End of week 2 reflections

As I sit in the Madrid airport, I reflect over the last two weeks and wonder if anything productive will come out of COP25. The negotiations continue for at least today, but I must get back home.

 
Some countries still think that we have plenty of time to figure things out (or to continue to ignore the climate change issue), despite the "time is running out" theme that was evident in the interventions of political leaders from cities to the head of the U.N., business leaders, youth, environmental organizations, and even scientists who are typically not prone to cries of urgency. The Emissions Gap report released in November provided a bleak picture of the state of greenhouse gas emissions especially when considered in context of the warnings provided in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C warming (above pre-industrial levels).

One of the strongest voices at COP25 and Time Magazine Person of the Year

If the draft text of the working groups is maintained by the Parties, there will be recognition, for the first time, of the critical importance of the oceans as an integral part of the Earth's climate system for both mitigation and adaptation. Despite alarming reports from the World Health Organization (see also the 2018 report) and the Lancet (a leading, well respected medical journal) that describe the negative health impacts of climate change and from air pollution released during the burning of fossil fuels, human health continues to be notably absent from any COP text except for vague references to human safety.

There do appear to be some advances in working out details for financing mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund, but little agreement has been reached on regulation of carbon markets.

The Paris Agreement developed in 2015 was for climate action post 2020. There was supposed to be additional work on pre-2020 action, but given that 2020 is less a month away, that article is essentially obsolete.

There was much discussion this week over the effectiveness of the UN process given that it was established in 1992 and there have been 25 annual conference of the parties, but little progress in solving climate change. I heard sharp criticism about the process from both former Secretary of State, John Kerry, and Jonathan Pershing, the former Special Envoy for Climate Change from the State Department and chief negotiator for the U.S. delegation. But while both argued that the real action is going to come at the local and regional (sub-national levels) and from the private sector, they also felt that it is important to keep countries talking as a reminder of the serious nature of this global issue.

Johnathan Pershing on the right

John Kerry

The Research and Independent NGOs, one of nine officially recognized constituencies of observer groups within the UNFCCC, has the opportunity to draft statements (interventions) for key plenary sessions throughout the COP. Because this group doesn’t advocate for any special position other than having evidence-based policy making, our statements are typically subdued or even bland. For whenever the COP closing plenary is, here is the statement that I drafted for this year:

The RINGOs would like to start by expressing appreciation for the Chilean COP Presidency’s recognition of the importance of “putting science at the center of COP25”, as the Minister noted on December 5th. We also applaud the first-ever virtual meeting of country science ministers held on Dec 4th in conjunction with the COP. 

A vast amount of relevant research data has been collected over the past several decades. Through 25 years of COPs, plentiful technical solutions for mitigation and adaptation as well as finance and market mechanisms have been developed, linking research with innovation at private and public levels. As has been said by many at COP25, it is now time to put research and the agreements into ACTION. 

RINGOs welcome the outcomes of COP25, but we urge all of us to continue to play a role in operationalizing and implementing the details of the Paris Agreement back home. Amid all of the technical discussions, the political processes, and acronyms, we must not forget to humanize climate change, and to help people better understand the implications of climate change for their own well-being as well as for the world around them. Through capacity building, we must give people the tools and empowerment to address climate change in their communities. We must push together so that no actor rests for a moment. 

The research community stands ready to serve as knowledge brokers to explain the regional relevance of the scientific evidence and COP decisions in our home communities and countries. We are also prepared to help the transformation of knowledge into day-to-day practice. The RINGOs encourage the private and public sectors to engage in climate action and move to a more circular economy, both in their work and in their local communities. We call for all stakeholders to become involved in promoting and applying science-based climate solutions. 

In conclusion, the RINGOs would like to express our sincere and deepest gratitude to the Governments and people of Chile and Spain for pulling together COP25 in such a short time. This was a good example of how the global north and south can come together and accomplish a great task - a metaphor for what we all now need to do to advance the provisions of the Paris Agreement and COP25.

With 2020 only 20 days away, subnational actors must be part of the equation

At the COP25 in Madrid, there is an emphasis on the role subnational actors can and should play in emissions reductions. According to Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), cities, for example, account for 80% of global GDP and 70% of emissions, and yet 90% of emissions from cities can be reduced with current technology. To raise ambition, countries should work with subnational partners to achieve Paris Agreement targets and Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This is especially relevant as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement are up for renewal in 2020.

The Mayor of Bonn, Germany and ICLEI President, Ashok Sridharan, acknowledged the urgent nature of the problem, as highlighted by our youth taking to the streets. Bonn has pledged climate neutrality no later than 2035 and has identified more than 300 measures to enhance climate action that will be presented to their city council in the near future. Close to 300 cities have declared climate neutrality, and with the 50^th anniversary of Earth Day around the corner, ICLEI asserts that now is the time for more cities to make this commitment.  

