The Tipping Point

We walked into the entrance of COP 21, and I knew this was the moment when the world would change.  Over 45,000 attendees comprised of heads of states, delegations, and civil society observers representing 195 countries gathered at Le Bourget, Paris to make a commitment to work towards a legally binding document to stop climate change and keep the global temperature from increasing more than 2°C.  This is definitely the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced, and it will take countless hours of negotiation to come to an agreement.  The entire world and future generations are relying on the delegates to come together and work towards a global accord so we can secure our future.

The plenaries started at the beginning of the day with the opening of COP 21 and statements by the heads of states.  Several high key individuals spoke at the opening of the COP, including the French President, Prince Charles, and the President of COP 21.  All of them had the same message; now is the time for the world to work together to form a binding agreement that can save future generations from a greater than 2°C world.  As Prince Charles stated in his speech, “No one should give up their tomorrow for our today”.  He strongly encouraged the delegates to come to an agreement in Paris so future generations would not suffer. 

Today was an amazing experience that I would never have imagined that I would have been able to witness.  The rest of this week should bring more insights into how the world will come to an agreement, and how people like me can help make a difference.  

Standing Up to Fear: COP21 in Paris

Moravian College has as its mission the following:

Moravian College’s liberal arts education prepares each individual for a reflective life, fulfilling careers, and transformation leadership in a world of change. 

This mission statement is will aligned with the definition of a liberal education in the 21st century provided by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) the first sentence of which states that

A liberal education is an approach to college learning that empowers individuals and prepares them to deal with complexity, diversity, and change.

I have been thinking a lot lately about the change that we are witnessing in the world and thinking about the future for not only my own sons, but for the students that I teach. It is a messy, complex, and pretty scary future that today’s youth face – a place where they will be confronted with what AAC&U refers to as unscripted problems. Climate change, food security, and global inequities are just a few of the grand challenges, and all of these have the potential to fuel worldwide conflict.

Ted Schultz, the late economist and Nobel Prize winner from the University of Chicago dabbled in many scholarly areas, but one of his many contributions was to consider the question of “Why does education matter?’ He came to the conclusion that education is important because it provides people with the ability to deal with disequilibrium – a state of disarray and change. I doubt many would argue that we are certainly living in times of disequilibrium. Thus, in higher education, it is our collective mission to help students make sense of this disequilibrium and to work with them to tackle the messy complex problems for which there is no script, no instruction manual, to guide us to the solutions.

One of these unscripted problems hit home recently as the college had to struggle with whether to still send a delegation of faculty and students to Paris to participate as civil society representatives in the United Nations climate negotiations process (COP21) in light of the terrorist attacks in that city. Since 2009, Moravian College has been accredited by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to attend the annual Conference of the Parties (or COP) meetings. Students had planned for this event for over a year and one has a research project that hinges on attendance. I had been working for months to organize a panel featuring researchers from around the world doing studies that can inform climate policy. The campus, of course, has to worry about the safety of the students and its own liability in the event something truly horrid was to occur.

Each of us had to reflect on exactly why it was important to attend, what the risks were, and what the implications of not going would be. The students knew this wasn’t just any trip to Paris, but a chance for them to be a voice in what is being considered the last chance for an international agreement to address climate change, and an opportunity to report back to the campus and larger community about not only this complex environmental problem, but also the messy process of finding a global solution when 196 Parties are involved. Media reports, where they exist, cannot truly portray these stories in the way that the youth whose future depends on global cooperation on this issue can.

In the end, after much personal reflection and many conversations among themselves, with their parents, and with administration, the students convinced administration of the importance of their going – in part, as a stance against fear of terrorism. As once noted by Dr. Cheryl Saban, an advocate for women and children and U.S. representative to the United Nations General Assembly:

Living fearlessly doesn't mean we are always stoic; nor are we aloof or numb to the frightening problems in the world. It simply means that at the crucial moment, we don't allow fear to be our ruler…. It's resisting inertia - it is facing the very thing that is causing the fear, and holding the belief that we can have an impact on it -- that we can make a difference on the outcome, even if that difference is merely changing the way we think about it.

Our students weren’t stoic nor are they numb to the frightening problems in the world. But they do still believe it is possible to make a difference, and that belief, along with their solid liberal education, will indeed set them on the course to be transformative leaders of the future.

