A Letter to the Editor

Climate denial opinion pieces  are commonly found in our local news papers.  I am often asked to write rebuttals, but the letter-to-the-editor word limits don't allow for a sufficient response to address even the errors of fact, much less to craft a well-reasoned commentary.  One recent opinion  from December 19th dealt with COP20, so it seemed appropriate to post the response I would have sent to the editor on this blog.  The author, Mr. Policelli, serves on the board for the Green Knight Economic Development Corporation (a group working to create a landfill gas-to-energy plant).  His opinion pieces are routinely found in the paper.

So here is my response – written from the perspective of someone who actually attended the conference he writes about:

Mr. Policelli, There is much disagreement as to how to create an ambitious, effective, and equitable international agreement to deal with the global climate change problem.  But in order to have a constructive dialog about this, one must first get the facts straight.  The meeting that wrapped up earlier this month was the "Conference of the Parties" or COP - that is, the signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (a treaty) that goes back to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. You can learn more here.  The U.S. is one of the signatories to this agreement.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is not, as you say, a "corrupt blob of unelected bureaucrats that demands endless power and money."  From the official definition of the IPCC:

 The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses, at regular intervals, the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information produced worldwide, relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate-related data or parameters. The COP receives the outputs of the IPCC and uses IPCC data and information as a baseline on the state of knowledge on climate change in making science based decisions.

These are scientific experts from around the world who -- as volunteers -- review the peer-reviewed, published data and create reports that are meant to serve as resources to the policy makers on the various working groups within the COP and the negotiators from nations around the world.

Are there activists at these meetings?  Yes.  Are there world leaders like Bolivian President Morales in attendance who give lengthy, fiery speeches out of frustration?  Yes. John Kerry came in at the end of week 2 representing the U.S.  His remarks were pretty fiery too, and they were pretty harsh on climate deniers.  Are there developing countries who are suffering the consequences of climate change demanding financial and technical assistance for adaptation and risk reduction?  Yes, and many of these countries have not significantly contributed to the problem, or at least not until recent years, as opposed to countries like the U.S. who have used fossil fuels for around 2 centuries.  This concept of "polluter pays" is a common theme discussed at COP meetings.  And instead of this payment be in the form of fines, these countries are asking for help to allow them to develop to a decent standard of living without going down the same polluting paths that we have.

As a scientist and a delegate to the past 6 COP meetings, I am happy to engage in constructive dialog as to how to deal with climate change -- a problem that science has clearly documented.  Let's find a good forum to have our own regional conversations and conferences to sort out facts from fiction, and to determine how our local governments should set policies of mitigation, adaptation, and risk reduction.  But let's leave the science denial and insults at the door step.

Student voices - continued

While in Lima, I received messages via social media from several people – some former students, some relatives, and some strangers from as far away as Uganda – who applauded my “taking on the world”.  I am not so sure that I am taking on the world, but simply trying to do my small part in education, advocacy, and awareness building about what I believe to be one of the greatest challenges of the 21^st century. One of the most important things I can do (I think) with students is to nurture an awareness of (and perhaps  even a love for) the natural world.  Fostering such a connection makes it easier to show people how that natural world is being altered by our choices and actions, and, in some cases, by our inaction.  From there, we ponder options and actions.  And sometimes, the responses of the students make me take notice.

In the previous post, I included an essay response to a question on the final from a student in my Introduction to Environmental Studies course.  This time, I include a response from another student (again with permission) to a different question.  Colton Krial is a senior majoring in political science.  He wrote this before we had the outcome from COP20.  

The question:

What is the UNFCCC and what is its purpose?  Based on what you have learned in class, from my blog posts, and/or from other investigations that you have made, do you think that we can achieve a fair, multilateral, and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a timeframe that can prevent runaway climate change?

