Author: Corey Sugerik (Page 1 of 2)

Marie McNamara

Alexandra Bennett 

Today is the last official day of COP25 and upon entering the conference hall I can feel the frustration and lethargy in the air. Continuous outstanding text for the Paris Rulebook remains and cooperation towards a timely conclusion appears unlikely. Negotiations will most likely continue through the weekend. If parties cannot agree on a rulebook before the official conclusion of this COP, unresolved issues will be pushed to COP26 in Glasgow. This delay breeds frustration because the focus of COP26 is meant to be raising ambition, ratcheting Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and implementing cooperation. Without the rulebook in place, many are nervous COP26 will lack the concrete mechanisms necessary to make real impact. This afternoon the COP25 Presidency was scheduled to address the attendees with a global stocktake on the progress of the negotiations. However, two hours past the scheduled time there were still no updates. This inactivity felt like a symbol of how the COP negotiations were likely to end.

Grace Chan 

It seems unreal that today was the last day of COP25; this week has gone by so fast. Though it was the last day, and most negotiations would have been closed, I was lucky to find that two negotiations regarding Article 4 were open to observers in the morning. They were about the portal for public access to mitigation and adaptation communications. It was very interesting to hear the different countries’ point of views. Saudi Arabia, Belize and China were very vocal in their disappointment with the Secretariat for not listening to previous discussions that occurred during COP24 regarding the same issue. At this point in time, the negotiations were less about substantive issues and more about how to move forward- some countries just wanted to be done with the issue and not have it continue discussions into COP26; other countries were adamant that it should continue to be reviewed and discussed. In the end, no consensus on how to move forward was made. I was very surprised during the whole session- the issue appeared to be very minor, as described by the Australian delegation, but they spent so long discussing it (including several prior sessions during these two weeks). In addition, this was the second set of negotiations I had attended the ended in “no consensus.” It has made me see the true complexity behind negotiations with over 150 countries and differing opinions. But, overall, I’m glad I was able to finally attend and see how delegations interact and gain a better understanding of the process.

Suzanne Mullins 

Wow…how is it the last day of COP already?  The past few days flew by in a rollercoaster of emotions.  I’ve ultimately enjoyed myself, and definitely learned a lot from all of the sessions I attended.  I met a number of interesting people from various organizations—the Environmental Defense Fund, the Center for Clean Air Policy, C2ES, and more.  I visited booths from around the world, heard more languages than I’ve ever heard in one place, met students from a variety of universities, and indulged in limitless espresso from the Italy and Germany pavilions.  It was a wonderful experience, and I’m so glad that I was able to take this course, gain a badge, and participate in this exciting week in Spain.

As I’ve noted previously, though, the COP definitely burned me out a bit.  Even after two weeks of negotiating, things are still moving slowly (or completely stalled).  I got to the venue relatively late this morning, and there wasn’t much going on.  I planned to end my day by observing the stocktaking plenary—I was excited to attend, since I haven’t seen any actual negotiation sessions this week.  However, nearly two hours after the stocktake meeting was supposed to start, I was still sitting in my chair waiting for the leaders to come on stage.  People were getting restless and leaving, and I ultimately left, too.  Though the negotiations did eventually start after I left the session, and may ultimately yield something promising, it seemed like an apt way to end a week—delays and failing to show.  And that’s the read I got from most people—general disappointment in the results of COP 25.

When leaving the venue, a TV displayed the message, “Thanks for attending!  See you at COP 26!”  Who knows where I’ll be in a year—maybe I’ll be in Glasgow.  Regardless, I certainly hope that we are able to make some climate progress before then.

Riley Pfaff 

Our final day at the COP was much slower than the previous four. Everything was winding down, from the negotiations to the pavilions, and there were noticeably fewer people walking around—for the first time all week, it took me less than five minutes of walking to find an open seat to work. Outside of a bagpipe player who interrupted one of the earlier presentations we went to—a symbol of next year’s COP to be held Glasgow—all the attendees seemed to be just about as exhausted as I felt. It’s been four long days of meetings, presentations, panels and negotiations, and with little progress on Article 6 to show for it, it seemed like many people were ready to hop back on the metro and take it one stop to the airport.

In the negotiation session that a few of us attended this morning, the language and tone of the negotiators seemed to sum up general feelings about the COP. Various countries took turns stating their disappointment on agreeing to a solution on components of an adaptation registry, and the meeting adjourned with no consensus. In a fitting representation of the negotiations at this COP, the final event we planned on attending, an informal Presidency stocktaking plenary, was delayed for more than two hours.