A part of the Moravian College delegation to COP21: Stephen Stoddard, Paige Malewski, Laura McBride, Audrey McSain (Not shown: Matt Bosch, Hilde Binford, and Diane Husic)

Digging the Pathway to Paris: What to Expect

In recent months, many countries have been gearing up for the highly anticipated Conference of the Parties (COP21) to be held in Paris, France November 30 - December 11 to formulate and finalize policies in regards to addressing anthropogenic climate change. Here is short list of what to watch out for during the two week intergovernmental processes.

• Will negotiations that are made include language on sustainable development to achieve targets set forth by the recently adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals?
• Will practices such as deep decarbonization (http://deepdecarbonization.org/about/)
• be discussed as a sufficient means of keeping global warming below the 2℃ limit?
• Will significant targets be set by high carbon emitting nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to set limits of parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere to ensure a limit of 2℃ or less?
• What policies will be formulated during the negotiations between the 190 represented governments and who will take the initiative in adopting formulated policies?
• Will climate action policies be formulated to significantly mitigate the expected impacts from anthropogenic climate change?

All the world will be watching to see if Paris is the year climate negotiations are adopted with a strategic plan for implementation and execution. It will be interesting to see if the negotiations will include the voices of the poor and marginalized, who suffer the greatest from the detrimental effects of climate change. In addition, along with these negotiations and the recent encyclical, Laudato Si (https://laudatosi.com/watch),  by Pope Francis, observations will have to be made to see how the convergence of these documents will address climate change and poverty.

What to Follow to stay up-to-date on all things COP21

Twitter Facebook

@COP21_News @MO_COP21

@UNFCCC

@COP21 Instagram

@350 @MOCOP21

@pathwaytoparis

@WorldWeWant2015

As always keep following our blog Moravian College at the UNFCCC

A message on climate change and conflict

This opinion piece I wrote seems relevant to share on this blog:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diane-husic/the-memorial-day-message-that-is-missing_b_7433224.html

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.

Kaitlyn Teppert: Let's "ReCOP"

If you’ve ever flown and gotten the chance to look out the window as you ascend, the view often leaves us with a sense of awe—especially the first time. If you haven’t flown before, I can try to describe it to you. When you’re stuck on the ground, it’s easy to only see what’s in front of you. But from above, your viewpoint both literally and metaphorically will change.

It’s kind of like zooming out. You see individual lights become less distinct; you see how all the roads connect and how exactly you get from point A to B. Your city becomes indistinguishable amongst the lights, you see the trees that separate towns; you see your individual home become something so much bigger than what it is. It becomes part of a system. It becomes part of a whole.

As we bid farewell to Lima, Peru and the 20th Conference of Parties (COP 20) on Sunday, an annual United Nations climate change negotiation, it’s these thoughts that were running through my head.

Did they run through the negotiators’?

No matter if they flew in a helicopter, jet, or stuck on a plane like the rest of us—did they watch as their bubble melts away into the surface of the Earth? Did they think about what they discussed this past week? Did they fight hard enough to save the fate of this delicate system?

The official outcomes of the countless hours of negotiations have been released in the Lima Call for Climate Action, as it’s being called. I think the name is extremely significant, no matter what the content is: no longer can we sit and talk about climate change. We need to mobilize and start fighting against it.

It’s easy to get this feeling from the COP as an observer. As an observer, our days were often filled with interesting talks and side-events presented by the people who are doing something. These are people from all kinds of organizations, mostly different kinds of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). Each side-event, usually an hour and a half to two hours long, is basically a panel of experts giving presentations or engaging in conversation about a specific topic (agriculture, technology, energy, water, et cetera).

When we’re bouncing around to each different side-event, trying to decide which to spend our time at, furiously taking notes and trying to soak up all the knowledge we can, it’s easy to feel empowered about climate change. With or without governmental help, these are people who are making massive changes in their communities and beyond.

It makes me wish more people in America, especially students my age, were like them.

In addition to the official side-events, there’s also the opportunity to meet countless individuals, who are wonderful sources of information as well.

Sure, some of the more higher level stuff might be exciting to talk about (getting to hear Al Gore, or sneak into John Kerry’s press conference, or getting to go to the Presidential Plenary), but it is these individuals who really matter in the battle against climate change.

However, there is always a slight lull in the air that fills the non-existent silence; the slight itch that everyone has in the back of their mind. So of course, it all boils down to that one, single question:

What will come out of COP 20’s negotiations?

For all of the work that the NGOs are doing, will their governments hear their cry? Will they follow in their people’s example and do what’s right?

