Log in

COP21 - Key Points by Elisabeth von Sachse

COP21, Paris, France December, 2015 Notes and Impressions 

The Following notes are based on a session Elisabeth von Sachse  attended in November at the United Nations in Geneva.

The session covered some of the basics of Climate Change Negotiations, and featured a panel discussion at the close. These are the key points highlighted in the session by the presenters of the session, as I observed, and do not reflect any personal opinions or convictions.    

Introduction: Even prior to the horrible tragedy that took place on 13 November in Paris, there were marked concerns over security expressed by certain members of the diplomatic community. Why? Because of the timing and timeliness of the upcoming Conference of Partners. A few key precursors were mentioned (including Pope Francis’ Climate Change Encyclical) as factors contributing to a certain sense of, if not urgency, very real responsibility. As we face 20 years plus after the historic Kyoto Protocol, here are some of the key issues, challenges, and hopes as diplomats, leaders, and citizens alike come together in Paris in an effort to ‘make this one count..’    

Key Issues

The Mitigation and Adaptation Balancing Act:  As explained by our facilitator from the IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development), the negotiations encompassing Mitagation and Adaptation will be taking center stage in Paris, as partners on both sides of the equation come to the table. The stakes are high, as are the emotions. Contrary to some perception, Climate Balance Negotiations are far from simply discussions of a cold, scientific nature.

While concrete results are desired by all parties involved, how to achieve a variety of differing goals is extremely challenging. Like-minded, developing countries and coalitions (for example, the AOSIS) are pressing the larger, more developed countries (for example, China and the United States)to fill the Mitigation gap with actions that are monitored, reported, and verifiable. With 75% of all carbon emissions coming from fossil fuels (sidenote: it was mentioned here that China is building one coal fire plant per week..), these smaller, more vulnerable areas believe that the larger carbon emitters should shoulder the majority of responsibility when it comes to Climate Stabilization. Conversely, while large(r) carbon emitters claim to be stepping up to the plate with regard to mitigation actions, they are likewise pressing for better implementation and a more robust accountability structure with regards to adaptation.

Complex geopolitics aside, these issues are going to require some true diplomatic work from all players. Our discussion leader said that he found that Climate Balance Negotiations bore a similarity to Trade Negotiations (in the UN context, that is). So, how do we share the burden of controlling emissions? Considering that we’ve already used up 65% of our global Carbon Budget (using the 2° goal guideline), and our earth clock continues to tick, we move on to our next issue…  

Funding, Funding, and Funding (or, as some of us at the session liked to call it, ‘Hey Dude, where’s my $3 billion Water Purification Project?’): COST is the main reason given by developed countries, behind the rhetoric, for further action. The bottom line is..The Bottom Line.

Climate Finance, and the mechanisms surrounding it, are a hot-button issue worthy of an entire thesis. Along with nation’s INDC’s (Intended Nationally Determined Contributions), are coming more and more calls for increased monitoring, oversight and accountability. Even with the existing NAP (National Adaptation Plan) process in place, (which, among other things, assists in implementation strategies), concerns regarding the process, especially in certain developing nations and areas of the world, are a key factor.       

The Corporate Culture and their impact on Climate Negotiations: One of our featured panelists was a Climate Change Negotiator whose focus is assisting Corporations to adopt mitigation policies. They provide not only hard scientific data, including timelines, intended outcomes, etc., but also advise on possible ways and means to incorporate those policies into business practices. The largest challenge, they mentioned, was the corporate culture five-year-management cycle.

While Going Green for any company, large or small, looks great on paper, and is a powerful PR tool, the reality looks, feels, and sounds very different when in closed-door negotiations. It does on occasion occur, according to one of our speakers, that when presented with the scientific data, along with a very precise, down-to-the-minute timeline of when this will actually and actively effect their company, a course of inaction follows. The reason? It was suggested that the five-year management cycle might be a factor. If climate change only effects my company in five years, I’ll be either rotated out of here, moved on to another company, promoted, whatever. It will be someone else’s problem. Again, I’m only gently relaying this experience. It is not mine personally.

Also, this is not representative of the many wonderful and progressive companies/corporations out there who are richly engaged and committed not only in their own carbon emissions reductions programs, but in facilitating capacity building in other sectors and at other levels. And that’s where we as consumers enter the picture. By consciously choosing to give our business to companies who not only ‘talk the talk’ about going green, but who walk the walk and are invested in programs, policies and philosophies that practice and promote Climate mitigation. 

Expectations and Overview: We were asked at the beginning of the session what our (the class’) expectations were for Paris. Were they high? Were they low? Were we expecting much? The same was asked of our panelists at the conclusion of our session. As for our panelists, the reviews were mixed. While the overall mood was ‘tempered optimism’, some had quite low expectations.

One panelist, though, reminded us how far we’d actually come, both in terms of diplomatic development and in general global acceptance, since Kyoto. Of course mistakes have been made in the past, but then he reminded us that Climate Balance is journey, a process, a marathon and not a sprint. That what are perceived as failures can be seen as opportunities to build on and learn from. And that while several key players have become disillusioned, it is not that they have lost faith with the system or the ideologies that support it, but rather certain aspects of the process, and clarified that more research and continued refinement of the process is needed.

No matter what the expectation, though, be it the expectations, hopes, etc. of our expert panelists, or of the session participants, we could happily all agree on one certain fact: The cost of doing nothing about Climate Change was one that none of us were willing to accept.   So, I’ve decided to follow this week’s COP21 in Paris via live feed, if I can. Hoping to learn more and see what our leaders and participants have to offer. I also hope I’ve given some insight for FAWCO’s ETF. I really admire your dedication. This is a fascinating, tricky (in a good way!!) issue that influences us all.    

Best Regards, Elisabeth           

Visit Our Partners

© 2024 FAWCO

Please publish modules in offcanvas position.