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.

Will geo-engineering get us out of this mess?

From everything that I have heard this week, even if there is any progress on the rules for implementation of the Paris Agreement (the expected product from COP24), it isn't going to get us closer to achieving a planetary limit of 1.5°C or even 2.0°C warming. To the contrary, the scientist presentations over the past two weeks in Poland have sounded pretty dire, even more so than the gloomy predictions from the IPCC Global Warming of 1.5°C report. The main message: Unless we are able to employ some pretty dramatic technology "fixes", the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions via the collective country NDCs (mitigation goals) will be insufficient in the time frame required to avert serious negative consequences. In other words, a net zero carbon balance between the planet and our atmosphere is not longer good enough. Scientists claim that we need aggressive net negative emissions, and planting millions of trees and restoring mangroves isn’t going to do that for us.

Last night, I had a long dinner conversations with some scientists who believe that carbon capture and sequestration/storage (CCS) is absolutely necessary. Since this will be expensive to employ on a large scale, they were wondering if OPEC would be willing to set oil at $150 - 200 a barrel to cover the cost of CCS. Seeing how people in France are reacting to a fuel tax, this would be politically challenging and have serious impacts on the economy. However, such market pricing could be the needed impetus to boost investment in renewable clean energy alternatives.

When I was in graduate school in the early to mid 1980’s, a number of laboratories were studying the impacts of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide on plant and algae growth. One idea that was floated at the time was to artificially boost the growth of photosynthetic marine plankton which could, in turn, sequester extra carbon from the atmosphere. At that time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were around 341 ppm; we hit 410 ppm this year. Scientists determined that iron was limiting, so oceans would need to be supplemented with this micronutrient and hence, this idea became known as the Geritol solution. (If you aren't old enough to remember Geritol, you may need to look it up!) We were young and quite naïve about the links between increasing carbon dioxide and climate disruption. Back then, we thought the idea was pretty crazy. We certainly never dreamed of even more science-fiction sounding ideas like trying to artificially control solar radiation through geo-engineering approaches.

Until this year, I had heard little discussion at COPS about the idea of managing solar radiation.  A leading scientist in this field, David Keith from Harvard, was also at dinner. He argued that it is better to do the research now to determine the feasibility and risks of geo-engineering -- before things get desperate and countries start blindly shooting sulfate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to deflect solar radiation without having the data or national agreements to guide such action. As a plant biochemist, this concept scares me. A lot. Deflecting sunlight isn't a particularly good idea for photosynthesis and primary production (think the first level of the global food chain). And we really have no idea whether the sulfate aerosols would remain in the stratosphere. As someone who works at a restoration site where vegetation was killed off in large part due to sulfur dioxide emissions being converted to sulfuric acid in the atmosphere, this idea seems doubly crazy.

But in David's view, it comes down to a question of which planetary experiment we want to run: extreme warming and climate disruption or testing some technology-approaches that may alter our future in very different ways.

Some more reading:

Goodell, J. A Hard Look at the Perils and Potential of Geoengineering, Yale Environment 360, April 1, 2010.

Suarez, P. and K. Maarten. Geoengineering: A humanitarian concern Earth's Future, December 23, 2016

Just a typical day at the COP

COP meetings can be overwhelming, even for those of us who have been coming for many years. There are many negotiating tracks that one can follow, a lot of jargon, and way too many acronyms. And just when you begin to learn the proverbial ropes, a new agreement or workstream comes along with another set of vocabularies to learn!

There are daily constituency meetings; my mornings typically start with the Research and Independent NGOs meeting since I serve on the RINGOs steering committee. It is a chance for participants to review what is going on in the various tracks that they are following; a "Cliffs Notes" version of what is progressing (or not). This is helpful for those who cannot be everywhere at once or who aren't inclined to sit through too many lengthy negotiations sessions that often move at a snail’s pace. At the end of these meetings, it is often a good time to check in with students from Moravian’s delegation. Today, the researchers from the U.S. – many of them representing the next generation of scientists and lawyers who will work in the environmental field – gathered to discuss an upcoming meeting with the U.S. delegation (i.e. from the State Department of the only country that is now publicly pulling away from the Paris Agreement). Oh, what an interesting conversation that will be!

