“The Arctic is the Advanced Sentinel of Climate Change” -- Messages from Artists

There are over 120 art exhibits in Paris during COP21, and they all have a theme or idea that the artists are portraying related to climate change.  In the installation by the artist Olafur Eliasson (with geologist Minik Rosing), there are 12 melting iceburgs (originally weighing 80 tons) from Greenland placed in a circle like a clock face to remind us that time is running out. This is a particularly popular site, and inspired a lot of discussion.  Sadly, the overheard dialogue between a father and daughter (American) was not so positive, as the father explained that it was already “too late.”  But other conversations seemed animated and hopeful, as the COP has had a lot of attention here in Paris.

Photo by Matt Bosch

Photo: Hilde Binford and Matt Bosch (photo credit -- Fabian, our guide)

Other art exhibits are a bit more traditional, like the 80 photographs in “The Honey Roads” which are on public view at the Luxembourg Gardens, documenting the plight of bees.  Others are performance art, like the theatrical presentation from ClimActs of Australia where “Climate Guardians,” dressed as angels, protest against Australia’s inaction.  

For a listing and description of all of the art exhibits, go to http://www.artcop21.com/fr/events/.

And if you’re interested in buying works by the artists (with the proceeds going to the NGOs involved in climate change), check out the Christie's auction at http://www.christies.com/exhibitions/2015/artists-4-paris-climate

Addendum:
The art installation "Unbearable" is quite moving -- a polar bear is impaled on a "oil pipeline in the shape of a CO2 graph!  Check out the concept.  And the new play, "Extreme Whether" was extraordinary as well. 

Education Matters: Generating a Green Citizenry

Many people ask what the role of Moravian College is at the U.N. climate conferences. There are actually several roles, including being a part of the official civil society voice on a topic that we care deeply about, participating as members of the research community related to climate change, and witnessing first-hand the complexity of negotiations on the international stage. But perhaps the most important role, however, we play is in education.

Our decision to apply for observer status to the UNFCCC in 2009 grew out of discussions that my colleague Hilde Binford and I had when we first began co-teaching a course on climate change. It is one thing to read up on the U.N. negotiations process and try to relay the information to students. It is quite another when you can actually take them to the international conference and have them be directly involved. For those who cannot attend, our faculty who attend are gaining direct and current knowledge that can be shared with students back home.

We learned early on that the U.S. media doesn’t routinely provide detailed coverage of the COP meetings, and, in general, there have been significant weaknesses in how the topic of climate change more generally is covered in various news outlets. Thus, we initiated this blog to share the observations of Moravian faculty, students, and others who attend the COP meetings with campus and the larger community. As I write this, we are approaching 40,000 views on our page suggesting that we have reached at least some people. In addition, our students and faculty have given talks at a wide range of events when they return each year; we don’t have numbers for those audiences.

Attending COP meetings has had a profound impact on the student participants. Several have gone on to graduate programs related to environmental science, climate change policy, and/or sustainability. Some of these former students work at the United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or for the city of New York (on climate change policy); others are working as environmental consultants. We are so proud of them.

At COP21 this year, there was an entire day devoted to the theme of climate change education. Some highlights of the discussions are included in a video. I was struck by the opening call by Irina Bokova, the Director General of UNESCO, not just for greener economies, legislation, policies and regulations, and societies, but also for “green citizens.” She and others went on to express the need for education to “shape the new values, skills and knowledge for the century ahead.” The links to our college mission and how we define a liberal education are quite clear in my opinion.

Yoka Brandt, the Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, noted that empowering the children “reduces their vulnerability to their climate risks’ and “contributes to resilient families and communities and indeed to sustainable development." She went on to say:

It is not only about the planet we leave to our children. It is also about the children we leave to the planet. They have the potential and the passion. We have the responsibility to give them the tools to turn this passion into a powerful force for change.

As an educational institution that prepares future teachers, scientists, economists, policy makers, innovators, problem solvers, and yes, citizens, we have to share in this responsibility and challenge.

The Research and Independent NGOs side event on Research and Climate Policy featured many young researchers

A Look Back, as Week Two of COP21 Begins

Over the weekend, the draft text for a Paris Agreement was released. This is the document that high-level ministers from countries around the world will focus on during week two of COP21. They will negotiate the details and unresolved issues, and hopefully, they will come to consensus on an international accord. All sorts of individual experts and members of non-governmental organizations have been analyzing the details of this draft since Saturday. You may see media coverage and reactions from the legal community, politicians, and civil society over the next week. But for anyone reading this blog, some perhaps for the first time, it might be useful to look back to see what brought the world to this pivotal moment and to understand the overarching goals of the COP meetings.

