Why am I here?

Cześć from Katowice, Poland! It's been four days since our arrival. However, the busy agenda at COP24 hasn't allowed me to post until now. Before reflecting on the various meetings and side events that I have attended here, I wanted to reflect on what lead me the conference in the first place.

During the Spring 2018 semester, I took a course with Dr. Diane Husic titled " Costa Rica as a Model of Sustainability and Tropical Ecology”. We met once a week to discuss relevant issues pertaining to these topics and visited Costa Rica over spring break. As a neuroscience major following the pre-medical track, I did not have a lot of free time to study abroad during my time at Moravian, so this opportunity was both unexpected and exciting. Prior to this experience, I practiced basic climate-friendly behaviors, such as recycling, limiting food waste, carpooling, and using electricity efficiently. However, through our weekly discussions, I gained a deeper understanding of the importance of tropical sustainability, biodiversity, ecology, and conservation. I became aware of the many problems that threaten not only the environment in Costa Rica, but the health of our planet.

Deforestation is a "buzz-word" right now at the conference, since the world is losing forests at an alarming rate each year. Forests around the world are exploited for lumber, land for agriculture, or land for factories. This is a critical issue in Costa Rica, where the tropical rain forests are the among the most biodiverse on the planet. Therefore, with loss of forests comes loss of habitats, threatening global biodiversity. Anyone residing outside of the tropics may not understand or appreciate this significant threat to biodiversity. However, the endangerment of many species in Costa Rica is indicative of greater global issues.

Tropical rainforests are carbon sinks, meaning they absorb carbon in the form of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Deforestation contributes to the problem of climate change by releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it absorbs infrared radiation from the sun. When excess carbon dioxide is trapped in the atmosphere, the warming effects of greenhouse gases become more prominent.

Like forests, the ocean also serves as a carbon sink. Greater atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide distort the equilibrium of carbon in the environment, causing an increased concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide in the ocean. This is a problem due to the formation of carbonic acid, which lowers the pH of ocean water. More acidic conditions threaten aquatic habitats, which eventually effects the food chain in aquatic environments. This can threaten food security, since species higher in the food chain that we rely on for food cannot survive due to the bottom-up effects of food chain instability.

Increasing average global temperatures leads to the melting of the poles, causing sea levels to rise. Rises in sea levels can have detrimental impacts around the globe, from small island nations to the Jersey Shore. As the oceans warm with the rest of the planet, coastal flooding will become more prominent and stronger, more variable weather patterns will become the new norm. For example, storms like Harvey and Sandy used to be considered “one in every one-hundred year” weather events. Now, these events occur annually, causing billions of dollars in damage for the United States and the Caribbean.

Increasing global temperatures also promote the spread of tropical diseases, such as dengue fever and Zika virus, since these diseases thrive in warm, humid conditions. This means that as the planet continues to warm beyond 1.5°C each year, tropical diseases will spread northward and begin to have an impact on millions more people worldwide.

 These are just a few examples of how major environmental issues in Costa Rica are experienced on a global level. These examples serve as a strong reminder that our actions have widespread effects and the places and things on Earth belong to all of us. It is the responsibility of every individual on the planet to do their part to help reach the goals of the Paris Agreement. I'd like to think that before this experience, I consciously thought about preserving natural resources and reducing my carbon footprint. I thought I had a strong understanding of the value of the neo-tropics and its impact on the world. However, I had never experienced nature before like we did on this trip. I had never walked through a rain forest, visited with indigenous peoples, or witnessed sustainable practices in action. This experience was the catalyst to my interest in climate change. 

In closing, many of my friends and family members have said, "You're pre-med. Why do you care about climate change?" and "What are you going to COP24 for?".  To everyone that asked, my reply went something like this: climate change is everyone's problem. It’s effects do not discriminate against developed countries or developing countries. It threatens global heath, human rights, national economies, food and water security, peace, and justice. It is therefore in everyone’s best interest to learn more about this issue and make rapid changes to reduce their carbon footprint. This is important not only on an national level, but also at the local community level. I am attending COP24 because I know that the recent IPCC report said that we are all in trouble if we do not make changes. My goal is to learn as much as I can while I am here, and bring this information back to our campus community. I want to empower members of my generation to get involved in the conversations to fight this fight over the coming decades. My experience here has changed the direction of my career. I hope to not only practice medicine, but continue to stay involved in climate action by implementing the sustainable development goals (https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/) in my practice and helping patients understand how they relate to health. 

