COP 23 Day 12 – Katie

Sadly, today is our last day at COP23! We arrived to an increasingly empty Bonn Zone as pavilions were wrapping up their programming for the week. It was a stark contrast to the chaotic excitement that we experienced earlier in the week. The day felt calm and subdued and lent itself well to some reflection on our week at the conference.

Experiencing a COP is unlike anything I could have imagined. It was exciting, inspiring, challenging, and exhausting all at once. The opportunity to immerse myself every day for a week in learning and discussing climate policy and action was instrumental in helping me gain a new understanding of where we stand and where we need to go as a global community. I was surprised at the amount of organizing that goes into such an event at this scale and the sheer expense of it all. At times the conference felt superfluous. Did we really need all that free coffee and chocolate? How many resources went into building a conference space that saw over 20,000 people pass through its walls? I’m still not sure how I feel about all the money and resources that surely must go into putting on such an event every year, but I do know that gathering together as a global community on climate change is a necessary and valuable endeavor. It encourages knowledge sharing, collaboration and enables the critical task of negotiating international agreements. Despite the fact that my experience at COP was so valuable to me personally and academically, I have concerns - and many of these concerns were discussed in our first event of the day in the German Pavilion on climate diplomacy in a post-Paris world.

From L to R: Moderator, Ambassador Jumeau, Krishneil Narayan from Climate Action Network, Peter Fischer of the German Foreign Ministry, Prime Minister Sopoaga

This side event was one of the most impactful events I attended during my week at the COP. The panelists included the Prime Minister of Tuvalu, the UN Ambassador from the Seychelles, an official from the German foreign ministry, and the director of the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network. In some of the most passionate and engaging remarks I heard this week, Ambassador Jumeau criticized the climate “inaction” of the Bula zone, the lack of urgency of Western climate professionals, and the condescending treatment of island states, while advocating for a better integration of youth in climate action. This was followed by Prime Minister Sopoaga calling for action to help those most vulnerable to climate change - the Pacific Islands. They made clear that while the Pacific Islands are most vulnerable to climate change impacts, they are at the center of climate action - they are leaders, innovators, and pioneers and should not be viewed narrowly as victims (which is a role that some at this COP has subscribed to them). Ambassador Jumeau said, “We cannot afford for this to be an academic exercise”. He elaborated that he is not interested in seeing people getting doctoral degrees in human impacts from climate change - it is almost demeaning because people are really suffering and losing their livelihoods.

This event caused me to think more critically about how this COP was conducted - how was Fiji and fijian culture represented while holding the COP Presidency, whose voices were amplified and whose were not, and what role does/should academia play in the subject of climate change? While I have been skeptical about the efficacy of academic work to actually translate in helping people in areas such as climate change impacts, this discussion problematized the issue even further. I do believe that the work that we do at institutions like Macalester is important, but is not the most important when it comes to climate action.

This is something that I will continue to think critically about the rest of my time at Mac and into my future career.

Photos: From upper left to lower right - Fiji Pavillion, Trying out VR glasses in the Fiji Pavilion, Negotiation meeting during the last day, Christmas decorations at the central train station in Cologne

COP 23 Day 11 – Julia

While Katie shared her experiences with the education-themed events at the conference, I couldn’t stop rambling with overwhelming excitement and emotion about climate litigation panels that I had attended (we later discovered that we heard the same lawyer from Fiji who we both really appreciated, but I’ll talk about it later!)

I started my day with a cup of coffee and chocolate at the Nordic Pavilion where I heard from three women politicians from different Swedish parties about Sweden’s climate legislation, and particularly about their newest Climate Act. The Act comes into power on January 1, 2018 and sets binding obligations for the government to fulfill its climate targets. I found particularly interesting that the Act triggers the creation of an independent task force that will review government compliance with climate policy goals

every 4 years to ensure political continuity to climate agenda. I found Swedish legislative model really progressive since the speakers mentioned that the Act will help to harmonize all government ministries, institutions and budgets. Overall, the panel presented Sweden as a leader in climate change legislation and I think Swedish politicians aimed to channel the idea that all EU policies need to be made consistent with the Paris agreement, and that Sweden can spearhead that process.  

