Author: Alexandra Iturralde

“How was COP?? What was it like?? You must have had an amazing time.”

I’ve received this series of questions every time I talk to someone I haven’t seen since before I went to Glasgow, and I still have no idea how to adequately answer, because COP26 was one of the most intense and overwhelming experiences of my life. That isn’t a bad thing! It was simply so massive in scope that it’s hard to know what to bring up when asked, and it’s also hard to come up with an answer that is both succinct (people get bored if you say “RINGO” more than once) and sufficiently complex. How do you summarize something that was simultaneously deeply hopeful and cynical?

Truthfully, yes, it was incredible both personally and professionally, and I must always follow that “yes” with an “and.”

Yes: COP was amazing and also a lesson in the challenges of enacting global change in a system built on the exploitation and capitalization of fossil fuels. And: International environmental politics is incrementalist at best, and while from the inside COP26 felt hopeful, I’m still somewhat skeptical about the outcome. I tried to pay attention to social media and public reactions to COP while in Glasgow and after I came back to Durham, and it truly was a tale of two worlds. Yes, inside the conference it seemed almost a foregone conclusion that a comprehensive global energy transition would occur, particularly when listening to anyone in the energy industry, and that the problems of carbon markets would be overcome and breakthroughs in green hydrogen and carbon capture were inevitable. And, in reality, these are all huge technological, economic, and political challenges with equally huge valid criticism. Yes, major new commitments were made and the Paris rulebook was completed. And, where’s loss and damage? Where are the actual dollars for finance?

At COP26, it seemed a bit like the public had one understanding of the climate crisis and world leaders had an entirely different interpretation. Public discourse, particularly in the environmental justice space but also more broadly, was more centered on equity, historical injustice, and the lack of accountability from the Global North. This was reflected in the conference center, but primarily by indigenous and youth observers and, in the plenaries, delegates from nations in the Global South who ultimately have significantly less influence and power than those from the most developed countries. Glasgow also saw the most massive and global environmental protests in history, and a counter-conference centered on justice (the People’s Summit). Protest actions occurred every day in Glasgow, with occasional action inside the conference itself, and I’m at least hopeful that this will influence broader environmental discourse. 

Despite my reservations, I don’t see COP26 as a negative experience or a failed conference. Yes, it was sometimes frustrating, and also fascinating to observe and understand first-hand why these systems of power move like they do. This was the first time I’ve been in such a focused and global environmental space, let alone at such a high level, and the opportunity to access it is one I will be forever grateful for. I came to this class as a policy student with a grounding in environmental justice advocacy but unsure of what I wanted to do in a career. COP helped me think through this, particularly as I noticed the different geopolitical angles underlying the conference and saw what climate diplomacy actually looked like. I’m curious to see what happens at the next COP in both the justice and diplomacy spaces—what commitments will be followed through, and how will discussions evolve?

(Written 11/04/21!)

The spectacle of COP cannot be understated. This is the climate platform and the political optics alone are astonishing. The USA and other countries in the Global North have rolled out our highest profile (and environmentally sympathetic) politicians and celebrities, and already made surprisingly major new commitments—on day 2, I overheard British delegates express surprise at the breadth of the USA’s methane pledge. As a student and someone extremely new to the world of environmental treaties and politics, COP has been an incredible educational opportunity, but one that has required maintaining a constant critical eye and open ear (the amount of gossip, griping, and even political strategy you simply overhear standing in lines is honestly astonishing).

Initially, I was fully caught up in the hype and pageantry of COP and the proximity to fame and power: I’ve gotten to meet personal heroes like Secretary Haaland and as someone who calls New Mexico home, meeting her was incredible!! Celebrity culture absolutely does permeate climate conferences, as it turns out. The pavilions are impressive, the people you simply walk past are wildly powerful, and the upfront major commitments and international cooperation were shiny, new, and overflowing with a tone of hope.

By now, however, I feel… not pessimistic, but certainly less awestruck. There is a stark difference between the mood and tone inside the conference and the collective action and justice discourse occurring outside, and I’ve noticed major messaging gaps. Technological, public-private partnership solutions are being heralded as only the way forward, with little discussion by Global North powers of what different social changes (as adaptation & mitigation measures) could look like. Instead, the idea of the exporting of Northern standards of living and economic structures to the Global South as the only way to develop has prevailed. It’s not meant to be a catch-all solution, but it can feel like it. The language of environmental justice has interestingly been both co-opted and sidelined: I’ve heard leaders mention the importance of climate justice, but in-depth critical discussions of business as usual have largely been restricted to side events such as those at the Indigenous Peoples Pavilion.

Adaptation finance has been pushed, but not cooperative measures or plans to deal with what happens when adaptation measures in the face of an existential threat are simply insufficient. In environmental justice, we use a term called “sacrifice zones,” environments permanently harmed and deemed disposable. Local communities are almost always already marginalized, with these added environmental and economic harms compounding oppression. This is most examined in the context of pollution and toxic waste, but in the face of the climate crisis, small island nations and coastal communities are the frontlines of sacrifice (in the case of places like the Marshall Islands, they have already been a sacrificial zone for weapons testing, so this is salt in an infected wound). The longer we wait and the less we act to actually mitigate climate change—you cannot simply adapt an island that the weather is erasing—the more people and places we judge sacrificial. 

Climate (& environmental & economic & racial & more) justice has gained greater attention over the last year and a half and I’ve noticed it discussed or at least alluded to at COP, but I need to know whether this recognition is actually meaningful.

I was unsure of what to write for this blog post—COP26 is both narrow in terms of specific important negotiations and broad in that there are 25,000 attendees and side events and pavilion talks occurring everywhere, with different themes each day. That narrow focus is what I have kept coming back to while thinking about the conference.

COP26 will not be a name-brand COP for the usual reasons—think Paris (of Accords fame), Copenhagen (Agreement), or Kyoto (Protocol). There are no shiny new treaties on the table to be negotiated; the primary point of party negotiations will be financial aspects of the Paris Accords (yes, from 2015), and following up on commitments for green development funding. Even so, Glasgow may be branded in the history of environmentalism and international climate politics because of that lack of significant new change. In talking with other students and environmental advocates prior to traveling, many expressed frustration towards a perceived disconnect in environmental priorities between the global public and global powers. The latest IPCC report is as close to an emergency alert as you can get and was clear in its statement that climate change is an existential threat. What will updated national commitments look like?

I am excited and deeply grateful to attend the COP, and as an emerging environmental policy professional I want to pursue international geopolitical work, but I am also passionate about environmental justice. The Global South will be disproportionately affected by extreme weather and environmental degradation, as will marginalized groups in the North. Climate adaptation with priority investments in vulnerable communities is necessary to prevent massive harm, but this is still acting after disaster occurs. I believe we can still mitigate climate change, even if some effects are now unavoidable, but I’m unsure at what level major change will occur. In the United States, local and state governments are making real progress on decarbonization and equity. Can federal government follow suit?

Questions of equity surround this COP in general, as it is likely to be the most exclusive COP to date. Organizers have set strict regulations for attendance, with required vaccinations and daily testing. I am completely in favor of this, but it does present an equity challenge given the disparities in vaccine access worldwide. We’ve also seen firsthand the price inflation of accommodations here, which shuts people out who cannot afford it. Further, due to the pandemic visa acquisition has become significantly more difficult for people from countries without visa-free access to the UK. Environmental inequities and climate change disproportionately impact marginalized communities and developing nations—how can the premier global environmental policy event grapple with real and inclusive climate change solutions if representation of the people most affected is limited?