The UNFCCC negotiations process is full of acronyms and jargon, starting with its name. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is essentially a treaty – one of three that was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Each year, there is a Convention of the Parties, or COP session, where delegates from different countries around the world meet to hold consultations, to negotiate, and to attempt to come up with solutions to both the causes and impacts of global climate disruption. This year, COP21 represents 21 years of negotiations post-Rio – longer than many of my students have been alive.

The main goal of the multilateral UNFCCC agreement, which now has 196 Parties or signatories, is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” Yet solutions to this challenge have been evasive. Despite extensive scientific evidence that demonstrates how rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) destabilize the climate and research tools that allow us to model the impacts that will result from such destabilization, mitigating the problem (i.e. reducing GHG emissions) is not a simple task.

The world has long been reliant on fossil fuels to drive technology, development, and the global economy. Carbon dioxide, the GHG that is a product of combusting these fossil fuels, is one of the main contributors to climate change and thus, you often hear reference to a low-carbon future or decarbonization. (There are differences, but they aren’t necessary to explain in this post.) Different countries have different national processes for ratifying international agreements, Several billion people around the world still either live in extreme poverty or have a significantly lower quality of life than most in the United States can even image. And according to the provisions in the Framework Convention of 1992, consensus of all Parties must be reached. Thus, economics, politics, vast inequality gaps, and the need to change human behavior in order to address climate change all present significant barriers. Try to imagine a committee meeting where 196 individuals were in attendance and, before leaving, all in attendance had to agree on a long list of items about priorities and actions they would be committed to for the next several decades. Again, not an easy task.

Despite these complexities, some progress has been made over the decades. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. Under this agreement, 37 industrialized nations and the European Community committed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. The U.S. Senate never ratified this agreement, so our country was noticeably absent from the agreement, despite our long being one of the largest contributors to GHG emissions. During the second commitment period under this Protocol (2013 – 2020), Parties pledged to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990. Again, the United States did not agree to this and several other nations who had been Parties to the original Kyoto Protocol (all large GHG emitters) backed out (1).

For a number of reasons, 2015 has been viewed as the year that a strong agreement aimed at resolving climate change would finally be reached. At COP17 in Durban, South Africa (2011), the Durban Platform -- a new platform of negotiations under the Convention was launched

to deliver a new and universal greenhouse gas reduction protocol, legal instrument or other   outcome with legal force by 2015 for the period beyond 2020 (2).

In other words, this was the year the world was to replace the Kyoto Protocol with a new legally binding agreement that included all Parties to the UNFCCC, not just the developed nations. So at COP21, you see much reference to the ADP working group – which stands for “Advancing the Durban Platform.” A few years ago in Warsaw (COP19), a plan for allowing countries to find different paths to mitigation was set forth providing flexibility for finding ways to reduce carbon emissions. The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions or INDCs were to be submitted by each Party in advance of COP21, and by the opening of the conference, 181 countries had done so. Add this to the commitments announced by two of the largest GHG emitters, the U.S. and China, in November 2014, and it seemed as though there were at last major breakthroughs.

The year of 2015 was also when the United Nations finalized the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals that are aimed at addressing the large inequalities around the world. Compared to the Millennium Development Goals, the new SDGs have a stronger focus on environmental issues, including climate change, so the links between addressing the needs of developing countries and addressing the disparate impacts of environmental problems are now more clearly defined.

Finally, the newest science clearly indicates that the window for reducing carbon emissions in order to keep the planet from experiencing more than a 2 degree Celsius increase in temperature may be closing. There is much controversy about this target, since models show that even that amount of global temperature increase will have devastating impacts, particularly on small island nations and coastal areas due to sea level rise and on already rapidly declining biodiversity. The INDCs that have been submitted to date will not even get us to this 2° target. And even if against all odds, an ambitious legally binding agreement is reached at COP21 in 2015, it won’t go into effect until 2020 and the reduction of GHG emissions will occur over an even longer timeframe. These pollutants have residence times in the atmosphere measured in years, so even if we were to stop all GHG emissions tomorrow, the problem doesn’t immediately go away. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the planet has already warmed by 0.8°C, and all indications are that 2015 will be the warmest year on record, possibly pushing that overall global warming to 1°.