In the afternoon I attended three more side events on climate legislation that complemented one another really well. All the panels discussed the place of litigation and dispute arbitration in climate change response. As Katie said, this i field is just emerging so lawyers, activist and policy makers have a lot of enthusiasm but also a lot of questions and guesses about how to best move forward.

I enjoyed the presented from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and Environment from the London School of Economics (LSE). They have a Climate Governance and Legislation Center which is currently developing a topology to determine what constitutes good climate governance. One of their speakers emphasized the need to look at both laws and policies since different countries may have different approaches to regulate climate action. They do both quantitative and qualitative studies, and I was impressed to learn that since 1997 to 2017, the number of climate laws increased from only 70 to 1400 laws! The laws, however, are disproportionately skewed towards legislation of the energy sector—so in the near future we can anticipate more legislation in other sectors like agriculture, forestry, etc.  

While all events I attended discussed specifics of litigation, I appreciated that all of them also looked at legislation itself critically. Laws certainly create enforceable rules and accentuate responsibilities, however, institutions should also work together well to operationalize legislation. This resonated to me with the Swedish discussion in the morning about the Climate Act which seems to incorporate monitoring of institutional and ministerial harmonization to ensure successful application of the law.

Although many activists seem very enthusiastic about rights frameworks applied to climate issues, several panels also discussed limitations of law in achieving climate goals. I took the point that adjudication and litigation help clarify the law and mainstreams other issue areas such as women’s rights through land ownership that cumulative strengthen climate change resilience. On the other hand, negotiations are more cost-efficient under economic theory, but do not solve disputes. One speaker in particular emphasized that the Paris agreement will be in a constant state of re-negotiation due to the paradigm of national sovereignty (which means government changes will trigger different commitments to the Paris agreement). As we see, some states that agreed to the Paris provisions now disagree on some aspects,  and vice versa, so negotiations will probably still remain key in driving climate action.

Photo: LSE event. You may see that many of the event pictures look generic—well, this is a standard set-up of side events in Bonn (Climate Action) zone. There were two types of events at Boon Zone: side events (often catered, 1.5-2 hr usually bringing different panelists together under a  them), and pavilion events organized by the governments (these varied from country to country, so you can tell about national priorities from the events and tone in each pavilion. I attended an event at the Russian pavilion— and it was pure and shameless propaganda which was easy to tell if you are from the region.

Throughout the day I also have learned about many climate litigation cases, like the recent one in which a Peruvian farmer sued German energy company REW for contributing to climate change damages in his homeland. The court found the case admissible, and it will move forward. Another case to watch out for is People v Arctic Oil in which an Alliance of Greenpeace, youth activists and scientists sued Norway for the violation of the national contribution and the Paris agreement with a decision to open up Barents Sea oil exploration in 2016.  Also a series of interesting cases are coming from the Pacific. Katie mentioned a woman lawyer/activist from Fiji who also spoke at one of my events. What fascinated me most was how the lawyer talked about the need to educate the community for a long time before filing the lawsuit. She mentioned that people in rural areas who are affected by climate change most do not see it as rights issue and often explain it through God’s will. She implied that education is necessary to ensure that people can give good testimonies that will help shape the case. This made me think about relational dynamics of different world views. I am particularly intrigues to see how we can deal with the interaction of cultures, norms, political and legal systems and entire worldviews in climate litigation since these cases often involve wealthier, post-industrialized states—polluters, and poorer states that are most affected. When this lawyer was making remarks about education, I read as “we need to indoctrinate people to think in the western notions of land, rights, ownership, individual, etc. to win these cases”—and  I am not sure this is a good thing.

I really enjoyed Q&As in these sessions as they were more practical and specific, so I learned a ton. For example, someone asked about the possibility to put awards from court cases into a special fund to then cover climate financing gaps more efficiently, or the possibility to litigate against banks who finance fossil fuel companies. In fact, several attempts to hold banks as potentially liable are underway (i.e. banks funding Dakota Access Pipeline came under pressure from investors). Another fascinating case, is with Pennsylvania Pension Fund suing Exxon Mobile for climate deception!

