Notes on COP21

A couple of weeks ago, on the 5^th of November, I attended an evening presentation on COP21. There weren’t any fireworks but it was an illuminating talk, so I thought it would be useful to turn my notes into a blog and discuss the various points raised.

Source: Official COP21 logo

The presentation was by Jesse Scott, from the International Energy Agency (IEA). She's an ex-campaigner and lobbyist who has also worked in civil service in Paris before moving to the IEA.

Initially, she charmed us with her passion for the subject of climate change by describing how, with so many different issues, interests and stakeholders, climate change is simply too interesting to ignore from a political perspective.

She spoke to the audience with authority, about what COP21 actually is, and what it is trying to do. She gave an overview of the science, technology and economic linkages, and then moved on to discuss how COP will work in practice.

She explained it in real terms, and so this worked very well as a primer on 21st conference coming up soon. In this blog, I have used her presentation as the basis of my discussion on the COP21 meeting.

Firstly, a brief overview and history is as follows:

• The Conference of the Parties (COP) meets roughly annually since 1995 (the first held in Berlin - the full list of meetings can be found here) to assess progress dealing with climate change under the UNFCCC and is the decision making body of the framework.
• It was the driving force behind the Kyoto protocol (COP3 in Japan) in which was the first major example of legally binding obligation for developed countries to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.
• The UNFCCC is comprised of 196 countries and is committed to stabilising greenhouse gas emissions to a level that presents as little danger as possible to the global community.
• Since Kyoto there have been attempts to update the legal obligations, the biggest and most recent attempt was in Copenhagen in 2009 (COP15) which was deemed to be a failure, and unilateral agreements could not be reached.
• Paris is the next big concerted effort to reach binding legal agreements, based on the commitments outlined from each country ahead of the conference in their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) of which most have already been submitted.
• In COP20 and COP19 the decision was taken that these INDCs would be declared before the conference to promote clarity, transparency and understanding of each country’s position and idea of the methods they will chose to tackle adaptation and mitigation strategies.

Recommended Reading

Jesse Scott recommended an article on Christina Figueres inthe New Yorker as an excellent primer on COP21. Ms Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC. A transcript of Christina Figueres' speech to the 1st Global Climate Legislation Summit a couple of years ago, expresses how focussed she is on delivering the goals of the UNFCCC and the strength of her advocacy for climate change legislation. She will be blogging through the COP21 so it is worth following her articles. A recent article in the Guardian also shows her optimism for these talks here.

During the presentation, Ms Scott gave us a whistle stop tour of the science (via IPCC) as a precursor to a dialogue on broader governance and political aspects.

A few initial areas she touched upon include:

Procrastination: She also discussed examples of action today being more valuable than responsive action in the future. This reminded me of a often quoted figure regarding resilience which is replicated in various reports but in one case, the UNDP state that for every one dollar spent on disaster preparedness, we save seven dollars on emergency response as highlighted in their #Actnow campaign. This is relevant in a warmed world that may see greater extremes of climate. It also reminds me of the old saying: 'a stitch in time saves nine'. Act now to stop a worse situation in the future.

Technological advances: In recent years, technological advancements have allowed companies to start to realistically consider how to maintain their economic growth trajectories, while investing in sustainable and energy efficient technologies.

Communication: She also talked about the difficulty in communicating risk and uncertainty and described a game developed by Pablo Suarez and his team have designed a game that allows us to experience the difficulty with managing climate risk. Gamification can be an effective way to communicate complex processes.

Climate Justice

Climate Justice is an important and complex principle in the debate on climate change. Climate change doesn't deal out its impacts evenly from a human-centred perspective, as Ms Scott describes, the poor and the young tending to be most vulnerable. Historically, there is also a disparity in that those countries that have a long history of high carbon dioxide emissions, are those who have benefited most, and are most resilience to future impacts. Furthermore, in terms of where the changes are required, the biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses in the past, present and future are argued to be those that need to take most responsibility.

The question of who should do what to mitigate anthropogenic climate change (as we understand it) is a question of science, politics and responsibility, while being reliant largely on metrics. In some respects, it depends how emissions are compared and the political sway of those in power. 

When looked at in the context of the 17 UN sustainability goals, we can consider how different countries and regions will have differing priorities for many of the 17 goals, but with climate change, everyone is a stakeholder and everyone has some exposure to the risk.

Being a trans-boundary and inter-generational challenge means that it requires the concerted and long term commitments and efforts the COP21 is aiming towards.

