Posts filed under UN Climate Talks 2013

Being an adult and representing youth.

I have heard a lot of talk within the youth constituency in the past few days about what the ‘adults’ are doing in the negotiations. I am 25 years old and I am an adult. I would think the majority of youth attending this conference would identify with being an adult, at least some of the time. To get access to the negotiations venue, you need to be 18 years old. Therefore, as 18 is a fairly standards age for being legally considered an adult in many countries, I am going to assume that the majority of the youth constituency is made up of adults. They may be young adults, but they are adults none the less. Being an adult to me is not a negative thing, but what I have found interesting is that sometimes within the youth constituency it is portrayed that way. 

 

I have spent many years researching science and the underlying social and cultural issues associated with climate change. I am currently in an international negotiations setting, of which I have very little experience. I am aware of the exceptionally complex nature of these negotiations and I don’t believe that I could ever know all the subtle intricacies that go on behind the scenes in terms of power dynamics between countries and other alliances. But I do believe I know enough about the situation to determine when I am hearing honest facts versus lip service. There is a reason that people in government get trained how to portray issues and turn conversations around to suit their skill sets and knowledge. I am finding this type of negotiator language quite draining. 

Posted on November 20, 2013 and filed under UN Climate Talks 2013.

The human cost of climate change

lisa being secretariat.jpg

I think I got carried away in the glitz and glamour of playing ‘grown up’ with government delegates and being at the UN that I lost touch with the reality that causes these talks to be held in the first place. Climate change is real, and it is being caused by extensive emissions released into the atmosphere by humans. These points can be agreed on by the majority of scientists and governments from around the world. The part that I have found myself forgetting is the human cost of these changes. It is easy to talk about the number of deaths caused by climate change induced (or exacerbated) storms when they are just that, statistics. It is harder to comprehend that each one of those statists is a person, just like you and I. We may not speak the same language or wear the same clothes. We may not eat the same food or practice the same religion. We may not understand each other’s views on life, or indeed know anything about climate change at all. Yet we are all still human and each life lost is a terrible sacrifice made for the continued prosperity of a very small majority of global inhabitants. I am currently one of that small majority, whether I want to acknowledge that or not, and whether I am prepared to accept it or not.

After reading a powerful, emotive blog today I have tried to recognise that over this first week of COP19 I have sheltered in the safe world of ‘learning the ropes at COP’ and not activity participating in the dialogue that begins to address these important issues. Is it the easy way out to stand on the sidelines and watch people make interventions or plan actions, and be the quiet observer? I feel a huge personal responsibility to speak on behalf of people I don’t know, and will probably never know, because I have the privilege to have access to the information and resources that surround this complex social, economic, environmental and political issue. Does that mean I am the right person to be speaking for them? Is there any other way that I could privilege their voice without imposing my own views and opinions? These are the important questions I want to locate, explore, uncover and recognise during this next COP week.

 

All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute.

For official Institute updates, take a look here.

Posted on November 19, 2013 and filed under UN Climate Talks 2013.

Natalie Jones: On Equity. (Or, why the UNFCCC process is fundamentally messed up.)

I’ve now had a week at COP and I’ve come to realise that, despite the massive complexity of the talks – divided into various subsidiary bodies and workstreams, taking place in various settings from massive plenary halls to “informal informals” in the corridors (leading one to slow one's steps when passing a huddle of pink badges and try to unobtrusively point one's ears towards the conversation) – at the heart of everything are issues of equity. Everyone agrees that climate change is an issue: the talks are fundamentally about how the problem should be resolved, and, more importantly, who should do what. Equity is why these negotiations have been going on for over 20 years.

Equity - what is fair and what is possible?

Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South Centre, held a meeting with youth to give his run down of the negotiations. He gave an eye opening perspective on the context of the negotiations. His insights demonstrate just how difficult it will be to get the required mitigation. There were two main themes I took from his discussion:

 

Martin Khor.jpg

1.       Politics of burden sharing through equity

The atmosphere is a global commons that we all share and have a responsibility to maintain. Given the historic pathways of industrialisation and development as well as the aspiration to have a world without extreme poverty there is general acceptance that equity rather than equality is necessary for emission reduction targets. How equity is implemented is extremely political and contentious as no country wants to have the perception of having a larger or unjust responsibility than other parties.

