Author: Dieynabou Barry

One of the main focus areas that the Polish Presidency selected for COP24 is “Human.” As I stated in my first blog post, Michal Kurtyka defines this theme as the need to lead change together with people through solidarity and fair transformation of regions and industrial sectors. He places emphasis on a low carbon transition that will help to protect the climate while maintaining economic development and jobs through modernization, technological change, and the innovations for efficient resource use. Therefore, throughout the COP, there have been multiple sessions on “Just Transition”.

The term “Just Transition” actually comes from the environmental justice community and labor unions, which consisted mostly of low-income communities of color. The environmental movement has largely left out the issues of injustice, which prompted the environmental justice movement by indigenous peoples, communities of color, labor unions, and low-income communities. “Just Transition” encompasses “a host of strategies to transition whole communities to build thriving economies that provide dignified, productive and ecologically sustainable livelihoods; democratic governance and ecological resilience.[1]”

I attended a session titled, “From local approaches to (inter)national policy: Gender Just Transition and Decent Work,” which spoke about the need for Just Transition to promote rapid decarbonization, challenge social inequalities, and overcome a green growth agenda. The session was led by gender equity and human rights NGOs as well as members of the local and indigenous communities. The purpose of the event was to question the predominant idea of work, power relations, consider intersectional issues (gender, human rights), and the participation of indigenous/local communities in climate action. Participants and presenters alike deemed that the COP has co-opted the term and the concept of Just Transition because the COP has narrowly presented Just Transition as the loss of coal mining jobs due to the transition to a low-carbon economy. However, Just Transition, as pointed out by a representative of the International Labor Organization, encompasses more than fossil fuel extraction. It includes non-discrimination, gender equity, and new jobs created in agriculture, transportation, etc. The presenters questioned who benefits from not transitioning and/or transitioning to a low carbon economy, what are the intersections of communities from whom a low carbon economy is both economically critical yet socially damaging, and how to reclaim the concept of Just Transition.

Just Transition side-event

It has been quite clear that the term “Just Transition” has been used as a concept to undermine the efforts of the Paris Agreement and justify scaling-back ambition to reach the temperature goal. The focus on only those who lose jobs as a result of decarbonization is very narrow and runs against the current of the purpose of acting on climate change. As has been proven, anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions are altering the climate system and we have to take action, against our current economic structures, to scale back on fossil fuel use. Valuing the jobs of those who work in the fossil fuel industry against those who are literally losing their homes, cultures, civilizations is problematic especially because the latter group has been protecting the Earth and/or are from low-income countries that have not contributed to global climate change.

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, stated today that he does not accept the argument that negative social impacts of climate action are a reason not to act. Considering the social dimension is critical, which is why social policies to address these consequences must happen concurrently with climate policy. He will not allow “Just Transition” to be used as a weapon to block climate action that is critically needed to save the Earth, its ecosystems, and its people.

UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, addressing observer organizations

[1] https://climatejusticealliance.org/just-transition/

Being from the US has brought a very interesting experience at COP24. Prior to arriving at the COP on Monday, the US, along with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Russia refused to “welcome” the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5 C and instead chose to “note” it during the Negotiations. The IPCC published its report in October of 2018 and explained the catastrophic impacts that would occur if the world does not limit the warming of the Earth to 1.5 C by 2100. Many Parties have been pushing for the Paris Agreement rulebook to provide substantive actions that will lead to a 1.5 C world rather than a 2 C world that was agreed upon in 2015 in the Paris Agreement. The United States publicly stated that the 1.5 C Special Report is a direct threat to its economic development because of the rapid timeline to reach a level of decarbonization in line with a 1.5 C world. As a result, the Special Report has brought greater division to the COP than unity.

On the day I arrived at the COP, the United States hosted a side event on supporting fossil fuel and nuclear under the guise of technological innovation. The US took a strong stance on the use of natural gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, the World Wildlife Fund had a booth titled, “We Are Still In,” which messaged that despite the federal decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement, many actors in the US are taking action to reach the Paris Agreement goals. However, this message fell deaf to many because the of the tone the US set in the Negotiations. Many times, upon learning that I am from the US, COP participants asked what my position was on climate change especially given the US’ stance. I tried to explain that although the US plans to pull out of the Paris Agreement in 2020, there are many people, including subnational actors such as cities, states, and regions, hard at work addressing climate change issues. However, this concept did not register because that work is not reflected at the Negotiations, which is sadly true.