Three women in STEM and from the Rocky Mountain Science and Sustainability Network

For those of us who are not policy wonks, there is much more than negotiations to follow. The side-events are a lot like going to a professional conference with panels and presentations on a wide range of topics. For instance, today happens to be “Business and Industry Day” at COP23. Yesterday was “Young and Future Generations Day.” Since we will be discussing corporate responses to climate change in our course soon, I ventured into a session entitled Transforming the Industry: The Case for Transparency and Ambition in Markets and NDCs. (See what I mean about jargon and acronyms?) The session was billed as a time to  

"Discuss the chances and challenges energy intensive industry is facing on the way to GHG-neutrality; Identify how the framework and instruments of the Paris Agreement can support industry on its way to become GHG-neutral by 2050; showcasing (inter)national initiatives that contribute thereto."

I listened to information about carbon pricing, the company Bosch’s story (or propaganda, depending on your perspective), the ability to purchase certificates (carbon offsets), and ways to become more energy efficiency. Yawn. The business world, like many scientists, needs to learn to be a bit less dull.

A typical session audience

Next, I was going to go to a session titled Hacking climate change: The digital future of climate leadership, innovation and impact sponsored by Microsoft and interestingly the South Pole Group! The room was standing room only, so I moved to another session entitled Achieving Socially and Ecologically Beneficial Renewable Energy Systems through Community Engagement in part because one of the sponsors was the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation (Planet Pledge initiative). The content is worthy of a separate blog post, but in short, the session was about how the demand for rare metals to support renewable energy technology and the computerized energy efficiency systems is creating new ecological destruction and having negative social consequences for many in the developing world (think conflict minerals). The problem of climate change is complex, but so are potential solutions.

Besides the negotiations and side events, many countries have pavilions where they offer their own programming along with some cultural flare, and there are countless exhibitions from NGOs, universities, think tanks, and other organizations. Having come to these events for many years, I enjoy wandering around reconnecting with interesting friends from around the world, including people I met at the community-based adaptation conference in Uganda last summer from Bangladesh and Zanzibar, representatives from Mediators Beyond Borders International, faculty from other campuses, etc. I had two back-to-back conversations with people who had been in Svalbard this past summer! It is, ironically, a network of friends with a high carbon footprint from travel. Tonight, I will have dinner with a French glaciologist who studies in Scotland and does research in polar regions. And that is a typical day at a COP meeting: exhausting, but never dull.

Some scenes from around the COP:

 

Yes, those are lights made from hollowed out fish!

The last 4 images are from the Fiji Pavilion - the official host of COP23 even if we are in Bonn

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.

Destination: COP 23

I am at the airport awaiting my flight to Bonn, Germany to attend the annual U.N. climate conference – COP23. This will be my 9th such trip having first attended COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009, and I find myself reflecting upon what has changed over that time span.

As a refresher, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was one of three treaties to come out of the Rio Earth Summit held in 1992. The framework was enacted in 1994, and the first Conference of the Parties or COP1 was held in 1995. Parties are the signatories to the agreement -- the nations working to find ways to mitigate the problem (largely by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions) and to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate.

When Moravian College delegates attended COP15, the sense of optimism was unmistakable; with a new administration in the White House, many felt that the shift in priorities and perspectives would finally result in progress towards developing a new significant international agreement on climate change. Despite that optimism, it would take until 2015 in Paris for that agreement to finally happen. And then, one year later, the results of the U.S. election came in while we were attending COP22 in Marrakech. The mood immediately shifted from excitement about working on implementation of the Paris Agreement to a gloomy sense of a new uncertainty. Despite decades of scientific data telling policymakers what should be done, it was immediately obvious that politics of just one country – mine – can quickly overshadow all the will and hard work to address such a global challenge.

If my experience at the Community-based Adaptation Conference in Uganda this summer is any indication, any delegate from the U.S. attending COP23 will face difficult questions, frustration, criticism, and even anger about the anti-climate change rhetoric and lack of cooperation on implementing the provisions of the Paris Agreement coming from the U.S.

The news is not all discouraging. The #WeAreStillIn initiative of U.S. cities, corporations and institutions of higher education (including Moravian College), the dramatic global progress being made in switching to renewable, non-carbon based energy sources, and the innovations occurring in technology, companies, and other countries – rich and poor alike – are all signs of hope.

Here in the terminal, as I chat with the students who are part of our delegation this year, I can’t help but notice their enthusiasm. Of course, they are excited to be traveling to a new country, but they are also eager to participate in COP23 and share stories through our blog to those back home. For four years, they have been studying environmental issues – the science and policy – and now, they will get to participate in the nexus between the two at the international level. They understand the severity and urgency associated with the challenge of climate change. They are frustrated by the climate denial and inaction in the U.S. Yet, they, like my own sons who are about the same age, are not without hope that we can still make a difference at the local and global level to address this challenge.