So we hang onto every word of the negotiations that we can: what country is saying what, who is being difficult and refusing to be flexible and is in the way of progress? A good recap that happened at 6 pm every day was an event called the Fossil of the Day, which highlighted a country (or a couple of more) that was “the best at being the worst – doing the most to do the least – who is trying to their hardest to keep us from a fair, just, and binding climate agreement.”

It has been outlined that at COP 20 in Lima, the idea was to establish a signed, legally-binding draft of a document akin to a treaty that would bind all of the world’s nations together against climate change. This draft would be finalized in Paris, France at COP 21.

On Friday, the last day at the COP, the energy was thick in the air. Everyone buzzed around the two Plenary sessions, listening to countries talk about what they needed changed in the document, trying to bide their time until an agreement could be reached. As the hours ticked by, our group decided that there was no way anything was getting done tonight – and so, we took the shuttle bus home, our hearts and minds still back at the COP, wondering when we’d get news.

However, despite having an original deadline of Friday, we did not receive news until Sunday morning. Some of the last meetings were held early into Sunday morning; an emergency press conference had been called at 1 am.

And so, the outcome of the Lima Call for Climate Action has been released. At to the dismay of many, many people, nothing has been signed.

Sure, officials like COP 20’s president have released statements that they are optimistic about the outcome of Lima – that we’ve made forward on a lot of ground and they are left with high hopes for COP 21 – but other people are not as excited. NGO’s are quick to take a more critical eye to the Lima Call for Climate Action.

In all reality, the negotiators have done nothing but kick the can to Paris in 2015, despite the name of the Lima Call for Climate Action. Many people from the NGO’s are frustrated and upset that such a thing has happened. It’s obvious that because the fossil fuel industry still has such a hold on our economy and society that our governments will not willingly make moves in the right direction. Which means that this call for climate action was a call to the people. It was a call to you, me, and every other individual in the world.

We need to show our governments that change is not just what we want – it’s what we need. If we want to curb the effects of climate change, we need to act, and act now. Because right now, it just seems like we’re rejecting the call for climate action. 

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.

Kaitlyn Teppert: Ticket for One, Please

There’s a lot of potential on a bus.

Choosing to sit alone when you first board the shuttle bus that takes those accredited can be a little scary. At first, you’re sitting, still kind of asleep, half-hoping that no one will sit next to you because really, the best thing would be to get to shut your eyes and ride out the bumper-to-bumper traffic in a dreamy haze.

But then, opportunities would fall to the wayside.

On the morning of December 10^th, a lovely woman named Verona sat next to me. She works with UN Women, located in New York. The 10^th was the day after Gender Day at the COP, so sitting next to her and getting to talk to her was a wonderful opportunity in and of itself. However, as we inched closer and closer to the bus during our stop-and-sometimes-go bus ride, she turned to me and asked, “what will you do when you get there this morning?”

Thinking about it for a moment, I said, “probably try to get into the overflow room so we can watch the Presidential Plenary.”

The Plenary, for those that don’t know, is a general “opening ceremonies” that is held at the COP every morning. The President of the COP always hosts it, and different guests and officials speak every day. At the Presidential Plenary, the president of Peru, Chile, and Columbia would be speaking. Because of this, it was considered a high-level event, and the only way to get in to the actual room would be with a ticket. However, with our ‘observer pass’ status, none of us could get tickets the day we had tried.

But Verona smiled at me. “I’ve got an extra ticket, if you’d like to go.” She paused, considering the time. “We’ll probably arrive just in time.”

Sure enough, with a bit of hurrying through security, we were just in time for the Plenary to begin.

The President of Peru as he addresses the Plenary.

 

The first to speak, after being properly introduced by the COP 20 President, was Ollanta Humala, the president of Peru. He touched on some of the many actions being taken here in Peru to fight climate change now. For example, he announced proudly that Peru would be donating $6 million dollars to the Green Climate Fund this was an announcement that was met with an uproarious applause from the audience. After passing the $10 billion mark already in the Green Climate Fund, the fact that we are surpassing that check point is beyond inspirational.

After him, president of Chile, Michelle Bachelet, spoke. Chile has commited to reducing their emissions by 20% by 2020 (based off of 2007 emissions). They have also enacted a National Adaptation Plan, which not only includes 100+ actions to improve sustainability in their country, but also builds new avenues for generating information about environmental studies.