Colton's response:

             The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is a UN policy initiative aimed at halting the excessive greenhouse gasses being poured into the atmosphere. They work to negotiate settlements like carbon emissions limits, while remaining sensitive to issues like economic growth.
            I personally do not see much hope in turning back the tide of climate change through legislation or multilateral agreements, although I do not dismiss their value in helping to bring about the consciousness necessary to do so. The world seems entirely beholden to the logic of neoliberalism: deregulation of markets, liberalization of trade, and privatization of government services. In this political economic context, predicated on the importance of profit as the driver of the world economy, it is hard to imagine a radical shift in the world development model that is meaningfully sensitive to environmental concerns.
            Additionally, there is evidence that world powers such as the United States are not negotiating in good faith when working out development goals in relation to climate change. Documents provided by whistleblower Edward Snowden show that the U.S., in order to strengthen their position in negotiations, used the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on the 2009 climate meetings in Copenhagen that, unsurprisingly, failed to end positively. (Poitras, Information)
            Perhaps the biggest problems occur when confronting the role of the nations of the Global South. After years of exploitation via colonialism and imperialism, these nations are for the most part emulating American development, and in many parts of the world the goal is to have the comforts of the United States (although this is by no means a universal attitude). It seems ethically unjustifiable to continue to hold these nations down for the sake on the environment after our exploitative development model seems to have caused these issues in the first place. Similarly, it seems ethically unjustifiable to allow these nations to overwhelm the climate with their newfound consumption habits. Personally, it seems that the only ethically justifiable action is to curb our own consumption habits and find an egalitarian balance.

 

Student voices

I am so glad that the students have been actively posting on this blog. Since I had to return to the states to give a final exam and finish my semester grading, I am behind in my writing.  Week 2 brought the 3rd annual Gender Day, a day focused on Human Rights, and visits from Al Gore and John Kerry (see note at the end of this post). U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, several high-level ministers, and even a few presidents and prime ministers showed up as well -- all imploring the negotiators to commit to ambitious agreements to reduce the threats of climate change (For example, see Kaitlyn Teppert's post on the blog entitled "Ticket for One, Please".


While I was away, I had assigned some final essay questions for my Introduction to Environmental Science course -- a 100-level course for non-science majors, many of whom are interested in going into K-12 teaching.  One of the questions was as follows:

a) Why is "Do you believe in evolution?" an inappropriate question?

b) Is “Do you believe in climate change?” an inappropriate question?  Explain. 

c) What factors determine whether a species will either adapt to environmental change or end up in decline or extinct?  Many believe that we are facing the 6^th mass extinction and climate change may be a major contributor to this.  Why can’t species simply adapt to the new climate conditions?

Below, I share (with permission) the response by Ms. Kayla Marinelli (a first year student) because a) I like what she had to say, b) it is relevant to the theme of this blog, and c) I want to keep the momentum up on this blog while I have time to collect my thoughts and analyze the outcomes of COP20.


            “Do you believe in evolution?” is a simple, common question asked so often, yet extremely inappropriate.  Evolution is not something that can be believed in; evolution is a fact.  Asking if someone believes in evolution is the equivalent of asking if someone believes in gravity.  Everyone believes in gravity; gravity is a concept that everyone understands and knows is relative.  Gravity is taught in sixth grade science classes across the country because it is a fact, yet evolution is still in question after all of the proof that has been stated and all the information found.  Asking if someone believes in evolution is putting evolution on the same level as religion.  Religion is a touchy subject for some people and means different things to different individuals.  Religion is something that cannot be tested nor proven; God cannot be proven to exist.  There is solid, concrete proof of evolution.  So why is it put on the same playing field as something that has nothing more than spiritual proof?  “Do you believe in evolution” is an inappropriate question because of the countless pieces of evidence found to prove it.  Evolution is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community but not commonly accepted by the general public.  Evolution is not about how life began but how life evolved after it began, which not much of the public understands.  The public believes that evolution means that God does not exist and that it is how the world was created.  In America today, 78.4% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, 4.7% as other religions, and 16.1% as unaffiliated (Pew Forum, 2007).  These statistics explain a lot about why evolution is not accepted.  83.1% of America believes in a God, which most of the public thinks evolution says cannot exist.  That is false though since evolution, as previously stated, does not describe how life began but instead how it changed since evolution means ‘change.’  Many people in the public do not understand this distinction hence why they do not believe in evolution.  Therefore, asking whether someone believes in evolution or not is not an appropriate question since evolution is not a belief, but a fact.