The UNFCCC process has its flaws. It is complex and slow. But 197 nations agreed to the provisions of the Paris Agreement. Think about that: 197 countries in agreement about something. As of this week, 86% of those countries have ratified that agreement through their own internal processes. The Paris Agreement opened the door to the private sector, cities and sub-national governments across the world to participate and innovate; over the past two years, we are seeing what the U.N. refers to as “game-changing actions.” The agreement sent strong signals to markets -- where to invest and where not to. Faith-based communities across the globe believe that, as stewards of all creation, we have a moral obligation to address climate change. And developing countries are beginning to leapfrog dirty, outdated technologies as they work to raise their standard of living.

This week, I will be sharing my reflections on what has changed during the past nine years since my first COP -- in terms of the scientific understanding, the technology, the policy and politics, the public attitudes and the role that I have played. As we attend COP23, we will all be reporting on the issues and our perceptions on the progress being made toward implementing the Paris Agreement provisions. Hopefully, we will provide some glimmers of optimism along the way.

Nature decrees that we do not exceed the speed of light. All other impossibilities are optional. 

Robert Brault

Opening Plenaries at the Bonn Climate Change Conference May 2017

This morning was the Opening Plenary session for the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bonn. Most of the Opening Plenary consisted of establishing the working groups and procedures for the rest of the conference; these working groups will focus on various agenda items and have their recommendations ready before the Closing Plenary. Parties to the Conference were able to provide comments on certain agenda items, and there were two main areas of emphasis: the need for transparency in climate finance and accounting (to avoid double counting), and the need to consider indigenous peoples when implementing clean development and adaptation measures. There was also discussion about the need to account for emissions from fuel used for international aviation and maritime transport, and a call for international standards on data collection and a collective strategy for reducing greenhouse gases in this sector. The goal is for a plan by the end of 2018, implemented through the International Maritime Organization. After this discussion, NGOs provided comments, which included concern (and disdain) for agriculture, forestry and other land use offsets, the lack of attention given to food security, and the need to address issues that affect youth, calling for a joint platform by SBSTA and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) to elevate issues that affect youth and indigenous peoples. 

Following the SBSTA was the Opening Plenary for the SBI.  Comments from the Chair, Mr. Tomasz Chruszczow, included that progress made in Paris was irreversible and irrevocable, that we need to demonstrate trust for State and non-State actors, and that we all needed to work together against our biggest competitor: time.

During this opening session, Ambassador Khan of Fiji was introduced.  Fiji will head the next Conference of the Parties (COP) in November in Bonn. Ambassador Khan expressed concern for those in the Pacific facing Cyclone Donna, the worst cyclone on record in May; she cited this cyclone as an example of why Fiji felt compelled to host the next COP.  Fiji has been working with the German government and the UNFCCC to prepare for the COP and welcomes any and all opportunities to engage with interested parties.  The Prime Minister of Fiji will be visiting the conference next week to echo these sentiments. 

The agenda for the next two weeks promises to be full and lively.  I look forward to the progress towards implementing the Paris Agreement.

On Leaving COP22

Civil Society Event for Outgoing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon
(Photo by Gillian Bowser)

As I was leaving the Moroccan venue on the last day of the United Nations climate conference (COP22), participants were gathering for a photo with a banner avowing “We will move ahead!” The message was similar to one on a banner used at a civil society ceremony for outgoing U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon: “Climate action is unstoppable.” Given the mood at the conference after the outcome of the U.S. elections, I couldn’t help but wonder if these declarations were aimed at our country and president-elect Trump.

With the media fully focused on the campaign and post-election analysis, there was little coverage of COP22 back in this country. But in Marrakech, there was a palpable sense of urgency to hammer out the implementation details of the Paris Agreement which entered into force on November 4^th. Although 112 of 197 countries, including the U.S., have already ratified the agreement, the current pledged national reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are inadequate to achieve the goal of holding global temperature increase to no more than 2°C. For the first four months of 2016, the average global surface temperature was hovering around 1.2°C warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, and 2016 is on track to be the warmest year on record. The previous warmest year, 2015, was 0.8°C warmer than the long temp average.

While in Marrakech, I attended an event entitled “Earth Info.” Some of the latest climate science was presented about the extent of extreme weather events, sea ice loss, and ocean indicators of change. I wasn’t surprised by the data or the faster-than-expected pace of change. I was, however, shocked by the comments of a presenter from FuturEarth.org who argued that in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, the world will have to reach peak emissions within four years, be at net-zero emissions within forty years, and develop a new carbon sink on the scale of the planet’s oceans within eighty years. In other words, our global decarbonization challenge will require not only tremendous advances in clean energy technology but also geo-engineered solutions. For those who believe that technology has created a number of environmental and social disasters throughout history, this was terrifying news. For those who believe that technological solutions are what will get us out of the climate change mess and spur a new low-carbon, clean energy economy, the uncertain future role of the U.S. in leading the new research and tech development is unsettling.