The third president to speak was the president of Columbia, Juan Manuel Santos. One of the biggest actions currently happening in Columbia is that they have committed to a zero net deforestation rate by 2020. Considering that most of the deforestation that currently happens in Columbia is illegal, this is an extremely complex issue beyond simply stopping deforestation. He also made a remark about how he was going to announce Columbia’s commitment of $4 million to the Green Climate Fund… but since Peru had already set the bar, he decided right then to up the ante to match the $6 million that Peru would be donating.

Once again, the crowd went wild.

Following the presidents, the ever-inspirational Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon took the floor. If you ever have the chance to hear this man speak, you must. He, and the three presidents, all had very inspirational and moving speeches – all four of these high-level officials saying many of the same thing about COP 20 and about where we must go if we hope to save our planet; if we hope to save lives.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as he addresses the Plenary.

 

All of these officials proclaimed that the negotiations (ending today) must have strong, decisive language that outlines clear goals. These goals must be legally-binding, and must align not just every nation, but everyone. It must align academia, the private sector, governments, working class and the rural poor; it must work towards every single person’s best interest, and it must work to save lives. It must set a solid foundation of a signed draft, so when COP 21 in Paris, France comes along, we will have something that is legally-binding, something that will make countries lower their greenhouse gas emissions, invest in the low-carbon economy, promote green innovation, and improve public health.

This legally-binding negotiation must create a world-wide alliance, the biggest in all of human history. Every single person can be brought together in our fight against the common enemy: climate change. This is imperative.

These three presidents and Mr. Secretary-General made it very clear. We must commit to action. We know one thing; time is not on our side. We cannot afford to put off a decision like this farther than Paris; in fact, all of them made it very clear that it is up to us—the people—to take action now. To urge our countries to act globally, to change the way we live in order to do what we can.

Think about it. It may seem like as individuals, we are powerless – but climate change is directly affecting individuals. Which is why every single individual action against climate change, from now to 2015 and beyond, is important.

Kaitlyn Teppert: A Woman's Touch

As many people know, gender balance in the science and political world is nonexistent. While women have absolutely become more represented in these fields, the disparity and difference between the genders is still there, and still strong. Due to the nature of science and politics, the COP becomes a melting pot for both of those worlds to come together as the climate science is applied and considered in policy making.

Along with more distinct and definitive wording needing to be utilized in the official policies, we also need to reconsider our entire approach to climate change.

Think about it – when we hear about things like renewable energy, or new infrastructure, or more efficient appliances, or electric cars, what pops into everyone’s mind? Money. And why? Because politicians have made it that way. They’ve presented climate change not as the disaster it is, but as a component of the economy; of course, it influences and is influenced by the economy, but by no means does that mean can we put a price on human lives.

So where does this tie into gender?

On December 9th at the COP’s gender day, I had the wonderful experience of getting to listen to, amongst others, Wandee Khunchornyakong speak about how her company began. Ms. Khunchornyakong began some of the first solar farms in Thailand. Currently, she runs 36 of them; simply because when the government opened applications for solar farms, no one else applied—so when she was expecting one, she was handed 36.

Ms. Khunchornyakong examining meters in one of her many solar farms.

 

Upon approval, she went to the banks in her city, trying to convince the banks that green investments were smart investments. After almost every bank turned her down, Ms. Khunchornyakong was able to find a bank to cover 60% of the costs. Which meant she’d have to find 40%.

At the talks on December 9^th, Ms. Khunchornyakong smiled out into the audience, reminiscing about these days, with her husband in the row directly behind mine. She looked out at us and said:

“I told him, ‘if we lose, we only lose money. But if we win…’”

The implications are there. If their solar farms were successful (which they are), they wouldn’t just earn money; but lower carbon dioxide emissions, and end up offering thousands of local jobs and opportunities for people.

Ms. Khunchornyakong’s words, I think, embodied the difference between how women lead and how men lead. So far, the discussion has revolved around money, because as the saying goes, “money talks.”

Well, I think money might talk too much.

When we consider climate change, we always ask ourselves what we can do to change. What can we make more efficient? What habits are bad and make large, negative impacts? What alternatives do we have?

Maybe we should begin to consider to change the leadership. Allowing women to rise up to higher positions, allowing them into the discussion for policy making and help design the roadmaps to a livable, sustainable future could completely change the discussion. Ms. Khunchornyakong’s statement is the perfect embodiment of how women choose to lead. We recognize that climate change is a people issue, not just an environmental one.

Ms. Khunchornyakong’s business is a lighthouse; it is a beacon of hope for climate, for change, and for women.