Yes, much is at stake here in Paris. The world faces many complex problems including terrorism, food insecurity, poverty, an ever-growing inequality between the haves and have-nots, economic uncertainties, and many forms of environmental disintegration. But, in the eyes of many, no problem is more important and urgent than addressing the one of climate change. That is why 150 heads of state gave impassioned speeches on the opening day of COP21. And that is why so many people here are calling this an issue of human rights.

Please wish the world leaders luck going forward this week. They are going to need it, along with courage and strong political will.

Moravian College students discussing the status of negotiations at COP21

1. See http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
2. See http://unfccc.int/key_steps/durban_outcomes/items/6825.php

My Final Day at Le Bourget

How bittersweet today has been. Although it is my final day at COP21 in Le Bourget, my experience has been like no other. After years of hearing about the COP meetings and learning about climate and envrionmental policy in my studies at Moravian, I feel as if I have found my niche and could not think of a better experience than to attend such a prestigous and important event.

I attended an overflow viewing room to watch the negotiations today on the ADP (Ad Hoc working group on the Durban Platform for enhanced action) - a mouthful I know. I'd like to stress the importance for these meetings to be displayed in viewing rooms for observers because it creates a transparant political process that adds to the two-way process. What an exciting event and educational experience no classroom lecture could ever teach. No book could explain to you the tension, anxiety, and passion of delegates as they work through a document and raise questions or concerns about terminology, relevance, and importance of words. People may wonder why the process may go so slow, but in watching such meetings one will certainly begin to understand. Sometimes formalities along with confusion on processes burden the meetings' time constraints and I feel as if it be best to diminish such causes to increase the efficiency of the process, but no political process is perfect, unfortunately the same goes for COP meetings, especially since a consensus is needed for approval of documents and it is a lot harder than you think to get a developed nation and a small island nation to agree on the same thing. 

Here is a link to the document the delegates were working on: http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/_adp_compilation_4dec15@1000.pdf

As you can see, there are numerous brackets around phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. These represent where the language is not finalized and still needs a consesus approval. When I first looked at the document I couldn't believe it's length as well as all the brackets it contained. How could we ever get an agreement? But we have to be optimistic that these representatives will continue to fight for action and continue to realize the ever decreasing amount of time and increasing amount of destruction from climate change. 

I cannot wait to see if the goal for the ADP draft to be finalized by Saturday at noon, since when I left at 4 PM Friday they had not moved on from Article 2. We must stay hopeful and be the agents of change the world needs. You can make a difference right at home, it's as simple as walking or riding a bike instead of driving a car, switching of a light switch when leaving a room, planting a tree, recycling, unplugging chargers from walls when not in use, as well as advocating local elected officials to take action on energy efficiency, public transport, and adoption of climate/ environmental action policy. We are all agents of change and we need to work for the world that we want.

Here are some images from througout my week in Paris:

This image along with others can be found displayed throughout the city raising awareness for actions on climate change now. (Translation "Act for Climate)

The Eiffel Tower took on a new look this week with a  light show projection of a growing forest and changing phrases related to climate change action.

Last image walking out of the Le Bourget COP21 venue.

We still have a whole entire other week of COP21 to take action on climate change and develop a binding agreement with consensus from all parties. I will certainly be watching and following and I hope all of you will be too. As Executive Secretary Christiana Figuerra stated in her briefing to NGOs today, "We the people caused the problem, and we the people need to take responsibility."

Happy COP21-ing this is will be an experience I will never forget!

For more updates and to stay up to speed with all things COP21 download "The Negotiator" app on either the Apple Store or Google Play. 

Au revoir! 

The Last Day

My final visit to COP 21 was probably the best one (except for the first day with the heads of states attending).  I was able to attend a question and answer session by Al Gore, and watch some of the negotiation process.  Al Gore is an amazing speaker who is very passionate about climate change.  He started the Climate Reality Project, and has trained thousands of people to become climate educators and climate activists.  There were so many people who attended his presentation; they had to move it to a different room.  About fifteen people were able to ask him questions, and it was amazing to see how individuals from all over the world were trying to solve the problem of this generation.  There were Ugandan organic farmers, investors from the UK, an Indian nun, a lawyer from Bangladesh, and many more.  Questions ranged from divestment to gender issues, artic climate impacts to the role of youth in the climate crisis.  He answered all of the questions and gave great advice on how to be involved, and that he thinks civil society is a very powerful voice that negotiators need to listen to.  I left this discussion feeling hopeful, because there is someone influential and passionate about climate change that can make a difference in areas that other people cannot.