It didn’t take long after the election for China’s Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin to remind the world of the important role that the U.S. had played in the history of climate change negotiations under Republican leadership in the late 1980s (as opposed to global warming being “created by and for the Chinese”). China, however, sees this new political environment as an opportunity to take the lead in global climate change action. Over the past five years, they have become the top investor in renewable energy, outspending the EU by a factor of 2.5 in 2015.

John Kerry, in his last speech to a COP audience as Secretary of State, noted that emerging economies like China, India and Brazil invested more in renewable technologies last year than the developed world. He went on to say that “clean energy is expected to be a multitrillion dollar market – the largest market the world has ever known,” and added “…no nation will do well if it sits on the sidelines, handicapping its new businesses from reaping the benefits of the clean-tech explosion.”[1]

Despite its shortcomings, the Paris Agreement sent a strong message to the private sector. Consistent with this, a letter signed by several hundred members of the U.S. business and investment community was addressed to President-elect Trump, urging him to keep our nation engaged in the Paris process and support the goals of the Agreement.[2]

The results of the U.S. elections cast a long shadow over the international negotiations. I reflected on how different things felt from the last time there was a change in the U.S. leadership – my first COP – in 2009. At that time, Obama was new in office and there was optimism that we would provide the much needed leadership on tackling climate change. Since then, the rest of the world has become much more unified on a way forward on this global challenge, and developing countries are now assuming the leadership in finding solutions to both a low carbon future and adapting to the impacts of climate change. It remains to be seen whether our country will stand alone on the outside of this unified movement, or if the momentum is strong enough among local governments, businesses, colleges and universities, and civil society to convince our new leaders to stay the course.

---

[1] The text of John Kerry’s speech at COP22 can be found at http://m.state.gov/md264366.htm.

[2] The “Business Backs Low-Carbon USA” letter to President-elect Trump: www.lowcarbonusa.org

Moral Courage

 
It is a rare that one has the opportunity to be in a room with a great leader, with someone who is articulate, passionate, and willing to show both courage and emotion on the international stage. Today was such a day.

Secretary Kerry started a briefing – his last at a COP as Secretary – by graciously thanking Special Envoy Jonathan Pershing, the U.S. delegation to the COP, and all the international partners - on this, his last speech to a COP as Secretary. He talked about returning to COP23 as citizen Kerry. He told a story of Churchill and Roosevelt traveling to Marrakech during WWII -- through active combat and with plenty of scotch - to view the sunset on the Atlas Mountains. He later would quote Churchill about not just doing what is right, but what is required. And he would go on to quote Pope Francis. This was not a typical briefing.

Kerry spoke of progress - in the UNFCCC, in clean energy innovation and adoption, in the strong message that the Paris Agreement has given the private sector. But he also spoke of the work that is yet to be done, sharing dramatic observations from his recent trips to the Arctic and Antarctica along with frightening statistics of the predicted new demand for energy, especially in southeast Asia, much of which is slated to come from coal.

The Secretary chastised countries that, with one hand, pat themselves on the back for all the progress they are making, but then, with the other hand give money to support the building of new coal-fired plants in developing nations. He expressed the need for urgency and more ambitious action given the pace at which the planet is changing and gave dramatic examples of the costs of inaction.  Countries, Kerry noted, couldn't "bask in the glow of Paris." And they could not fail, as this "would not be political failure, but a moral failure."

And then the moment when the audience held its breathe - when Kerry chose to speak about the fear and uncertainty people were feeling after the U.S. election. He, of course, couldn’t predict what will happen, but noted that he could say with confidence that issues look quite different when you are in office compared to the campaign trail. He challenged the new administration and anyone who is “conflicted about which road to follow” to “see for themselves, to do their own diligence, to see why so many are moving on this.” He urged them to talk to economists about the risk of inaction, Fortunate 500 companies, military leaders, farmers, faith leaders, and young people. And he told them that “above all, consult with the scientists who have spent their lives working on this” and not let their work be in vain.

Repeatedly, Kerry said that climate change shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but that it is one that will exacerbate conflict around the world. He urged people to talk with the intelligence community about global stability, increasing food prices and risks to human health. To talk with the mayors from cities in the southern states who are dealing with sunny day floods and to conservative business leaders who are holding their supply chains responsible for the ecological and carbon footprints.

