Day 3: Subnational Actors and a Small Preview of COP 26

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.

Susan Aitken speaking at the WWF pavilion
Susan Aitken speaking at the WWF pavilion

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.

WIM Negotiation and the US Perspective

Hello everyone! Today I had another exciting day of the COP, and got to learn more about the various parties’ perspectives on the WIM. This morning, I attended a WIM negotiation contact group (see Max’s post for an explanation of this term) where the parties began discussions about how to enhance the WIM. The session began with a welcome and introduction from the two co-facilitators, who then explained the agenda for the meeting: a brief summary of the outcomes from Sunday’s WIM review meeting and the ExeComm report (Execomm is the central body of WIM), an explanation of the WIM negotiation process for this COP, and finally, open interventions from the parties. From what I understand, Sunday’s review was organized by the Secretariat to provide an opportunity for parties to hold preliminary discussions around the effectiveness of the WIM thus far – it was not a formal negotiation, rather a brainstorming session with multiple break-out groups. Today was the first time that the parties were formally negotiating. It was then revealed that the parties would only have two more formal negotiations like today to finish their discussion about the WIM and submit a draft decision on next steps to the appropriate UNFCCC bodies by December 7th. This means that the parties are expected to finish WIM negotiations in two more sessions, one tomorrow, and one the following day. Parties are allowed to meet on their own for ‘informal informals’ in the interim period between formal negotiations, but co-facilitators are not present and observers are not allowed to attend (some LDC members later requested the co-facilitators and the Secretariat be present at these informal informals, TBD if this request will be granted). Though this tight timeline was highly contested by multiple LDC members, it was later revealed by a co-facilitator that these negotiations were only allotted 8 hours of deliberation under the UNFCCC mandate and therefore cannot be altered (for now…we’ll see if something changes towards the end of the week). If no extra time is permitted to negotiate the WIM, I highly doubt the parties will come to a conclusion about the financing facility. Next, the parties were allowed to present their interventions (AKA speeches) on the floor. As expected based on my conversations from yesterday, G77 and China and the LDCs were strong and unified in their push for the establishment of a financing facility. These parties stressed the fact that loss and damage is happening already and that adequate funding is crucial for poorer countries’ survival. The EU and New Zealand, while in agreement with the idea that WIM needed to be improved to better serve developing countries and the LDCs, focused most of their interventions on the successes of the WIM. The session ended 15 minutes late, with multiple parties/countries still waiting to speak, one of which was the US. I left the negotiation eager to hear what the US was planning to say, but luckily I had a meeting scheduled with Farhan Ahktar, the US State Department head negotiator on WIM, only a few hours later (big thank you to Liz Nichols for the connection). I only had about ten minutes to ask him some questions, as negotiators tend to run between a million different meetings at the COP, giving them little time to take a lunch break, let alone chat with an undergrad student. When I asked Ahktar about the US’s stance on the establishment of a financing facility, he said that the US was in favor of using existing funds (like the Adaptation Fund) to support loss and damage, rather than creating an entirely new facility. This opinion is based on two ideas: first, that creating a new funding facility would take too long to implement given the urgency of loss and damage problems (Liz said it could take up to a decade) and second, that the kinds of funding needs from loss and damage would be eligible for coverage under other existing funding mechanisms. Ahktar added that the US simply could not subscribe to unlimited liability and compensation for loss and damage. A brief note: the US only agreed to sign on to the creation of the WIM in 2013 once a sentence was added about the WIM NOT creating a basis for liability and compensation, so it’s clear that developed countries have been avoiding direct payment to vulnerable nations for years; this is not a new conversation. Ahktar said that the US definitely wants to support the LDCs and other vulnerable nations to become more resilient and able to address the impacts of loss and damage, but that this support would need to materialize through the use of existing funding mechanisms and through the strengthening of other aspects of the WIM. I am excited to hear how all of this gets translated into more formal negotiation language tomorrow morning when the US gets its turn to speak. 

In sum, I’ve now got two pretty clear opinions on the need, or lack thereof, for a new financial facility under WIM. I am working on setting up another meeting with the negotiator for the LDCs later this week to ask the question: can loss and damage funding actually be covered under existing funding mechanisms? If yes, why is a new facility needed? If not, what other factors are keeping the developed countries from creating this facility?