I’ve put more of my thoughts on this week into a couple of blog posts that will be up this weekend, but wanted to add here that despite the disappointing nature of the negotiations themselves, the COP experience overall this week was incredibly useful, exciting, interesting and constructive. There is more work being done on climate outside of the private delegates’ halls, and it’s important that work continues no matter the state of the negotiations.

Alexandra Bennett 

This morning’s daily BINGO briefing was slightly modified because there was a special guest speaker, Paul Watkinson, the UNFCCC Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). SBSTA was the main UNFCCC body working on the technical aspects of Article 6 throughout Week 1, before the text was passed on to ministers of state. Even as business updates seem to slow because negotiations continue behind closed doors, Paul was able to provide some insight on Article 6 and a general direction of the possible outcome of the text. In addition, he reminded the room that the main goal of the COP process is to maintain and grow political momentum towards increased ambition on climate change.

The whole Duke gang met up in the afternoon to speak with an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) employee who spoke about EDF’s role at COP, the mechanics behind Article 6, and an overview of climate policy action and needs at various levels of government. These smaller one-on-one meetings are extremely helpful for providing clarification on the complicated negotiation process. After stopping at the Germany pavilion for some much needed coffee, the Chilean Presidency held a short stocktake on the state of the negotiations – four main sticking points still remain, including Article 6. In the late afternoon, I attended a fun and uplifting session by the World Surf League (WSL) looking at raising public awareness of the climate crisis through sports.

Riley Pfaff 

This morning’s daily BINGO briefing was slightly modified because there was a special guest speaker, Paul Watkinson, the UNFCCC Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA). SBSTA was the main UNFCCC body working on the technical aspects of Article 6 throughout Week 1, before the text was passed on to ministers of state. Even as business updates seem to slow because negotiations continue behind closed doors, Paul was able to provide some insight on Article 6 and a general direction of the possible outcome of the text. In addition, he reminded the room that the main goal of the COP process is to maintain and grow political momentum towards increased ambition on climate change.

The whole Duke gang met up in the afternoon to speak with an Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) employee who spoke about EDF’s role at COP, the mechanics behind Article 6, and an overview of climate policy action and needs at various levels of government. These smaller one-on-one meetings are extremely helpful for providing clarification on the complicated negotiation process. After stopping at the Germany pavilion for some much needed coffee, the Chilean Presidency held a short stocktake on the state of the negotiations – four main sticking points still remain, including Article 6. In the late afternoon, I attended a fun and uplifting session by the World Surf League (WSL) looking at raising public awareness of the climate crisis through sports.

Suzanne Mullins 

Today was an interesting mix of side events and meetings organized by Duke, as things at COP begin to wind down.  This morning, we met with a representative from the Environmental Defense Fund.  He clarified a lot of details about Article 6, which—though I have been attending related events all week—still was pretty confusing up until this point!  It was great to hear a thorough breakdown of what each component of Article 6 implies, and it definitely helped me understand why this section of the Paris Agreement has been a sticking point for parties.

Following the meeting, I attended a side event at the UK Pavilion which was about global investor action looking toward COP 26.  Though that area isn’t my particular interest, I actually found some of the speakers to be relatively interesting.  Mark Lewis, a researcher in asset management with the bank BNP Paribas, discussed what he feels is a profound change occurring in economics right now.  He talked a lot about oil and gas versus renewables; fossil fuels, he said, are inherently inflationary, while renewable energy is (not only beneficial for the environment, but) deflationary.  He noted that everyone today has grown up in a society where the civilization and intellectual environment are based on fossil fuels, and that much of modern economics emerged around the same time that the steam engine was invented.  Now, he said, renewables are emerging, and a new perception of economics needs to emerge with it.  We need to shift away from inflationary to deflationary thinking.  While oil yields high returns, it is quite risky; renewables don’t have any upstream issues—there is no exploration or “production,” but rather you just capture the energy that already exists.  The returns might be less than oil (not accounting for externalities), but there are much lower risks and things are much cheaper.  So long as we can overcome the psychological and political hesitations behind renewables, the economics issue is already solved.

Overall, the session was pretty interesting, and it was good to hear some positive, concrete ideas about moving in the right direction for our financial and energy future.