            Talk about climate change is all the rage at this moment.  Climate change is another proven fact, same as evolution, that people simply do not believe in.  Studies have shown the steady increase in temperatures for years.  Studies have also shown the rise in sea level, which is due to the increase in temperatures.  Global warming, a cause of climate change, is carbon dioxide and other pollutants gathering in the atmosphere like a thick blanket that traps the sun’s heat, causing the planet’s temperature to rise (NRDC, 2011).  Temperatures in an area may not seem like they are any different than previous years, but the average global temperature has increased the fastest ever recorded.  The levels of emissions being produced need to be decreased in order to save the world.  Just this past November, President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping signed an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases down to 2005 levels by the year 2020 (CBS News, 2014).  The agreement is exciting news to see considering the fact that it may get more countries involved in helping to lower emissions.  The only problem is that the agreement is only a promise until some actions are made to move the project forward.  Climate change is like evolution in the way that people do not believe in it without any proof against it.  Climate change is a big problem to biodiversity, which is the diversity among and within plant and animal species in an environment.

            There are many factors that determine whether or not a species will adapt to a situation and survive or die off to the point of extinction.  Climate change is a cause of the decrease of biodiversity, the increase in the extinction or decline of species all over the world.  Natural selection is a determinant of a species being in decline.  Some species can survive certain variations of weather and if one variation is too extreme, the other variation of species may have more survivors.  The robin is a perfect example.  The robin, a very common bird in Pennsylvania, has two migrating patterns.  Some robins migrate to the South while others stay north for the winter.  The robins that stay north stay down at the creeks and eat berries all winter while the Southern robins have plenty to eat since they are in a warmer climate.  The North robins could have problems by running out of food, such as berries, and the South robins could have problems with their journey down south.  Depending on if either group had any problems, one group of robins may come out on top of the others.  If there is an especially difficult winter, the robins that stayed home will have died, then getting selected out of the population.  This happens with a lot of species and can cause variation within a species. Variations also occur naturally, such as DNA mutations.  The organisms can also share their genes when they migrate, causing even more variations.  In general, variation in genes is truly the main factor on whether a species will survive; there are just many types of variations that can occur.  Species cannot simply adapt to every climate though.

Many scientists believe that the 6^th mass extinction is coming upon us and it is all at fault of humans, essentially.  Studies have shown that the rate of extinction used to be one species per ten million species annually while today the rate is between one hundred to one thousand species per a million species (Pappas, 2014).  That is quite a leap, especially considering the fact that only 0.05 to 0.2 new species per a million begin their existence each year (Pappas, 2014).  The rate of extinction is much higher than the rate of production of new species, which means that biodiversity is becoming smaller and smaller every single year.  The climate change is a large factor contributing to the extinction of so many species.  As previously stated, species cannot just adapt to every climate condition thrown their way.  It takes generations and generations of a species to have adapted to a certain climate, but the climate is changing far to quickly for these species to keep up, causing them to become extinct instead of adapting.  Humans are ultimately at blame, though, since the human species is the cause of so of the much pollution that is causing the climate change.  The human population needs to make serious changes in order to slow down extinction rates of species.

An Introduction to Climate Change. (2011, November 8). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/climatebasics.asp

Kunkle, D. (Director) (2014, December 2). Evolution. Lecture conducted from Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.