Protestors outside of the COP

An interesting connection to the tone set by the US, is the prominent role of coal and fossil fuel at COP24. COP24 is being hosted by Poland, whose energy sector is dominated by coal. According to the World Energy Council[1], Poland is the second-largest consumer of coal in Europe; coal accounts for 92 percent of electricity and 89 percent of heat in Poland and it will remain the key element of Poland’s energy security until 2030. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, Poland is focusing on transportation via electromobility and single-family home efficiency via retrofits and renovations. The Polish Presidency has also been pushing for a “Just Transition” as it relates to SDG goals 13 and 8 (climate action and decent work and economic growth). It has defined “Just Transition” as shifting from carbon-intensive economies to low carbon economies by taking into consideration economic growth and job loss. Poland is concerned about the job losses that would result from moving away from a coal-based economy. There have been multiple sessions by different parties including the US on the feasibility of mitigating climate change by using fossil fuels efficiently.  Countries throughout Southeast Asia and Africa have plans to construct coal-fired power plants in the next decade. Coal and fossil fuel have taken a more prominent role than I have expected at this COP.

Polish jewelry made of coal

An important lesson I have learned is that mitigation can take many different forms in terms of energy diversity. There are nations and organizations urging for complete decarbonization and a 100 percent renewable energy mix, others are opting for using nuclear plants to reduce emissions, and some believe that a diverse energy mix that includes fossil fuels is the best way to reach the Paris Agreement temperature goal. These decisions and views are dependent on many factors related to economic development, technological availability, and capacity and capability. The question that this leaves is, if the Paris Agreement is predicated on a temperature goal, how much does it matter the different ways that Nations decide to meet this obligation? Are there more desirable mechanisms that better protect our Earth, the climate, and it’s people, and should the rulebook dictate these mechanisms?

[1] https://www.worldenergy.org/data/resources/country/poland/coal/

UK presentation on the fate of coal

East Side Gallery, Berlin

I am writing this as I head to Katowice on hour 8 of my train journey from Berlin. It has been as beautiful and adventurous as it sounds. As I await my arrival in Katowice, I have begun developing a schedule of events that I would like to attend during my first day at COP 24. COP events are of two types: official meetings, which can either be closed or open, and side events, which are open to everyone to attend. The events this year are split into three different categories: (1) enhancing ambition, (2) promoting implementation, and (3) providing support. Throughout the UNFCCC Practicum coursework, I have focused on Gender in the Negotiations. At COP23 in Bonn, the UNFCCC established the Gender Action Plan, which identifies steps to increase women’s participation, promote gender-responsive climate policy, and mainstream a gender perspective in the Convention. I am particularly interested in the steps Parties have taken to work towards this Plan either by strategizing or taking action on any of the goals. Therefore, I plan to attend meetings and side events that speak to the role of gender in advancing climate change goals. I am also lucky to work with FAWCO, the Federation of American Women’s Club Overseas, who is a member of the Women and Gender Constituency.

As I was creating a schedule, I have found that there are many events of interest that are happening concurrently. Not only am I interested in gender equity, but I am also interested in learning about bringing marginalized voices to the arena of the Negotiations, the steps businesses and corporations are taking to address climate change, how countries with fossil-fuel intensive economies participate in the Negotiations, and the underlying power dynamics that influence the Negotiations. Therefore, there are a multitude of events I would like to attend, but must prioritize according to FAWCO’s interests and my personal and professional goals.

Stepping back a bit, I’d like to talk about the importance of COP24 and how it differs from other COPs. The COP President sets the tone and goals of the COP. This year, Michał Kurtyka, has set the focus on three main themes: (1) Technology, (2) Human, and (3) Nature. On the Human theme, Kurtyka, plans to emphasize the need to lead change together with people through solidarity and fair transformation of regions and industrial sectors. He envisions a transformation that will help to protect the climate while maintaining economic development and jobs. He believes development should be economically, socially, environmentally and climatically responsible and places emphasis on modernization, technological change, and the implementation of innovations for efficient resource use. This is an interesting theme because Poland is coal-dependent. When I first heard the term, “Human”, I thought about environmental justice and finding climate solutions that protect people first. However, this wording indicates that protecting people means protecting the economy, or further, protecting coal-dependent economies, which have a lot to risk if the world continues to move towards a low-carbon global economy. Protecting the climate, people, and economy are, many times, at odds of one another, so it is interesting to see the COP24 President grouping the protection of the economy and people. I am interested to see how this plays out with the United States backing coal and Saudi Arabia and OPEC seeking to protect fossil-fuel industries.

This COP is also very important because the goal is to adopt a decision ensuring full implementation of the Paris Agreement. This really means increasing the ambition of individual country goals to protect the climate. The COP will also perform a Global Stock-take to take stock of the collective efforts of Parties in relation to progress towards the long-term goal. This Stock-take is to happen in “Talanoa” form, which is a traditional word used in Fiji and across the Pacific to reflect a process of inclusive, participatory and transparent dialogue. The purpose of the stock-take is not to shame countries, but instead to build mutual respect and trust and advance knowledge through empathy and understanding. With events like “Fossil of the Day,” which publicly calls out the worst actor of the Negotiations in a humorous fashion, I am eager to see how the Talanoa Dialogue proceeds and the actions that Parties are taking to meet the Paris Agreement temperature goal.