The debates on equity have been occurring throughout the history of COP but ultimately have made no progress. The implementation of equity is particularly difficult given the decision making standard is that of consensus, so if one party thinks the standards set are inequitable, an agreement is not reached. The typical conflict here is between the developed and developing countries where the developing countries blame the developed for the majority of climate change. Alternatively, developed countries agree they need to reduce emissions but expect developing countries to do the same as otherwise they are taking on more of a burden than they want.  

2.       The possibility of reducing emissions to the required target

Beyond the politics, this issue of equity gets more complicated when looking at the numbers that Martin Khor gave us on mitigation. Trying to avoid 2C warming and allowing for a 7% annum increase for developing countries which is what they want and say they need for their economies and people presents knowledge, technical and political problems which currently cannot be solved. Martin using numbers from his report said it will not be enough for developing countries to reduce emissions by 100%, it will be more in the range of 3-400% in order to compensate for the developing countries increase in emissions. 

Beyond the political feasibility and popularity of reducing emissions, a country will only commit to a pledge in that is technologically achievable given the knowledge and finances available. Lowering emissions by 20% is a massive challenge for many countries and political feasibility reduces this back down to 5-10% for many developed countries. There isn’t technology out there presently that will enable 100% emissions let alone beyond 100% so this is a huge challenge going forwards.

How we go forward with these numbers is a challenging situation and suggests the discussions on equity are far from over.

(All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute. For official Institute updates, take a look here)

Climate protest in Warsaw

To add to the description in Natalie's blog about the climate change march last week, this is a short video of the protest as it went past the COP19 venue. I have never seen so many armed police and riot vehicles in one place at one time! I am unsure whether they were there to protect the protestors from anti-climate change extremists, keep the march from getting out of hand, or a combination of the two. Was an amazing sight!

The video can be found on YouTube using the link below:

 

(All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute. For official Institute updates, take a look here)

Posted on November 19, 2013 and filed under UN Climate Talks 2013.

Natalie Jones: COP19 in 5 photos: the halfway point

We're at the end of the first week here at COP19, and there's one week to go. So much has been packed into this week - but here are some of the highlights, or at least those I've managed to photograph. Things I wish I had a photo of: a walkout, an inflatable dinosaur, a 7-hour-long youth meeting (don't ask, just, don't), and the incredible vegan burger I ate yesterday.

Posted on November 18, 2013 and filed under UN Climate Talks 2013.

The privilege of being born already

We are deeply privileged to have been born already and we need to check this privilege. Intergenerational equity or inteq is the principle that future generations inherit the Earth in the same state or better than what we received it in so being able to utilise the environments services for the same benefits we use constantly. This is deeply connected to sustainability and challenges the societal norm of overconsumption and ignoring our limited resources.

“We have a plan B but no planet B.”

Inteq.jpg

 

With my working group and other supporters, I took part in an action about respecting those who have not been born yet and do not get a chance to speak at the conference. We placed tape over our mouths, and held signs with “Intergenerational Equity” and “Don’t discount our future”. The concept of inteq I believe is not very contentious, yet extremely powerful to explicitly include in the preamble to the convention which is a major objective of the inteq working group here at COP.

You would think this concept is obvious in the negotiations but it is only implicitly included and by including it explicitly, this gives principle to correcting some of the methods which are causing a distorted preference for the present rather than the future. One way inequity is embedded in policy and economics is the practice of discount rates used by economists. The discount rate is the method of giving a value of a future cost, a present value so a cost-benefit analysis can compare costs and benefits occurring at a different time. Due to the neoclassical economical belief that economic growth will be always be possible, the future costs are lower than the present.

The discount rates are distorting the effects of climate change and giving incentive for a lack of ambition. The costs and benefits of climate change don’t happen simultaneously, for example using petrol now provides a benefit immediately but a cost to the environment later on, thus giving greater weight to the benefit. Therefore discount rates lowers the cost of expected future climate change impacts and decreases the ambition of mitigation through emissions targets. Climate change without ambitious mitigation will result in big costs to national GDP so through incorporating intergenerational equity and lowering discount rates, this can rebalance the likely costs of climate change and encourage early mitigation which will then lower the costs incurred in the future thus having benefits all round.  

All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute.

For official Institute updates, take a look here.