Turku, Finland, has innovative programs that have attracted international attention. Minna Arve, the Mayor of Turku, said they are transitioning to renewable energy by 2025, are phasing out coal, and have committed to longer-term goals so that there will be political continuity. They are taking strides towards a circular economy by setting goals to become waste-free and have developed a platform to involve large and small businesses and universities.  

The Mayors of Recife, Brazil, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania discussed ways that cities can contribute to climate action despite lack of federal support. Recife has pledged neutrality by 2050 with significant action by 2030, and an integration of climate change into the school curriculum, which, by its nature, informs and engages families. Pittsburgh has focused on rebuilding the city in a post-industrial era, with an emphasis on technology and a P4 policy that tax-funded projects must address all four economic standards of people, planet, place, and performance.

The private sector also has a significant role to play in increasing ambition towards Paris Agreement targets and Sustainable Development Goals.  British Telecommunications is one of the first companies to set a 1.5°C goal and has pledged net zero by 2045 and an 80% reduction in emissions by 2030. They have invested in renewable energy, are transitioning to an electric fleet, and have created smart apps for transport to reduce wasted emissions (and time) spent searching for parking. They require their suppliers to reduce emissions and have thereby found that buyers have considerable power and send critical demand signals to the market. Through their combined efforts, they saved 11.7 million tons of carbon last year.

The Coalition for Urban Transitions recently launched a report Climate Emergency, Urban Opportunity (link) that involved more than 50 partners. It emphasizes that investments now will yield benefits that exceed costs. Cities will be cheaper to build and operate and tens of millions of jobs will be created with green innovation.

The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy also had a strong showing at the COP. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg spoke of the impending paradigm shift that should be all-inclusive and leave no one behind. He said if we don’t shape it, something else (i.e., the climate) will. It was also discussed that cities present the biggest challenges to climate action and sustainability but also the biggest opportunities.

In addition to their critical role in emissions reductions, the Global Environmental Facility, a Fund established in 1992 to help address environmental problems of global significance, has found that cities are ideal for pilot projects and new program incubation. However, collaboration with federal and state governments is needed for efficient implementation. As an example, to reduce emissions in the transportation sector, federal governments can establish vehicle efficiency standards, state and regional governments can establish electric vehicle charging networks, and local governments can create and enact zoning regulations for walkable communities. With COP25 Chile-Madrid the last COP before 2020, and indeed, with 2020 a mere 20 days away, this is the right moment for increased ambition and collaboration at national and subnational levels.

Is Higher Education Playing a Leading Role in Climate Action? Part I.

The report “Higher Education’s Role in Adapting to a Changing Climate” was prepared in 2011 by the Higher Education Climate Adaptation Committee—a group of experts and institutional leaders in the United States—that is convened and coordinated by Second Nature in support of the American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). Although it is a bit dated by this point, the report does include a relevant list of things that higher education should be considering in terms of climate action. While at COP25, I have been thinking a lot about this list as prompts for series of blog posts. In the first of this series, I will focus on a quote from the Executive Summary of that report:

Higher education has taken a leadership role in climate mitigation — that is, preventing climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

In 2006, twelve college and university presidents initiated ACUPCC and eventually, hundreds of institutions signed on to a commitment in which they were to a) develop a plan to achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible; b) complete an comprehensive inventory of all greenhouse gas emissions associated with the institution; and c) make the action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available. Jennie Stephens, from Northeastern’s School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs is an expert in the social-political aspects of renewable energy transformation. Writing in The Conversation in 2018, Dr. Stephens argues that climate advocacy “has become well established on US campuses over the past decade,” with over 600 schools signing the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment.

To date, now thirteen years after the formation of ACUPCC, there are 6 signatory institutions that have achieved carbon neutrality according to Second Nature. Others plan to achieve this milestone by either 2025 or 2050 (but so do at least six states). Some campuses have been engaged in energy efficiency initiatives, either through new construction of LEED certified buildings or simply as a cost savings measure. Some institutions simply participate in mandatory demand response programs to curtail electrical use at critical times (e.g. during a heat wave) to minimize the chance of an electrical blackout. In the same article referenced above, Dr. Stephens noted that as of 2018, only 150 campuses globally had committed to divest their holdings in fossil fuel companies, and only about one-third of those are in the U.S.