The session of the negotiation that I watched was very surprising.  I could see why nothing really is done, or happens at a very slow pace.  The session started fifteen minutes late because some of the countries were tardy, and then several countries started to say how they did not agree with some of the changes in the revised version of the agreement, and wanted to go back to negotiating wording after the co-chair of the session said there would not be an negotiations until the evening session.  For the hour that I stayed to listen, forty-five minutes were composed of different countries asking for clarification on what the directions were!  I could see the co-chair getting really frustrated, but he stayed professional and answered each country’s question, with a little bit of sass.  At one point, the Venezuelan ambassador started to comment that at the rate the session was going, “They weren’t going to compromise on anything and the agreement was going to hell”, to which the co-chair responded, “Then we’ll follow it to hell”.  I think this shows that the parties will do everything in their power to come to a globally binding agreement.  It is encouraging that they will not let stubbornness and indecisiveness get in the way. 

The experience of attending COP 21 has been amazing and allowed me to see what different solutions and adaptation methods there are to dealing with climate change, and how it impacts everyone differently.  I am so glad that Moravian College has the UNFCCC accreditation and allowed my fellow students and me to attend COP 21.  I would have never received this education in the classroom.  At the end and beginning of each day, I heard people say they were optimistic that the delegations would compromise and come together to form a binding agreement by December 11^th.  I hope this happens, because the fate of the world rests in their hands.  If one country decides they do not want to accept the agreement, then the future of humanity is doomed.  

Day 4: Young and Future Generations Day

Today's theme at COP21 was Young and Future Generations Day geared towards bringing attention to the children who suffer greatly from climate change as well as including the next generation into the conversation. It is vital to include this population because they are the ones who will have to live with the consequences of climate change that the current and previous generations have caused and are leaving for these future generations of global citizens. Hearing their voices and stories are important to formally understand how they are already experiencing issues such as drought, migration, flooding, as well as agricultural failures/ poor soil quality which decreases in food accessibility and availability and can act as agents of change.

I attended a side event entitled, "Save the Children International Plan: Climate Change and Children's Rights: Children as Vulnerable Groups and Agents of Change." An important statement made during the event was that children today will be making the decisions tomorrow and we want them to start now. I thought this was a great insight because these children have first hand knowledge of what is going on and living witht the consequencs of climate change everyday. It is them, not us who will have to worrying about more loss and live with increased drought, floods, increased storms, melting polar ice, rising sea levels, loss of home, and even loss of life due to climate change and its implications on these communities. In addition, often times more than not, we have lost a sense of the future because all we can see is environmental, economic, and developmental degredation due to climate change. This implies that these future generations and youth today won't have a sufficient world to live on. Where is the hope? The children and future generations are our hope and by including them into the conversation and advocating for mitigation and adaptation techniques now they can become the agents of change we all need.

One of the three panelists was a young boy from Indonesia who gave his story about how himself and children where he lives are already living with environmental destruction and degredation due to climate change. What an eye-opening experience to someone who lives in a country that has the privilege to just turn on a faucet to get water with temperature control, not worrying about its
contamination and potential health implications. These children have to walk a minimum of 2km (about 1.3miles) one-way to collect water for their family, sometimes further distances since the rainy season is becoming shorter decreasing the water supply. This prevents them from attending school and getting an education leaving them in a cycle of poverty. What can we do to break this cycle? The young boy, along with others in his community, are taking initiative and action to fight climate change. They have a program to plant trees (a natural way of sequestering carbon from the atmosphere) and then when the trees are harvested for lumber, the profits are then used to send these children to higher education and create opportunities. What a simple yet effective way to mitigate climate change as well as provide a way to provide children with an opportunity to further their education to break the cycle of poverty. When asked what's next the young boy replied, "Let's go home and plant trees." A simple yet effective message that everyone should take to heart and do.

We need action today to protect the vulnerable. Let's advocate for language in the negotiation text that includes the voices of the vulnerbale in our global population.

