Episode 8: What Can COPs Accomplish? A Field Trip to COP26 in Glasgow [Full Transcript]
COP26 Part II
Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts
Casey: Every year, delegates from around the world gather for the annual global climate meeting: The Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Conference of the Parties, C.O.P., or COP, for short. Understanding what happens at COP is one of the best ways to understand what’s happening with climate policy internationally, as a backdrop for climate action in countries, states, companies and institutions. We looked at a slice of COP in part one of this two-part episode on COP26, when we learned about the global carbon trading scheme created by Article 6 of the Paris Agreement.
Cami: Part one was like a day in the classroom -- we reviewed the history of international carbon trading, and we dug into the rules of the new trading system, finalized at the most recent Conference of the Parties.
Jacob: Part two is a field trip. We’ve done our readings, and learned some theory. Now we’re ready to see how COP is, at times, overwhelming, astonishing, and confusing… And really, why wouldn’t it be? We are trying to transform the global economic system and the global energy system.
Casey: There are millions of interlocking systems to think about at COP, spanning energy production, agricultural practices, industrial technologies, banking systems, and personal income streams... The stakes are high -- food security, water access, housing… entire island nations are on the line. Everyone is going to try to influence this thing in one way or another... That is, if they’re aware of the stakes, and if they have the resources to get to the meeting and make their voices heard.
At times, COP feels like an unending, 10,000-way tug-of-war. And yet, we keep gathering every year in this way, to try to solve the wicked problem of climate change. Today we’ll ask: Why do we do this year after year? What do we accomplish with this process? Are we doing enough? Is COP even capable of doing enough?
*Theme Music*
Casey: Welcome back to Pricing Nature, a podcast from the Yale Center for Business and the Environment, the Yale Carbon Charge, the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, and the Yale Tobin Center for Economic Policy. I’m Casey Pickett, Planetary Solutions Project Director and Director of the Carbon Charge at Yale.
Cami: I’m Cami Ramey. I’m a Master’s student at the Yale School of the Environment studying climate adaptation and resilience.
Jacob: And I’m Jacob Miller, a recent graduate of Yale College. Back in 2016, I was the first intern with the Yale Carbon Charge.
Casey: You know, I really like the idea of this episode being a field trip… I think that makes me the kooky teacher who wears a tie decorated with the theme of the episode.
Jacob: Right, and then we pile into your shape-shifting, mystical education van.
Cami: Ooh I see where this is going.
Casey: It sounds like we’re on a one-way field trip to copyright infringement. Our attorney is advising us to call it a mystical education sailboat.
Jacob: Okay, I mean, personally I felt like “mystical education van” had copyright in mind but… that’s okay! Casey, where are we headed first??
Casey: Well Jacob, let’s just say it’s a good thing we’re taking a boat, because our first stop is across the Atlantic! You all know how to swim, right?
Cami: Wait a second Casey, didn’t your partner, Anna, have to right your capsized ship last time you went sailing…?!
Casey: That’s why I’ve been waiting to say: seatbelts - er, boat harnesses – everyone! First stop: the Dear Green Place, home of the Glaswegians.
Act I: COP26 — It’s pronounced “Glaz-Goh”
Casey: The UN Conference of the Parties is the annual check-up for global climate policy. The Conference of the Parties is where, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol originated, which created an international cap-and-trade regime that the United States refused to sign on to. It's also where, in 2015, the Paris Agreement was formed, which called for voluntary national emissions reduction pledges and rules to govern carbon credit sales between countries. And COP is where, last November, countries signed the Glasgow Climate Pact, an agreement we’ll explore today.