My major takeaway was that both adjudication and litigation have a lot to offer, but should be advanced carefully so as to not damage negotiations. This sounds like a quite challenging task, as the pursuit of justice often requires non-compromise. But despite uncertainties, I am very energized by these talks and the potential of a new wave of climate litigation that can change both state and corporate responsibility for climate action.

COP 23 Day 11 – Katie

Today was Education Day at COP23! This meant that there were many events focusing on youth involvement in climate action and the interconnection between education and climate action. One of these events was the High Level Event on Climate Change Education that featured prominent speakers such as Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC Patricia Espinosa and Princess Lalla Hasna of Morocco. The event was probably the most theatrical one that I attended while at the COP. The room was the largest meeting room at the venue and was packed with people excitedly taking pictures and video of the Princess. The speeches were preceded by a performance from local children from Bonn singing about climate change. The event was more about bringing awareness to the critical role that integrating climate change into curriculum plays in climate action, and less about a critical discussion about current and future practices. It was similar to the COP Presidency events in which COP President and Prime Minister of Fiji Frank Bainimarama addresses the Bonn Zone along with other prominent speakers with a focus on a prominent issue. These events are intended to draw big crowds, be almost theatrical in nature, and raise awareness - in contrast to the more focused and technically oriented side events.

Today was also the last day of programming for the US Climate Action Pavilion and as I stopped by I collected some souvenirs and other free stuff (bags, lanyards, pins, and “We are still in” M&Ms!). It was fascinating to observe the U.S. presence at this COP. On the one hand the official delegation from the State Department was bare bones and played almost no role in the negotiations. On the other hand, you have what some have called the “alternative delegation” made up of local leaders, corporations, and other non-state actors taking up residence in the U.S. Climate Action Pavilion, declaring that the United States is “still in” for the Paris Agreement even if the federal government is not. I observed a fair amount of hostility towards the United States government in the different panels and discussions I attended, but experienced only friendliness and engagement as an American at the conference. It is clear that there are many leaders in the U.S. ready to step up and do their part for climate action, which is very encouraging, but I am also worried because while local leaders are leading on climate action, federal policy still does have a role to play. Overall, it is clear that the rest of the world is ready to move on without the U.S. - we will simply be left behind. As the rest of the world forms coalitions to power past coal and Germany experiences pressure the phase out their coal by 2030, Trump’s unreasonable grip on coal will prove to be backwards and regressive and will simply leave us lagging behind the rest of the world.

I also attended a side event detailing the current field of attribution science and the growing interest and practice of attributing climate change impacts to fossil fuel companies. The panel was made up of a climate scientist, environmental lawyer, and a lawyer/activist from Fiji. While this field is currently still developing, it seems to have a bright future and I will be following current lawsuits against fossil fuel companies closely in the next few years!

COP 23 Day 10 – Julia

Julia:

Photo: from the very early morning, protesters began gathering outside Bula (diplomatic zone), anticipating the arrival of state leaders, and demanding stronger statements, especially from Angela Merkel.

Photo: after attending several events about coal phasing out and financial instruments for climate action, I was headed back to watch webcast from the High-Level opening ceremony (where Merkel and Macron delivered their statements). This new comment appeared on the sign at the train platform.

Personally, I found both Merkel and Macron’s speeches too generic, especially in contrast to the language of the leaders from several Small Pacific Island states who I heard speaking more ambitiously and disruptively before. Merkel and Macron obviously made aspirational, abstract statement and reaffirmed their commitment to the Paris agreement. However, aside from Macron’s promise to top up the financing gap to the Green Fund created by the US withdrawal, I was not convinced that we should expect serious political climate actions from these states. Looking at how much needs to be done even at the EU level, I have a hard time imagining necessary steps taking place without major paradigm shifts.