Marie McNamara 

Today I had the opportunity to attend the Global Stock Take. The Stock Take is an opportunity for delegate leaders to provide and update on COP issues and negotiated progress. With COP scheduled to close this coming Friday urgency was a commonly expressed ideal. There were a lot of perspectives to listen to and I did my best to take them all in. Many of the ideals expressed were very much in line with the hard line party grouping positions you read about. It was particularly interesting to listen to the minister representing India. He reminded the attendees of the Global Stock Take to remember the history, stressing that fundamental divides on issues must be addressed for the negotiations to be equitable and effective. I thought this was incredibly valuable to hear, especially as someone new to the COP. There have been negotiations for nearly 25 years now, and each country has their own priorities and degrees of climate risk exposure. Hearing the ministers speak today on behalf of their country delegations helped me put the negotiation process in perspective and made me more sympathetic to the variations in standpoints.

Grace Chan

Today was much less busy as things have already started to wind down. But I still had quite a few events that peaked my interest. In between the events, we were lucky enough to have meetings with two different experts in the climate change policy field. The first one was with a representative from Environmental Defense Fund. He discussed and gave a background about the current COP issues and what EDF’s focuses are. The second person we met with was a representative from the Hewlett Foundation. His perspective was very interesting- he has been to every single COP and was able to give a broad overview of the history, complete with his opinion of the successes and failures. It was great to hear about the beginning of the negotiations and a kind of ‘behind-the-scenes’ voice of the previous COPs since he had experienced them both as a negotiator and as an observer. It was very interesting to hear these two different perspectives from two highly experienced and intelligent individuals- one a non-profit lawyer and the other a career policy adviser. However, both revealed their opinions about the state of the negotiations and overall climate action. These discussions really made me think about the future of these climate change negotiations and how they might change focus in coming years. Will COP26 in Glasgow be more successful in concluding Article 6? Or will there still be a standstill from countries unwilling to negotiate? Will things be drastically different if the U.S. continues on its current trajectory of climate inaction and officially withdrawn from the Paris Agreement for another four years?  It has really pushed me to think more critically about my future career and how I want to be involved in and, hopefully, influence the world of environmental policy.

Alexandra Bennett

Once again, I began my day with the daily BINGO briefing and learned about side events of interest as well as updates on Article 6 and a US Congressional meeting. Unfortunately, the majority of negotiations are now occurring with ministers behind closed doors. However, I was able to sit in on a contact group discussing the Adaptation Fund. The meeting was surprisingly short and wrapped up with no decision among party members. This was a slightly comical snapshot of the international policy process, in which the decision of no decision was forwarded to the UN Secretariat.

Next, I headed to the Global Climate Action Hub for a discussion about climate positive (net zero emissions) rather than climate neutral. The lead speaker was the Chief Sustainability Officer of MAX Burger from Sweden, a small burger restaurant that has achieved climate positivity. I appreciated his insights about reporting emissions and engaging across the value chain. I spent the afternoon at IETA’s booth attending a panel on cooperation in Asian carbon markets and updates on Article 6 negotiations. In addition, John Kerry presented on his new initiative World War Zero to a packed crowd. The long day wrapped up with a meeting with US Delegates who provided insight on acting as a State Department negotiator.

Riley Pfaff 

After spending two days trying to wrap my head around the many halls, meeting rooms, pavilions and side exhibits at the COP, I was able to map out a clearer plan this morning than I’d been able to the last two days. I spent the first part of my day in the Indonesia platform, where I was able to listen to a series of speakers discuss the nation’s progress on clean development. Immediately following that panel, I saw Al Gore speak for the second time in two days as he came to highlight Indonesia’s progress as part of his Climate Reality Project, as well as describe the areas Indonesia can still make progress on such as deforestation and reducing coal power plants.

In one of my favorite events of the week so far, I attended a panel at the U.K. pavilion on creating a commercial market for greenhouse gas removal technologies. In the last two days, I have come to appreciate more the potential that these technologies have for assisting the world’s progress on the 1.5° C goal while keeping in mind the daunting cost and innovation barriers they still face. I was particularly grateful to Dr. Julio Friedmann of Columbia University for giving me a passionate answer to a question I asked about how to move past people’s concerns of a moral hazard with carbon capture and storage (CCS). If the costs of CCS can be significantly reduced, it seems to be a viable and potentially valuable piece of combating climate change (so long as it isn’t used for enhanced oil recovery), and one that has already received bipartisan support in the United States.

