Anger, activism, action and oh yes, the U.S. is back!

I was involved in a lively discussion over the weekend with students and others about Greta and whether her anger and negativism about the COP is helping or hurting the climate movement. I totally understand the frustration and anger of the youth, but as someone who has been following climate change science for decades and attending the COPs since 2009, my perspective on progress is perhaps a bit different. The official deliberations that take place at the COPs send strong signals to markets and the private sector. Both innovative advancements in clean energy and the major drop in the pricing of solar and wind over the past decade have been remarkable. According to comments made by John Kerry and Al Gore here at the COP, in the past year, 90% of the electricity that came online globally was from clean, renewable sources. Numerous corporations publicly display sustainability and climate change goals on their websites, and most have hired a sustainability director and sometimes a full team within the organization. Pressure to do so has come from consumers and from the board room. While the political maneuvering and the slow pace of international decision-making can be frustrating, I sincerely believe that these COP sessions keep pressure on governments and the private sector to continue their work towards critical climate action.

After the absence of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement for a few years under the last administration, and therefore, our relative inaction in the climate sphere, including at the COPs, the proverbial eyes of the world are on us now. What is particularly obvious to those of us on the ground in Glasgow is that the U.S. is here in full force: in the negotiation sessions, at high level events, at the U.S. Pavilion (which didn’t exist for a few years), and at the U.S. Climate Action Center.

Gina McCarthy was the head of the EPA under the Obama Administration and now serves as the first White House National Climate Advisor under U.S. President Joe Biden. I had heard her speak at conferences in the past and was always impressed. So when I had the opportunity to participate in a small group roundtable discussion with her last week, I was pretty excited.

Gina McCarthy at the U.S. Climate Action Center

She began her comments by claiming how the U.S. is back in the Paris Agreement, noting that we are not yet back as the leaders we once were. She admitted that we need to demonstrate strong actions both domestically and here at the COP to rebuild trust after the last administration. She spoke of Biden’s commitment to the addressing climate change and to people; indeed, he “views the climate issue as a people issue.” The national climate task force was established Day 1 of the Biden administration and McCarthy chairs the monthly meetings. If you haven’t read it, the January 27th 2021 Executive Order on tackling climate change provides detailed charges to the members of the cabinet. In fact, according to McCarthy, all cabinet members are charged to think about climate change "even if it is not in their job description." She stressed the new focus on both inter-agency cooperation and the need for intergovernmental work between the federal level and local and tribal governing bodies.

McCarthy and several other high-ranking officials from the U.S. have mentioned indigenous rights, human rights, and environmental justice. McCarthy even acknowledged concerns about the potential impact of Article 6 (of the Paris Agreement) on treaty lands of indigenous people. These topics have not been discussed by the U.S. officials so openly in the past. McCarthy also referred to a number of announcements that will be made at the COP, a forthcoming sustainability executive order from President Biden, and the opportunities for youth through the Climate Conservation Corps.

Besides McCarthy, there are a high number of cabinet level and other high-ranking officials from the U.S. here: 

- John Kerry, former Secretary of State, now serving as the first United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, has been doing a number of talks and giving announcements about what the U.S. is doing and plans to do going forward. Last Friday, he held a press conference provide updates on the COP.

See some coverage here and here.

- Jennifer Granholm, former governor of Michigan, is now Secretary of Energy and a leader in the Mission Innovation initiative. 

See some coverage here.

- Deb Halland, Secretary of the Department of Interior, is getting a lot of coverage; see examples here, here and here. Given the strong focus of civil society on indigenous rights and traditional knowledge, this is not surprising.

- Samantha Power, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (joined virtually in week 1, coming for week 2).

- Rachel Levine, admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, and U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health participated in an all-day Global Climate and Health conference over the weekend that was held in Glasgow and virtually.

- Antony J. Blinken Secretary of State opened the U.S. Center in week 1 and it is worth reading his comments from that ceremony.

- Secretary of the Treasury, Janet L. Yellen provided remarks on “Delivering Finance for Emerging Markets and Developing Economies.” 

In total, 8 cabinet members and 5 other senior administrative officials are scheduled to be in Glasgow. This is in addition to President Biden who was here for the first few days of week 1 to attend the World Leaders Summit and former President Obama who is “in the house” on day 1 of week 2. 