COP 23 Day 10 – Katie

After spending the last two days navigating the conference halls I used my third day to go out and see the Energiewende in Germany in action as part of the Nord Rhein Westphalen Energie Agentur excursion program, like Ellie’s trip last week! I was especially intrigued to see German energy innovation in action after seeing many events the last two days on Germany’s ongoing fight to fully phase out coal by 2030. It was also nice to experience a change of pace from the chaotic environment of the COP.

I visited a pumped storage hydropower plant in the Sauerland, a rural and hilly region of the state. I heard from many different professionals about the context of the Energiewende, the advantages of pumped storage hydropower, and the specific technical workings of the plant. I found it particularly interesting to see a power company, who has shut down all coal plants but one (which will be closed next year) take on the challenge of the Energiewende so thoroughly. They seemed to be simultaneously ambitious and realistic; they envisioned a future where they could work to phase out all fossil fuels, yet maintained that for the time being natural gas was a critical part of their energy portfolio in order to supplement the fluctuating supply of energy created by wind or solar. We walked up to the reservoir, but the fog limited what we could see. The tour guides told us that on a clear day you could see all the way to Dortmund, about 100 km away!

We were treated to snacks, pumpkin soup and sandwiches for lunch, and a visit to the Bigge Skywalk. The skywalk is a scenic overlook on the Bigge Lake and dam, which were both created in the 1960s, forcing some local villages to relocate. Dams are yet another way this region is using hydropower to meet their renewable energy goals.

On the trip I got to meet more students from the States as well as an employee of the Energie Agentur for the state of Nord Rhein Westphalen who works on a project called Climate Smart Municipalities which connects Minnesota cities with cities in this region who have developed innovative sustainability projects in order to exchange ideas. We talked about the Minnesota Vikings, craft beer, and climate action on the local level. Minnesota connections really are everywhere!

Things are starting to pick up at the COP. National leaders arrived at the conference today to give national statements at the inauguration of the high-level segment. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron both gave speeches addressing the need to continue to work to implement the Paris Agreement. The Bula Zone in particular is starting to experience a flurry of excitement as negotiations start to wrap up and it will be clear what the results of this COP will be.

Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron both gave speeches addressing the need to continue to work to implement the Paris Agreement. The Bula Zone in particular is starting to experience a flurry of excitement as negotiations start to wrap up and it will be clear what the results of this COP will be

COP 23 Day 9 - Katie

Gender Day at COP 23

Like Julia, I appreciated to opportunity to delve deeper into the interconnections of gender and climate change on COP 23 Gender Day. It was great to see so many events focusing on this critical issue. After the morning session in the Talanoa Pavilion about women leading the climate agenda I started to think more critically about the dynamics that I have seen so far at the conference. I started to realize how many events have been dominated by “manels” (as one speaker put it), focusing on the voices of men and often including only one or very few women. I was inspired by the women who spoke not only because of the amazing work they have done, but because of their willingness to criticize organizers of the conference and challenge them to do better. It was clear that we have to move from conceptualizing women as the first “victims” of climate change to thinking about women as the first leaders and innovators in climate change solutions. Women have the power, they simply must be enabled to exercise it.

We closed out our day at the U.S. Climate Action Center - a pavilion funded by Michael Bloomberg after the U.S. federal government refused to fund a country pavilion leaving the U.S. without while many other countries such as Germany, France, U.K., Fiji, Thailand, Mali, Senegal, and many others showcased their efforts. We met and chatted with many other college students participating at this COP at the Higher Ed Reception. We also met up with fellow Minnesotans including Minnesota House of Representatives Minority Leader Melissa Hortman over dinner. It was a great way to connect with students across the country and within Minnesota about what they hope to learn from attending the COP and their perspective on climate action.

Julia note: People were wondering if Bloomberg himself showed up at the conference. A film-maker from the virtual reality (VR) pavilion told me that indeed Bloomberg showed up one day—briefly tried a VR headset and was rushed to a next event.

COP 23 Day 9 - Julia

Gender Day at COP 23

As a woman, I myself have faced too much male ignorance, sexism, entitlement, downplaying women’s competence yet capitalizing on it. And we are all aware of half-baked development aid programs that tokenize women’s issues, often lacking a deeper understanding of gender-related determinants in environmental health, urban/rural development and climate adaptation projects.  In my experience, I have seen that the extent of gender sensitive programming varies greatly between different parts of the world and across different states, so I was curious to learn what themes COP 23 speakers will focus on and what common language they will use. 

