Swarthmore at COP29

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.

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 

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.

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.

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.

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

---

Britain & Northern Ireland

---

European Union

---

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.

---

IETA (The International Emissions Trading Association)

---

India

---

Indonesia

---

Nordic countries

---

Fiji & New Zealand

---

Poland

---

Qatar

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

---

Qazaqstan

---

Russia

---

Senegal

---

South Africa

---

South Korea

---

Thailand

---

Turkey

---

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!

  

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).

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.

COP24 has been a crazy experience. Diplomacy at work is sometimes undiplomatic. Below are some quotes that I heard/read at some events.

1. “Now that we are done with the skit”, we can move on to our speakers for today. – Moderator Wells Griffith in a side event titled “US innovative technologies spur economic dynamism” on December 10 after protestors were escorted out.

The side event was heavily anticipated by COP24 attendees who had to line up to enter the event. The room was packed way before the event was supposed to start. There was a heavy security presence because an Action (a demand/protest) was organized for the side event. While waiting outside the room, I could hear “shame on you” and “keep them in the ground” being chanted inside. Those of us outside joined in. After the protestors were escorted out by security, the doors opened again, and I was able to enter the room to hear the panelists.

2. Our goal is “to improve the resiliency, efficiency, and competitiveness of coal fire plants” …. “The question is: do we continue using old coal technology used in the 1970s or move forward with new technologies which will be near-zero emitting?” – Steve Winberg, assistant director at the US Department of Energy speaking at the same panel as above on December 10.

Winberg was clearly facing difficulty defending his position supporting coal industries. When someone from the audience asked him why the Department thinks it is necessary to reduce emissions from coal plants when Trump has been calling climate change a hoax, he went on to talk about how we are privileged because we don’t use wood and fire to cook like people do in many other countries, and that we are not appreciative of our privilege. It was completely unrelated. Since he’d been on the job for a year, he had worked to make the coal industry more efficient, and since nobody had told him to do otherwise, he would continue.

3. “The sun does not shine 24 hours a day. Wind is not available 24 hours a day. But you can get enough LNG [Liquified Natural Gas] in a few minutes.” A spokesperson from Sempra Energy speaking at the same event as mentioned above on December 10.

There’s nothing more to say.

4. “I’m warning all of our people here that if you let this go, then it signals that we are mitigation-centric. We need to signal that we are supporting more adaptation.” – Delegate of Saudi Arabia on including the 1.5 C Special Report on the guidelines for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) on December 11.

Saudi Arabia was being difficult in the meeting to draft the guidelines for GCF. He went on to say that the committee does not understand what they are doing by trying to include a mention of the 1.5 C Special Report in paragraph 7, so the Saudis have to enlighten them. They made the effort to block the mention of the IPCC report wherever they could.

5. “…and together, we can proceed to be more resilient, along with the SDGs… I really don’t know what they are… to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.” – President of Maldives in his speech at a side event about “Loss and Damage and the SAMOA strategy for 2030” on December 12.

The Pavilion erupted with giggles when the president said this sentence. I wasn’t sure if he said it as a joke or whether he really did not know what SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) are. He then went on the reference the “IPPC” report twice and also said “I’ve been told to read from a statement, but I really don’t want to do that. Anyway, I guess I have to return to it” in the middle of his speech. The next day, however, the President of Maldives called on all parties to support the IPCC 1.5 C Special Report on behalf of all small island states, so I suppose his statements the previous day were for giggles…

6. “Yes, this is a manel, not a panel. We should consider that.” — Moderator of a panel on “New Adaptation approaches in the age of the SDGs” in the Japanese Pavilion on December 13.

In the Q&A, one participant raised the point that there were five men on a panel about local adaptation projects, when, in fact, women tend to be actively involved in the household, farming, or other work as breadwinners. This point is especially true in rural areas in developing countries since men often migrate to urban areas in search for better economic opportunities. One of the panelists explained that their adaptation projects address gender imbalances in rural areas and include women in implementing adaptation projects. It was unfortunate that there were no women in the panel, but it wasn’t the panelists who organized the event.

7. “Our partners are smart. Partners. Not me. And not even you.” Adau from Timor Leste, leading the discussions on Loss and Damage (L&D) on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), December 14.

