Author: Molly Bruce

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 1.5^oC 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 1.5^oreport or even the 2^oC 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 1.5^oC 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.

This year’s COP24 in Katowice is situated in event spaces called the Spodek (this means saucer in Polish and was meant to tease the building’s resemblance to a UFO) and the Międzynarodowe Centrum Kongresowe (MCK).  Interestingly, the Spodek was constructed on top of an old mining waste dump site. This in a city whose history is both literally and figuratively built on coal.

However, not all COP events take place within the Spodek and the MCK—the two permanent structures—or the temporary auxiliary buildings.  A handful of parallel events take place offsite at nearby hotels, restaurants, and other spaces.

I had the good fortune to attend one of these parallel event under the auspices of by client, IISD.  The event was hosted by the Ministry of National Development Planning for the Indonesian Government at Novotel Katowice Centrum.  This event, titled “Investing in Low Carbon Development: Sustainable Cities and Green Energy”, was an interesting glimpse into one country’s attempt to integrate climate-friendly ideas into its development initiatives.  That being said, the caliber of speakers coupled with my lack of familiarity with Indonesia’s actions on climate change left me recognizing how over-my-head most of these high-level climate conversations truly are.

With only 50 or so people in the room, the discussion was an intimate affair.  Lord Nicholas Stern (Co-Chair of The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate) introduced the event with his perspectives on Indonesian climate change governance before passing the mic off to the other keynote speakers.  Japan’s Vice Minister for Global Environmental Affairs, Yasuo Takahashi, Germany’s Parliamentary State Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development, Maria Flachsbarth, and Indonesia’s Minister of National Development Planning, Bambang Brodjonegoro all spoke about their impressions of Indonesian efforts to incorporate green planning.  Specific attention was paid to Indonesia’s public transit efforts.  This was the case, in particular because COP24 is located in Katowice, a small city boasting an exceptional train/tram/bus system.

Following the keynote speakers’ addresses, several panelists digested the conversation further.  Executive Director of Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund Tony Wagey, Chairperson of the Global Environment Fund Naoko Ishii, Deputy Permanent Secretary for Denmark Anders Hoffmann, CEO of Agence Francais de Developpement Remy Rioux, Director of Environment for Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development Rodolfo Lacy, and President and CEO of World Resources Institute Andrew Steer presented their thoughts and conversed with each other.

• Rodolfo Lacy expressed his belief that Indonesia’s geography—specifically the fact that it’s comprised of 17,000 islands—necessarily implies that the country’s energy plans will need to account for the challenges therein.  He also believed that as part of Indonesia’s development, the country should make serious efforts to incorporate early warning systems for extreme weather events.
• Naoko Ishii briefly articulated GEF’s hope to work more closely with cities rather than strictly with national Governments in order to deploy climate finance.
• Anders Hoffman indicated his belief that the technology improvements currently making so many alternative energies more viable must be coupled with effective policies if they are to present a real opposition-front to fossil fuels.
• Tony Wagey focused more on tangible examples of Indonesia’s successes.  For example, he mentioned the country’s vibrant coral reef system and the need to ensure its endurance, as well as the cost-effectiveness of the country’s peatland offset projects.
• Remy Rioux spoke in broad brushstrokes about energy sector transition and the need for financially-effective solutions. This was particularly interesting given his own country’s Yellow Vest protests which, among other things, are a reaction to the country’s high energy costs.
• Andrew Steer spoke passionately about the externalities the fossil fuel industry imposes on other sectors of the economy—cleanup costs, health costs, mercury deposition, acid rain deposition, and climate change to name a few.  Mr. Steer also spoke to the need for national and subnational policy coordination on climate policies.  Mr. Steer expressed his ardent belief that infrastructure regulations and society revolutions provide substantive solutions.  For instance, he proposed (1) stronger building codes that promote energy efficiency as well as (2) younger generations continuing to cluster more and more heavily in urban spaces, reducing the energy consumption associated with suburban sprawl as two trends likely to reduce climate change pressure.

However, as I mentioned before, these are the comments I was able to digest and contextualize.  So many of these commentators thoughts opaquely concerned Indonesia’s national programs or spoke to a level of climate negotiations expertise that I just don’t yet possess.  This same takeaway applies more broadly to the COP.  It takes years to acquire the expertise to fully-understand these climate negotiations, and even then…That being said, our Bass Connections class did an exceptional job of introducing us to the negotiations and distilling an incredibly complex area of study into something manageable.