Mary Robinson (former President of Ireland) was quoted on Climate Justice and human rights summing up that 'Climate Change impacts are biggest on those who have does least to produce them'. Using IPCC parlance, it is extremely likely that this is the case. 

The inter-generational aspects also highlight that those who have made no past contribution to greenhouse gas emission levels (those as yet unborn) will be those feeling impacts of climate change for the longest. 

Some small island nations are starting to plan for the displacement that will be caused by climate change. The Bikini Atoll, a site of nuclear testing in the 1940s and 1950s (and famous for swimwear design) has applied for land in the U.S. to relocate the population due to rising sea levels. 

Source: Getty Images via BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34642692)

Ms Scott affirms, from the perspective of the IEA, that the main solution is to find a way to provide 'clean energy' for everyone. Allowance must be made for the ever-increasing demand for energy in developed countries and the needs for increasing energy to foster development in poorer countries.

Good COP, Bad COP

The talks in Copenhagen in 2009 (COP15) were largely seen as a failure, in that they could not reach binding commitments for countries that have the highest emissions. However, there is reason to be optimistic. Ms Scott describes herself as being ‘very cautiously optimistic’. A lot has changed since 2009:

• The science has moved on, especially through another round of IPCC research.
• Technology is offering new solutions for renewable and efficient energy at a dramatically reduced cost. 
• The U.S. and China governments have steadily shifted towards addressing climate change during the last half a decade, with recent confirmation of their positive intentions on the climate (joint presidential White House statement on September 25th).
• G7 countries addressing climate change in a practical manner, and expressing a feeling of responsibility, as seen here in a White House press summary in June.
• Lessons have been learnt from the difficulties in Copenhagen. There is generally a much brighter outlook on the potential for meaningful and binding agreements being reached, based on the INDCs.
• The Pope has issued a number of statements regarding climate change.
• Mark Carney of the Bank of England has delivered recent speeches regarding climate change and the role of the insurance industry in managing future risks. The ‘1-in-100 initiative’ is an example of how the methods used in insurance industry can benefit both the public and private sectors if adopted more widely in the risk management processes.
• Military interests (e.g. NATO) are concerned regarding their resources in a warmer world. If they need to use their troops for disaster relief after severe events, both home and abroad, then how does that affect their ability to maintain national security - an issue amplified if we can expect changes for the worse in frequency and/or severity of extreme events like floods and storms, as well as migrations and likelihood of conflict through severe droughts. 
• On the public front, celebrity endorsements (for example Leonardo DiCaprio who spoke eloquently at the UN climate change summit last year) have continued and activism continues to put pressure on companies and governments to invest on environmentally responsibly technologies.

INDC - Are all of the cards on the table?

As of last week, 85% of the INDC had been submitted. Hopefully these will be much more robust than previous efforts, focusing of the three elements that are required for any mitigation strategy to work: Monitoring, Reporting, Verification.

It should be noted that these INDCs are self-defined, and so the cynic in me suspects that they may be quite lenient, but equally, there is probably little alternative to this approach as every country will have different processes and issues that need to be understood so they can action their obligations. The sum of the INDCs should add up to one global agreement that is achievable within the context of each nation - not easy to achieve.

If the details of the INDCs were not country specific it would be very difficult to find common ground. For example, in terms of monitoring, there is the question of which metric to use. Per capita CO2 emission may favour China, with such a large population, but would this be representative with such a huge disparity between the high and low (rich and poor respectively) emitters?

Would using per capita metrics put countries other countries at a disadvantage? Using absolute (total) emissions would conversely perhaps put China at a disadvantage, being top of the worst offenders list?

This type of conversation will no doubt be had during the negotiations.

Disclaimer

I'm still getting to grips with the angles of the politics of climate change (luckily I'll be studying it more specifically next term), but this talk certainly helped me gain deeper appreciation of the complexity and importance of the COP21 meeting. If there is anything in this blog with which you disagree or looks to be misunderstood, then feel free to comment and let me know.  Most likely, it is due to me being new to thinking about these negotiations in depth so I'm eager to learn more.

Everyone is a stakeholder in looking after our climate and developing a sustainable environment, and that also means that there are lots of different opinions and views. I agree with Jesse Scott that it really is a fascinating topic to study.

A final word
I wrote most of this blog last week, but between then and posting, the tragic events in Paris have unfolded. My thoughts are with the families and friends of those directly affected and the people of Paris as they recover from this despicable and horrific act. The Foreign Minister of France, Laurent Fabius, has a short quote on the home page of COP21 today, saying simply:

“The COP is maintained”