Science denial comes to Poland

The questioning of science is not new. Humanists have, at times, rightfully questioned ethical dilemmas raised by new scientific advancements and technology. A number of religions fail to accept evidence supporting theories of evolution or the formation of the universe; instead, the followers put their faith in creation myths. Luddites rejected technological advances for fear of losing their jobs. Today, automation does in fact replace workers in manufacturing jobs, and self-driving vehicles and artificial intelligence will likely replace even more in the near future. Activists, sometimes misinformed, rail against GMOs, nuclear power, and other applications of science. Even when people are confronted with solid evidence showing that their fears are unwarranted, their perceptions of risk are not aligned with actual statistics, or their conclusions are simply incorrect, it is difficult to change firmly held opinions. If someone refuses to accept evolution, you could argue that there is little harm done. However, with climate change denial and the anti-vaxxer movement, the distrust or dismissal of science is particularly dangerous to the health and well-being of humanity.

On climate change, religious leaders and scientists are typically on the same page.
From: Centre for Climate Safety 

Unfortunately, there have been scientists who sold out for personal gain; this, of course, doesn't help build public trust in science. In the book, Merchants of Doubt, authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway share a number of rather horrifying stories, starting with those (well compensated and well connected) individuals who claimed tobacco was safe. Planting seeds of doubt has been a deliberate attempt to cause confusion among the public; disinformation campaigns by tobacco or fossil fuel companies, the Koch brothers, and others are well-documented and, of course, aimed at protecting special interests, not public safety. [Those same corporations and wealthy individuals support lobbyists who have access and open their wallets to legislators, persuading them to continue protecting theose special interests.] As noted on the website for Oreskes and Conway's book,

The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers. 

Sadly, those who spread disinformation have not been held liable, even when human lives were lost.

From: clearingthefogradio.org  https://goo.gl/images/6z7Mz8

We used to believe that the news media was a trusted source of information and freedom of the press crucial for democracy. Today, however, we live in a world of fake news where heads of state claim that the media is the "enemy of the people." So now, the public doesn't trust scientists or the media. What could possibly go wrong?

You may be wondering why I raise this issue while I am attending the U.N. climate meetings. Well, yesterday, science denial reached a new level when four countries refused to accept the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change into the document being negotiated here in Katowice. This special report of the IPCC was actually called for by the Parties when the Paris Agreement was signed. That agreement calls on countries to limit global warming to less than 2° C, but many have argued over the years that the limit needs to be 1.5° C [1, 2]. Which countries you ask? The United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Great company to be in given all the other controversies swirling around Trump, Putin and MBS. All week long, Saudi Arabia was resisting text language related to "raising ambition" (i.e. with respect to strengthening national commitments for lowering greenhouse gas emissions). Turning the healthy dose of skepticism on these countries and politicians, what vested interests might they have for this latest denial of science?

From: Griffin, P. Science Denial - Works on Dummies, The Critical Mind blog, 4/13/16

[1]. Athanasiou, T. 1.5 to Stay Alive, Says a Landmark UN Climate Report. The Nation, October 9, 2018.

[2.] Or if you prefer the message in music video/documentary form, see here.  1.5 Stay Alive: Science Meets Music in the Caribbean

A reflection on week 1 of COP24: Hope or a Collective Face Palm?

In my previous post from the beginning of COP 24, I noted the buzz around the venue and talked about settling into the familiar routine. A part of that routine is the enthusiasm as delegates gather at the opening plenary session on the first Monday of every COP. During these sessions, the host country typically showcases both culture and examples of what it is doing to address the problem at hand. The celebration of sorts is followed by a series of troop-rallying speeches given by dignitaries. Hope for a productive COP runs high.

