Author: Emily Millar

Although not a new topic at the Conference of the Parties, little policy headway has been made in the realm of loss and damage. Loss and Damage was first given significant attention at COP19 with the formation of the Warsaw Implementation Mechanism (WIM) and was specifically addressed in Article 8 of the Paris Agreement. The recent IPCC report emphasizing the importance of keeping the global temperature increase below 1.5˚C has provided increased urgency to find an appropriate way to approach loss and damage in the framework. With COP24 marking the 5^th anniversary of the WIM and the implementation of the Paris Rulebook, there was a high level of hope surrounding loss and damage progress, but here on the last day of the COP, many questions still remain.

Loss and Damage at the German Pavilion

At a loss and damage event held by Germany towards the end of week 2, a member of the German Parliament and three experts discussed the many difficulties associated with defining the loss and damage problem and the mechanisms to deal with such problems. Not only were the panelists at this event brilliant, the audience members asked perhaps the most insightful questions I heard all week. Questions were asked about the appropriateness of financing loss and damage through the UNFCCC, at what level ecological loss and damage is considered, and how should loss and damage be framed in order to communicate its importance to government officials and younger generations. The panelists gave insightful answers stressing the perverse idea that those least responsible for and most effected by climate change should be required to buy insurance to cover “unprecedented events” that are no longer unprecedented. They also discussed the problems with giving loss and damage its own article under the rulebook and the difficulties of valuing noneconomic losses. By the end of this incredibly interesting discourse, it was clear that we are far away from addressing loss and damage in a sufficient way.

On the actual negotiations side of the issue, large effort is being made by developing countries to avoid absorbing loss and damage in adaptation. Separating loss and damage and adaptation has resulted in a cornucopia of potential solutions to help account for loss and damage. Deputy director of the Risk and Resilience (RISK) research program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Reinhard Mechler stated earlier this week “Loss and damage must be reflected separately throughout the Paris Rulebook: in finance, accounting, transparency and the global stocktake.” But even with so many countries and non-party members advocating for dynamic solutions, there has been no clear path to move forward.

Polish Pavillion

As I mentioned earlier, this year marked the 5^th Anniversary of the WIM, which set out to “address loss and damage associated with impacts of climate change, including extreme events and slow onset events, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change,” but this mechanism has yet to produce any tangible results, like many of the negotiations that were once thought so vital for the outcome of COP24.

As I complete my final post, I would like to leave you with the words the UN Secretary General shared with us this afternoon “I have no doubts some of you may be disappointed—perhaps I will leave here disappointed—but I want you to never give up!”

While three days may not seem like much, it has been enough to completely shift my perspective on the feasibility of achieving binding, comprehensive agreements. The word I keep hearing thrown around is “small”. The agreement coming out of COP24, which is meant to include the adoption of the Paris Rulebook, has been growing smaller and smaller in scope.

Before arriving at the COP, really before the start of the semester, I had what I now realize was an idealized vision of UNFCCC negotiations and outcomes. I assumed that parties negotiated over big picture issues, not between the words “should” and “shall”, and that the outcomes of such negotiations would be easily implemented. Upon studying the history of past agreements throughout the semester and attending multiple side events here in Katowice regarding the complexity of the technical aspects of the Paris Agreement, I know my original assumptions not to be the case.

This realization, the realization that getting a substantive agreement passed by all parties and then creating a comprehensive and detailed mechanism to guide in achieving said agreement may be a nearly impossible task, has provided me the opportunity to begin to untint my rose-colored glasses.

After attending many hours of the High-Level Plenary and Talonoa Dialogue, I have heard again and again the importance of climate finance and increased ambition in mitigation goals, especially in light of the IPCC special report on 1.5 degrees. Even with these common themes, countries such as the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Russia have prevented consensus by refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of this report. These actions further complicate the road to a comprehensive Paris Rulebook and clear the tinted glasses up a bit more.

U.S. Side Event on Open Energy Access Technology

Pulling the subject of this blog a bit closer to home, I would like to conclude with a discussion on some of the events and statements presented by the United States government. On my first day of COP24, I attended a U.S. sponsored side event that included Wells Griffith, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of International Affairs, Steve Winberg, Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, as well as two members of the private sector, and the Australian Ambassador for the Environment Patrick Suckling. At this event, which was heavily protested, the panelists championed coal and natural gas (I’ll give credit for mentions of carbon capture and sequestration), and emphasized the importance of energy dependence and economic growth. In the official U.S. statement at the High-Level Plenary, these same messages were echoed with the edition of the phrase “protect the environment” tacked on at the end. In this statement, the IPCC report and climate finance—two of the most important issues for many developed and developing countries—were completely ignored.

These last few days have been an eye-opening, opportunity of a life time. I just wish that when it came time to leave, I would be able to return to a country whose actions throughout the past two weeks—perhaps past two years—made me proud.

Host countries play the pivotal role of setting the tone and ensuring the efficiency of each years COP, and as many of my classmates have pointed out before me, this year’s honor—or perhaps burden—falls on Poland. Before heading across the Atlantic in a few days, I thought it would be helpful to understand the impacts climate change will have and is already having on Poland and the response the country has taken so far to hopefully make sense of the host nation’s attitude throughout COP24.

Poland is a country with a frequently fluctuating climate. While hurricanes were already common in Poland, the country has seen a large uptick in catastrophic stormsand tornadoes in the last few decades. The eastern part of the country is seeing increased occurrences of drought. Even with these very visible signs of climate change, only 19% of Polish citizens believe climate change is a very serious problem according to a 2015 PEW Research Center poll. In a 2007-2008 Gallup poll, a little over half of the Poles who participated believed climate change was caused by human activity.

As part of the 2015 Paris Agreement, Poland submitted a joint NDC with the rest of the European Union to reduce domestic greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% of 1990 levels. Poland has also committed to having 15% of its total energy profile be renewable and a 30% increase in forest cover by 2020. Other 2020 targets include having 20% of the transportation sector fueled by biofuels, 35% biodegradable municipal waste in landfills, and a reduction in water consumption. While all of these commitments are positive from both a climate and overall environmental standpoint, it cannot be ignored that 80% of Poland’s current energy is provided by burning coal.

Polish Coal Miners Band at COP24  http://www.tribtown.com/2018/12/04/ climate-miners-day/

Poland is home to 33 of the 50 dirtiest cities in Europe and is on track to still be reliant on coal for 60% of its energy needs in 2030. Furthering this commitment to coal, Poland began COP24 earlier this week by rolling out the Polish Coal Miners Band to greet delegates from all over the world as they arrived at the conference. Coal was also displayed throughout the conference center in its many “useful” forms including jewelry and cosmetics. The Polish president, President Duda, in his opening remarks commented on this display of coal throughout the COP stating “There is no plan today to fully give up on coal…Experts point out that our supplies run for another 200 years, and it would be hard not to use them.”

Furthering the Polish desire to double-down on extended coal use is the looming withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement: many smaller countries, including Poland, have argued that if an actor as large as the U.S. does not intend to meet their targets, neither will they.

With all of this said, it is important to note that a host country can only effect the success of a COP to a certain extent and that I do not believe Poland has any mal-intent towards the negotiations. I undertook this topic to better understand the background of Poland and the potential biases and agendas the country may hold before arriving in Katowice. I look forward to using this post as a lens to view the actions of the Polish government throughout the last week of COP24.