Marie McNamara 

Today I went to such a variety of events. My day started by attending Greta Thunberg’s climate emergency talk and ended with a session led by John Kerry and a detailed discussion with some of the US delegates. There were so many topics presented today. While I am certainly not an expert, I feel like I am beginning to at least wrap my head around some of the critical issues at COP and beginning to getting a better sense of how negotiations are moderated and structured.

While there have been a wide variety of topics addressed at the COP a common theme has been increased ambition. Increased ambition is needed for the re-submission for NDCs but should also be considered in negotiations. Ambition needs to be leveraged to ensure mitigation and adaptation initiatives bring the action the world needs to stay within 1.5 degrees. I think each county, cooperation, organization and individual has the capacity to raise their own ambition. Finding commonalities around the need for action today, can help to bridge gaps, and hopefully resolve points of contention.

Grace Chan 

Today, we were lucky enough to walk into an event where Greta Thunberg was giving a speech. Though this was the second time seeing her during this week, it was the first time I was able to hear her speak. I was amazed at how eloquent and put together she was; I can see why she has inspired so many others to take action against climate change.

Later on, I was finally able to attend my first negotiations session about the Adaptation Fund, though it did not turn out as I hoped. Since it is almost the end of the COP, I assume negotiations are either winding down due to resolutions being made or because they are at a standstill. However, I did not expect the negotiations session to end that quickly. Two countries spoke- Palestine representing the G77 and the EU. Basically, the negotiations were at a standstill with no country wanting to compromise their position. Unfortunately, because I had not attended the previous sessions, I am at a loss at what their positions are. I was shocked when they closed the session, but no one got up, so I assumed that something would continue to happen. Sadly, this was the last negotiation session that was open to observers, so I won’t be able to hear any future talks.

Coming into the last couple days, it feels weird that we’ve only been here for three days; each day has felt so long and action packed with activities and talks. I’m hoping my last days at the COP will be just as exciting and informative as the first.

Suzanne Mullins 

Despite being the longest day yet, today’s time at COP left me in much better spirits than yesterday.  My morning started early as I listened in on a high-level session on the climate emergency.  The session had a number of great speakers, of which Greta Thunberg was one; however, despite her fame, Greta was not the most powerful voice on this panel.  For example, a Ugandan youth striker (Hilda Flavia Nakabuye) made powerful statements on climate inequality and spoke on behalf of African young people who bear the brunt of the climate crisis.  Also on the panel was Jennifer Morgan, the Executive Director of Greenpeace International, who spoke on all the frustrations I’ve been feeling.  She noted that we’re living in days of dark climate politics.  It was as though she reached into my brain and pulled out every facet of everything that riles me up regarding the climate emergency.  She ended, however, on a note that eased me out of my woes from before: “I have not given up hope that humanity can and will find a way forward and a way out. Because if I did, that would mean I’ve given up on humanity.  And I’m not ready to do that.”

Neither am I—I may get exasperated by the climate situation, or saddened as I was yesterday.  But I wouldn’t be at Duke studying environmental policy and climate change, nor at COP, if I was ready to give up.  So with Ms. Morgan’s words ringing in my ears, I continued about my day today.  I attended sessions such as one about the Global Climate Fund, which is helping developing countries enact climate combating projects.  I heard promising reports about emerging electricity models and outcomes in Latin America and the Caribbean.  I sat front row and listened to former Secretary of State John Kerry speak—which, though I don’t fully align with his climate approach, was an exciting experience in and of itself.  And at day’s end, I had the opportunity to hear from some of the United States’ delegates to COP, who provided some insight into the negotiations.

And so, some hope rang out for me today.

Alexandra Bennett 

Day 2 started off on a high note because as we entered the COP venue, Greta Thunberg was speaking on a panel with scientists who authored the most recent IPCC report. While the science presented was nothing Earth shattering (pun intended), the crowd of support was exciting to witness. After acclimating to the buzzing energy of the COP once again, I headed to my daily BINGO briefing. The progress on Article 6 has been reportedly slow, but hope remains in the final days of the COP. More specifically, business affiliates fear that pushing the adoption of Article 6 to COP26 would hinder Parties’ abilities to meet NDCs that rely on market mechanisms. I am eager to follow the ongoing progress on Article 6 throughout the week.

