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.

Science Should Inform Policy - But Politics Can Get in the Way

I noted in my first post for COP23 that I would reflect on what has changed since Moravian first attended a U.N. climate conference in 2009. One thing that has changed is the increase in climate science and in certainty ascribed to the implications of what the data are telling us (i.e., the confidence that scientists have in the data and models). At the time of COP15, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC had released its 4th Assessment Report (AR4) and one of the summary findings was: 

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

Now, at COP23, the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) has now been out for 3 years and in this report, the language was a bit stronger:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems. Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have increased since the pre-industrial era, driven largely by economic and population growth, and are now higher than ever. This has led to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Their effects, together with those of other anthropogenic drivers, have been detected throughout the climate system and are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Last Friday (03 November 2017), despite the climate change denial of the current administration in the White House and much uncertainty about whether the release would occur, 13 federal agencies unveiled the findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program in Climate Science – the 4th National Climate Assessment Report (NCA4) The format of this report has many analogies to the IPCC report, but is focused on U.S. science and impacts. Here is their statement about what is happening:

Since NCA3, stronger evidence has emerged for continuing, rapid, human-caused warming of the global atmosphere and ocean. This report concludes that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

And in more detail:

The frequency and intensity of extreme heat and heavy precipitation events are increasing in most continental regions of the world (very high confidence). These trends are consistent with expected physical responses to a warming climate. Climate model studies are also consistent with these trends, although models tend to underestimate the observed trends, especially for the increase in extreme precipitation events (very high confidence for temperature, high confidence for extreme precipitation). The frequency and intensity of extreme high temperature events are virtually certain to increase in the future as global temperature increases (high confidence). Extreme precipitation events will very likely continue to increase in frequency and intensity throughout most of the world (high confidence).

• Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.2°F (0.7°C) for the period 1986–2016 relative to 1901–1960 and by 1.8°F (1.0°C) based on a linear regression for the period 1895–2016 (very high confidence).

• Increases of about 2.5°F (1.4°C) are projected for the period 2021–2050 relative to 1976–2005 in all RCP scenarios, implying recent record-setting years may be “common” in the next few decades (high confidence).

This report was covered by USA Today and the New York Times. One particular piece of data from the NY Times piece caught my attention: 

A report from 13 federal agencies says extreme weather events have cost the United States $1.1 trillion since 1980.

It wasn't clear as to whether the economic impact of this year's three hurricanes were factored into that price tag. But what is clear, is that each year and with each additional COP, the costs of loss and damage associated with the impacts of climate change are rising.

Science in reports such as those from the IPCC has driven action and policy development at the international level. In fact, the first report of the IPCC directly led to the creation of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the reason we have COP meetings each year. As the evidence builds, words such as "urgency" and "ambition" are routinely heard around the halls here in Bonn, although negotiations are still slow in resulting in implementation of specific actions that would actually make a difference in this global challenge. The science was beginning to inform policy in the U.S. under the Obama Administration, but alas, exactly one year ago, at COP22, we watched the election results come in and new that things would change.

Again, from the NY Times article:

"This report has some very powerful, hard-hitting statements that are totally at odds with senior administration folks and at odds with their policies,” said Philip B. Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center. “It begs the question, where are members of the administration getting their information from? They’re obviously not getting it from their own scientists.”

Relatively little reaction came out of the White House last Friday except for one statement:

“The climate has changed and is always changing,” Raj Shah, a White House spokesman, said in the statement. “As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate’” to greenhouse gas emissions, he added.

Note the careful insertion of the word "uncertainty" in this statement. So as scientists grow increasingly confident in terms of the impacts and causes of climate change, we have an administration in the U.S. that prefers to cast doubt; attempt to break international agreements; silence, and in some cases, replace scientists; and scrub websites (e.g. of the EPA) of references to climate change.

In stark contrast, here in Bonn, scientists, activists, and other non-state actors, were invited to an open dialog today with the Parties who are negotiating the details of how to implement the Paris Agreement. From country after country, we heard about examples of national climate teams and consultations where scientists and politicians come together with indigenous peoples, representatives from the business community, and other stakeholders to discuss climate policy and action. Such dialogs alone won't immediately "solve" climate change but having everyone in the same room having productive discussions about the way forward is a much better approach than silencing the scientists and ignoring the data.