As a side-note, I had previously mentioned Andrew Steer’s comment on the success of Indonesia’s peatlands carbon offset projects.  The UNFCCC promotes a number of carbon offsets projects that range in cost from roughly $0.30 per ton of sequestered carbon to $10.00 per ton of sequestered carbon. For reference, our trips from North Carolina to Poland produced about 1 ton of carbon dioxide per capita.  I encourage you to brows the types of projects available and to consider offsetting your airline travel.  At as little as 30 cents per ton, do any of us have an excuse not to purchase these offsets the next time we decide to take a flight?

It’s a gray Saturday and I can smell snow in the air.  People across North Carolina are preparing for the state’s inaugural round of winter weather.  The roads are salted.  My classmates in Durham are wrapping up their exams and contemplating the impact of the winter weather on their testing schedules.  My own family has been feeding logs into a healthy fire for several days.

I had the pleasure to grow up in North Carolina in the greater Charlotte area.  Despite the state’s generally-mild and sunny climate, 2002 was different; that winter brought a debilitating storm front to the NC piedmont that dumped more than an inch of freezing rain.  My family was without power for more than a week.

Flash forward 15 years, and although the North Carolina weather continues to bring a happy medium of soothing heat and refreshing cold, the abnormal weather like that from 2002 seems to be growing more common. This past winter, Duke students grappled with more than a foot of snow that fell in only 48 hours.  I’ve lived in the Triangle for nearly a decade and have never seen that much snow blanket the area.  Even as a child, it was a hard winter if the Charlotte area received more than a couple winter storms a season, each dropping no more than 3 inches.

Now I promise I’m not going to use colloquial examples to preach to you about the weather.  However, I think weather events are the most relatable way people experience broader climate events.  This past year, coastal communities in the Carolinas and in Florida watched as their homes and businesses were leveled by Hurricanes Michael and Florence.

Damaged homes are seen along the water’s edge in the aftermath of hurricane Michael in Mexico Beach, Fla., Friday, Oct. 12, 2018. (AP Photo/David Goldman)

California authorities are still working to locate missing individuals from the Camp Fire—the most devastating wild fire in the state’s history.  A subtropical cyclone formed in May off Chile’s coast, a region whose ocean temperatures have historically been much too cold to support this type of weather event.  A particularly heavy monsoon season devastated Bangladesh, a country already grappling with a dire and complicated refugee crisis.[i]

Global temperatures continue to rise, all-the-while nations like the United States, Russia, and Saudi Arabia become increasingly reluctant to commit resources toward mitigating greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs).  Unfortunately, increased global temperatures will only make these severe weather events more common.  Furthermore, development decisions that haven’t taken into account the vulnerability of certain areas to climate change will magnify the damage costs associated with these severe weather events.

Here in the US, we are blessed with space to which impacted communities can retreat.  The same isn’t true for many small island developing nations that are losing their territory to climate change by no fault of their own.  Therein, the climate change negotiations have dedicated more and more efforts to promoting conversations about adaptation initiatives as well as finance for this adaptation.  That being said, it’s hard enough to convince wealthy, developed countries who have contributed a substantial chunk of GHGs to date that they should help finance GHG mitigation in less-developed nations; it’s all-but-impossible to convince these same nations that they should also help these less developed countries fund initiatives to adapt to the impacts of climate change. That being said, COP24 in Katowice, Poland is centrally intended to operationalize the Paris Agreement by incorporating more quantitative benchmarks into the text of the negotiation document.[ii]  This includes climate finance benchmarks.  I am excited to track how these conversations proceed, but am skeptical that there will be great progress in Poland to this end.

Well, it’s time to close the computer and board the plane bound for Poland.  We are set to sneak out just ahead of this winter weather, escaping one surprisingly chilly area for another predictably cold region.

[i]https://unfccc.int/news/extreme-weather-continues-in-2018-a-continuing-call-to-climate-action

[ii]Antonich, B., Ph.D. (2018, November 13). Policy Brief: EU Council Adopts Conclusions on Climate Finance Ahead of UNFCCC COP 24. Retrieved from http://sdg.iisd.org/commentary/policy-briefs/eu-council-adopts-conclusions-on-climate-finance-ahead-of-unfccc-cop-24/