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.

Heading to COP25

It is time for my annual trek to the United Nations climate meetings; my colleague, two students, two Moravian College alums, and I are about to head to COP25 in Madrid. This is our 11th COP as delegates of the college; we have brought over 30 students to these negotiations on the global stage since 2009. Until a few weeks ago, we thought we were headed to Santiago, Chile, but civil unrest there led to the government canceling the plans. Somehow, the United Nations and Spain found a way to organize this global event in different city, country and continent -- all in about a week! We won't talk about the disruption to plans made months earlier and, for many, lost deposits and airfare. 

I am preparing my presentation for a side event (panel) entitled Contributions of higher education to climate action and implementation of the Paris Agreement and came across this 11/26/19 post from David Hess, former secretary of the PA Department of Environmental Protection, entitled Major Businesses, Higher Ed Institutions Write To Members Of House, Senate Urging Pennsylvania To Accelerate Transition To A Low-Carbon Economy. I was interested to see the comments of neighboring college CEOs from eastern PA. 

There is also an interesting recent 5-part essay entitled How will higher education respond to climate change that begins here. This series was written by Bryan Alexander, an internationally known futurist, researcher, writer, speaker, consultant, and teacher, working in the field of how technology transforms education. Dr. Alexander has a Ph.D. in English, so speaks from the humanities perspective. For the first time that I recall, there is a COP25 side event that will focus on the humanities: Enhancing the Paris Ambition: Universities, Science, Humanities and Arts Interfaces 4 Future Life. I look forward to attending that session.

If you wonder why any of this matters, neither the most recent (greenhouse gas) Emissions Gap Report for 2019 nor the latest climate change research present a very positive scenario [see here for a summary, ref 1]. The students that we are currently educating will face a very different world in terms of climate and geo-political instability than we know now (think forced migrations, food and water insecurity, growing health concerns, and conflict). What will student success mean under these conditions? As we prepare individuals for transformative leadership in a world of change (part of the Moravian mission), are we preparing them for this change? Our campus InFocus programming is a start. Lest you think that I am being a bit melodramatic, check out this 11/29/19 article from The New Humanitarian [2].

If I still have your interest, here are two additional thoughts to consider:

1) Two weeks ago, the National Council for Science and the Environment released a report [3] showing the results of a survey of climate science publications from land grant and large R1 institutions from each state. One striking finding is that although institutions are working on regionally relevant climate research, they do little to communicate this data and its relevance to local decision makers. A few years ago at a gathering of environmental groups, faculty and students from the Lehigh Valley Association of Independent Colleges and other regional institutions, science faculty clearly expressed their reluctance to get involved in advocacy related to climate change or other local environmental challenges. Thus, this communication gap is not limited to the R1s.

2) A scientist from the German Development Institute and his colleagues recently completed an analysis [4] on whether countries indicate that education is necessary to implement Nationally Determined Contributions (to reducing greenhouse gas emissions). The bottom line according to Pieter Pauw is that "the lower the income levels of the countries, the larger the share of countries that states that education is necessary to implement the NDCs." The U.S. submitted their NDC in 2016, but there is no mention of education in it.

Screen shot from the NDC Explorer (Pauw, et al. 2017)

People I talked to over the past few weeks are curious as to how those of us from the U.S. will be "welcomed" given that we have formally begun the process of pulling out of the Paris Agreement, the only country to do so out of 196 states plus the European Union [5, 6]. That remains to be seen. Stay tuned.

Selected Works Cited:

1. Berwyn, B. "Climate Tipping Points Are Closer Than We Think, Scientists Warn." InsideClimate News, November 27, 2019.

2.  "Ebola setback, ‘starvation’ in Zimbabwe, and COP25 preparations: The Cheat Sheet." The New Humanitarian, Nov 29, 2019.

3. Goldman,  E.B. and M. Hyams. 2019. Climate Science Research in the United States and U.S. Territories: Survey of Scientific Publications from Selected Public Universities (2014-2018). The National Council for Science and the Environment: Washington, D.C.

4. Pauw, W.P, Cassanmagnano, D., Mbeva, K., Hein, J., Guarin, A., Brandi, C., Dzebo, A., Canales, N., Adams, K.M., Atteridge, A., Bock, T., Helms, J., Zalewski, A., Frommé. E., Lindener, A., Muhammad, D. (2016). NDC Explorer. German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE), African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS), Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). DOI: 10.23661/ndc_explorer_2017_2.0´

5. Friedman, L. "Trump Serves Notice to Quit Paris Climate Agreement." The New York Times, November 4, 2019; available here. 

6. Hersher, R. "U.S. Formally Begins To Leave The Paris Climate Agreement." NPR All Things Considered, Novermber 4, 2019; available here.

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.