Obama: U.S.-China climate change accord "historic" (2014, November 12). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-china-announce-climate-change-agreement/

Pappas, S. (2014, September 8). 6th Mass Extinction? Humans Kill Species Faster Than They're Created. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://www.livescience.com/47733-humans-destroy-earth-biodiversity.html

Report 1: Religious Findings. (2007, May 8). Retrieved December 5, 2014, from http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Note: See the accountings of these visits from the students representing the American Chemical Society: http://www.studentsonclimatechange.com/student-blog/jess-nina-hurricane-al-touches-down-at-cop201 and http://www.studentsonclimatechange.com/student-blog/will-the-us-kerry-some-responsibility.

From Facebook to Tuvalu - a Very Wide Gap Indeed

Earlier this week, our public relations office sent out a press release and posted information on the college Facebook page about our participation here at COP20 in Lima.  Based on prior experience, if this was the local paper, I would (sadly) expect the trolls to make snide remarks.  You know -- how sending students to our college is a waste of money, something about climate denial, and the liberal “crap” we teach in higher education.  (It's true.)  I wasn’t, however, expecting negative comments from our own alumni.

ID-10-T error.  I'm so ashamed that my Alma mater is sending people to this farcical conference.

I should know better than to respond to Facebook comments like this, but nevertheless, I replied:

I would like to hear more about why you feel this way. The process is by no means perfect, but do you have a better solution as to how we address the major global issue?

The response:

The people at these conferences are all "watermelons." They pretend to care about the environment, but they're really just communists looking to redistribute the world's wealth. If the United States agrees to meet certain targets, we risk ruining our own economy. Remember, the people at the conference can't commit the US to do anything. Only the Senate can ratify international treaties. Nothing will be accomplished at this conference.

Well, if this individual had heard the fiery speech from Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, at the Opening Plenary of the High Level Segment, he would be further convinced of his claim.  Personally, I interpreted the comments from Morales as a call to rethink our unsustainable economic systems and consumptive lifestyles, and to allow others the opportunity for a fair, safe, and healthy standard of living.  I suppose that would mean a redistribution of wealth.  Because this speech was from Bolivia, – the first country to include Rights of Nature in its national constitution – there was also a call to protect Mother Earth.

Evo Morales at the Opening Plenary of the High Level Segment, COP20

It was another tactical error, this time on my part, to continue the conversation with a lengthy response:

I am well aware of the inability of the US to ratify agreements here and with the political environment in Congress, chances are slim that anything environmental will get ratified back home. Sadly, much talk here is to find a way to come up with an international agreement that bypasses the U.S. -- a country that is still one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters, especially if you express this per capita.

Are there some here who are interested in redistribution of wealth? Perhaps, but they typically don't express it so blatantly. Rather, there are discussions of "Polluter pays" - e.g. for the alleged damage that has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions leading to climate change.  There are calls for help with the development and transfer of new clean renewable technologies so that developing nations don't make the same mistakes that the US, EU, China, etc. have.

I will disagree, however, that an agreement/compromise/treaty will ruin our economy. There will be some adjustments in the short term, but as a scientist who has carefully studied the data, if we don't rethink our fossil fuel use and adapt, the longer-term impacts will be much, much worse for the economy.

But I would also add that there is no better way to hear all of the perspectives and be educated about the complexities of the issues than to be here with students and to bring these perspectives back to the broader community at home in an unbiased a way as possible.

End of that conversation.

The second alum to comment played off the first:

I agree a liberal arts college and professors that think liberal and teach liberalism - if only they would research and get their facts correct.

Hmmm.  Being curious, I had to inquire what facts/research were incorrect, but received no response to that question.

Since I was on a roll, I continued:

I also suggest that you look up the original meaning of the term "liberal education" and then ask you how participating in international deliberations about a globally recognized challenge is not something we should be doing as educators and researchers?

To that, he replied:

Goggle the true facts and stop agreeing with another liberal Huffington Post - Your telling us if Goggle the true facts and stop agreeing with another liberal Huffington Post - Your telling us if we stopped exhaling carbon dioxide the planet would be better off?

There is no response for a statement like that.  But for the record, as a scientist and academic, I prefer peer-reviewed scientific literature over things that someone might find on Google.  And I won't repeat some of the other comments he made.