Day 2: Venues and Meetings at COP

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.

IMG_5177
One of two plenary halls
IMG_4566
Inside of the Baker plenary hall during COP 25’s opening ceremony

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.

IMG_8515
Outside of the Article 6 negotiating room
IMG_9172
Inside of the Article 6 contact group negotiations. This session felt more like a plenary than a nitty-gritty negotiation
IMG_7786
Outside of the WIM negotiating room
IMG_2098
At the WIM contact group . Negotiators are seated around table with observers on the outside.

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.

IMG_3453
Outside of the rooms in which the official side events are held
IMG_4483
At a side event

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.

IMG_5627
IPCC pavilion
IMG_8665
Chile pavilion
IMG_4512
International Development Finance Club pavilion
IMG_4471
India pavilion (it’s HUGE!)

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).

IMG_2898
Official exhibits

Time for Action!

This is being called the “Action COP”, and yesterday’s opening plenaries focused again and again on turning pledges into concrete action as countries prepare their climate action plans for next year.  Chile’s graphic for the COP leans in to its long-skinny resemblance to the hand of a clock:

IMG-7244

 

IMG-7247
Signs in the metro stop at the COP venue.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which lays out the rules for global carbon markets, has turned out to be a major sticking point in the negotiations and is a key outstanding issue on the negotiating table this year.  A well-designed system can decrease abatement costs, direct investments to areas where they can most effectively reduce emissions, and allow countries to increase ambitions for their targets.  A poorly-designed system can make NDCs meaningless by flooding international markets with credits that do not reflect actual reductions in emissions, whether because they were banked under less-restrictive systems, are double-counted through multiple NDCs, or reflect “reductions” from artificially high business-as-usual emissions. This afternoon I attended an academic session on designing carbon markets to avoid some of these pitfalls, including a range of interesting ways to test for “additionality”, i.e. whether a project reflects a real reduction in emissions below BAU levels.  (For example, should switching to solar count toward emission reductions even when it’s the lowest-cost option for power generation?) . It’s an incredibly interesting issue where the technical details are extremely important and very political.  I don’t expect we’ll see too much progress this week, but I’ll be watching closely after I get back to see what happens in week 2.

Finally, an easter egg for econ folks was this event hosted by the Indonesia pavilion:

IMG-7241 IMG-7242

Global eminent person Jeffrey Sachs is speaking next Thursday — following up on his talk at Swarthmore in October!  (There’s another global eminent person speaking the day before: H.E. Al Gore.)

COP 25: Brazil? Chile? Spain!

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).

IMG_1308

Extinction Rebellion demonstrating outside of the conference venue
Extinction Rebellion demonstrating outside of the conference venue

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.

COP25 Day 1 WIM, YOUNGO, CAN International, ICCCAD

Hi everyone, I’m really excited to share my week with all of you!

My research topic for COP25 is on the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage (WIM). I am interested in understanding how different actors at the COP are framing the issue of loss and damage. On the first day, I met with the YOUNGO and CAN International Working Groups for Loss and Damage, edited and finalized the YOUNGO opening plenary session speech, and interviewed Saleem Huq, the Director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD), about the consultation he provides for the Least Developed Countries (LDC) on the WIM.

Throughout the rest of the week, I plan to continue working with the CAN and YOUNGO working groups and might help draft a loss and damage policy document for the YOUNGO. Up next for tomorrow, I’ll be meeting with the head negotiator for Loss and Damage from the US State Department.

More of me rambling about my day here: https://vimeo.com/user105825874/review/376910872/c4858b8e19 

COP25: We’re here!

Day 1 is underway in Madrid! We’ll have more later, but just wanted to share the link to the livestream of the US Congressional Delegation’s press conference that should be starting soon: https://unfccc-cop25.streamworld.de/webcast/us-congressional-delegation

I’m waiting outside hoping to get in, but if I don’t I may be joining you watching the video from across the hall here.