It was a grim moment for the LDCs knowing that there’s no finance being discussed for L&D in the Katowice text currently being renegotiated at the time of writing. The developed countries are completely trying to scrap away L&D according to Adau, they kept pushing discussion on this issue until finance came up under Articles 9.5 and 9.7 last night, and they’re attempting to merge the issue under adaptation. But the reality is that L&D requires at least double the amount of money that has been allocated for adaptation so far. Adau left the room early to return to negotiating with other countries. A gentleman from Bangladesh mentioned that his country is attempting to pilot a 2-year loss and damage national mechanism, which was a ray of hope.

On Wednesday, former US Vice President Al Gore spoke in one of the plenary rooms. Apparently he does this every year, and he didn’t present particularly novel information, but it was still very neat to see him up close.

Also fun was to be able to seat in the delegate seats. I ended up at the Kingdom of Lesotho. There was a bit of confusion around my seat halfway through the talk – delegates from Lesotho came to sit there, were surprised to find other people, and were told by a security guard before I fully understood what was going on that seating had been opened to all. Luckily, there was room for the delegates to sit down next to me and we had a friendly, whispered conversation about the famous Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth. They also shared the below flyer with me.

Back to Gore’s presentation, here are some extremely sobering and occasionally encouraging facts that he shared:

Above: The energy trapped by man-made global warming pollution is now “…equivalent to exploding 500,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year.” James Hansen, Former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Above: Graphic showing increased deviation (between 2005-2015) from the mean of the frequency of unusual temperature occurrences. Baseline is from (but I’m unsure because it’s blurry) 1951-1990. Graph shows in particular increased warmer than average days as compared to baseline. 

Above: One June 26-27, 2018, Quriyat, Oman set a world record for the hottest overnight low temperature ever recorded: 42.6C (108.7F). The town remained above 41.6C for 51 hours.

Above: The jet stream is becoming “wavier”. Steeper troughs and higher ridges mean weather systems progress more slowly, raising the chances for long-duration extreme events, like droughts, floods, and heat waves.

Above: A recent national survey shows that 69% of Polish citizens favor a phaseout of coal by 2030.

Above: Enough solar energy reaches Earth every hour to fill all the world’s energy needs for a full year.

 

Planetary Boundaries

Speaking of famous white dudes, I also had a chance to see a brief presentation by Johan Rockstrom, a very well-known climate scientist who leads research on the ‘planetary boundaries’.

Rockstrom said that there are three key climate facts:

1. We are living in a new geological era, the Anthropocene.
2. The Holocene is the only period that we know for certain can support sustainable societies (i.e., meet the SDGs), so we need to get the Earth back to those characteristics.
3. However, ecosystems can be shifted irreversibly by breaching tipping points – and so we might not be able to get back to the Holocene.

The time to act must be now, he says – and the SDGs are the framework to use to get there. Finally, he advocates for people (researchers, policymakers, etc.) to not pick and choose SDGs to focus on, but instead to see them all as an inseparable package.

Here are two young people adding their voices to the Talanoa Call for Action:

How might you add your voices?

Jonathan Watts of the Guardian published an article Thursday about using the term global heating instead of global warming.

It was interesting to read this article because I was in the audience for the side event when Watts asked Richard Betts a question about global heating. This was the sequence: an observer? an activist, perhaps from Italy or Spain? asked “Hans Joachim Schellnhuber” (as Watts called him, though on the panel he was called more simply “John” and he noted that he had spent many years working in the UK) whether activists using the term global heating were supported by the evidence. Schellnhuber promptly took responsibility for the term, stating that he and his colleagues had used the term “hothouse earth” in their paper in PNAS, and that this might have sparked laypeople’s use of the term global heating. Heating, said Schellnhuber, was a more accurate term than warming.

After an intervening question or two, Jonathan Watts asked Richard Betts whether he agreed with Schellnhuber; Betts confirmed that he thought “heating” was a better term, because the energy systems of the earth were changing. That became the subtitle of the Guardian article, with an eminently British image focused on the British heatwave of this past summer.

Was Watts wanting to amplify the voice of southern European activists via the authority of the UK Met office? Was he wanting to credit a local boy (UK Met office) rather than a German scientists (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research)? Did he just want to give Richard Betts some attention in a panel where almost all the questions went to Schellnhuber? I’m just curious–but I was fascinated to see this kind of journalistic intervention in action.