Kerry had begun his briefing-turned-speech by saying that climate change was a personal issue for him. Many thought he was referring to how much he had worked on the international negotiations under the UNFCCC, but instead, he reflected on the first Earth Day and the teach-in he participated in, the first climate conference in Rio where he met his wife, the moment in Paris when he thought the "world had finally found the way forward" and this past April - again on Earth Day. On that day, he had invited his daughter to the United Nations in New York City where he would sign the Paris Agreement on behalf of the United States. This towering politician of international renown talked about playing with his granddaughter as he awaited his turn. In a spontaneous decision, he carried her on stage with him so that she would be part of the important moment in history and a symbol for the audience of what is at stake.

Here is the text of the speech.
~~~~~~~~~~
This all brought to mind this poem by Rudyard Kipling
If: A Father's Advice to His Son

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!”

Moral Courage

 
It is a rare that one has the opportunity to be in a room with a great leader, with someone who is articulate, passionate, and willing to show both courage and emotion on the international stage. Today was such a day.

Secretary Kerry started a briefing – his last at a COP as Secretary – by graciously thanking Special Envoy Jonathan Pershing, the U.S. delegation to the COP, and all the international partners - on this, his last speech to a COP as Secretary. He talked about returning to COP23 as citizen Kerry. He told a story of Churchill and Roosevelt traveling to Marrakech during WWII -- through active combat and with plenty of scotch - to view the sunset on the Atlas Mountains. He later would quote Churchill about not just doing what is right, but what is required. And he would go on to quote Pope Francis. This was not a typical briefing.

Kerry spoke of progress - in the UNFCCC, in clean energy innovation and adoption, in the strong message that the Paris Agreement has given the private sector. But he also spoke of the work that is yet to be done, sharing dramatic observations from his recent trips to the Arctic and Antarctica along with frightening statistics of the predicted new demand for energy, especially in southeast Asia, much of which is slated to come from coal.

The Secretary chastised countries that, with one hand, pat themselves on the back for all the progress they are making, but then, with the other hand give money to support the building of new coal-fired plants in developing nations. He expressed the need for urgency and more ambitious action given the pace at which the planet is changing and gave dramatic examples of the costs of inaction.  Countries, Kerry noted, couldn't "bask in the glow of Paris." And they could not fail, as this "would not be political failure, but a moral failure."

And then the moment when the audience held its breathe - when Kerry chose to speak about the fear and uncertainty people were feeling after the U.S. election. He, of course, couldn’t predict what will happen, but noted that he could say with confidence that issues look quite different when you are in office compared to the campaign trail. He challenged the new administration and anyone who is “conflicted about which road to follow” to “see for themselves, to do their own diligence, to see why so many are moving on this.” He urged them to talk to economists about the risk of inaction, Fortunate 500 companies, military leaders, farmers, faith leaders, and young people. And he told them that “above all, consult with the scientists who have spent their lives working on this” and not let their work be in vain.

Repeatedly, Kerry said that climate change shouldn’t be a partisan issue, but that it is one that will exacerbate conflict around the world. He urged people to talk with the intelligence community about global stability, increasing food prices and risks to human health. To talk with the mayors from cities in the southern states who are dealing with sunny day floods and to conservative business leaders who are holding their supply chains responsible for the ecological and carbon footprints.

Kerry had begun his briefing-turned-speech by saying that climate change was a personal issue for him. Many thought he was referring to how much he had worked on the international negotiations under the UNFCCC, but instead, he reflected on the first Earth Day and the teach-in he participated in, the first climate conference in Rio where he met his wife, the moment in Paris when he thought the "world had finally found the way forward" and this past April - again on Earth Day. On that day, he had invited his daughter to the United Nations in New York City where he would sign the Paris Agreement on behalf of the United States. This towering politician of international renown talked about playing with his granddaughter as he awaited his turn. In a spontaneous decision, he carried her on stage with him so that she would be part of the important moment in history and a symbol for the audience of what is at stake.


~~~~~~~~~~
This all brought to mind this poem by Rudyard Kipling
If: A Father's Advice to His Son

If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!”

An Accidental Ambassador

Photo credit: Gillian Bowser

I came to Morocco ten days ago for the U.N. climate meetings, to play a role in linking scientific researchers to each other and to policymakers, and to obtain updates on issues related to mitigation of and adaptation to climate change. Besides making sure that my absentee ballot was sent in on time since I would be away on Election Day, I had not put much thought into the impact that the timing of the election would have on the climate change negotiations or my being in a predominantly Muslim country.

