Throughout the tail end of Tuesday and continuing for the better part of Wednesday, countries presented their national statements during the second part of the second half of the higher level segment. Following the national statements, various intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) also presented statements. At their heart, these statements are opportunities for the countries to express their broader goals at the negotiations, to condemn actions they believe are antithetical to these goals, and to communicate their priorities, all with an international geopolitical twist.
Most countries expressed their national investment in promoting more aggressive climate change action. Lau spoke about the need for support to small developing nations. Ecuador contemplated the importance of differentiation as well as the relevance of indigenous populations to ongoing climate negotiation conversations. Sweden emphasized its interest in helping the global community meet a 1.5oC maximum temperature rise and underlined this interest by dedicating an additional 50 million crowns (roughly $5 million) to climate finance. Even Poland, a coal-rich country known to drag its feet discussed its ambitions to retrofit homes and electrifying its transportation fleets.
But of course, my Duke classmates and I had been waiting for the US national statement. We were met with a statement that, unfortunately, aligned with our expectations. Judith Garber, Acting Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment and Sciences at the US Department of State and a career diplomat, eulogized US climate policy. She underlined the nation’s role as the world’s largest producer of nuclear and fossil fuel energy, and stressed the country’s plans to continue extracting these types of energy. She emphasized to a room full of politically, diplomatically, and environmentally sophisticated world leaders that the US does indeed intend to withdraw from the Paris Agreement unlessthe terms of the Agreement are made more favorable for the United States. Yet, for most of the leaders, the consensus is that the Agreement already provides generous leeway to our country, the largest per-capita emitter of carbon dioxide in the world. Notably absent from Ambassador Garber’s national statement rendition was any mention of climate finance, any mention of the IPCC 1.5oreport or even the 2oC goal, and even any mention of ambition.
In broad brush strokes, while most countries’ national statements were more globally-minded, the United States only discussed US interests and US initiatives in its national statement. But of course, the only solution to climate change requires all countries to set aside self-interested attitudes in favor of more empathetic and universal points of view. The international community was hopeful that the IPCC 1.5oC report would help unify the international community around a common mandate to mitigate climate change. Unfortunately, this COP was even more divisive than many. It was particularly troubling that this discord permeated what was arguably the most important COP since Paris.
Our team’s time in Katowice culminated in an event with Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres, and Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Patricia Espinosa. Secretary Guterres gave a statement that, among other things, presented his mixed feelings about the COP and underlined the need for more aggressive action. He then passed the mic off to different non-governmental observer groups like RINGO (religion), BINGO (business), TUNGO (trade unions), and YOUNGO (youth) who also made statements. YOUNGO wrapped up the evening by posing several questions to António Guterres. One question stood out; how can youth get more involved in these high-level conversations, given that youth will be more heavily impacted by the decisions made in today’s negotiations? Secretary Guterres’s response struck me as both heartfelt and a little hopeless: be even more forceful & relentless in our advocacy for the environment and pressure our loved ones to act in ways that benefit future generations.
I bring up this final event because it effectively captures my sentiments as this COP in Katowice, Poland comes to a close. There are so many pressing reasons to act and so little time left to shift the tide from, on the one hand, unprecedented planet damage to, on the other hand, saving this place we call home. Yet, at the same time, there is a lack of political will in several key countries whose voices are disproportionately influential at the negotiations.
It is my earnest hope that governments around the world place a higher priority on protecting the global community from climate change. However, if not our governments, I hope we as individual global citizens begin to act as better ambassadors of our planet.