Other officials scheduled to be at COP26 include: 

- Pete Buttigieg, Transportation 

- Michael Regan, EPA Administrator 

- Tom Vilsack, Agriculture Secretary 

- Rick Spinrad, NOAA Administrator 

- Eric Lander, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director

- Brian Deese, the National Economic Council director

To date, announcements relating to methane reductions, reductions in GHG emissions from health care sector including hospitals and pharmaceutical and biomedical device industries, funds for adaptation and resilience, and international assistance have been made. There may be others, but it is difficult to keep up with all the activity with so many negotiation threads, side events, and off-site events occurring at any one time.

Immediately prior to the COP, G20 leaders pledged to end financing for international coal plants by the end of this year. However, there was no movement on ending the domestic use of coal power. It is worth noting, however, that back in 2019, the G20 agreed on the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, but later, backpedaled on this. (See also here.)

Given the data and language of urgency in the latest report of the IPCC (AR6), it is important to hold these officials accountable to the promises they are making on the international stage. At this point of the COP, unlike Greta, I am not ready to call this COP a failure. Rather, I am encouraged to see the strong U.S. presence and hear how articulate the officials are about the wide range of relevant issues, including pathways to a net-zero, or at least a low-carbon future.

Global Collaboration Leads to New Horizons

 As I wrap up my week in Glasgow, I found myself reflecting back on my time spent at Moravian. Not really knowing where exactly I wanted my career to lead to, I found myself registering for my final semester at the end of the Fall 2020 semester. I was torn between really just being exhausted from having to make the abrupt adaptation to a whole new learning system and quite frankly just wanting to get the degree over with, or expanding my horizons in hopes of finding a better sense of direction. But we'll get back to that in just a second. 

That same semester [Fall 2020], I had decided to take the Climate Negotiations course that was offered, which is taught by both Dr. Husic and Dr. Binford, both of which are here with me at the COP26. The course taught quite literally what is in the name, negotiations about climate science and policy on different levels, along with additional topics. One week specifically, we had a guest speaker call-in to our class [via zoom] to speak about the cryosphere and how the specifics of the topic related to the class. Dr. Heïdi Sevestre, a French glaciologist who specializes in the dynamics of glaciers in the polar regions, while also spends time to focus on the interface of science-policy and communication. I was particularly looking forward to her talk, and I specifically remember being so intrigued by the topic that I went up to Dr. Husic after class ended to ask for her email. I was specifically interested in learning more about the mountain-building events in Antarctica. The rest sort of just fell into place from there; we contacted back and forth for quite some time after that, largely just sending scientific articles about Antarctica. 

Backtracking to the first paragraph - when it came time to register for classes for my final semester at Moravian, I hit quite the roadblock after finding out that I could not get a seat in a geology course at one of the neighboring universities. Upon discussion with Dr. Husic, she asked if I would have interest in doing an independent study. Knowing that I had a particular interest in geology and really enjoyed Dr. Sevestre's talk about glaciology, she suggested that I reach out to her to see if she would be willing to facilitate an independent study. I remember feeling quite intimidated by the thought of it, but I took the shot and reached out. Shortly after, she responded quite enthusiastically and shared that she thought that was a fantastic idea, and wanted to set up a video conference to begin discussing the specifics. We chose the project to surround an introduction to glacial and geomorphological mapping [of Gandbreen, a surge-type glacier located on Edgeøya, one of the islands in Svalbard, Norway). This would involve both an introduction to glaciology, but also a concurrent introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technologies [I was taking the Moravian GIS course at the same time]. Going into the project, I knew very little on glaciology and absolutely nothing about GIS. So, I considered her to be my instructor in both glaciology and the geomorphological mapping aspects of GIS.

Dr. Sevestre would give me a chapter to read a week and we would touch base [remotely via zoom] every Friday to go over any questions I had, and to instruct me on the specifics to get ball rolling on the mapping aspect of the project. The project took off quite quickly, and the mapping portion of the project was done by the midterm-point of the semester. At that point, I knew practically all there is to know about surge-type glaciers. It was also at that point that I knew that this was my calling; i.e. glaciology was the field for me. 

The way that the second half of the semester pertaining my independent study was structured was quite different than the first half, as Dr. Sevestre was actually going on the first all-female AND first carbon neutral research expedition in Svalbard (read more at https://www.climatesentinels.com). So, the remaining part of the semester consisted of putting together the research paper itself, and really tying everything together. I don't think I've ever been so motivated and enthralled to write a paper in my entire undergraduate career. In addition to that, I submitted an abstract to the Youth Environmental Alliance in Higher Education and proceeded to present about my research at their 3rd Global Virtual Conference. That abstract and presentation has since been officially published by the program. The rest of the semester flew by and soon enough, Dr. Sevestre touched back to mainland and we were able to conclude the independent study.