Given these numbers, I would argue that overall, institutions of higher education are not demonstrating strong climate action leadership. There are exceptions of course (Monash University in Australia comes to mind). But given the research and innovation that universities are typically known for, we can and should be doing better, especially given the urgency needed to address climate change as outlined in the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report Global Warming of 1.5 °C and strongly reiterated in the special reports the IPCC published this year on Climate Change and Land and on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

These signs are seen frequently around the COP25 venue

~~ 

The Executive Summary from the 2011 report that I referenced at the start of this post notes that “campuses face direct risks to their operations and infrastructure from the impacts of climate disruption,” and thus, have the unique opportunity to role-model solutions in their own operations. Earlier today, I attended the 10th World Climate Summit that is held annually in conjunction with the COPs. While this is very much a business and investment-focused event, I went to a session entitled “Physical Climate Risk and Response” hosted by McKinsey & Company, a global management consulting firm. In a small group exercise, they asked attendees to consider the four questions in the screen shot below.

Discussion questions posed during a session hosted by McKinsey & Company

These seem like important questions for all institutions (including higher education) to be asking; I am curious as to how people at my campus would respond. One of the points made by the facilitators of this session was that climate risk should be integrated into the risk management framework of any organization. Thus, these questions seem like important ones for each campus to be asking as part of their own risk management. Without good answers to these questions, it would be difficult for an institution to take on one of the recommendations from the 2011 ACUPCC report where the authors suggested that higher education could also "serve as ‘hubs’ in their local communities for creating, testing, and disseminating knowledge about regional climate projections and adaptation strategies, and should work directly with their local communities to explain the science and implement solutions."

COP25 from the Moravian College student perspective

Greetings from COP25! With so many different panels and presentations to choose from, it is difficult to focus on just one, but for this post I will elaborate upon one of my favorites thus far. The Bangladesh Pavilion hosted an event that consisted of three presentations and a panel, followed by a brief discussion. The overarching theme of the three presentations was the importance of universities as knowledge brokers and the issues that university researchers face when sharing their work, especially on climate change. David Lewis began the series of presentations by delving into his current research project which he is conducting through his own university (London School of Economics) and three other partnering universities; one other in the Global North and two in the Global South. Shababa Haque and Feisal Rahman from the Independent University of Bangladesh followed with concurring presentations. The diversity of the research partners gives light to the differences experienced by university faculty researchers in various parts of the world, though the flow of knowledge has been shifting from North to South to a more balanced sharing of ideas. The preliminary conclusion reached by Lewis is that universities are underutilized as knowledge brokers as the research conducted in these institutions often remains in an “ivory tower.” This is problematic because valuable research, such as that on climate change, does not adequately reach the world of public policy, which includes not only government officials, but civil society and businesses as well. All three presentations touched on the importance of researchers engaging in policy so that it is science, not politics, that leads policy changes. And now to you Carter…

…Thanks Hannah. These presentations about higher education and the impact it can have on policy gave way to a discussion panel consisting of three experts in their respected fields about the importance of knowledge dissemination. The experts discussed how the lowest income countries place a higher value on education as opposed to higher income countries; the United States has no mention of education in their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC). The panel then went on to describe how scientific jargon can muddle laymen’s understanding of complex topics, thus leading to insufficient public policy. This links back to the knowledge contained in the ivory tower as in-depth scientific conclusions currently require higher education to fully comprehend the severity of their implications. As of now, the status quo remains that policy drives scientific exploration as opposed to the desired inverse of data driven policy. If this were the case, the panel suggested that recent college graduates could be the ones to take the jargon from the experienced scientific community and properly convey the complex information in an adequate and pertinent manner as to effectively implement necessary policy changes. Another proposed solution by the panel members was the weaving and braiding of indigenous methodologies into Eurocentric practices as a way to quell and remedy both social and environmental challenges. Indigenous societies possess traditional knowledge which is beneficial to a balanced flow of information and the scientific and public policy communities can learn from this model. Overall, much is still needed to be done in order to strike a balance between the knowledge known and the knowledge gathered, thus ushering us into a new era: an era where policy is governed by the most informed, not those who scream the loudest.

Climate XXXX Emergency

Climate Change Emergency

Once you get off the subway station at the conference venue, you are met with the texts “Climate Emergency” and “#TimeForAction.”  Statistics are listed to support this claim, including melting glaciers, desertification and climate migration.  Last week, in advance of COP 25, the European Parliament adopted a resolution to declare a “climate emergency,” calling for a European Green Deal.  As we were reminded in the opening ceremony, the world has allowed too much time to elapse, and rather than decreasing emissions by 3.3%/year (if we had started a decade ago), we have increased emissions by 1.5%/year.  The recent UNEP emissions gap report claims that we are aiming for a 3.2C increase by 2100 — if countries succeed with their current pledges for decreasing emissions.  The countries, particularly the G20 countries that account for 78% of emissions, need to be much more ambitious if we are to keep the temperature rise to under 2C.  So, there is a palpable change in the negotiations — transformation change is required, and many are talking about the climate emergency.  Yet, from all of the science and impacts we are already seeing, I wonder how long it will take for the COP to recognize a climate crisis?  It seems the time has come for a shift in our language, ambition, and action.