The first sessions I attended in the morning was organized by the Talanoa Pavilion and focused on women leadership in climate agenda. The pavilion was intended to serve as a space to honor Fiji’s talanoa tradition of story-telling and inclusive and transparent sharing as a way to deliberate. Six speakers—all women and three non-white—represented different task force areas.  One was a women’s rights activist from Costa Rica, Monica Araya. Monica said, “I had to become one [activist]”. The other one, Noelene Nabulivou, represented Fijian human right organization Diverse Voices and Action (DIVA). Achala C. Abeysinghe works on legal issues in climate change negotiations as an adviser to the chair of the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group for the UNFCCC (why is it still appropriate to use “developed” countries designation without specifying which area of development is implies, i.e. least economically developed, or lowest income countries?!). 

The panel was attended mostly by women—which was really disappointing because it shows lack of understanding of men’s role in mainstreaming gender issues, lack of recognition and willingness to celebrate women’s leadership and success.  

Across all spaces and events during the gender day, the speakers emphasized the need to mainstream and integrate gender issues in climate action, highlighting intersections of women’s equality and climate issues. I may have mentioned before, but most side events are disproportionately dominated by representatives from the wealthiest western countries and BRICS. However, here and there we see speakers from the pacific island states of the least economically developed countries. At the gender day, several of these speakers emphasized the importance of understanding local gender dynamics in different communities to “ensure that gender roles and functions are working well”. They pointed that there is a certain donor philosophy regarding gender sensitivity that needs further scrutiny.  

Right after, I shifted to a session titled, “The economic case for gender-responsive climate action”. This panel was more technical, but I specifically intended to see how major development players—big donor organizations, national representative and private sector—will talk about factoring gender in their policies and programming. I heard an interesting perspective from a woman entrepreneur, a founder of Lighting a Million Lives initiative that provides solar energy to rural communities in Pakistan, when she shared how her business was engaging women as “agents of change” to speed up smart energy development.

Similar to the business sector, representatives from multilateral organizations, like development banks, and IOs like UNDP, also consistently talk about reframing aid recipients/beneficiaries as clients. This trend has been going on for several years now, and I’ve seen it within humanitarian organizations, healthcare and now in the climate sector. These organizations come to conclusion that return on investment and profitability depend on good client understanding which requires robust and detailed data-base of client profiles. Practically, this means gathering and maintaining disaggregated gender-specific data. 

 Overall, while I see the importance of building investment cases in development, I have always thought of it as a sneaky technique to channel lower priority or unrecognized agenda through concepts that donors will understand and agree to finance. But I’m also aware that particular framing does affect the nature of implementation—it puts gender dynamics in a particular box that it targets for impact evaluation. So, I’m not convinced that “recognizing that projects and programs can catalyze a better understanding of how women contribute to economic life” should necessarily become commonly agreed upon perspective. My concern also resonated with the moderator when I heard her ask an even more provoking question to the panelists, “Since our economy is built predominantly by men — why do we expect that the same tools and systems will work for women?” They somehow talked around the question without addressing it properly. 

Overall, there was a general agreement throughout the day that it is crucial to consider how gender impacts vulnerability and therefore requires differential approaches in mitigation efforts and resilience building. I was pleased to see all events advocating for the importance of creating multi-sectoral management teams, and not just gender, sustainability, labor, etc units, but instead incorporate gender, health, climate experts in all stages of decision-making at every level. However, the hardest things is to operationalize according to the evidence and knowledge. Many parties to COP23 keep brining up the debate around the degree of regulatory detail that is required to ensure the achievement of the Paris goals. While some believe that countries will be able to succeed as long as they are given flexibility to figure out national approaches within the international targets and guidelines establish in the Paris agreement (which is further negotiated during COP23), many argue that additional concrete policy directives need to be promoted and mandated. So one of the most interesting practical ideas was the discussion of gender budgeting—which has not been implemented in any major organizations yet.

