP22 that the realm of climate change politics was a formidable foe and a completely different and uncomfortable game that involved compromises, a bit of propaganda, and extreme patience. But that does not mean that we can shrink away and wait for others to draft policy.

Rather, we must engage and fight to make sure that people understand the consequences of our data and that social policies of vast importance include responsible features that acknowledge and account for the current and future problems that science has shown we will all face.

As scientists, we must drop the fear of drawing attention to ourselves and speak up to the world even if our first attempts are incoherent or not well received. We must reject the alarmist label from those who do not believe our science or consciously choose to discredit it. In order to find solutions to a global problem, we must collaborate with each other, scientist to scientist, across other disciplines, with everyone; and reject the norm of individual achievement as the driver of scientific career progression. We must be politically active and support politicians that are in favor of increased funding for research. We must reach out and incorporate the public into our work to demystify science, increase transparency, and reduce the power dynamic between scientists and the public. These are all things that I believe that scientists must and can do.

Let’s hold off on “smiling for the planet” until we make sure that policy reflects what decades of data have been telling us.

– David

Dutton, A. and K. Lambeck. 2012. Ice volume and sea level during the last interglacial. Science 337(6093):216-219.

Footnote: If you are interested in learning more about how the science can become better incorporated into the humanities and social science, check out Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by E.O. Wilson.

Christina Hui ’17 and Patrick Houston ’17 take a hands-on approach to saving the world from the cataclysmic effects of climate change at COP22 in Marrakesh during the second week of the conference.

There were warnings from Sec. State John Kerry, Jeffrey Sachs (Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia), and others that if all nations met their “ambitions”, we would still be far short of what was needed to meet a target of 1.5 degrees Centegrade rise in CO2 emissions over pre-industrial levels.

As we entered Djemaa el-Fna, the crowded, pulsing, square at the heart of the medina, we saw this neon sign high above the square.  Storytellers, acrobats, musicians, and maybe even snake charmers (we couldn’t see over the thick crowds surrounding some of these groups) drew huge crowds, as did

the food stalls and shops.  Since one of the free COP buses dropped off between the Koutoubia Mosque and the square, it was easy to visit at the end of the COP day.  Somewhat insane in its noise and throngs and energy, but what an experience!

On Thursday, 11/17, the second to the last day of COP 22, each nation gave its closing statements in one of the largest plenary tents at the COP. Most statements lasted about 5 minutes, during which ambassadors from departments of environmental protection, sustainability, or interior development from countries around the world reiterated urgency for action on climate, and asserted where improvements are still needed. While COP 21 was popularly considered the “last chance” for the world to lay meaningful groundwork for future carbon emissions commitments, COP 22 has been considered by many “the COP of action” in which the groundwork laid in Paris must be reinforced and furthered. In many ways, it seemed that the outcomes from the COP, in terms of the progress made with building onto the Paris Agreement, was not as concrete as many had hoped. Still, the remarks were varied and in addition to the reasons for concern, many of the countries shared their priorities and their actions which provide reasons to be hopeful about the world’s will to address climate change.

CONCERNS & CALLS FOR IMPROVEMENT

One common concern voiced by many developing nations called on developed nations to craft stronger and clearer Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Malawi, Bhutan, South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo- who was representing itself and less developed countries (LCDs) in general, and Cuba were among these states who pressed developed nations to take greater actions to curb their carbon emissions. Honduras, generally emphasized the need for INDCs from all nations to be crafted in a clear way so that progress is measurable, so nations can be held accountable for shortfallings, and so areas for improvement are identifiable. The ambassador from Honduras directed these instructions at all nations and not just developed nations.

Many poorer nations in the global South emphasized the fact that while their nation emits relatively little carbon emissions, they are bearing the brunt of the effects of climate change. Of the 14 or so national closing remarks that I sat in on, these concerns were mentioned by all the countries mentioned above. Much aligned with this concern, Honduras, Malawi, and what I believe was Jamaica communicated that they are spending so much of their money on storm recovery that they are unable to make gains in economic growth and disaster mitigation projects. To address challenges like this, the $100 billion dollar Green Climate Fund was proposed several years ago, to be enacted in 2020 for which developed nations would supply the fund to developing nations. While $100 billion may sound substantial, consider that Hurricane Sandy (NJ, 2012) costed $50 billion and Hurricane Katrina costed $129 billion. On the global scale, $100 billion to assist developing nations with climate mitigation, adaption, and disaster recovery is not very much and several countries expressed concern that the fund is woefully inadequate. Others focused on how it should be allotted and there was a reoccurring assertion that much should go towards loss and damage suffered by nations already feeling the drastic effects of climate change.