Now, you might be asking yourself -- if the conference happened back in November, why are we covering it now? It’s a good question: A closer look at the COP process will be integral to our journey this season, showing us what’s achievable through global climate policy, and what problems might require other creative solutions. Let’s begin with a tour…
The first thing I noticed at COP26, after waiting in the 90-minute entrance queue, after acknowledging the climate activist pleading into a bullhorn for more robust action, after the airport-like security check… the first thing I noticed was the vastness of it. The pavilion area contains dozens upon dozens of exhibits. It looks like a trade fair crossed with an Ikea…
Casey at COP: *crowd noise fade-in* “I’m walking by the “Wind, Are You In?” pavilion, and now the Australia pavilion, and next to the Papua New Guinea pavilion, there is the coalition for rainforest nations…” *crowd noise fade-out*...Many of the pavilions are quite elaborate. Several have complimentary coffee and other treats, several are two stories…”
Casey: COP is this sprawling affair across I don’t know how many acres and different buildings… Pretty easy to get lost.
Casey at COP: “I just stopped at a Euro climate booth and asked where the “we mean business” pavilion is, and they told me, and I'm trying to find it…. And yet I don't…. I see the Qatar pavilion…”
Casey: At the heart of COP, the negotiators for nearly 200 country delegations are locked in discussions (well they let them out sometimes…). These negotiators are working out the details of the global agreement -- what the target temperature limits should be; how countries will be expected to help meet those targets. Zoom out a little, and you’ll find yourself with me, among the pavilions. Countries, NGOs, and companies set up these pavilions—like booths on steroids—to give presentations to educate and influence each other, the negotiators, the media, and the public at large. Zoom out a little further, you find the food stalls, complete with fish and chips, and paltry, dry, overpriced sandwiches--
Jacob: Casey you’re gonna lose your COP badge…
Cami: No… they know what they did.
Casey: Past the food stalls, some activists are chanting in the hallway:
Audio of protests at COP: “*french*, *Power to the People*, *You can shove your climate crisis up yer $%#@*”
Casey: I was struck by these small-scale protests… Much of the time they are pleading with people who are dedicating their lives to fighting climate change. The Conference of the Parties brings together thousands of people who have chosen to pit their minds and energies against this problem, foregoing greater pay and more time with family to do everything they can to help avert this crisis. And yet the activists aren’t satisfied. They’re demanding greater ambition. A part of me wants to say to the activists, “I know! I’m working on it!” But another part wants to be right there with them, shouting into my own bullhorn at everyone going past.
Jacob: Yeah, Casey and tell me if I’m wrong, but not everyone was there to fight for stronger climate action, right?
Casey: No, you’re right.
Jacob: While there were thousands of people there focused on working on Climate Change, did you read the reports that the largest delegation represented was for the fossil fuel industry, with more than 500 delegates? Depending on how you count them.
Casey: …I did. And it makes a kind of sense. If you realize that global energy systems and global economic systems are being changed by this process, and you have the time and resources to show up and argue for your interests, you’re likely to do so.
And that brings us to the next zoom out: step outside into the rainy Glasgow streets, where the activist group grows to 100,000-strong, marching and demanding stronger climate action.
Sounds from the streets of Glasgow: COP26: Climate crisis frontline comes to Glasgow as thousands march from around the world
Casey: In a way, this outermost layer extends throughout the host city, with subway signs and billboards put up by organizations asking leaders to raise their ambition, or remember the needs of developing countries, and companies touting their climate action. Communication to non-attendees about what is happening at COP is a critical piece of the process. We’re kind of a part of that outer layer, along with scores of other podcasts and news media outlets.
Jacob: For more on the set-up of a COP, you can find the COP26 Daily podcast linked at pricingnature.substack.com.
*music*
Casey: All the competing interests at the Conference of the Parties can make it overwhelming, and confusing… That’s understandable. But the COP process shouldn’t be opaque. Unfortunately, this COP’s inaccessibility was one of the main grievances of climate activists around the world this year. COVID, among other things, made the COP even less accessible than usual. So today, we’ll guide you through the impossible Ikea maze that is the Conference of the Parties. And along the way, we’ll ask the same existential questions about the UN Conference of the Parties that you ask yourself at Ikea: Is it worth it? Why do I keep doing this to myself? Is there a better alternative? Oh shoot, where are the kids?
