Climate goals and negotiations
Going into the final hours of COP21 in Paris, the feeling on the floor, filtered through twitter, reminds the end of a long road trip. It seems everyone is a little tired, maybe a bit sick of each other. Some bickering seems to have erupted in a side meeting. “The real bullying is from the Obama administration” one activist said, according to a tweet from Paul Kishimoto (note: an earlier version of this post ambiguously attributed that quote to Paul himself. I’ve corrected that here, and apologize for my poor journalism). The “Ambition Coalition,” which 3 days ago seemed the great hope of this conference, was called a “sham.” More officially, India’s environment minister, Prakash Javadekar, was quoted telling reporters hours ago, “The developed world is not showing flexibility […] It’s about differentiation, equity, and climate justice.” Following on that, the Indian delegation is highlighting injustice within the cumulative carbon, citing past misappropriation, and the future misappropriation implied by the INDCs, especially in light of a 1.5˚ goal.
And so, at first glance, it would seem that the same tones are being hit now as were at the beginning of the conference. Watching some of the plenary session — as I did last Tuesday, the COP can feel a bit like a broken record. That afternoon, civil society and intergovernmental organizations (like my last employer, the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development, ICIMOD) were able to take the stage and voice their opinions for two minutes. Most summarized the threats climate change poses on their communities and interests, and called for action with focus. Many called for a 1.5˚ target. What struck me as strange was that, 3 days before the end of the conference these groups were given a stage and express their hopes. More strange was the sparse attendance of the crowd. Where were the negotiators? They were already off negotiating.
The main challenge for me, as a COP newbie, has been reconciling the COP that is officially presented through the UNFCC reports and webcasts, the COP that is unofficially presented through the news coming out of the conference and the twittersphere, and the COP behind closed doors, which is likely where things really happen. President Obama has supposedly been on the phone with Xi Jinping and other world leaders, cheerleading a deal. Maybe in response to cheerleading and messaging, coalitions are formed and broken, goals are agreed and then thrown out. The aphorism presented in the beginning of this class — nothing is agreed until everything is agreed — has taken on meaning I didn’t quite predict.
Like I stated in my earlier post, there is a dichotomy apparent concerning how these negotiations are viewed by those participating. It is clear that some want the conferences to “lock in ambition” now, and sort the details out later, as Norway’s environmental minister Tine Sundtoft seemed to imply. Others see this as the end product. Like I said earlier, in reality, the COP is a little of both. The push for the 1.5˚ target is certainly part of the ambition-benchmarking, and with 24 hours to go to a deal, I now understand the continued expression of positions and urging of action — this is partly what’s being agreed in this deal: what we should do, not what we will do. The fact that this is part of what’s being negotiation makes me feel more optimistic about those NGO speeches to no one, and the civil society demonstrations. They really do seem to matter.
But, the question of what we will do still stands, and it should stand tall. A final agreement will be out by 9am tomorrow. It will include all the bargaining chips that are being discussed — those for the future, present and past. As far as I can tell, if everyone is a bit unhappy, then it we will be on our way.