This COP is focused on implementation – for Parties to hammer out details of putting the Paris Agreement into action, to work on areas where agreement had not yet been reached last year at COP21, and to try to get countries to be more ambitious in their pledges (and preferably verifiable action) to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone coming to Marrakech knew that finance issues still required difficult negotiation work, be it for financing technology for a low carbon future, for helping developing nations to adapt to the current and future impacts of a changing climate, or for perhaps the most contentious issue of all, compensation under the provisions of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts.

The conference started off normally. Then, a different sort of 9/11 occurred. The world awoke on the 9th of November, day 3 of COP21, to the shocking news that Donald Trump had been elected president of the United States. The very candidate who has tweeted about climate change being a hoax, who has vowed to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement and to defund U.N. initiatives, and yes, the one who has made all sorts of negative rhetoric about Muslims.

It is still uncertain whether all of this was simply hollow campaign speech making to gain support from certain constituencies. But when I see high school classmates, people I have known all my life, posting statements like “No more Muslims or Mexicans in the country, time to celebrate,” I know we have much to worry about.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the meetings of the U.S. delegation to get a better sense of their fears (beyond their job security in the State Department or at NOAA or NASA). Are their hands now tied as far as negotiations? As a civil society observer, I do not have the ability to influence policy at that level, but instead am limited to discuss with like-minded friends back home ways that we can organize, rally, and try to create climate friendly policy and practices at the local level. I have been surprised at how many emails and Facebook messages I have received from former students and community members -- all expressing their fears for the future and looking to me for a glimmer of hope. I am not sure how to provide what they are looking for, but I have come to realize that there is some intangible importance to my being in this place at this moment.

By being here, I have somehow fallen into a role of diplomacy making, an odd thing for a scientist, who grew up being rather a-political, and certainly knowing little about Arabic culture. The people of Morocco are incredibly welcoming, but it seems as if everywhere I go, the locals – waiters, shopkeepers, ticket sellers at the train station – have a need to mention the election and ask about our new president. After they ask if I voted for him (I did not), they relax a bit and begin to talk more. As typical, at dinner one night last week, the waiter asked where we are from, and then made some comment about the election results. But then he asked why American's don't like Muslims. My heart dropped. I told him that wasn't the case for all of the people in my country.

None of us know what the future holds, so we speculate and try to find some hopeful signs between the sound bites that pass for news these days. As we share some mint tea and kind words of empathy, we come to realize how much we have in common besides our fear – our mutual desire for three main things: peace, a good future for our children, and a planet that remains habitable. This then, becomes my mission – to find what binds us together, rather than differentiates and divides us. For it is these common goals that will give us the strength and guidance to solve much more than the global climate challenge.

Day 3 at COP22 Part II: Trying to make sense of it all

An hour before my alarm was to go off, I awoke. I had been dreaming about the election outcome. So I checked the news - and was shocked by the headline: "Cliffhanger." That would change a bit later to show that the Republicans had taken control of the country. This was my Facebook post at about 6:30 a.m.:

In a little while, I have to walk in to the UN meetings and face the world. Literally. Not sure I am up for this. It is tough enough to try to "solve" climate change, work towards sustainable development to close the gap on inequality, and fight for education and equal rights for women around the world. But what do you do when your own country elects a person who is against all of that...

I needed to pull my act together since I help run the daily meetings of the Research and Independent NGOs. One of my steering committee colleagues - a very wise, even-keeled climate policy expert from Germany, leaned over and said: "It is a sad day for the world. We are going back to WWII times, only this time, it is not Germany causing the problems." I gulped.

Just yesterday, friends on Facebook were interested in knowing what the reactions to the election would be from people around the world (before any of us knew the outcome). A reference to WWII was not one that I would have predicted 24 hours ago. To say it was difficult to stay focused on the tasks at hand today is an understatement.

My third post of the morning on Facebook was let those friends know what the reactions have been:

The election result has cast a deep shadow over Morocco. I remember the elation in 2009, when Obama was new to the office and the world hoped that there would at last be progress on international climate change policy. Today, it is just the opposite. People fear that the US will pull out of the Paris Agreement, will no longer provide funds for sustainable development and climate mitigation/adaptation or any other UN initiative. Much of the key climate research comes from NOAA, NASA, etc. Will that be shut down? People worry about how this will embolden Putin or increase global conflict. Latin Americans are asking what this means for cross border relationships with their "neighbor" to the north. And we are in a Muslim country. The people fear for Muslims around the world. Despite the fact that the sun came out and it is a beautiful day weather-wise, the mood is dark. But the empathy and support is strong. That brings a bit of solace.