This year, one of the high-level speakers was U.N. Secretary General António Guterres who started his comments by saying that "we are in deep trouble" and noting that in some places around the world, "climate change is already a matter of life or death." Despite this somber message, I was encouraged that he presented a clear understanding of the scientific details of climate change and its impacts and that he outlined key steps needed to address this global challenge. Importantly, Guterres countered the argument that addressing climate change is an economic burden by providing specific examples of co-benefits of climate action including improved health, decreased loss of life, job creation, and empowerment of youth and women. In his vision, addressing global climate change could lead to a better future for all. What was lacking, in his view, was not science or technological fixes, but rather, political will and farsighted leadership. I found a spark of hope in hearing a global leader of this stature present such a strong and informed commentary.

U.N. Secretary General Guterres at the opening plenary of COP 24

Perhaps more surprising and encouraging were the remarks of Kristalina Georgieva, the current chief executive officer of the World Bank: "When I read the newest report [referring to the IPCC special report], all I could think of was the person I love the most, my 8-year old granddaughter." The emotion was clear in her voice as she announced plans for the World Bank to significantly increase their investments ($200 billion over 5 years) in order to help countries "undertake ambition" towards adaptation and building resilience. [1] A commitment of funding for climate resilience and a prominent leader unafraid to show fear and emotion on an international stage were additional reasons for hope entering into COP 24.

