COP 22 Day 3

We woke up Wednesday morning to the news of presidential-elect Donald Trump. 

We were in disbelief; the absurdity of the results was not something that we had prepared for. Our moods darkened as we reflected on this new reality. What would this mean for our future, our loved ones, but also the future of this planet? If the two degree benchmark is going to be achieved, it is hard to believe it will come into fruition without the participation of the second largest emitter of GHG and the largest economy in the world. The United States is seen as a leader throughout the world, for better or for worse. Will other nations follow through with their pledges even if the US does not? A Trump presidency could potentially last for eight years. With Republican control of the House and Senate, and potentially the Judiciary branch, how much damage can be done in this time? Will it be irreversible? Perhaps we are playing up the importance of the United States on the world stage. I hope we are. 

We were comforted by the fact that despite this grave news, the optimistic atmosphere of the Conference remained unchanged. Ministers and climate activists continued with their business as usual. The election of one climate denying demagogue does not mean the end for the fight against climate change. These people will continue to devote themselves to the cause, with or without the United States. 

We found distraction in one of the more informative and accessible side events of the week. It was titled: “Addressing Climate Change through Land Use: Supporting Corporations or Communities? Time to choose”. This panel consisted of representatives from various organizations working in the United States, Africa, Ecuador and Paraguay. They shared stories on how REDD initiatives in their respective countries impacted indigenous peoples living in the forests. REDD is an abbreviation for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. It is estimated that deforestation and forest degradation constitute 12%-29% of all greenhouse gas emissions. By reorienting forest management, projects can be implemented that exponentially decrease the rate of deforestations, thereby cutting emission, and more trees can be planted/saved to help remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The World Bank has been at the forefront of financing these projects, such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Critics, such as those on the panel, argue these programs export a neo-liberal agenda that really has no substantial impact on emissions nor the rate of deforestation. The resources and livelihood that a forest can provide is in no way comparable to that of a monoculture plantation. One panelists noted that the only thing that REDD had in common with a real forest is that they both contained trees. All the while, national governments and corporations who support these projects and enact them, disregard the presence/role of indigenous populations.

The panelists asserted REDD programs do not benefit indigenous peoples. Rather, the opposite is true. The programs violate their human rights and land rights, contribute to the appropriation of their land, and lead to forced evictions. Ultimately, REDD programs give states and carbon traders more control over indigenous people forests. The panelists argued the intentions behind REDD would be better guarded if put in the hands of the indigenous peoples, as they have lived on their respective land for centuries and they understand how live in harmony with the land instead of against it.

Here is a link to an article from The New York Times which does a nice job of summing up the potential future for US policy on climate change and perceived threats of a Donald Trump presidency on the Paris agreement. It is by no means comprehensive. The article is titled Change Ahead: Shifts on Immigration, Climate, Health and Taxes