On the way back to Cologne, I was reflecting on the gender day and trying to determine what I can take from the gender analysis into the overall governance framework of COP23. And I guess to me this goes back to power distribution I experience when navigating the space of Bula and Bonn zones. As I mentioned before I still feel that the conference is reproducing the paradigm of Western monopoly on expertise and knowledge. Most technical panels center around “best practices” from the western cities, while representatives of Francophone countries, for example, tend to concentrate at the Senegal and Mali pavilions—seemingly discussing their own agenda. This leads me to re-phrase the paradox established by one of the panelists, “If our dominant economic, legal and political frameworks originate in western thought and practice, how do we expect the same tools, instruments and approaches to work for other communities?” I hope that is just my skepticism of today—but I would wish to see more respect for and legitimization of the Talanoa spirit at the conference—and not merely its symbolic appreciation.  

Behind Goal 13: Women Leading the Climate Agenda. Pay attention that instead of sitting on individual chairs the audience members are invited to share benches. This intentional design creates more intimate presence and a sense of human interdependence. 

Katie—after we successfully managed to get our COP 23 bikes. I believe we were rushing to Bula zone to attend a press conference about International perspectives on German coal and European climate leadership. 

I attended a High-Level Dialogue where city mayors from Nicaragua, California, Poland and Japan talked about how their cities are implementing sustainable urban development goals, focusing on housing construction, cement industry and energy mixes. 

COP 23 Day 8

Katie:

We arrived to the venue of the conference after a train and bus ride to find long lines and palpable excitement among the attendees to begin week two. The first steps into the conference were all at once overwhelming and exhilarating. Immediately, you are thrown into a chaotic environment with people rushing to events and meetings, trying to find members of their group, and various languages floating in the air. As a result, I spent most of my first day exploring the Bonn Zone and trying to figure out what this place was all about. The Bonn Zone seems to be where much of the action outside of the actual negotiating happens and is filled with national and NGO pavilions, meeting rooms for events, and an exhibition hall. The breadth of events is so incredible it makes it nearly impossible to choose where to go. Just in one day I managed to see California Governor Jerry Brown speak twice, attend an event focused on youth at the Germany pavilion where I got to meet a lot of German college students, attend a panel sponsored World Bank, and attend an event from the U.S. People’s Delegation.

Photo: Gov Jerry Brown at event focusing on the Global Climate Action Summit to be held in San Francisco next year

Photo: A section of the line for the U.S. sponsored side event

Without a doubt the most interesting event of the day came when protests occurred at the White House event promoting “clean” fossil fuels, which is the only side event that the United States is sponsoring. I was intrigued by the event and how it would be received at COP, but did not expect the magnitude of the reaction. Lines started forming around two hours before the event started and just grew in length until people stretched across the main floor. The atmosphere in the line was somewhat electric – no one knew what to expect and we were questioning what we were even doing at a fossil fuel event at a COP. We, along with hundreds of others waiting in line, were not admitted to the event as it had already reached capacity. Almost instantly, protests began to form outside of the meeting room as people started to stage a sit-in protest, chanting “Keep it in the ground”. This attracted significant media attention as press and participants started taking photos, video and live streaming the protest.

Photo: Protesters outside of the meeting room where the side event was held.

Soon, a group of protesters disrupted the panel inside of the meeting room, starting to sing a rendition of the song “God Bless the U.S.A”, halting the presentation and causing the audience to turn their backs to the panel to watch the protestors.

The protests then moved to outside of the meeting room and into the main hall with others joining in song and chants. We stayed around – watching both the live stream of the panel and the protests going on in front of us. It was exciting to see activism at the COP and this event in particular because it underscores that the Trump administration does not speak for all Americans and fossil fuels are not the future that we want.