Thank goodness for the response of a third alumnus – albeit one that the first two would likely feel had been brainwashed.  You see, this person attended COP15 with the Moravian delegation in Copenhagen in 2009.

I'm ashamed to share the same alma mater with someone who thinks that it is laughable that world leaders are discussing something as serious as anthropogenic climate change (which nearly all scientists studying the data agree exists)... Moreover believes it is a conspiracy theory brought about by world leaders to redistribute the world’s wealth (That is laughable. If that was the case, policy would have been implemented long ago, but it isn't and hasn't due to the many interest groups involved). Discussion must come before policy.

The impact of attending a COP meeting on that student, and the others who have attended, has been profound.  I distinctly remember this particular student sitting on the floor in a circle with youth representatives from small island nations, learning about their fears of having to move their entire country, leaving behind their homes, their culture, their history, their sense of place.  And I remember the passionate description in a post-COP essay about how that experience had changed his perspective on his own life.

I was thinking of that student today as I listed to opening remarks by Enele Sopoaga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu.  This is a small island nation midway between Australia and Hawaii.  It is only 4.6 meters above sea level at highest point, and thus, it is one of most vulnerable nations to climate change impacts, especially sea level rise.

Enele Sopoaga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu 

The prime minister first told of the tragic and historic connection between his country and Peru as there are Tuvaluans buried in this land, those brought over to work in the mines.  But he went on to note that no other leader has had to face question of whether their nation will survive or disappear under the sea.  He added, Think of what it is like to be in my shoes? He then asked the audience if they were faced with this situation, what would they do?

The passionate part of speech that came next was not expected.  My notes captured his words close to verbatim and I include them here because they are worth sharing.

After a reference to Dante (“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis”), Sopoaga said that this is a time of crisis and asked if [the other leaders] want this [the consequences of climate change] on their conscience.  The prime minister was in New York during the Climate March in September, and said that he was moved when he saw signs for the support of Tuvalu in midst of people – all 400,000 of them.  “I heard their moans, their calls, and share their concerns.  It is time to ignore the voices of the climate change deniers driven by big fossil fuel industries, to ignore the national leaders who don’t believe.  These are shallow creatures who only see face of dollars.  In Tuvalu, we see faces of children, and it is these children to whom they must answer.

...The fossil fuels we use today are from extinct animals and plants,  they signify extinction, we must not condemn ourselves to extinction.

… Ask everyone who leaves this room to look into eyes of first child they see and imagine what those eyes will see in 10 or 20 years.  Will they see hell or a sustainable planet?  Let us try to build a firm foundation here so that we can stand proud in Paris.  ‘Yes we have a future for you’ is what we can tell our children.  Let us make 2015 the year we save the world, save Tuvalu.  Because if we save Tuvalu, we will save the world.

These are the speeches we hear at the COP meetings.  These are the tough questions we wrangle with.  If this is “liberal crap,” then so be it.

Setting the Stage for Paris

There is a certain sameness about the first days of each Conference of the Parties (COP) – the opening plenaries for the various working groups begin with the Parties (countries) stating their positions, the activists stage actions, and the scientific community present their latest findings.

This year, the opening statements have been statements of position (which haven’t changed much). In the past, there have been the exceptional moments in opening plenaries (like Yeb Sano’s statement in COP 19, following the devastation to his country from Typhoon Haiyan), but this year Yeb is noticeably absent. Last year, he started a Climate Fast, which has marked the beginning of this year’s COP, with over 10,000 people participating worldwide.  Yeb is identified with this action, and he is participating with an online video. At the COP 20, several delegates and observers are fasting in solidarity.

On the science front, the IPCC has presented their Assessment Report 5 Synthesis Report to the Parties in a joint presentation with Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).  The main take-home points are that:

“1) Human influence on the climate system is clear; 2) the more we disrupt our climate, the more we risk severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts; 3) and we have the means to limit climate change and build a more prosperous, sustainable future.” 

