On COP 26
“Headlong speed, my friends, is the only way left to say yes to the world.
Speed, you see, means everything. Speed means planetary sanity. Speed means justice.
Speed means prosperity. Speed means a future for our kids. For potentially hundreds of millions of people, speed means survival itself. Speed is beauty.”
The bar is on the floor. Truly.
But before we get into everything that was disappointing, we should start at the beginning.
1988 to be exact.
In this year, NASA scientist James Hansen would testify before U.S Congress, with spot-on accuracy: global warming has arrived. And it will get worse over time.
Then, in 1992, the UNFCCC would be formed. This is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This convening body has no authority, but its ultimate goal is “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.”
Shortly after, the Kyoto Protocol would emerge in 1997. Widely known for embracing a top-down approach for tackling global emissions.
Climate change wouldn’t be a topic of global conversation again until 2009, with the Copenhagen Accord or COP 15. At the time, it “raised climate change policy to the highest political level. Close to 115 world leaders attended the high-level segment, making it one of the largest gatherings of world leaders ever outside UN headquarters in New York”.
Then came the very famous Paris Climate Agreement of 2015. It was an international treaty that covered climate change mitigation, adaptation, and finance.
And now we are here, in 2021: COP 26 in Glasgow. COP stands for Conference of Parties btw!
As impressive as these global conversations might seem (especially given the fact that we can rarely get nations to come together on anything), it should be important to remind ourselves that the IPCC report came out earlier this year, with alarming information: we are running out of time. Every year we wait, the problems of the climate crisis will become increasingly difficult to mitigate.
This should tell us something very clear— whatever we’ve been doing these past 26 years has not been working. We’ve been prioritizing pledges and promises over accountability mechanisms that monitor and evaluate policies and laws that nations should be binding themselves to. Countries have been able to show up empty-handed or with a loose pledge, while ecosystems continue to collapse and natural disasters continue to intensify. And because there are no incentives to act or any penalties for failing to, nations are able to participate in theatre over and over again.
And it is our lives on the line.
I stand in awe at the leaders of the world, (most of them men and most of them old). They have children, grandchildren, storied careers, and lives worth memorializing. But for many of us—especially the hundreds of thousands of youth that protested around the week of meetings—we are wondering if we will ever get a fair shot at life. Will we get to have kids? Will we get to grow old? Will we be able to see the Canadian Rockies or the glaciers of Iceland? Will the family farm continue to get passed down in a few decades?
If millions of voices around the world aren’t enough for bold and ambitious commitments (bounded by accountability or law)……then what will be?
This post is dedicated to the more than 100,000 people who marched in Glasgow. Here is what I’m left with:
From a domestic policy standpoint: by the time Biden was at COP 26, the Infrastructure Bill was yet to be passed. We went to a global conference empty-handed, which can serve as a metaphor for so many things. But even with the Bill passing, there is much to be concerned about.
We know that with every administration, comes a change in executive power and priorities. What does it mean that in 2 or 4 years, new leadership can jeopardize or stop contributing/distributing services and funding whenever they feel like it?
We also know that this nation faces equity problems— what does it mean that some places across America might not be receiving an adequate amount of resources to truly turn back the clock?
Bloomberg Philanthropy seemed to be a key partner for the U.S, which begs the question: how sustainable are partnerships and agreements between governments and private sector groups?
Lastly, when we talk about climate financing abroad…..will the U.S take responsibility for harm caused abroad? And how do we comprehensively talk about equitably financing climate solutions for low-income countries, when we can barely do the same for cities, tribal territories, and rural towns within our borders?
Oil and gas companies had some of the largest delegations present, even over some countries. Which leads to a pressing concern: who is left out of negotiating rooms and who has overrepresentation?
And how weird was it for them to be overrepresented, when low-income nations had to meet mainly remotely, due to unfair COVID Redlists that weren’t properly updated until the week before COP?
It was noted that so many youth and indigenous communties had so much stage time during the conference. But what gets left out of the praise, is that they had observer status— but no policy power. What does it mean to be seen, but not given any space to help shape and make decisions?
Coal and fossil fuel subsidies were mentioned for the first time at COP 26, but is that really a big deal, or is that an embarrassment that it has teken this long?
Excitingly, something that I’ve been following: Science-Based Targets initiative released the world’s first science-based verification of companies’ net-zero targets. It should serve as a gold standard that the over 900 companies that have already committed to set targets in line with 1.5 degrees C must follow to demonstrate climate leadership and avoid claims of greenwashing.
To end, the last thing that this Conference highlighted was the incessant adultism that gets thrown around in our faces:
“stand up”
“march”
“write to your representatives”
“vote”
Between bureaucracy and observer status, or world leaders being condescending or dismissive, it is insulting for older adults to tell us to march or vote ourselves to a cleaner, more sustainble future. On one hand, you tell us to use our voice, but then give us no decision-making power. You tell us that we are the future, and then actively take that future away from us by moving so slowly.
I’m hopeful, not in leadership, but in the community. What we do locally matters. And we can use those maps and visions we are creating on the ground to build worldwide movements and solutions.
Locally we can only make ripples across a pond, but globally we can create tidal waves in an ocean. It takes the strength of all of us.
Keep Reading:
cover image by https://unsplash.com/@christoffere