Following the BINGO briefing, I joined another huge crowd waiting to hear former Vice President Al Gore speak about the climate crisis. His commanding presence led to a captive audience eager to address the crisis and the corresponding environmental inequity. While on the topic of famous political figures – I did see the back of John Kerry’s head during check in this morning.

On Day 2 I also began my work with the International Emissions Trading Agency (IETA). I am largely helping at IETA’s Business Hub pavilion. The pavilion is the epicenter for all private sector related climate activity and events. During my first few hours on the job I witnessed the multifaceted sides of climate action… global climate action youth organized outside the pavilion to protest one of the speakers at a panel event. It was an exhilarating reminder of what is truly at stake in these political negotiations and the many stakeholders in the process. Eager to get back to work tomorrow!

Marie McNamara 

“Don’t walk behind me; I may not lead. Don’t walk in front of me; I may not follow. Walk beside me; that we may be as one.”  The UK Environmental minister led with this quote, and I feel that it helps give context why there has been some persistent climate inaction. For national commitments to be long lasting and impactful there needs to be some international agreement and a sharing of lessons learned.  Time and time again, the sessions called for real action to take course going into 2020. Most of the events I attended today addressed the need for enhanced commitment, specifically for the 2020 enhancement period.  The sessions I attended today, mainly focused on how long term strategies are linked with short term NDC goals and how the two are very much interrelated. The youth speakers today had a consistent message calling for a third form of action, and this is action today. I cannot help but agree. One of the benefits of long term planning is that it allows for a human-centered approach. It can drive past the tough discussions of trade-offs today and can address essential ideas about a just transition, capacity building, and gender inclusion. While I see these as clear benefits, I do not think that long term plans can achieve this level of integration without addressing the elephant in the room, and that is there is a climate injustice today. More efforts for inclusive action needs to occur in the present a so that equity, capacity building and gender inclusion can be integrated  into long term climate action plans.

Riley Pfaff 

Our second morning at the COP was filled with celebrities, beginning with a brush with former Secretary of State John Kerry, who was walking into the conference at the same time as our group. Immediately after we entered the convention center, we went to investigate a huge crowd that had formed around a panel of speakers. As we got closer, it became obvious why this crowd had gathered by 8:45 in the morning: Greta Thunberg was helping to moderate the discussion. Looking across the massive crowd, I was struck—not for the first time—by how successful she has been at drawing people into the climate change movement. Following that panel, we headed to another hugely attended speech by Al Gore. As with Greta, it was inspiring to be able to listen to one of the world’s foremost voices on climate change in person, especially one as fiery and passionate as Gore.

In the afternoon, however, we got a bit of a reality check as one person we met with laid out the daunting task facing the world if it truly wishes to combat climate change, arguing that technological innovation, not slow-paced international negotiation, is the only way to address the crisis. His argument has merits, although I walked away still believing that the UNFCCC process is a critical piece of solving this wicked problem. I’m looking forward to getting a chance to hear Gore speak in a more intimate setting tomorrow, as well as attend some interesting country-specific events at their pavilions.

Suzanne Mullins 

Though everything was still interesting, I came away from today’s session with my spirits a bit dampened.  I sat in on some events centered around carbon pricing and emissions trading—everyone speaking seemed positive, but the amount of difficulties named regarding enactment was not promising.  And where carbon pricing was already in place, the prices were mostly too low.  For example, one country noted that they are starting at a 10 Euro pricetag per ton of carbon, and that they plan to ratchet the price up over time.  I understand—they don’t want to shock their citizens, and are hoping to ease everyone in.  After all, taxes aren’t the most popular thing.  But in terms of the imperative for climate action?  At that rate, we’ll never get anywhere.

My mood worsened when attending an event on the Global Emissions Gap.  When I got to the session, the slide on the screen depicted the emissions trajectory based on 2005 levels, and then our emissions rate today.  We were lower than the 2005 business-as-usual baseline, and there was a smattering of applause as the speaker discussed this scenario.  Then more lines appeared.  The trajectory if everyone met their Paris NDCs.  The trajectory at 2 degrees of warming.  The trajectory at 1.5 degrees.  All in all, it’s a bleak picture—we’re still much higher than where we need to be to satisfy Paris, and the Paris NDCs are entirely inadequate to limit us to 1.5 or even 2 degrees.