As a reminder keep following our blog and feel free to follow us on Instagram (mocop21) and Facebook (MO_COP21) you can see some great images from this event!

The Potential Reality of Climate Change and Public Health

Air and water pollution was been a problem for at least a century, so why, even with some of the policies that have been implemented over the centuries is it still such a huge problem? The problem of air and water pollution causing public health issues has been known for decades now. Even in the late 1800's England was implementing clean air acts. So why, if we have knowledge about this, have we ignored it? It's known that industrialization and urbanization contributes to climate change and has negative impacts on the public’s health in all different types of areas. This is what bothers me about the health effects climate change will cause. This spread of disease, and physical/psychological harm to the population is only going to get worse from here and if climate change goes unchecked millions of people will die prematurely. Has history taught us nothing? People could potentially lose their lives because governments can’t learn from experience and example.

 Severe climate change can be prevented with the proper measures but why has it taken so long to implement the proper changes needed to keep the public healthy? If the world would have invested in renewable energy, research, and sustainable technologies sooner we might have been able to keep the climate from changing so much and causing a potential global scale threat to public health. So many lives could have been saved by just paying better attention to air pollution itself. I learned today during the talks at COP21 that an average of 7 million people die a year from air pollution around the world today. This is simply unacceptable, these types of illnesses and poor quality of life should not be seen as often as it is in today’s world. Even looking into environmental archaeology these types of problems are shown as early as the 1650’s but usually they occur slowly over time when a shift in industrialization is about to occur.

 How is it we let it get this far? Where century’s old data on populations are still applicable to today’s world because we have done so little to help correct the climate situation. The time to act is now before it gets worse and we see a shift in public health like never seen before. We have had plagues, epidemics, pandemics and have seen millions die from some diseases but what climate change will have in store for the public’s health will be nothing compared to what we’ve seen before.  Not only will countless be displaced, hungry, poor and homeless but there will be physical injuries from hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunami’s, earthquakes, droughts, floods, and more. On top of physical injuries there will be a spread of diseases like malaria and dengue fever as well as a swell in infectious disease because of a lack of sanitation and pollution. I could go on but I think you get the point.

 Climate change, if unchecked, will severely alter the standard of living everywhere and adversely affect public health. Are we prepared for that future? If a natural disaster occurred today would we have the medical resources to take care of everyone who was physically injured as well as those who were already sick? I don’t know the answer to that question but if we aren’t prepared now how can we expect to be prepared for a future where the world will be covered in tragedies like this. We can’t airlift the urban poor to hospitals that are already filled with sick and dying people. Nor can we expect the researchers to suddenly provide the cure to all of the diseases that plague the planet because so many people develop them. A whole other aspect to this is the medical staff and medicine itself. Will we have enough doctors, nurses, and aids to help all of these people? Will we have enough chemical and natural supplies in the world to make all of the necessary treatments for those who are ill and those who would develop these diseases? These are the questions that will arise because of the effects of climate change if we don’t do something about it soon. I don’t know about all of you, but it’s a scary and chilling thought if we aren’t prepared. Are we willing to take responsibility for all of those who will have died because they couldn’t get care? How many will just die on the street. I know it sounds dramatic, but if a diseases in history like the plague, cholera, and influenza can kill thousands of people or more without any help from climate change what do you think will happen once it does?

CDC- Center for Disease Control website

Day 3: The Link Between Health, Climate, and Electricity

Often times when people think of climate change, they will think only of the environment. Much like the concept of sustainability, climate change not only has environmental implications but also economic and humans adverse effects as well. Today, I sat in on a press conference on public health hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and yesterday I attended a session on low-carbon electricity. Some may not realize it, but climate change and human health are closely linked. One speaker stated that each year, over seven million deaths are due to air pollution.

This is very true in the case of developing nations. "Diseases of poverty", as another speaker named them, such as malaria, under nutrition, and diarrheal diseases will only be made worse by climate change. Mitigating and adapting to climate change in the intersecting realm of human health and the environment are win-win situations. For example, bringing clean fuels to homes and getting rid of kerosene lamps and wood/coal burning stoves will create healthier home environments by lessening the indoor air pollution. Just as importantly, switching from diesel to electrified transportation through the use of renewable energy would greatly increase the health of both humans and the environment.