During our "last" video chat of the semester, Dr. Husic, Dr. Sevestre, and I touched base to go over the overall progress and took some time to reflect. Reflections upon the limits that can be surpassed by remote learning; remote in more than one sense. Remote due to the COVID-19 pandemic causing the GIS lab to be closed, so I had to remotely connect to a GIS desktop through a VPN. Remote because I could not be in Dr. Sevestre's presence - there was a whole ocean between us. Remote because I could not go out into the field to observe Gandbreen, so the use of satellite imagery and remote sensing were put in place. During that last chat, Husic and Sevestre began a discussion about the COP26 at the end of the year, and I remember thinking how cool would it be to not only attend such an important event, but to also meet my mentor. 

Fast forward a few months [I graduated 😊], I found myself entering the world's largest climate summit. And with the heavy burden of knowing that this conference must be extremely proactive to minimize the devastating impacts that the climate crisis will continue to bring,  I was also excited to network and explore new possibilities (and to meet Heïdi, of course). 

And that's exactly what the week persisted of. 

I had the absolute honor to meet my friend, inspiration, and mentor to all things glaciology, Dr. Heïdi Sevestre. I was able to network with scientists and other environmental professionals from all over the globe. I was able to hear the stories and perspectives from those who can't be heard from back home. All thanks to global collaboration. 

With exciting opportunities to follow and some very exciting news about where I should end up for graduate school, I can give myself a fair amount of credit for having a fiery passion for the planet, however I also wouldn't be where I am without Dr. Husic and Dr. Sevestre. 

Diane, Heïdi - if you're reading this, thank you.

My advice to students is to take your passion and run with it. Don't be afraid to take a leap, it may lead you to new horizons. And most importantly something that a high school teacher once told me and is going to stick with me for the rest of my life, no effort you make is ever wasted. Cheers. 

"Vital Signs of the Planet"

Over 100 young musicians from the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and Juniors Conservatoire joined with international youth leaders to present "Vital Signs of the Planet" in the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.  With films and pictures from National Geographic and NASA, the backdrop to the orchestra was views of our planet on a large screen that were thematically selected to complement the music and to illustrate the impact of climate change.

After an opening traditional tune with bagpipes, the orchestra played excerpts from Vivaldi’s Four Seasons, Debussy’s La Mer, Vaughan Williams Sinfonia Antarctica, and Giacchino’s Advent.  The finale was a clear favorite for the young performers, with a live performance of “Unwritten” by UK Grammy-award winning singer-songwriter, Natasha Bedingfield.  Between the pieces, there were brief statements from youth leaders from around the world who are here for the COP, and a video statement from two of the astronauts on the International Space Station. The thematic program worked well, and the performers earned their standing ovation. 

It is not just the concert hall where art is making an impact.  There are exhibits in the Blue Zone (including at different country pavilions) and Green Zone, posters on the streets, and installations.  There was an event at the Cryosphere Pavilion focussed on art and music, where Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat reminded us that art, music and culture can "inspire us to do more."  We also heard from composer Lera Auerbach, who composed Arctica, her fourth symphony and watched a film about the creation of the work. Miranda Massie also presented some of the projects the Climate Museum has sponsored. 

Two memborable installations are the work of Vincent J. F. Huang, featuring polar bears with life jackets imitating famous artworks, on display at the Tuvalu pavilion, and Oliver Jeffers "The Celestial Census," on display outdoors in the Green Zone.  "The Celestial Census" invites visitors to "put on your space helmet and float the dotted line between the Earth and the Moon, all the while considering our home from afar, along as aa single organism.  ... Explore the 36 Meter expanse of space between Earth in which 'All People Live Here' and our Moon, on which 'No One Lives Here.'"

Significance and Uncertainty

Today, I sat in on a plenary session organized by the SBSTA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) discussing the latest (6th) assessment report – the AR6 Working Group on Physical Science. Valérie Masson-Delmotte, the Working Group I co-chair, presented some highlights from this very technical report. This session was attended by Parties (government appointees who serve as negotiators) and the observers from civil society. My colleague, Hilde Binford, and I teach a climate science and negotiations course and use these IPCC reports as key resources, so we are quite familiar with the methodology and content. However, many in the audience probably have not waded through all of the technical details. I find the questions from the audience, especially the negotiators, interesting and believe that they illustrate the very different lenses used by scientists and policymakers when looking at such information. 