Sometimes, all you can hope for is a friendly face in the crowd to show you the way...
Casey at COP: “Excuse me. Do you know if this is the “we mean business” pavilion? Excellent. In the right place.”
…As it turns out, I was in the wrong place after all.
*music*
ACT II: The Negotiations and the non-negotiations
Casey: I promise, there’s a lot more to COP than just Casey putzing around. This is a conference dedicated to global climate solutions -- and there were a lot of ideas, pledges, and policy developments that came out of COP26.
Cami: Absolutely. There’s a lot to cover, so to simplify the chaos, I’ll break this thing down a little.
Casey: Okay MC Cam-mer, break it down for us. (Oh-oh-oh-oooowhoa-oh-oh-ooowhoa-oh-oh-oooowhoa-oh-oh!)
Cami: I’m gonna let that slide.
Jacob: Sliiiide to the left?
Cami: *ahem* Today we’ll talk about “negotiated elements” and “non-negotiated elements,” two kinds of progress that happen at a Conference of the Parties.
Casey: Could I negotiate an explanation of those two types of COP progress?
Cami: Yes. “Negotiated elements” are the commitments and rules that countries negotiate and then formally agree to, like the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and this year, the Glasgow Climate Pact.
Casey: Negotiations produce the official, formal agreements that lots of countries (hopefully) sign all together at the end of each COP.
Cami: That’s in contrast to the non-negotiated pledges outside the official agreements.
Casey: Instead of “non-negotiated”, could we call those the, “Hey, I’ve got an idea who’s into it?” elements? Longer, but…
Cami: No. No, we’re not gonna do that.
Casey: Alllllllrighty then, let’s do the non-negotiated stuff later. What sorts of formal, negotiated commitments and rules did we find at COP26?
Cami: Let’s focus on three negotiated elements at COP26 that are related to putting a price on carbon. They’re all ways for those emitting carbon either to pay to reduce emissions or to pay for the damage those emissions create.
Casey: Okay, what’s first of the three?
Cami: First, countries finalized the rules for a global carbon trading system, that’s Article 6, discussed last episode.
Casey: Article 6! Second?
Cami: Then there was a pledge from wealthy countries to fund climate action in vulnerable countries, to the tune of $100 billion dollars annually.
Casey: $100 billion for climate action, per year! Third?
Cami: Finally, there’s a proposal to compensate vulnerable countries for climate-related damages. This is called Loss & Damage finance.
Casey: Hang on, Cami, let me say that back to you: we’ve got the Article 6 global carbon trading system; wealth transfers to pay for climate action in low-income countries; and loss & damage finance. Since we covered Article 6 last episode, let’s just do a quick refresher on it.
Cami: OK, Article 6: the Paris Agreement established a mechanism that lets countries buy and sell emissions reductions to hit their emissions targets. It’s sort of like a carbon offset scheme, and sort of like a cap and trade system.
Casey: And because it’s a unique system, it took six years to lock in all the rules. The negotiators had to make sure no two countries took credit for the same emissions reductions, and there were disagreements about whether to carry an old trading system from the Kyoto Protocol into the new Paris system.
Cami: Compromises were made, and the rules are finally locked in. Some observers are happy that we can finally move forward with trading, but others are nervous that we over-compromised and risk doing more harm than good with the new system.
Casey: You know, as the Article 6 global carbon trading market gets going, I’m curious whether the system will prove too permissive, or whether it will turn out to have been wise to compromise in order to get it moving. Alright, with that Article 6 quick review done, let’s move on to the second negotiated element on your list: what happened with high-income countries funding climate action in lower-income countries?
Cami: Well Casey, this issue dates back to COP15 in Copenhagen, in 2009. Wealthy countries such as the US, Japan, New Zealand, etc, pledged to provide $100 billion dollars annually to climate vulnerable countries by 2020. This money is earmarked for climate action, a.k.a. Mitigation and adaptation.
Casey: Hang on, Cami: Terms check: mitigation means reducing emissions or removing carbon from the atmosphere, while adaptation means dealing with the effects of a changing climate, for example building seawalls in coastal areas.