Also today, I was fortunate enough to catch the tail end of a session with Greta Thunberg. And while I was excited to hear her speak in person, the whole thing mostly just made me sad. The poor girl doesn’t want this. This is the last thing she wants, as she’s said many times before. People were crowding, shouting at her…I felt as though I made eye contact at one point and she just looked so tired and drained.  She should be at school, doing normal teenager things, whatever suits her. I appreciate the motion she’s generated, that she’s helping lift the voices of youth. I appreciate that she used the session to draw a crowd and lift the voices of the climate scientists. They also emphasized the importance of speaking with and paying attention to indigenous activists and people from the global south. I appreciate all of this, but it would be better altogether if none of this had to happen. This is a climate emergency.

Grace Chan

I felt much more prepared for today’s activities, after having the time yesterday to orient myself with the venue. When we first walked in, I was surprised to see a panel made up of climate scientists and Greta Thunberg- the perspectives of the scientists were very interesting to listen to, since all I had heard the previous day were economists and other social science experts. I was unable to hear Greta speak, but I hope I will be able to before the end of the week. However, my favorite session today was by former Vice President Al Gore regarding the climate crisis. You could tell from his speech that he is very passionate about climate change and taking action. One fact that he mentioned was especially hard hitting- that in the United States, in the last nine years, there have been 19 “once in a 1,000-year [natural disaster] events.” This was very shocking to hear, especially when backed with photos and videos of the extreme natural disasters. If that doesn’t convince people of the existence of climate change, then I don’t know what would. I was unable to accomplish all that I wanted to do today- I have yet to attend a negotiation, so I am determined to attend one on Wednesday. I hope it will be very informative and make my time at COP25 complete.

Former Vice President Al Gore during his speech.

Alexandra Bennett

Upon arrival at our first day of COP25 (although heading into the second week of COP overall) we were thrown into an enormous conference hall full of party delegates, side events, panels, and pavilions. The sheer vastness of the events, people, and commotion was as overwhelming and exhilarating as all the COP veterans had warned. After registering, I spent the first hour or two wandering around the country delegation booths, non-state actor pavilions, and side event rooms attempting to get my bearings. The morning briefing held by the Business & Industry NGO affiliation (BINGO) helped orient me towards the progress made in Week 1 (largely focused on Article 6) and led me to attend some high-level private sector engagement panels. The afternoon was spent in a haze of jet lag searching for free coffee, but finished strong with a one-year update on the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action that launched at COP24. Overall, the first day was a successful acclimation to the world of COP. Tomorrow, I hope to attend some of the official negotiations on Article 6 open to the public whereas today I focused on pavilion discussions and side events.

Marie McNamara 

I now have my first day of COP under my belt, it was a great day indeed a lot to take in, but it was a great learning opportunity. This morning I took some time to get my bearings but then was off. I spent the morning helping WRI take notes at the Facilitative Sharing of Views. The Views that I heard today were from Ghana, Saudi Arabia, Chile, India, and Malaysia; each country had a chance to share their progress as they work to submit more ambitious NDCs. The objective was transparency, and the focus was for developing countries to share and receive feedback on their climate action progress. Each of the six developing countries had an allotted time to present their Biannual Updated Reports (BUR), and national agenda, any country that chose to attend then had the opportunity to ask questions.

Sebastián Piñera opened the session applauding the presenting developing nations for going above and beyond. She stressed urgency in her opening remarks, stating that the window for action is closing fast, and the fact that these countries took the initiative to establish a BUR was a step in the right direction. The sessions were very engaging; each state was visibly proud of the efforts that they had put forward and the progress they had achieved. I primarily spent the rest of the day walking around the venue, attending various side events in an attempt to try to get a lay of the land. Overall it was a great day; I feel like I have a better grasp of what is going one and am ready to take full advantage of everything tomorrow to “hit the ground running.”

Riley Pfaff 

When we entered IFEMA this morning for our first day at the COP, we walked the length of the convention center to check our coats in the very rear of the building. As we passed through the different halls, I almost couldn’t believe just how enormous this event is. There are two plenary halls, a pair of press conference rooms, 27 meeting rooms, 36 rotative exhibit spaces and more, every room packed with people and the largest amount of compost and recycling bins I’ve ever seen.

By the time we had checked our coats and returned to the conference area, the place was already bustling half an hour before most meetings were scheduled to begin. Seeking something familiar amidst the hectic sea of people streaming into pavilions, meeting rooms, side events and negotiating sessions, I headed for the U.S. Climate Action Center. Many countries have large pavilions sponsored by their respective governments, but the U.S., which formally began its withdrawal from the Paris Agreement last month, is represented instead at this exhibit sponsored by the We Are Still In Movement. This movement is a coalition of mayors, governors and business leaders who have committed to doing their part to uphold their commitment to the Paris Agreement. The first panel they held this morning focused on how cities and local governments around the world are combating climate change.

