I have worked for several years in community-based conservation and environmental projects in Pakistan; most recently on snow leopard conservation in remote communities in the extreme north of the country. In working with local communities and thinking about how we can improve our interactions with the most marginalized social groups, I have come across complex conflicts amongst all stakeholders, most clearly understood as a conflict between Western philosophical ideals and local outlooks. In my view, these conflicts arise from the variations in epistemological lenses being used to rationalize the problems being addressed and to theorize their potential solutions.

In Glasgow, I witnessed this state of conflict on a massive scale and highly concentrated within the exhibition center. Of course, with divisions and distributions of power and the restrictions within which individuals and parties operate, this conflict may have not been consistently apparent but was present and could be recognized. There are two important components of the aforementioned Western lens that give rise to conflict. Firstly, it propagates a single conceptualization of nature that accompanies how humankind should interact with nature. Secondly, it leaves little room for the adequate acknowledgement of important ethical concerns relating to climate change and its impacts on people.

With regards to the singular conceptualization of nature; at the COP, I often heard people talking about how human beings have caused and continue to cause unjustifiable amounts of damage to the planet. Though this idea seems to be largely accepted as an unquestionable truth in spaces like the COP, it is accompanied by three major assumptions. Firstly, that all human beings have a destructive relationship with nature. Secondly, that human beings can only have a destructive relationship with nature. Lastly, that in order to protect nature it must be separated from human beings.

Here, it is important to acknowledge that not all human beings are equally responsible for climate change – an idea several of the island nations brought up in the plenaries. Secondly, that though the contemporary, globalized world via the spread of certain capitalistic ideals and other ideologies, has brought insurmountable damage, there are and have been peoples that have maintained (and some that continue to maintain) constructive and mutually beneficial relationships with nature. Lastly, in light of this, there must be a counter-argument to the immediate assumption that in order to protect nature, nature must be separated and protected from human beings.

This idea is consistent with Francis Fukuyama’s pretty troublesome ideas in his book, ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ that essentially argues that the future of humanity is the global adoption of liberal capitalism and if history is a collection of political and philosophical conflicts, we will face the end of history as a consequence of the end of the conflict of political ideas. Needless to say, this book has been simultaneously heavily criticized and critically acclaimed, depending on the school of thought the critic adhered to. I would argue, that we need space to argue that the richness of variety of cultures and conceptualizations of nature could provide solutions for how human beings, in the globalized world, could change and adopt their behaviors and attitudes so that their relationship with nature becomes more constructive and mutually beneficial.

Similarly, several other ideas seem to not be adequately acknowledged in spaces like the COP and it is my understanding that this results in the sorts of challenges I have experienced in my own work with local communities in Pakistan. Firstly, it was deeply comforting and inspiring to see the island nations argue the point that ‘climate change is not their fault’ and that the blame largely lies on the developed world. I look forward to this being factored into future decision-making processes, but it was nice to see it, at least, acknowledged in forums such as the COP. Secondly, I look forward to ideas like those promoted by Scotland’s First Minister about reparations owed to the Global South being taken further to account, not only for the damage imposed via climate change but to factor in the generational suffering and immeasurable theft from the Global South via colonialism and its complex contemporary iterations. Decisions about support in the form of the transfer of finance or technology from the developed to the developing world are seen as acts of charity or aid that are independent of responsibility and liability.

The foundations of this problem stem, in my view, from the dominant Western lens being used at these forums. Though scientific and economic thinking, founded in post-enlightenment rationality, are extraordinarily useful in determining how projects and programs should be organized and carried out, they are particularly poorly suited in addressing the moral concerns associated with climate change. Additionally, as the Western lens largely formed the foundations of conversation at the COP, there was little space to discuss moral concerns in a manner that would result in positive action. That being said, it was deeply comforting to see conversations relating to these topics were taking place in several places within the exhibition center, and simultaneously a little heartbreaking to see that those having these conversations and making these observations were not those that held the power to influence change.