In fact, low carbon electricity is a common topic at UNFCCC. According to Marc Gratton, President of Electricians Without Borders, low carbon electricity has more than environmental benefits - it is critical to human health and economic growth  in rural and developing communities. Having the presence of such electricity in rural communities brings far more than just light. It means stimulating the economy because production rates can increase and shops can stay open past dark. It means having an energy source to refrigerate vaccines, allows surgeons to perform operations, and hospitals to run around the clock. All of these are things that many of us around the world take for granted.

There was a woman representing Nigeria on the WHO panel. She shared the struggles of an underprivileged nation has with little reliable electricity. There are eleven countries in Africa in which 33% of hospitals have unreliable electricity and 26% of hospitals have no source of energy. This means that in those countries, only 41% of hospitals are equipped with reliable electricity. Low carbon electricity would change the face of health there.

This woman had a story of her own. A few years back, she gave birth to a child prematurely at 26 weeks. The child was in critical condition, and spent the first few weeks of his/her life in an incubator. Power outages were common at this hospital, and she nearly lost her child on a number of occurrences. All she could do was pray as she clutched her child to keep them warm and alive. Having low carbon electricity would greatly reduce infant mortality rates.

                                                     photo credit: Audrey McSain

Contrary to popular belief the issue with transitioning to low-carbon electricity is not economic or technical, but rather it is a political issue. The problem is simply not being willing to make it a priority. This was heavily implied by two speakers at the low-carbon talk yesterday: Antonio Mexia (President of Eurolectric) and Jean-Louis Borloo (President of Energy for Africa). Both spoke of the financials involved with such a transition. According to Mexia, the biggest subsidies go towards fossil fuels. Of all the money put towards fossil fuels, only about 1/3-1/5 of that amount goes to renewable. This only reiterates that the renewable energy sector has little support. According to Borloo, it would only require approximately 5 billion euros in subsidies to help Africa make the transition, a mere fraction of the 35-40 billion euros Germany has spent on their energy structure.

Making the switch to low-carbon electricity is possible, and is integral for the world on a number of levels. Henri Lachmann, the former President of Schneider Electric, says we must a) provide the energy, b) train and educate young people to enter a skilled workforce, and c) encourage less consumption among users as well as better use. The fight against climate change is not just advocacy for the environment. It is advocacy for human health and life itself. We need to seriously take a look at decarbonizing our electricity as well as provide it to those who need it most.

Third Day Recap

Today I focused on attending presentations and talks that revolved around technology.  I saw two very interesting talks at the USA Pavilion, the first from a representative of NASA who talked about the monitoring capabilities of the satellites they have in space, and the second one involved three presenters who talked about climate mitigation strategies and forests. 

The first talk  was interesting because it was neat to see the different models generated by NASA for deforestation, forest fires, global moisture, and temperature projections.  The models and maps showed that NASA has the capability to use the satellites to measure a number of different things, that can be used to track the effects of climate change.  One key issue that I had with this presentation was that the speaker did not really explain what NASA was doing with the data.  He mentioned as a side note that the models or maps could be shown to delegates, but he did not mention if scientists would explain the data or just show it to the policy makers.

The second presentation consisted of three individuals, who were introduced by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.  The presenters were a researcher from Indonesia who specializes in mangrove research, a scientist from Gabon who talked about land use planning, and someone from Costa Rica who talked about a project that was created to lower emissions in the coffee industry.  The Indonesian presenter was very good and explained how he worked with several countries on studying deforestation of the mangrove forests and how this is contributing to higher emissions.  He also talked about developing mitigation strategies, and currently the only one consists of planting more mangrove trees, so there is a research gap about other strategies that can be developed.

The scientist from Gabon is highly involved with the government and policy making in his country, and talked about how the government passed a sustainable development law where assessments need to be done in every sector to quantify the amount of carbon emissions.  Researchers just finished creating maps showing where biodiversity is concentrated in the nation and areas of high carbon sequestration potential. 

The talk by the individual from Costa Rica was very interesting because the government worked with over 50,000 coffee farms to create sustainable coffee growing practices.  They created NAMA (Nationally Appropriated Mitigation Actions) to successfully reach their goal of lowering carbon emissions from the coffee sector.  They used different techniques such as growing shaded coffee, using bean pulp as an energy source, and water from the processing factories to water the trees.  Cosa Rica has the first coffee brand that is 100% carbon neutral, and this brand of coffee receives more money than other brands because it is carbon neutral.