The COP22 venue in Marrakech, Morocco

My post today was going to be about the Earth Information session from yesterday where some of the latest climate change data was shared. It wasn't exactly upbeat news. The Futurearth organization has a headline on their webpage from November 3rd: Plans to meet international climate targets may fall short, new report says referring to a United Nations Environmental Programme report. Those who follow climate change science already knew that the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit on global temperature rise included in the Paris Agreement was not likely to be met. What shocked me was what the panelist from this group had to say.

In order to have a 50% change of achieving this target, the following would have to happen:

• Within 4 years, we will need to hit peak emissions (of greenhouse gases)
• Within 40 years, we need to achieve net-zero emissions
• Within 80 years, we need a new carbon sink on the scale of our oceans (read geo-engineering as mentioned in my previous post).
  

To me, this is frightening. Comments (tweets) like the one below made by our now president-elect make it even more so:

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012

The Rest of the (News) Story in 2016

For the past year (it seems like so much longer), the airwaves in the United States have been dominated by campaign noise. Occasionally, this noise has been punctuated by some actual news such as the stories about Hurricane Matthew, the struggle of refugees coming from war-ravaged areas, and forest fires in the western states or the central U.S. (and if you pay attention to international news, Siberian boreal forests). In case you had not thought about it recently, Haiti is still in ruins after Hurricane Matthew, described just last week as a “blighted apocalyptic landscape of wrecked homes and growling hunger.” And you may have missed them with all the campaign static, but there have also been several news stories related to climate change, besides the ones I mentioned above.

In October, there was a historic agreement reached to cut hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – avoiding the release of significant amounts of CO₂-equivalent emissions. In 2015, reports indicated that there had been a dramatic rise in HFC emissions between 2007 and 2012 due largely to air conditioning – an increase of around 33 million tonnes per year of this very powerful greenhouse gas. The Kigali Agreement will cap and phase down HFC consumption starting with developed nations in 2019.

On November 4^th, the Paris Agreement, negotiated at COP21 in 2015 went into force (i.e. became international law). This is the first agreement were all countries have specific pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As of November 8^th, 102 (of 197) countries have ratified this agreement which has as one key goal to limit planetary warming to below 2°C over the pre-Industrial levels.

Yesterday (November 7^th) COP22 began. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Parties or signatories of the 1992 agreement are committed to address the global problem of climate change. At the annual Conference of the Parties or COPs, multilateral negotiations related to climate change policies occur. You may wonder why this group needs to continue to meet if so much progress was made last year. Part of the answer to that question is that the current commitments of individual countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are insufficient to meet the planetary temperature goal of the Paris Agreement. These intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), when added up, are projected to only limit warming to around 3.5°C, and that is only if the countries actually abide by their pledges.

A goal of continued negotiations then is to get deeper cuts in emissions, to have countries move towards these more ambitious cuts sooner, and to have the conversion to a low carbon future in order to limit warming to, not 2°C, but rather to 1.5°C. Scientific models show that the 1.5°C warming limit may – just may – limit sea level rise associated with climate change so that it won’t completely drown out several small island nations and coastal communities. To get there, not only will each country need to be more ambitious with their INDCs, but the Parties will also need to address emission sources not currently covered such as the bunker fuel emissions from maritime shipping in international waters.

Monitoring and verification mechanisms, carbon markets, adaptation, and finance related to both loss and damage due to climate change impacts and technology development needed to green our national economies are just a few of the other issues that need to be addressed in negotiations. It is only day 2 of COP22 and I have already heard much more about geoengineering and negative carbon emissions (reducing CO₂ from the atmosphere) than usual. With my science background, these terms are code for “plan B” to save the planet. To others, they are terrifying concepts of hubris, our belief that our technological developments can “fix” everything.

I suspect that the reason for the increased emphasis on technological "solutions" may be due to some other pieces of news that have likely gotten lost in the campaign noise. Last year, 2015, was the warmest year globally on record and we crossed the 1°C mark for global average temperature increase. For the first three months of 2016, the global average temperature was hovering around 1.2°C warmer than pre-Industrial times. Sea level rise is occurring faster than any time in the past 2800 years. And we learned that the 2011-2015 mean September sea ice extent was 30% below the 1981 – 2010 average. This information is not from models, but from actual scientific measurements. Perhaps the scariest headline from all of this is that scientists believe it may now be impossible to limit global warming to the 1.5°C target.

These are very big news stories that may be linked to severe weather events and conflict happening around the world. But despite the importance of these issues, they apparently were not significant enough to be discussed in any detail during the presidential debates, and at best, were a blip on the evening news.