World Bank CEO, Kristalina Georgieva, at the COP 24 opening plenary

During their comments, the various dignitaries from Poland used phrases like "Man, Nature, and Technology" and balancing emissions with sinks. They spoke of the need for a just transition from "black to green" or "honing lumps of coal into diamonds." But they also spoke of the need to (sigh) use coal in an "environmentally friendly manner." That is analogous to the "clean coal" mantra we hear in the U.S. Note: there is no such thing as clean coal, and I have yet to learn of an extractive industry that is environmentally friendly. Time for the face palm. I wish there was an emoji for that.

~~~~

The days at a COP can be hectic and long: following various negotiation tracks, attending side events which are typically very educational, and and chatting with other delegates about a wide range of topics. The days can also be exhausting. Most nights this week, I found that I was too tired to write coherently. On top of this, during week 1, there seemed to be little progress in the negotiations and a lot of disturbing news ranging from the latest science which shows things might be much worse than we thought to rumors that the Parties are backsliding on a number of critical issues. Perhaps that is why it has been difficult to provide updates on this blog.

COP 24 was billed over the past year as "Paris 2.0" largely because this meeting represents the deadline set by the Parties to finalize what is known as the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP). In other words, by the end of this conference, negotiators need to design and agree on the details required to operationalize the 2015 Paris Agreement. Signing and ratifying an agreement doesn't guarantee implementation.

A graphic from the World Wildlife Fund

In Katowice, essentially every issue under the PAWP is under negotiation. Interestingly, some main focus areas from this week related to reporting and time frames: Parties must submit or update their post-2020 actions, their nationally determined contributions (NDCs), at five-year intervals. Essentially, these represent a country's plans (and hopefully actions) to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other mitigation measures to control global warming. Parties have to agree on what specific data and measures these reports should include, where they are submitted to (What would an NDC registry look like? Who is going to oversee this?), and means for accountability/verification (Can we trust each other?). Emission reductions are often expressed as a % reduction in GHG emissions relative to some baseline year. Negotiators will argue what year that should be and whether it has to be the same for every country. They also should agree on common start dates for implementation. If we are to understand progress towards an overall reduction of emissions and the ultimate goal of keeping the global temperature increase to less than 2°C (for a global stocktake every five years), common time frames and consistency in reporting methods are important. [2]

As a scientist, I roll my eyes at these political issues, especially given the indisputable fact that current intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are insufficient to keep the planetary warming below the 2°C. Additionally, the recent IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5°C clearly tells us that the 2°C target is the wrong one, and that if we hope to avoid catastrophic impacts of climate change, we don't have a lot of time to waste. One IPCC author said this week that the media focus on 12 years to save the planet is the wrong one. Rather, he said, "we have 12 months to begin saving the planet." For a scientist to express such urgency is something to take note of. And yet the Parties spent the week arguing over post-2020 actions, not what needs to be done now.

Pardon my impatience, but the Paris Agreement is now 3 years old. This is the 3rd COP since that historic agreement was achieved and there have been many intersessional meetings and ongoing negotiations. Recognizing that we needed a "rulebook" by the end of COP 24 and that negotiations were far from meeting that target, Parties met in Bangkok in September 2018. A 307-page document was the outcome from that session. Over this first week of COP 24, all of the Convention bodies were opened: COP24, CMP 14, CMA 1 - 3, SBSTA 49, SBI 49, and all 7 tracks under APA. (I know, all of that alphabet soup; I will only note that APA stands for Advancing the Paris Agreement.) Throw into the mix a very controversial workstream, the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage or WIM in which Parties are trying to agree on whether industrialized nations are responsible for damages caused by climate change, especially damage in poor and developing nations. The number of negotiation meetings is staggering and it is impossible for any individual to keep track of all that is happening (or not happening).


However, thanks to several organizations and observers who divide and conquer by sending representatives to the various sessions in order to keep track of all the simultaneous commotion, there are several good daily bulletins and newsletters that summarize what is happening in negotiations and elsewhere at the COP. I will try to boil it down in simplistic terms. When the COP opened on Sunday (a day earlier than it was supposed to), it took hours for Parties to simply agree on the agenda for the week since several countries indicated that they had "special needs" or "special circumstances" (aka political maneuvering). The COP President somehow got everyone back on track, after a few hours of delay, to approve the agenda so work could actually begin. Five days later, the text was shortened to less than 100 pages from the 307 page version that the Parties started with. But many observers from civil society were angry since references to human rights, gender equity, etc. had been removed. The Paris Agreement contains an actual gender action plan article; human rights are only mentioned in the non-legally binding preamble. By late in the day on Friday, none of the Convention bodies (the alphabet soup) noted above had closed. In other words, the work that was supposed to completed by the end of week 1 before the high level country ministers arrive, was not done. Co-chairs of the various groups were sent off to work overnight to develop revised text by Saturday a.m. for Parties to review and try to reach consensus on. When I left the venue last night, Kuwait had essentially walked out, Saudi Arabia was continuing to try to nix much of the text, including any references to a 1.5°C target. I have yet to hear whether the various co-chairs have had any success in their difficult task of trying to reconcile different country positions. 


