A reflection on week 1 of COP24: Hope or a Collective Face Palm?

In my previous post from the beginning of COP 24, I noted the buzz around the venue and talked about settling into the familiar routine. A part of that routine is the enthusiasm as delegates gather at the opening plenary session on the first Monday of every COP. During these sessions, the host country typically showcases both culture and examples of what it is doing to address the problem at hand. The celebration of sorts is followed by a series of troop-rallying speeches given by dignitaries. Hope for a productive COP runs high.

This year, one of the high-level speakers was U.N. Secretary General António Guterres who started his comments by saying that "we are in deep trouble" and noting that in some places around the world, "climate change is already a matter of life or death." Despite this somber message, I was encouraged that he presented a clear understanding of the scientific details of climate change and its impacts and that he outlined key steps needed to address this global challenge. Importantly, Guterres countered the argument that addressing climate change is an economic burden by providing specific examples of co-benefits of climate action including improved health, decreased loss of life, job creation, and empowerment of youth and women. In his vision, addressing global climate change could lead to a better future for all. What was lacking, in his view, was not science or technological fixes, but rather, political will and farsighted leadership. I found a spark of hope in hearing a global leader of this stature present such a strong and informed commentary.

U.N. Secretary General Guterres at the opening plenary of COP 24

Perhaps more surprising and encouraging were the remarks of Kristalina Georgieva, the current chief executive officer of the World Bank: "When I read the newest report [referring to the IPCC special report], all I could think of was the person I love the most, my 8-year old granddaughter." The emotion was clear in her voice as she announced plans for the World Bank to significantly increase their investments ($200 billion over 5 years) in order to help countries "undertake ambition" towards adaptation and building resilience. [1] A commitment of funding for climate resilience and a prominent leader unafraid to show fear and emotion on an international stage were additional reasons for hope entering into COP 24.

World Bank CEO, Kristalina Georgieva, at the COP 24 opening plenary

During their comments, the various dignitaries from Poland used phrases like "Man, Nature, and Technology" and balancing emissions with sinks. They spoke of the need for a just transition from "black to green" or "honing lumps of coal into diamonds." But they also spoke of the need to (sigh) use coal in an "environmentally friendly manner." That is analogous to the "clean coal" mantra we hear in the U.S. Note: there is no such thing as clean coal, and I have yet to learn of an extractive industry that is environmentally friendly. Time for the face palm. I wish there was an emoji for that.

~~~~

The days at a COP can be hectic and long: following various negotiation tracks, attending side events which are typically very educational, and and chatting with other delegates about a wide range of topics. The days can also be exhausting. Most nights this week, I found that I was too tired to write coherently. On top of this, during week 1, there seemed to be little progress in the negotiations and a lot of disturbing news ranging from the latest science which shows things might be much worse than we thought to rumors that the Parties are backsliding on a number of critical issues. Perhaps that is why it has been difficult to provide updates on this blog.

COP 24 was billed over the past year as "Paris 2.0" largely because this meeting represents the deadline set by the Parties to finalize what is known as the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP). In other words, by the end of this conference, negotiators need to design and agree on the details required to operationalize the 2015 Paris Agreement. Signing and ratifying an agreement doesn't guarantee implementation.

A graphic from the World Wildlife Fund

In Katowice, essentially every issue under the PAWP is under negotiation. Interestingly, some main focus areas from this week related to reporting and time frames: Parties must submit or update their post-2020 actions, their nationally determined contributions (NDCs), at five-year intervals. Essentially, these represent a country's plans (and hopefully actions) to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other mitigation measures to control global warming. Parties have to agree on what specific data and measures these reports should include, where they are submitted to (What would an NDC registry look like? Who is going to oversee this?), and means for accountability/verification (Can we trust each other?). Emission reductions are often expressed as a % reduction in GHG emissions relative to some baseline year. Negotiators will argue what year that should be and whether it has to be the same for every country. They also should agree on common start dates for implementation. If we are to understand progress towards an overall reduction of emissions and the ultimate goal of keeping the global temperature increase to less than 2°C (for a global stocktake every five years), common time frames and consistency in reporting methods are important. [2]

As a scientist, I roll my eyes at these political issues, especially given the indisputable fact that current intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are insufficient to keep the planetary warming below the 2°C. Additionally, the recent IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5°C clearly tells us that the 2°C target is the wrong one, and that if we hope to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change, we don't have a lot of time to waste. One IPCC author said this week that the media focus on 12 years to save the planet is the wrong one. Rather, he said, "we have 12 months to begin saving the planet." For a scientist to express such urgency is something to take note of. And yet the Parties spent the week arguing over post-2020 actions, not what needs to be done now.

Pardon my impatience, but the Paris Agreement is now 3 years old. This is the 3rd COP since that historic agreement was achieved and there have been many intersessional meetings and ongoing negotiations. Recognizing that we needed a "rulebook" by the end of COP 24 and that negotiations were far from meeting that target, Parties met in Bangkok in September 2018. A 307-page document was the outcome from that session. Over this first week of COP 24, all of the Convention bodies were opened: COP24, CMP 14, CMA 1 - 3, SBSTA 49, SBI 49, and all 7 tracks under APA. (I know, all of that alphabet soup; I will only note that APA stands for Advancing the Paris Agreement.) Throw into the mix a very controversial workstream, the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage or WIM in which Parties are trying to agree on whether industrialized nations are responsible for damages caused by climate change, especially damage in poor and developing nations. The number of negotiation meetings is staggering and it is impossible for any individual to keep track of all that is happening (or not happening).


However, thanks to several organizations and observers who divide and conquer by sending representatives to the various sessions in order to keep track of all the simultaneous commotion, there are several good daily bulletins and newsletters that summarize what is happening in negotiations and elsewhere at the COP. I will try to boil it down in simplistic terms. When the COP opened on Sunday (a day earlier than it was supposed to), it took hours for Parties to simply agree on the agenda for the week since several countries indicated that they had "special needs" or "special circumstances" (aka political maneuvering). The COP President somehow got everyone back on track, after a few hours of delay, to approve the agenda so work could actually begin. Five days later, the text was shortened to less than 100 pages from the 307 page version that the Parties started with. But many observers from civil society were angry since references to human rights, gender equity, etc. had been removed. The Paris Agreement contains an actual gender action plan article; human rights are only mentioned in the non-legally binding preamble. By late in the day on Friday, none of the Convention bodies (the alphabet soup) noted above had closed. In other words, the work that was supposed to completed by the end of week 1 before the high level country ministers arrive, was not done. Co-chairs of the various groups were sent off to work overnight to develop revised text by Saturday a.m. for Parties to review and try to reach consensus on. When I left the venue last night, Kuwait had essentially walked out, Saudi Arabia was continuing to try to nix much of the text, including any references to a 1.5°C target. I have yet to hear whether the various co-chairs have had any success in their difficult task of trying to reconcile different country positions. 


Meanwhile, the press was reporting that emissions of carbon dioxide reached an all time high in 2018 (410 ppm). At this juncture, hope that climate change can be "solved" on the international stage seems to be quickly fading.

[1] Another take on the announcement by the World Bank: F. Harvey. World Bank to invest $200bn to combat climate change. The Guardian (online), December 3, 2018.

[2] If you would like a more detailed analysis of what is needed for the rulebook to operationalize the Paris Agreement, I would suggest this analysis by the World Resources Institute: Dagnet, Y. and N. Cogswell, At COP24 in Poland, Negotiators Must Lay Down Ground Rules for the Paris Agreement, November 28, 2018.