In addition to that event, other highlights of the day include our class’s talk with Dan Bodansky, a law professor at Arizona State, and Joe Aldy, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, about their experiences working at previous COPs as members of the U.S delegation. I also attended a panel with environmental ministers from Finland and Norway about a new declaration signed in Helsinki last January that states the intent of Nordic countries to increase the ambition of their NDCs. And in my favorite event of the day, I was able to listen to representatives from the tiny island nation of Niue in the South Pacific describe their strategies for managing fisheries and balancing commercial fishing with tourism interests, as well as combating climate change. I am so excited to return tomorrow with a better feel for where things are, especially the free food and coffee, and hopefully sit in on some negotiations in addition to more side events.

Suzanne Mullins 

Whew, what can I say?  Today was very long and busy—but also very interesting and fun!  After checking in at 8am, I met my client—members of the Center for Clean Air Policy—at the Chilean Pavilion.  From there, I rapidly got thrown into everything.  One minute I was checking my coat, and the next, I was sitting next to Ricardo Lagos, the former president of Chile.  Despite moving COP from Santiago to Madrid, Chile is still technically the host, and they had a lot to say.  I served as timekeeper for the panel with the former president and other representatives from funding-related groups, meaning I had a front row seat for the conversation!  They talked about the best means of allocating resources, investing in infrastructure in a way that helps consumers, and discrepancies that currently exist in terms of who has a voice at the table.

I also aided in setting up the stage for various panels at the first ever meeting of Finance Ministers.  This Coalition of Finance Ministers has created a new “Santiago Action Plan” which endorses the Helsinki Principles and Paris.  The plan focuses on (1) a just transition, (2) building up capacities and expertise, (3) preparing toolkits and knowledge around carbon pricing, and more.  The session had many amazing speakers; however, I particularly enjoyed hearing from Patrica Espinosa, the secretary of the COP.

One of the most interesting thoughts of the day came from Yannick Glemarec, the exective director for the Green Climate Fund.  He went on to discuss details surrounding an issue I’m quite familiar with—the risks-rewards and equity issues surrounding climate change. Glemarec emphasized the importance and need for larger states to boost the efforts of smaller ones in order to see sufficient progress.  He noted that many extremely worthwhile projects in the global south never see the light of day because they are not perfect in terms of risk reward.  Glemarec then brought up that point that always bothers me when it comes from those dragging their feet on climate—it’s going to cost us more money in the future if we don’t act now. We must work on de-risking—that is, helping smaller countries remove some risk of investment (or make it overall easier to invest) rather than subsidizing.  There are a lot of worthwhile efforts out there—they just need some support.

I can’t wait to hear more in this vein (and others) as COP continues this week!

Grace Chan 

The first day of COP25 was very exciting; I hadn’t realized that there would be so many things to do and see. I was only able to visit a few of the countries’ pavilions today, including Thailand and France, but I am excited to be able to explore more in the coming days and attend some of the sessions each of the countries hold. In addition, I would like to attend at least one of the negotiations to see how delegations interact and how issues are addressed. The side events I attended were interesting and just scratched the surface of what the COP has to offer.

One thing that kept being mentioned today was the slogan of the COP- “#TimeForAction.” It can be seen everywhere throughout the venue- on fliers, within the decor and slipped into panel discussions. The rising pressure for Parties and industries to make changes was an overarching component to many of the events I attended. I could almost sense a rising anxiety over the approaching turning points of 2030 and 2050. However, during a session on decarbonization, the phrase “fragile victory” was brought up in the context of decarbonization needing to occur at approximately 3% per year until 2050 to achieve less than 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. The “fragile victory” referred to the fact that approximately 4 years ago, we had achieved this 3% of decarbonization in one year. However, due to transitions in political leadership (like in the U.S. and Brazil) and changes in international funding, that 3% decarbonization has been cut in half. The good point of this story is that we were able to achieve that 3% without major leaps in innovation or life-altering policy changes; that decarbonization is achievable at a rate that the world needs. I hope this story will be analogous to the issues learned here at COP25 – though things seem impossible, there is always that “fragile victory” waiting to resurface.