COP 23 Day 7

I started the day by enthusiastically hopping on the the Cologne—Bonn train at 9 am, without even being bothered that it was chilly and drizzling and I had not had my routine morning coffee. The train promptly delivered us to the Bonn UN Campus train station, where we luckily caught a zero-emissions COP shuttle bus going to Bula and Bonn zones. Traditionally, COP organizers take a day off on Sunday between week 1 and week 2, but this year they decided to continue programming. Many of the events today focused on linkages between health and climate change. With Fiji presidency, the agenda centered small island states and their particular vulnerability to health consequences of climate change. I was very curious to learn about the extent of this inter-agenda collaboration since I have not seen much attention or development aid going to small island states in my work in the healthcare field. 

However, the day decided to unfold differently. After smooth registration, we were denied access to Bonn zone since our passes technically start on the second week—Nov.13th. Bureaucracy… I wonder if COP organizing countries exchange technical and logistical experience, because there are obvious bottlenecks that will continue occurring year after year unless particular regulations are put in place. 

Being turned away and obviously frustrated, we semi-enthusiastically peeked at the outside installations that were soaking in the drops of lazy rain. Several minutes later, we stumbled upon a conference venue with a big sign saying “Renewable Energy Day.” We decided to check it out—the hosts inside looked welcoming, so  why not give it a try? 

As it often happen and was once well said by Shakespeare: “Sometimes not getting what you want is the best stroke of luck”. We ended up spending the entire day listening to private sector perspectives on renewable energy while getting a full, on-demand catering service. On top of the unexpected surprises, we ran into Melissa Hortman (DFL), a minority leader of the Minnesota House of Representative.  It was extra fun to exchange our impressions and thoughts, and enjoy a funny, unpretentious, but also confident speech of the governor of California, Jerry Brown. His spoke towards the end of the conference, and the audience seemed to perceive him like a messiah— “Tell us what to do, and we’ll follow!” Apart from several mocking asides towards the Trump’s administration, Jerry Brown highlighted successful California’s legislative efforts and encouraged the private sector to step in with collaborative, principle-driven leadership. 

Asides from a few participating politicians and a panel featuring municipal mayors from several countries, the conference gave voice to private energy sector representatives. In their presentations, I noticed a recurring concept of disruption, or paradigm shift, which CEOs and energy industry leaders described as being “beyond the governement imagination”. It was clear that they were pushing the neo-liberal discourse of pure market regulation, glorifying the invisible hand that will determine the best climate solutions.  I also noted how the speakers dismissed experts as “prisoners of the past,” suggesting that “prescriptive” government regulations which are based on fixed expert opinions obstruct rapid innovation and ultimately hurt renewable energy efforts.

The theme continues when the panelists were asked about one policy they would change, and all of them unanimously said they need “more flexibility” to participate in the markets and promote energy transformation. They certainly have a point—many emerging economies and transitioning governments have rigid regulations that discourage investment in non-traditional energy sources. Yet we know from the previous lessons that without government regulations renewable energy transition would not have taken place at all. So it seemed that private sector was manipulating traditional capitalist rhetoric to give it a more environmentally conscious face. Many speakers emphasized that we should not consume more but instead should make our energy consumption more efficient. Sounds good, but then all of the speakers mentioned that in their view energy industry should transform from “dirty, backward” utility supply to service bunding. To me, cultivating demand for additional services sounds exactly like stimulating consumption. Another recurring theme from the energy sector was the excitement for the opportunities to tap into the emerging markets in the lower income countries under the umbrella of SDG goals of universal energy access. This got me thinking about the dangers of repeating the same mistakes of corporate monopolistic exploitation of vulnerable countries and communities we’ve seen in other sectors in the past. 

Overall, explicitly pro-market discourse dominated the conference, and I was particularly alarmed when one of the speakers said that we do not need policy, but instead our love for the planet will lead us forward. Such post-political framing that capitalizes on normative dimensions of many ecological philosophies should be disconcerting if we think about the future of the private energy sector and its wider role in multidimensional sustainable development, beyond just energy-related goals. 

In the end of the day, I am left with ambivalent thoughts regarding the role of the private sector in clean energy future. Every now and then I keep asking myself: can private sector discourse remain unchallenged as long as it contributes to sustainable energy goals? And how can we strike a balance between incentivizing the private sector without further endorsing slightly re-framed consumerist desires that I believe are the root cause of our climate crisis? 