It has been clear to me for some time now, and reinforced in today’s session, that most people do not understand how scientists deal with uncertainty (data gaps or what we don’t fully understand in complex systems). There is also confusion as to why climate models can be improved over time as new data is gathered and as scientists gain a better understanding of interactions of multiple variables, etc. I firmly believe that we, as scientists and educators, have a responsibility to help translate or explain this detailed information to various audiences both at the COP and back at home. 

Some of the negotiators raised questions (or objections) that were politically motivated, rather than out of a lack of understanding. For example, one particular representative from India was essentially asking for the highest risk scenario to be removed from the report claiming that *some* impacts are unlikely “doomsday scenarios”. This negotiator added that “COPs are supposed to deliver messages of hope and optimism” and the scientists who wrote the IPCC report were not doing that. (It was difficult at that moment for me not to ask what policymakers have done to increase hope and optimism since 1992 when the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change was originally established.) The Working Group co-chair reminded the audience about the charge to the IPCC from the Parties and about the importance of using the same five emission scenarios across all working groups to determine future possibilities of climate change impacts and risk. Understanding risk and the associated probabilities (e.g. high or low risk) is essential for making sound policy decisions, for the re-insurance industry, knowing were to make effective investments in disaster risk reduction, etc. 

Think about the “cone” of probability of where a hurricane that forms in the Atlantic might make landfall along the U.S. coastline. Early on, that cone is wide, as there is a lot of uncertainty about the track a storm might take or how strong the hurricane might get. With increased data and as the hurricane moves closer to the coastline, scientists are able to increase the accuracy of the model or decrease the uncertainty in predicting the behavior of the storm and the location of landfall. Early predictions alert people to the probability of danger, giving them time to prepare (evacuate, board up a dwelling, stock up on supplies, etc.). If forecasters waited until they had 100% certainty of the landfall site, it would be too late for people to reduce their risk of danger, damage to their property, or being left without food and water for an extended period of time. There are, of course, many analogies in modeling future climates.

Much thought goes into the IPCC reports in terms of how to communicate both spatial and temporal uncertainty and risk. So, what would be the advantage of eliminating the low probability/high emissions scenario? I can’t speak for certain as to the motives of that negotiator, but if the impacts or risk in the report don’t look so bad, or if the serious problems look like they may not take hold for some time far into the future, is there not then a reason to delay the shift away from fossil fuels? Policy makers must consider many factors unique to their country, but scientists must maintain scientific and reporting integrity. 

As one colleague that I was talking with afterwards put it, the chances of crashing a car (or plane) are low, but we still wear our seatbelts. The chances of serious climate impacts are not low, so we really should be taking action to both mitigate the problem and adapt to the changes that are already locked in for our future. 

I learned later that this same negotiator has been criticizing the work of the IPCC for some time. And I was also reminded of a recent news report that aired before I left for Glasgow in which a number of high-level officials from India indicated that they plan to use coal for the foreseeable future as that country strives to improve its socio-economic status. India currently relies on coal for 70% of its power. 

 ~~ 

Many researchers I have talked to this week are attending their first COP and feeling a) overwhelmed by all that happens at the conference (that is typical) and b) questioning the significance of their role here. This is my twelfth COP, so I reflected on this a bit today. Attending these conferences is a privilege that most people in the world never get to experience. My voice at “the table” may seem insignificant, but I am here, and I have a voice. So many people around the world – already impacted by climate change in severe ways – do not. I am exposed to the process and details of international negotiations. I am able to gain both a great deal of knowledge from global experts and new perspectives from talking to people who come from very different cultures and life circumstances than I do. 

With this privilege comes responsibility. One of our responsibilities is to seriously consider what we each do with this information when we go back home: 

- Do we share it with the public, with local and regional decision makers, with our colleagues and institutions? If so, what is the best way to do so?

- How do we inform relevant people of the data gaps that would better inform policy at the local, national and international levels and advocate for research funding to support the needed work? 

- How do we put all that science (from IPCC reports or regional data) to action to address this global challenge? How do we put the knowledge gained to positive action? 