Meanwhile, the press was reporting that emissions of carbon dioxide reached an all time high in 2018 (410 ppm). At this juncture, hope that climate change can be "solved" on the international stage seems to be quickly fading.

[1] Another take on the announcement by the World Bank: F. Harvey. World Bank to invest $200bn to combat climate change. The Guardian (online), December 3, 2018.

[2] If you would like a more detailed analysis of what is needed for the rulebook to operationalize the Paris Agreement, I would suggest this analysis by the World Resources Institute: Dagnet, Y. and N. Cogswell, At COP24 in Poland, Negotiators Must Lay Down Ground Rules for the Paris Agreement, November 28, 2018.

Climate Law and Governance Day 2018

By, Jessica Buttner

Moravian College Class of 2019

On Friday, December 7th I attended a Climate Law and Governance Day hosted by the University of Silesia Katowice, Poland. The event has taken place every year during COP since 2005 and attracts those interested in Climate Law. However, anyone can attend the event and the panelists for each session at the event are from different areas of the world. 

Sessions at this event ranged from Risk, Disclosure & Diligence – Levers for Corporate Climate Engagement to Leveraging the Role of National Human Rights Institutions in Climate Policy to Climate Litigation After the IPCC 1.5 Special Report – Engaging Communities, NGOs & Other Stakeholders. The day consisted of a few timeslots with three optional panels, which allowed lawmakers to attend panels of interest. There was an abundance of young people who attended this conference and learning about their goals to help combat climate change was very inspiring! My favorite session was Senior Jurists Plenary III: Negotiating the Global Climate Regime – Legal Challenges & Opportunities under the UNFCCC & Paris Agreement because I had the opportunity to hear the perspectives of those who represent small island states and developing countries. As someone who lives in a first-world country in an area that is not significantly near a coastline, I was not aware of the true realities people face due to climate change.

If you are interested in learning more about this subject, there is a Climate Law & Governance Specialization Course held by the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) online this Sunday, December 9th from 9:30am-2pm. Please click the Eventbrite registration form link below and register as a volunteer for free. 

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/climate-law-governance-specilalization-course-tickets-53061154341 

A look at the Exhibits Section before the start of the day: 

First Impression of COP 24

First Impression of COP 24

By, Jessica Buttner

Moravian College Class of 2019

COP stands for Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Countries from around the world including Korea, South Africa, and England come together each year to discuss ways to combat climate change worldwide. Every year the conference location changes, and this year the host is Katowice, Poland.

Attending a United Nations conference can be slightly overwhelming in the beginning because, at least for me, it can be the first time you may be exposed to several new cultures at once. But don't worry! After a few days, you will get in the swing of things, and your experience will feel natural.

Upon arriving at the conference, something I found interesting, and comforting, during my first few days was that most people at the conference speak English. Also, if you ever run into a session where the speaker does not speak English, COP provides headsets hooked to translators of many different languages. I tried listening to all of the languages translated on the headset, and it is pretty impressive how inclusive this conference is.

Every day, teleprompters scroll through a list of events and indicate whether or not they are "open" to everyone. I had an observer badge, meaning I could attend all of the "open" sessions. The nice thing about this conference is that there is A LOT to do. You can even follow a series of similar events in specific disciplines. I met people following displacement, climate change and gender, biodiversity, air pollution, etc. There is something for everyone and many sessions touch on multiple topics. I personally followed human rights related events as well as displacement.

My favorite section of this venue is the Countries Pavilion. At this location, countries from around the world display their commitment to climate change and welcome everyone to sessions specific to them. I attended Indonesia's opening event and listened to their world leaders speak on how their people are affected, tried some coffee, and watched a cultural dance.

Out of all the pavilions, India had impressed me the most. They used holograms to talk about wind energy and their pavilion was composed of beautifully carved wood. Each country was welcoming and genuinely concerned about the same topic: climate change. The most impactful take away I had my first few days was understanding how so many people from different countries, cultures, economic standing, languages, etc. could come together to discuss a game plan to help everyone and our world at large. The thing that impressed me the most about the work completed at COP's is the commitment to helping any country even if the country does not participate in the Paris Agreement. An emphasis on the protection of our earth and humanity radiates here.

Last, from my previous research about Poland, I was shocked that they were hosting the conference due to their large history with coal mining. However, after listening to their president talk and taking a look at the city, I realized my perception of Katowice, Poland was not very accurate. Katowice has a new modern-city feel and although there is a history, and current practices, of coal mining, Poland is making some progress to reduce carbon emissions. Taking a look at what Katowice looked like before as a coal mining hub to present day, you can definitely tell progress is being made.