Based on the work of over 830 scientists, this is perhaps the most important scientific report to read carefully. The report documents the persistent global warming trends, and while it seems like it’s been particularly cold recently in the Northeast, the most current records show that 2014 is on track to be the warmest year on record. 

While the potential impacts of climate change are very grim, including food and water shortages, increased poverty, flooding, and droughts, there are significant opportunities with both mitigation and adaptation, especially as we move towards more efficiency and clean energy.   

What do birds have to do with anything?

The annual United Nations COP meetings are, by design, scheduled in different parts of the world, and thus, I have had the opportunity to travel to some interesting places over the past several years.  As someone who savors learning about new cultures and seeing new places, this is an added benefit of being able to attend the climate conferences. 

It so happens that I also love to bird, so traveling to new places means having a chance to add new species to my “life list”.  I often get some strange looks walking to the conference venue with binoculars around my neck, especially in urban settings.  I doubt that other conference attendees packed binoculars in amongst their policy papers and laptops.  So imagine my surprise when I saw a short news article in Lima with this title:  “COP20 cultural agenda includes music, exhibits and bird watching” (1).  Not sure I ever thought of bird watching as a cultural event.  But I do think about birds and climate change a lot.

National Audubon created some media buzz this year and a lot of concern in the birding community when they released their report on Birds and Climate Change (2).  Here is the headline:

Audubon’s findings classify 314 species—nearly half of all North American birds—as severely threatened by global warming.

And this is just the list of species that will be severely threatened.  We know that habitat alterations and loss, changes in weather patterns, and severe weather events will impact other bird species, as well as other animals.  Years of bird survey data tells us that several species have already shifted their ranges for breeding and wintering grounds, and we know that the timing of migration in spring has been altered for many species. 

Phenology is the study of cyclic events in nature like migration, leaf emergence in spring and color change in fall, flowering times, insect hatching, etc.  Such events are closely linked to weather, so if we are experiencing shifts in climate, it is likely that these natural periodic life cycle events will also be impacted.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated that phenology may be one of the best ways to monitor ecological changes, and the IPCC assessment reports have included phenology data.  From my work with the Eastern Pennsylvania Phenology Project (3), all of the forest bird species we examined are returning one to three weeks earlier in the spring compared to just a few decades ago.  The ecological implications of this are still unknown.

Black and White Warbler, Photo by Corey Husic

Birds may be just one canary in the climate change “mine”.  They are important signals of not only environmental disruption, but also of risks to humans (think coal mines and Silent Spring).  A recent opinion piece by Dahr Jamail (5) poses the question “Are humans are going extinct?”

  

Some scientists … fear that climate disruption is so serious, with so many self-reinforcing feedback loops already in play that humans are in the process of causing our own extinction.

If this is true, perhaps more of us should be watching the birds.

In the six years that I have been attending the COP meetings, I am always surprised at how seldom discussion centers on ecology and the status of the natural world unless representatives from various indigenous groups are part of the conversation.   Rather, deliberations focus on potential technological solutions, economics, politics, policy, and occasionally, climate ethics and disparate impacts on certain populations.  In my teaching, I am sure to point out to my students that the highest areas of biodiversity on the planet are also the areas of highest cultural and language diversity.  Both are in steep decline.  To me, the canaries are screaming at us – providing clear evidence of the risks not only to the feathered novelties I see during my travels, but also to humanity.

And in case you are wondering, I am approaching a dozen "lifer" bird species after only three days in this busy city of Lima. 

1) http://www.andina.com.pe/Ingles/noticia-cop-20-cultural-agenda-includes-music-exhibits-and-bird-watching-533713.aspx

2) http://climate.audubon.org

3) http://lgnc.org/research/phenology

4) http://truth-out.org/news/item/27714-are-humans-going-extinct

And so it begins

Day 1 of the COP meeting involves the annual ritual of navigating your way to the venue, getting registered, and then becoming oriented to the city.  Those of us with observer credentials can’t get into the arena until the official opening of the conference on the first Monday, but it is a good idea to beat the morning crowds trying to register then.  The navigation part can be interesting in a foreign country, but this year, I am here with Sarabeth Brockley (Moravian College graduate and graduate student at Lehigh) and Deanna Metivier (an undergraduate at North Carolina State University) – both of whom are fluent in Spanish.  That helps with finding directions, communicating with taxi drivers, etc. 