Today, those annoying political ads will end. For days or weeks after the election, Americans will come to grips with the outcome of a contentious election, and political pundits will analyze what it all might mean. What likely won’t be in the news during that time is that thousands of people from 197 countries will be in Marrakech for two weeks trying to save humanity from a very real crisis that is happening regardless of which national leader is elected back in the United States.

Reflecting on COP21 and the Paris Agreement

We are experiencing an extended stretch of unusually mild weather here in eastern Pennsylvania. How much of this is due to a strong El Niño as opposed to being a symptom of climate disruption is not known. Regardless, we do know that 2015 is on track to be the warmest year since humans began recording temperatures, and global temperatures will soon reach the benchmark of 1º C above preindustrial levels. Against this backdrop, on December 12th, almost two hundred nations unanimously committed to greenhouse gas emissions reductions aimed at keeping total warming “to well below 2°C above preindustrial levels.” Despite two decades of climate negotiations, such consensus has not been previously achieved, and never before has the need to deal with climate change seemed so urgent.

I recently returned from the United Nations climate negotiations in Paris – my seventh COP meeting in as many years. Over the years, I have witnessed international disappointment when negotiations repeatedly failed. Despite growing frustration and cynicism, attempts to tackle this most pressing and complex issue have continued. The emotional ups and downs this year have been great – beginning with unparalleled optimism after the approval of the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals, the release of the Pope’s Encyclical, and the U.N. Climate Summit in September. This enthusiasm was diminished, however, by the terrorist attacks in Paris that left many of us wondering whether COP21 would still occur. Perhaps it was this juxtaposition of terrorism and recent weather extremes that led to COP21 opening with the largest gathering of world leaders in history – all pledging to take on the formidable challenge of climate change.

There will be much analysis and criticism of the 31-page Paris Agreement. Already, activists and scientists from around the world have pointed out that the pledges are insufficient to protect the most vulnerable people or to reverse the trend of rapidly declining biodiversity. Indeed, the 188 national commitments received to-date for reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not limit global warming to 2ºC, and the commitments are non-binding. However, the Parties to the Agreement acknowledge this and have pledged to work on more ambitious goals over the next few years. As with any negotiations, this deal is a compromise – attempting to balance costs, benefits and risks, along with politics. It is far from perfect, but it is an important leap forward, especially considering that the document had almost 1000 sections of bracketed text (areas of disagreement) just one week ago.

Language indicating that the world will be fossil fuel-free is missing, but many oil-rich nations would never have accepted such wording. Yet, as noted by Secretary of State, John Kerry, the Agreement does send a strong signal to the business community and financial markets that we are moving to a low-carbon, renewable energy future. Fossil fuels still make up about 80 percent of the world’s energy mix; according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the combined stock value of the world’s coal, oil and gas companies is about $5 trillion. The barriers to transforming to a low-carbon future are substantial.

At COP21, I heard about many new developments in energy storage and transmission for solar and wind energy and breakthroughs in carbon capture and sequestration technologies. Most of this innovation was not coming from our country. Some healthy global competition might revitalize U.S. support for science and technology, and perhaps a redirecting of U.S. subsidies to fossil-fuel companies to better uses.

Many are expressing disdain for the behind-the-scenes politicking used to reach an outcome that could be accepted by the U.S. Given that we still have one of the large carbon footprints per capita of any country, the U.S. has to be a signatory to this agreement. There is also strong criticism that the Agreement does not provide a basis for any liability or compensation which essentially allows past polluters, like the U.S., off the hook. But there was much talk in Paris about new models for insurance and financial plans to deal with the loss and damage of extreme weather events, coastal erosion, climate refugees, and other impacts of climate change. We can continue to bicker about the past, or we can get on with the business of helping countries adapt to the inevitable changes of climate change, share technology to help them leapfrog past dirty energy options, and work together to build capacity and resilience for vulnerable communities and people.

Finally, there have been many complaints over the past few weeks that the youth voice was silenced in Paris, in part due to security measures imposed by the French government. However, I don’t recall ever hearing so much focus on the youth and future generations at the conference – especially from the world leaders. Registered civil society groups representing a wide range of perspectives, including indigenous rights, least-developed nations, farmers, mayors, the business community, researchers, trade unions, women and gender, and youth, all had significant access to the negotiations and there were regular meetings with the high-level staff of the COP21 Presidency. And the Agreement clearly acknowledges the “Parties obligations on human rights” – a major victory.

Civil society can complain and consider this Agreement as a betrayal, or it can celebrate this as a major step forward and work with scientists to continue to educate the public about the seriousness of climate change and to be relentless advocates for even stronger climate action at the local, national, and global levels. I prefer the latter approach.