P.S. Another little difference about Poland, at least at the conference center, is the coffee comes in small cups... not jumbo sizes like in the US, and the majority of doors need to be pushed, not pulled. Although I ran into a few doors in my first couple of days and tried to order different sized cups of coffee, I looked like a natural in no time!

Another year, another COP

So here I am in Katowice, Poland attending COP24, my 10th COP. There is a familiarity to the routine for us veterans: getting our official badges at registration, going through security, negotiating a maze of hallways, plenary and meeting rooms and exhibit halls, and running into familiar faces in the corridors -- COP buddies.

The entrance to the COP24 venue

But for anyone attending their first international climate meeting, getting that official U.N. badge is pretty exciting.

Jessica getting her first credentials for a COP

What has become the familiar to me, can be an overwhelming maze of confusion for newbies!

Navigating one part of "Section B" of A-G at COP24
(Photo by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth)

The jargon and alphabet soup of acronyms of the UNFCCC alone can drive you crazy. The Daily Programme (why is there an extra "me" at the end of that word anyway?) is like an agenda, but the schedule and what events are open to civil society observers can change at a moment's notice. Side events, countless negotiation tracks, work programmes, APA, press conferences, climate actions, briefings, and yes, even informal informals. (I kid you not.) As a scientist, I shrug off the terminology; after all, the science community has plenty of its own. But at times, these conferences have a circus-like atmosphere.

A Climate Action
(Photo by IISD/ENB | Kiara Worth)

Over the years, I have learned to find events of interest to me, knowing I can get updates at a morning RINGOS meeting, over coffee with colleagues, or by reading key newsletters and bulletins like Climate Action Network's ECO (from the non-governmental environmental groups), the IISD Earth Negotiations Bulletin, or the ones from Third World Network. Each provides a unique perspective on what is happening daily at the COPs.

Having coffee with a current and former student and a collaborator

Along with each new COP comes new jargon. Last year, although COP23 was in Bonn, Germany, it was officially presided over by Fiji. (I know which location I would have rather traveled to in November!)  A new process launched there was referred to as a Talanoa Dialog. Talanoa is apparently "a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue." In 2011, COP17 was held in Durban, South Africa and we had the Indaba sessions. This may sound good (and exotic), but these are traditionally conferences held by important men of the Zulu or Xhosa people of South Africa. (A substantial gender action plan was finally established at COP23.)

The "flavor" (or would that be flavour?) of the host country or city always permeates these events. This year, the Katowice Rule Book is the projected outcome and will serve as the operating manual, if you will, for the Paris Agreement. That agreement was forged (in Paris, of course) in 2015. Does it really take three years to develop the rules of an agreement that took 21 years of negotiating? Prior to this COP, this was all referred to as PAWP (the Paris Agreement Work Programme.) 😏

Key phrases that we are hearing early in this COP include the IPCC SR 1.5°C, the need to raise ambition on NDCs (not a new concept), and "Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration." You need to know a bit of Polish and Katowice history to understand that last one and to be familiar with the UNFCCC history for the others. If you are really interested, I provided links to help you out.

Also in these early days of the conference, I am hearing a lot about adaptation -- learning to live and minimize risk and damage to property and lives under a new climate regime or our new normal. Today, the WHO launched a special report for COP 24 "Health and Climate Change." Linking improvement of human health and saving lives to climate action is a pretty smart move, but also a bit ironic given the air quality in this coal-dominated country. 

Climate finance discussions are ongoing (still) and are particularly thorny when representatives from industrialized (developed) nations are in the same room as people from developing nations. There are significantly more references this year to climate-smart agriculture and landscape restoration as a form of resilience. For the later, think reforestation, but not necessarily with native or indigenous trees, but rather with ones that can provide food or a source of income. This may be good for people and for addressing poverty, but less so for biodiversity/other species. Conversations of balancing climate change action with sustainable development come up frequently at COP meetings. Balancing social and ecological needs - not so much.

In subsequent posts, I will discuss some of these topics in more detail. For now, I will leave you with the best quote so far from COP24 by fifteen-year-old Greta Thunberg of Sweden:

Since our leaders are behaving like children, we will have to take the responsibility they should have taken long ago.

National Security Priorities: Do We Have It All Wrong?

A random comment on the national news this morning got me thinking: There was more violence in malls in this country yesterday than there is at the border. You know, that caravan of "threatening" people fleeing violence or poverty in search of a better life. The ones that we have deployed troops against -- troops who have authorization to use lethal force. We are all too familiar with violence in this country - be it mass shootings, sexual assault, or rage in our malls or on our highways. Yet we turn our angst and actions against the unknown, those "others" that we fear may change who we are as a country, despite being a nation built by immigrants. These desperate people to the south of our border are our modern day boogeymen.

Statues depicting climate refugees at COP15 in Copenhagen

Meanwhile, a headline that many of us may have missed came out of Paris over the past week: Paris Peace Forum Recognizes Climate Change, Food Insecurity, Water Scarcity as Challenges for Peace and Security. Our government defends a lot of our actions by claiming they are in the interest of national security but, in my opinion, it fails to recognize where the very real threats lie.