1. Godfrey BK Kabbyanga from Uganda speaking about the urban energy policies in Kasese county, Western Uganda on the panel of city mayors. 

2. Frank Appel, CEO of Deutsche Post (DP) talking about DP’s electric vans for post delivery and his views on e-commerce footprint. 

3. Shu Ginbiao and Zhiang Lei discussing China’s renewable energy initiatives. 

COP 23 Day 5

COP 23 Day 4

Day 4: Thurs, Nov 9th, 2017

Photobooth at the German Pavillon

Ellie

Ari and I spent the morning touring around Cologne’s city center before finally hopping on the train. We visited a bakery for breakfast and then walked through the Cologne Cathedral.  

When we finally arrived at the conference there was some time to wander around the pavilion space. We took some pictures and drank good coffee at the Germany pavilion, and watched dancers at Fiji’s pavilion. In a far back corner of the space I found the Russian pavilion and began a very interesting conversation with one of the staff members. He congratulated the United States on finding a market solution to high carbon emissions through our increased natural gas usage. He says the Russians have been applying this value to their system of recycling. They have been able to greatly recycling of plastic and aluminum bottles by paying people to return them to recycling centers. While this system exists in the United States, it is far more effective in Russia, for he informed me that their European neighbors have begun to send bottles to their centers as well. All interesting facts that I will have to look into . . .

I then attended a talk held at the Indonesia pavilion titled Innovation in Mangrove Ecosystem Management to Support Community Livelihood and Climate Change Mitigation. This issue has been the focus of many studies done by the Center for International Agricultural Research. There is a really optimistic feeling in the region that mangrove trees can both mitigate the effects of rising sea levels and improve air quality. It is a tricky solution, however, as projects must be executed in areas that are compatible both socially and environmentally.

Next, I attended Nurturing Progress in Reducing Transnational Air Pollutants, held by the South Korean pavilion. The first speaker was involved in Korean foreign affairs, and adamantly stated that the solution to this issue relies on international cooperation. He was followed by Gerardo Sandez Martinez, a professor at DTU. Dr. Martinez stressed that climate change should have been viewed as a health concern from square one. Korea is an important illustration of this, for it experiences a high number of premature deaths due to air pollution. Health is high on the political agenda, and people tend to take it seriously. Most of the suggestions provided at this talk had to do with framing climate change as an issue relevant to the lives of all.

For my final event, I was back at the Indonesia pavillion for a talk about peatland restoration. The country has experienced a bilateral approach to peatland protection and monitoring. Both market interests in the private sector, as well as international NGO’s have taken an interest in this. There remains large needs, such as research into possible sustainable livelihoods within peatlands and further data collection into peatland mapping, however, this is another topic that the climate mitigation community is extremely excited about. I noticed, however, that there was very little government action involved in the monitoring and preservation of Indonesian peatlands. It is sad to see the production of such a large COP23 pavillion, with little action to back it up.

Ari

I started the conference part of my day by attending a talk in the Cities and Regions Pavilion. The talk was centered around the connection between the Paris Agreement, national governments, and local governments. The panel included two Mayors, one from a town in Botswana and the other from a town in South Africa. In addition, there was a man who served in the national level government in Cote d’Ivoire. The mayors discussed the fact that nations present the Paris Agreement as a good framework, but it is most effectively actualized at the local scale. From here, the mayoral panelists talked about sustainable initiatives that they had implemented in their towns, including bettering rapid transit systems, creating infastructure to transition to renewables, and developing higher quality recycling centers. The man from Cote d’Ivoire supported the mayors and added that national government should provide the framework and help with implementation, but that they should be executed bottom-up, not top-down. In addition, he emphasized the need to grow the economy without increasing emissions. I’ve been having a bit of a hard time with this type of dialogue at COP because the more that I read about economic growth, the more that I believe it is fundamentally in opposition to a healthy and liveable environment, but this is the system we live in, and I guess that it’s better that we try to focus on decreasing emissions, than the other option.