COP24: Loading…………………

IMG_20181215_195103

So the conference of parties was supposed to end yesterday with the final plenary starting at 3pm local time. But, as usual, the last session has been drawn out past the initially scheduled time. It was postponed to 6pm then 12am then 4am and currently its 8pm on Saturday with no word of when the plenary will start. I have heard rumors that it may be postponed until tomorrow. In the meantime, the COP Presidency has convened bilaterals between parties to try to work out their differences. The main sticking point I have heard have to do with Article 6 which Brazil is blocking. Article 6 discusses how market-based mechanisms can be used to combat climate change and contribute to parties’ achieving their NDCs. It is now up to the ministers, who have arrived in the last two days, to work out these issues. Many delegates have already left the venue as this is out of their hands.

Unfortunately, if nothing happens within the hour, I may be forced to follow suit and depart the venue without a conclusion to COP24, at least not the best outcome hoped. There will still be a rulebook with some parts incomplete. These incomplete parts have to go through further committees and sessions before the can be incorporated into the rule book which will not be activated until 2020. A source following transparency and NDC implementation told me that they were happy with the outcome of Katowice. A lot has been achieved. But obviously, there is still work to be done before 2020. Chile you’re next!

Correction: According to some YUNGO sources, the Brazil issue has been resolved but now there is a Turkey issue which has yet to be clarified to me.

Pavilions at the COP

If you’re following along with this blog, you might understand by now that there are many different parts to this absolutely huge conference. It’s almost like there are several different conferences going on: the actual negotiations (only some of which are open to observers like us), the official side events (which operate more like a traditional conference), tabling (small exhibit booths near the enormous eating area), and pavilions (more on these below). These different events can be quite far away from each other – it can take 20 minutes during crowded times to walk from one end of the conference center to the other. Also, there are two permanent buildings that house this COP, as well as a complex of temporary structures connecting the areas. I took the below picture right at the start of the temporary structures (which, by the way, are heated, lit, and ventilated) – you can see them extend for quite a ways.

IMG_20181214_115355

The pavilions are located in the temporary structures. Many of them are hosted by countries, though also some NGOs and a few businesses. Most pavilions contain a seating area where the country/organization hosts its own full series of lectures and receptions. Here are pictures of just some of the pavilions – they can be very ornate! Take a look through and pay careful attention to what each group is choosing to highlight about itself.


Austria

Austria


Britain & Northern Ireland

Britain & Northern Ireland 2

Britain & Northern Ireland


European UnionEU

EU 2


Germany

Germany


Gulf Cooperation Council (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar*, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates)

Note: in 2017, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt cut diplomatic ties with Qatar. I’m unclear whether Qatar is still technically in the GCC, but as you’ll see below they actually had their own pavilion.

Gulf countries

Gulf countries 2


IETA (The International Emissions Trading Association)

IETA


India

India 2_resize

India


Indonesia

Indonesia_resize


Nordic countries

Nordic countries


Fiji & New Zealand

Pacific countries


Poland

Poland 4

Poland 3

Poland

Poland 2


Qatar

As mentioned above, Qatar was not included in the GCC pavilion.

Qatar


Qazaqstan

Qazaqstan


Russia

Russia


Senegal

Senegal


South Africa

South Africa


South Korea

South Korea


Thailand

Thailand

Thailand 2


Turkey

Turkey

Turkey 2


WWF/#WeAreStillIn

The US does not have an official pavilion this year (take a wild guess why), but instead the #WeAreStillIn network borrowed the WWF “Panda Hub” for three or four days mid-COP. It looked to me like they actually repainted this wall!

WWF  USA

Time is running out

The COP presidency posted new text (144 pages!) at 3 a.m. this morning, with a slightly revised text posted at 10:15. The closing plenary was originally scheduled for noon; it’s been pushed back until 3 p.m. Old COP hands in RINGO are betting on 7pm or Saturday as an actual time. Evidently, the press has already been told that they need to re-apply for badges (observers’ badges will be extended, but the press have a lot of equipment, so they are treated differently).

IMG-9078

Here in Katowice, the crossing lights are a steady green with a steady beeping sound when it’s safe to cross; when time is running out, the green man starts blinking and the rhythm of the beeps changes to a galloping sound: da da dum, da da dum, da da dum. I feel as if we should be at the galloping stage, because that red light is coming.

IMG-9077