A report from the BBC news and other outlets earlier in the week about the conflict in Yemen declared 85,000 children 'dead from malnutrition'. I can't begin to fathom their agony, or that of their families. Blockades keep humanitarian aid from reaching those in dire need of food and medical care. This fatality statistic doesn't include all the civilians who have been killed by airstrikes from the Saudi-led coalition, attacks that involve support from the United States. And, by all accounts, millions more in Yemen are at risk of starvation and disease. Remind me again about what threat we are targeting in this country? What exactly is the national security argument? Maybe I am naive, but allowing tens of thousands of children to die horrific deaths and targeting innocent people with our military power, might just tick off an awful lot of people. Maybe even more than there are terrorists in Yemen currently.

Water scarcity exacerbated by a drought that began in 2006 is widely identified as a factor leading to the ongoing civil war in Syria. Around a half million people have died and there are millions of displaced people leading to a refugee crisis from that multi-year conflict. Some experts have questioned whether this is a "climate war". At the very least, many believe that "anthropogenic climate change will become a ‘threat multiplier’ for instability in the decades ahead." [1] If you don't want to bother with the academic literature, Christian Parenti's book Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence or Alex Alvarez's Unstable Ground: Climate Change, Conflict, and Genocide are eye-opening reads.

The 4th National Climate Assessment was released yesterday, on the heals of the latest report by the IPCC: Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Here is the "CliffNotes" bottom line message from the highly technical IPCC report:

Climate-related risks to health, livelihoods, food security, water supply, human security, and economic growth are projected to increase with global warming of 1.5°C and increase further with 2°C.

The graph from Climate Action Tracker shows you where things stand; the current pledges from the Paris Agreement for greenhouse gas emissions (the major contributor to climate disruption) are far from adequate to limit warming of our planet to less then 2°C.

Furthermore, according to the IPCC: 

The risks depend on the magnitude and rate of warming, geographic location, levels of development and vulnerability, and on the choices and implementation of adaptation and mitigation options (high confidence).

Avoiding overshoot [of warming above 1.5°C] and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal [i.e. geoengineering] can only be achieved if global CO₂ emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence).

The year 2030 is not very far away. If you haven't read the details of the Paris Agreement, it focuses on post-2020 actions. Hence the use of the word "pledges" in the above graph.

These are very real threats to our national security, but for the most part, we have yet to address them. Instead of seriously considering our "choices and options" related to mitigation and adaptation, we have largely focused on inaction. Pascal's Wager reminds us that this is typically not the wisest option. Denial and deflection, a previous failure to ratify the now defunct Kyoto Protocol, and more recently, threats to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, have been our modus operandi towards climate change policy. Our borders are under threat, but it is our coastlines that will be washed away with sea level rise. Maybe we need seawalls rather than a wall along the border with Mexico. In the southwest, drought contingency plans are being considered as the serious water shortages in that region of the country will impact our own citizens. [2]

According to NASA, rainfall may decline by 20 to 25 percent over California, Nevada, and Arizona by 2100.

Maybe officials in the southwest are taking note of the water-shortage crisis that Cape Town faced this past year. We have already seen record loss of human life and property from the devastating fires in California, fires which have been made worse by (yes, I am going to say it) climate change. The current numbers of migrants or refugees seeking food, shelter, and protection pale in comparison to what we may face in the coming decades with climate migrants. [3] And some of those displaced people could be U.S. citizens.

Less you think that climate refugees are a problem for the distant future, I invite you to watch a short video that a colleague sent me yesterday with the message: "Thankful we live on high islands in Hawai'i, our Marshallese neighbors are not so fortunate." [An aside since I have been mentioning conflict and war: the Marshalls were an American nuclear testing site in the 1950s with 50 plus bombs dropped there.]

Against this backdrop, and amidst tweets of climate change denial and plans for our administration to promote the virtues of coal, I head to Poland with students in a week to attend the 24th meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The most recent "1.5°C report" from the IPCC is on the agenda. The first of the IPCC reports was published in 1990, and the messages within it brought nations together at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to develop the UNFCCC and to act in the interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty. Now, almost 30 years later and with solid scientific evidence for a changing climate, we still haven't figured out how to solve one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.

[1] Selby, J.,  O.S. Dahi, C. Frohlich, and M. Hulme. 2017. Climate change and the Syrian civil war revisited. Political Geography 60: 232 - 244. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629816301822

[2] N. Baptiste. 2018. This is What a West Without Water Will Look Like. Mother Jones Magazine, published March 15, 2018.  https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/03/this-is-what-a-west-without-water-will-look-like/

[3] Parker, L. (2018) 143 Million People May Soon Become Climate Migrants. National Geographic Online, published March 19, 2018. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/climate-migrants-report-world-bank-spd and K.K. Rigaud, A. de Sherbinin, B. Jones, J. Bergmann, V. Clement, K. Ober, J. Schewe, S. Adamo, B. McCusker, S. Heuser, and A. Midgley, Amelia. 2018. Groundswell : Preparing for Internal Climate Migration. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29461 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.