I know that my attendance at these United Nation events has increased my credibility back home, and, as such, I have been asked over the years to provide input for policy development especially related to adaptation, risk reduction, and capacity building at the local and state levels. I am asked by a wide range of stakeholder groups to give talks about the status of climate change and climate policy or to write opinion pieces for the local papers. The knowledge gained has allowed me to redesign what and how I co-teach a course in climate science and negotiations. And I know how many former students who have taken that course and then attended one of the COPs on Moravian’s credentials have ended up having their career paths dramatically altered by the experience or a chance meeting with someone on this international stage. 

And that is far from insignificant.

“Biodiversity, not Bitcoin, is the new currency”

Today is “Finance” Day at COP26, and the US Center celebrated LEAF (Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance Coalition). The coalition includes the USA, UK and Norway, with support from large corporations, including Amazon, Airbnb, Blackrock, Walmart, and Nestle. In their first year, they have raised $1bn. Twenty-three countries have prepared proposals on how to prevent deforestation in their countries, in exchange for financial help.  LEAF is hoping to increase the fund several fold in the next few years. 

The Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, started off the discussion by reminding us that forests and other nature-based systems have the ability to provide 1/3 of total mitigation by 2030. This must be the “decade of decision, implementation and action …. Otherwise we blow through 1.5C.”  The panel included leaders from Ecuador, Ghana, and Nepal, who are three of the first five countries who have signed Letters of Intent (LOI) with LEAF.  All three leaders were positive about the new financing possibilities, and the Ecuadorian leader suggested that biodiversity is the new currency. 

Related, in the first days of the COP, 110 leaders promised to end deforestation by 2030, and the represented countries cover 85% of the world’s forest.  $14bn of funding has been secured. However, LEAF is poised to begin more immediate action, and emphasizes that the next decade is critical. 

In other meetings with indigenous peoples, there was some skepticism towards the pledge to protect forests.  Are companies simply paying for carbon credits and continuing with business as usual? Are the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands being upheld? At the COP Presidency Dialogue on the LCIPP, one of the audience members warned about the “commodification of Mother Earth and Father Sky.”  If biodiversity is the “new currency,” it seems they have a point. 

Catching up

I am juggling multiple roles at COP26 and it takes a bit of time to adjust to the new time zone, so I am slow to blogging so far this week. At most COPs, the “high level segment” (ministerial-level deliberations) begins in week #2. This year, however, the COP kicked off with a very high level World Leaders Summit; numerous presidents and prime ministers were in the venue on Monday and Tuesday, each having the opportunity to deliver a national statement. It was very difficult for observers from NGOs to access the venue, but the event was live-streamed. For those in the U.S., President Biden’s remarks may be of interest. Much was made of which heads of state did not arrive, especially China’s president, Xi Jinping (although he submitted a written statement), Russia’s President Vladamir Putin, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro, and Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan. Official reasons varied. In Paris in 2015, I was fortunate to be in the room when all of these individuals were present and spoke.

Before the national statements, there was an opening ceremony entitled “Earth to COP”. Because we are in Scotland, it wasn’t surprising that this started with a bagpiper (Brìghde Chaimbeul), who was then followed by a powerful poet, Yrsa Daley-Ward, who noted, ‘Anything less than your best is too much to pay.” I was struck by the comments of Boris Johnson who used the typical James Bond film opening scenario of being “strapped to a doomsday device” as a metaphor for COP26 and the situation the world leaders find themselves in. He made references to a ticking clock, billions of pistons fired by fossil fuels, and the consequences of inaction for our children and the fifty percent of the world population that is under the age of 30 (for which action by 2050 will be too late). He even quoted Greta Thunberg and the typical “blah, blah, blah” that occurs without true action at these sessions. Johnson noted that the James Watt (a Scottish inventor, engineer and chemist) -- who made significant improvements on the steam engine which were fundamental to the Industrial Revolution – build this first doomsday clock. 

This opening session employed the arts, Sir David Attenborough, indigenous speakers, and emotion to set the stage for the two weeks. Besides the urgent need to increase ambition on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there is a need to focus on adaptation and resilience, climate finance, environmental justice, and sustainable development. In early days of this COP, Biden's team (made up of many climate negotiations veterans) is talking forests, ecosystems and environmental justice. Those are not topics I have previously heard mentioned by the U.S. delegation since I started closely following the U.S. positions at these negotiations back in 2009!