All of the talks showed that there are different strategies and technologies created that can assist in solving climate change.  It was very nice to see that the developing countries are taking matters into their own hands and conducting research, creating laws, or making new policies to lower their emissions and fix environmental problems, instead of waiting for technology transfer or money from developed organizations. 

Climate Change, Migration and Public Response

Although there is no direct link between migration and climate change it definitely contributes to it. Since many people are displaced or moving from one region to another scientists and researchers ask the question: why? What is causing these people to move? To answer this question we have to call into question what makes anyone want to up heave their whole way of life, leave their extended family, customs, language, and everything they know. There are very few reasons for such behavior. The talk I attended yesterday centered on migration and how the world reacts to it, as well as what is causing people to migrate and how it all related to climate change and policy. During the talks it was said that the two primary reasons for people to migrate were safety and livelihood. So what's threatening the health, safety and welfare of all of these people? Is it a lack of availability of resources, famine, droughts, flooding, storms, the spread of diseases (like malaria), civil unrest, war, politics,….?  There is no one contributing factor to this kind of decision but climate change has a hand in all of these and more. With our world being so severely affected it's hard for some to survive. So difficult in fact that they decide to uproot their family and try to start a better life somewhere else. Another name for these types of people are refugees.  There are several types of refugees: political, economic, and now climate refugees. As our climate changes we see an increase in the amount of people migrating in certain parts of the world like Africa, South America, and the Middle East.

What does this mean for the world? There needs to be policies enacted for these people but the population reacts to them in several different ways.

• One of the many reactions the public can have towards refugees is fear.  The public fears migrants because they are new and coming into their home towns. They don’t know the migrants and are afraid of the change they bring with them. National security fears they will bring security risks and threats such as terrorism into the country.
• Another reaction that the public has is to save and shelter the refugees. I know this seems at odds with the first reaction mentioned but no one really likes to see another group of people go through unnecessary suffering and pain. The urge to help and protect those who are hurt and need aid is in a majority of the population (at least I like to think so). However, some groups need money more than anything so they can afford to move away. It’s hard to move when you have no way to pay for passage anywhere. Without money some people are left to try to survive the harsh changes their homes are going through. The people left behind need this climate policy enacted to help reduce carbon emissions and stop changes from developing further.
• One last example of a reaction the public could give is indifference. Some say that migration could be considered a normal or rational thing to do in response to climate change because you are adapting in your own way. Indifference is shown when little is done to help these displaced people politically and socially. Indifference can stem from opinions like: Climate change was inevitable, Displacement is normal to survive, or that this could help the migrants practice self-reliance or self-help. While it is true that we can try to turn a blind eye to their plight and let them handle whatever comes on their own is that the right thing to do? Personally, I do not think you should leave anyone to suffer unnecessarily no matter what it’s from. If you can lend a hand, then do so but this issue is much bigger and more complex than my opinion.

With migration being called into question it also makes everyone wonder what and how policy is going to be enacted. It will be interesting to see what policy will come up for this potentially growing issue when there are viewpoints that express one type of refugee is acceptable over another. That is to say it is fine to help those who are political refugees, those who are escaping from war and political abuse but there is a sort of tinged negative view on those who wish to improve their standard of living  and move to more developed nations to do so (economic refugee/immigrant). It seems that unless someone’s life is in imminent danger other nations and populations don’t want to offer help so readily or open their doors to those who are just trying to create a better life for themselves. Yes, people can fill out visas and citizenship forms but immigration as of late has had a negative cast put onto it. With this new type of refugee, which could gain momentum in the coming years, how will governments and policy makers respond? Will these people have opportunities to stay in these nations and try to rebuild their lives with certain rights or will they be further displaced amongst the chaos that climate change causes.

http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fthelukewarmersway.files.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F01%2Fclimate-refugee-protest-vietnam-350.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fthelukewarmersway.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F01%2F23%2Fstate-of-the-climate-2014-part-3-climate-refugees%2F&h=256&w=385&tbnid=KIwqUsEEoNRiDM%3A&docid=sZucZcT6K93D2M&ei=JgJeVu38N8HCatuRkagH&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=862&page=1&start=0&ndsp=10&ved=0ahUKEwjtp9miv7vJAhVBoRoKHdtIBHUQrQMIOzAG