So um…I saw former President Obama speak. It was absolutely surreal! I was only eight years old when he was elected, and it was such a monumental memory in my childhood.
Hearing Obama speak was just the start of three LONG days at the COP. Every day is packed with new events, meetings, and decisions. Week 2 is an incredibly exciting, nerve-wracking, decisive time and the environment and energy inside the Exhibition Centre has an immense sense of urgency and passion. Being on the ground gives us a nuanced look at the conference that’s difficult to discern from news articles. Here are some of the insights I’ve gained:
How the event is organized
COVID-19 complicated COP organizing. Social distancing and capacity limits mean that many negotiation sessions are closed and exclude observers while in the past, they were more open. Also, good food at COP has been somewhat hard to find, and the menus often include meat options which is ironic at a climate change conference. Exacerbating the irony, all of us flew in to get to Glasgow which is necessary but also contributing to emissions. These hypocrisies/this irony have been a bit hard to reconcile.
Moreover, due to mandatory quarantines after travel, there is noticeably low representation from certain countries (particularly Asian countries). In this way, COP26 has reproduced the harmful power dynamics it should be trying to dismantle. Countries like the US and China can afford to bring dozens of delegates while smaller countries are limited to the three delegates that the UNFCCC covers funding for. Rachel and Dhruv got to sit in on a lot of climate negotiations and talked to a delegate from Jamaica who explained how exhausted she was because their delegation was small. In a negotiation on climate finance, the facilitator suggested they split into smaller working groups since they couldn’t agree in the larger group. However, the delegate from the Maldives objected, explaining that the country has so few delegates and cannot not participate in multiple working groups. Thus, small island states and developing nations represented in the UNFCCC process are still disadvantaged because the UNFCCC fails certain inclusion standards or equity (e.g. funding more delegates from low-income countries).
Importance of language
Empty words: I’ve also noticed a lot about the power of discourse. President Obama focused his speech on what youth can do to transform their anger into action. However, as he’s saying leaders should listen to youth, youth are being excluded from the negotiating process and their demands (such as calls for more climate finance) are seemingly unheard. These empty words frustrated me so much, and I found myself disillusioned by the cycle of talk and no action.
Harmful discourse: I was excited by the robust programming on climate displacement and migration with different sessions. However, I fear that much of the discourse, which is rightfully alarmist and urgent, may spark counterproductive and harmful securitization and border controls. I asked a question about this at one of the panels I attended, and one of the speakers emphasized that creating climate registries and measuring climate change’s impact on mobility are still vital, despite this potential discursive and material consequence.
Politics shaping messaging: Moreover, I talked to some panelists after their events to follow up on some of the conversations during their talks. Ahmad and I both found that there are large differences between what panelists say during an event and what they say “off camera.” During one of the sessions, a panelist explained the importance of protecting indigenous cultures as climate-induced migration forces communities and host communities to integrate and co-exist. However, after the event, the panelist was blunter and more pessimistic, explaining that indigenous communities are and will disappear.
These instances have all exemplified the importance of language and discourse in discussing these issues and the political conditions that shape what people say/are able to say.