The representative from Bolivia gave a unique remark in that he not only briefed over on how his country is suffering from and acting on climate, but he also criticized some of the functions of capitalism which he said perpetuate the climate crisis and climate injustice. The representative from Bolivia called out what he termed “ideological colonialism” of climate change which, if I understood correctly, referred to governments of developed nations promoting climate policies that strengthen the corporations within their nations, rather than focusing on doing the most good. The speaker shamefully noted that it is the same corporations who got us into the climate change crisis, who are now trying to pose as the “saviors”. In other worlds, he was pointing to what could be considered large, global scale green-washing. Ultimately, the government official from Bolivia called for a need to “change the capitalist system that perpetuates the climate crisis…to ensure a commitment to life, humanity, and the integrity of our natural home”.

POSITIVE RESPONSES and REINFORCEMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS

First a disclaimer: I don’t necessarily view nations’ calls for improvement as necessarily negative feedback. I believe this demonstrates that states are taking the situation seriously and are committed to progress. With that said, there were some closing statements that were particularly more hopeful in that they demonstrated how nations are acting now. The nation of Georgia stated that it is “not a passive recipient of (international) aid, but a contributor (as well)”. While noting that it is a relatively low emitter of GHGs, Georgia backed up this statement by explaining how it has been acting in the country’s two areas of focus: one, by helping its neighbors who have higher emissions to make reductions by furthering its own capacity for wind, solar, and geothermal energy which those nations could acquire from Georgia; and two, by fortifying the education system that prepares young people to enter and contribute to a green economy.

The representative from Denmark boasted of the country’s strong offshore power production in what was either wind or hydropower production. He said that Denmark has produced as much as 5 Kw of electricity from these operations (per year I believe) and that this progress demonstrates that offshore energy can compete with the production levels of fossil fuel capabilities. The topic of gender equality was brought up by a few nations including Honduras and Malawi. If I understood correctly this is to include both recognition of how climate change disproportionately effects women as well as how women can and need to be included in developing solutions. Additionally, Honduras emphasized that the transition to a more sustainable world must also strengthen workers’ rights and incorporate sustainable urban development in current construction. Both Honduras and Georgia emphasized the importance of integrating studies on climate and environmental into our education systems and more generally increasing access to education. All four of these themes- women’s’ rights, workers’ rights, sustainable urban development, and education equity are included in the UN’s 17 key objectives for solving climate change.

Finally, nothing was mentioned about a Trump presidency in the closing statements of the national remarks that I attended. Challenges and questions remain: allotting and ensuring an adequate Green Climate Fund- especially for nations already or soon to be dealing with loss and damage; determining how initiatives can effectively address many of the UN’s 17 key objectives; and ensuring that INDCs are concrete and actionable are large tasks. But based on what I witnessed this week, I think the global commitment to solving the greatest crisis of our time has not waned aside from the U.S. The rest of the world is acknowledging the science, and many are already feeling the impacts in their everyday lives as they struggle to obtain safe drinking water, to breath clean air, and to produce and acquire sufficient food, so ignoring the issue is nearly impossible.

I leave the COP with gratefulness looking back at the U.S. commitment to act on climate change under the Obama administration, with shame and frustration for what the upcoming Trump administration claims it wants to do, and with hope looking forward, based on the demonstration of unwavering commitment to action from the global community to tackle the issue of climate change.

Ben Goloff ’15, who is in Marrakesh with SustainUS, met with us on Wednesday, 11/16 to talk about their work, their various COP actions, and efforts to connect with environmental justice activists in Morocco. His colleague Ryan, also part of the conversation, talked about a couple of the EJ issues here, involving a silver mine pollution protest/shut-down/multi-year protest settlement  at Imider and also  the loss of fish stock and local livelihoods in Safi due to serious water pollution issues occasioned by companies like OCP Group, a major producer of phosphates and derivatives.  Ryan designed a poster for SustainUS protesting the Safi pollution, and SustainUS had an “action” (a die-in) in the green zone where OCP was touting its environmental consciousness at COP22.

The COP is not quite over, but displays and booths are coming down all around me, and observers got shut out of the COP President’s press briefing. What is left are the whimsical metal sculptures lining the walkway.