The San Borja district has many small parks and tree-lined streets.  I learned quickly that these are great places for urban birding!

We knew we were close to the COP venue when we saw a sign and some folks handing out a mini-newspaper to people in the park about the COP meeting that contained articles like “El cambio climático es el problema ambiental más important.”

Deanna is on the far left, Sarabeth is the blonde

Security at COP meetings is always high and you learn not to question protocol, even if it seems odd.  Today we learned that once inside the first gate (which of course is the farthest away, so you walk around a lot of fenced in area), you have to take a shuttle to the actual meeting location and then go through another layer of security screening.  Each COP has its own quirks, but this arrangement in Lima promises to become a huge bottleneck when 15,000 people are all trying to get to the meeting at the same time in the morning.  But so it is.

The 2014 venue

Not until the meetings actually commence will we get a sense for what is going to be accomplished, but reports range from cautious optimism (1) to a sense that even negotiating success (i.e. a multilateral legally binding agreement to cut greenhouse gas emotions globally) won’t solve the climate problem.  Take for example, the quote for an article in today’s New York Times (2):

“But underlying that optimism is a grim reality: No matter the outcome of the talks, experts caution, it probably will not be enough to stave off the increasingly significant, near-term impact of global warming.”

After my recent opinion piece that appeared in the local newspaper (a edited version of the last post on this blog), someone from the community wrote me a lengthy email with about the same sentiment as that from the NY Times.  Sigh.  I try to remain more optimistic than that.

After finding a place to eat (the San Borja suburb at first seemed like all apartments and no shops or restaurants), we hit the local grocery store to stock our rental apartment, and then headed to a vigil on the eve of COP20.  Often these are organized by faith-based coalitions, as was the case tonight.  Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC kicked off the event (before we arrived) and a large group marched through the streets.  We listened to a few speakers as well as some musicians who had composed pieces specifically for the event.

Of particular interest, was our conversation with the organizers of #fastfortheclimate (#ayunoporeclclima) scheduled for tomorrow.  

According to their press release,

Fasters will gather in the main cafeteria of the COP20 to pose with empty plates to show that they stand in solidarity with people impacted by climate change. Prominent fasters will discuss the attempt at the largest ever fast and launch the next phase of the movement - 365 Days of Fasting. Yeb Sano, Climate Change Commissioner for the Philippines will make a statement by video link.

I don’t know what or who "prominent fasters" are, but Yeb Sano is the delegate who announced a hunger strike at COP19 following the massive typhoon to hit the Philippines last year to protest the slow progress in climate negotiations and the impact being felt in his country.

I will let some photos from the event tell the rest of the story for tonight as they are better than words that I can come up with.

1) International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Negotiators land in Lima with eyes on a draft climate deal

http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/biores-lima-update-1-negotiators-land-in-lima-with-eyes-on-a-draft-climate?utm_source=International%20Centre%20for%20Trade%20and%20Sustainable%20Development%20%28ICTSD%29&utm_campaign=e22b00fdfa-BioRes_Lima_Update_1%20%28English%29%2011_29_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7d42ca02cd-e22b00fdfa-148267217

2) Davenport, C. Grim Reality Amid Optimism Ahead of Climate Talks, New York Times, November 30, 2014 

https://mail.google.com/_/scs/mail-static/_/js/k=gmail.main.en.z9rNWMI3IGc.O/m=m_i,t/am=PSOG-b_7gxhjvktfVPv33-M8KX7yebgfacJLdgLA_2b_D-C_AX3qhwQ/rt=h/d=1/t=zcms/rs=AItRSTO_d2KQwYSVotuQSxsu5-cWq6Wq9w