Cami: Yep. This pledge to fund mitigation and adaptation is usually referred to as the “$100 billion dollar climate finance pledge.”
Casey: A pledge of “$100 Billion dollars to finance mitigation and adaptation…” So where exactly is this money coming from? Are wealthy countries just setting aside billions of dollars to transfer to vulnerable countries? Seems like that could be politically unpopular…
Cami: Good question. We call it the climate finance pledge because it refers to a mix of financial mechanisms… We’re talking about grants and loans that originate in wealthy countries. These grants and loans are usually provided by governments, but some of the money comes from Multilateral Development Banks, and even a small portion is private finance.
Casey: Hang on Cami, … I feel like I keep saying that… it’s like: *sung* Hang on, Cami!
High-income countries providing $100 billion dollars in grants and loans to vulnerable countries for climate action… That doesn’t look anything like the carbon pricing we’ve looked at in the past.
Cami: Well, I’d argue that it IS paying for the externalities of using fossil fuels, but it’s not carbon pricing, per se. There’s no price-per-ton of emissions, but there is a financial transfer. In this instance, the wealthy countries that made the pledge also happen to be the highest emitters… So in a sense, these wealthy countries are pledging to pay for the impacts of their high emissions.
Casey: I see -- the “impacts” being that vulnerable countries need to adapt to rising sea levels and intensifying weather and need to shift to cleaner energy sources to avoid making the problem worse. And wealthy countries are paying for these impacts. Just not on a per-ton basis. Instead, it’s various forms of climate finance, such as grants and loans.
Cami: Exactly. But keep in mind, grants and loans are very different ways of paying for the externalities of using fossil fuels.
Casey: Oh? How so?
Cami: Well with loans, lenders stand to make a profit. Sometimes, lenders provide concessional loans, which are loans given at below-market interest rates. In contrast, grants won’t be paid back at all.
Casey: I can see why we might call grants a way of paying for the externalities of greenhouse gas emissions. Traditional loans seem trickier, because the lender is making a profit. And then concessional, or low-interest, loans, are in the middle of the spectrum—a partial payment for externalities.
Cami: Right, I think you hit it on the head.
Casey: Alright so, why did the $100 billion dollar climate finance pledge make such a big stir at COP26? You said the pledge dates back to 2009, so why are we talking about it now?
Cami: Well, the pledge was to supply $100 billion dollars annually by 2020… but 2020 came and went, and the wealthy countries didn’t hit their goal. So the negotiation at COP26 was to decide: what are they gonna do about it? It was an opportunity to revise their target. They set a bold new goal, pledging to hit the $100 billion dollars annually …as soon as possible.
Casey: As soon as possible? What kind of goal is that? That’s like setting a goal to run my next 5k… just as fast as I possibly can. That’s not a goal; that’s a sentiment.
Cami: That’s the sort of language you find in a negotiated agreement, Casey -- vagueness, often. Remember, eeeverybody’s gotta agree, so you end up with these broad, sweeping statements. I mean, listen to this language from the Glasgow Climate Pact: “[Parties to the agreement] urge developed countries to fully deliver on the $100 billion dollar goal... urgently.”
Casey: *To the tune of Helplessly Hoping*
Urgently urging ourselves
To make good on our promise
To pay for what we’ve done…
And does the agreement say anything about making up the missing climate finance?
Cami: Not really -- the pact just acknowledges that wealthy countries expect to hit the goal by 2023. The pact also encourages countries to go above and beyond the $100 billion dollars. But it doesn’t propose any direct solutions to the shortfall.
Casey: Hm,… OK, well in that spirit, I want to offer the audience a compelling conclusion about the $100 billion climate finance pledge. I aim to deliver it in 2023.
Cami: Problem solved! Let’s go home.
*music*
Okay, you mentioned three negotiated elements we were going to cover… We’ve done Article 6 and the climate finance pledge. What’s the last piece you’ve got for us?
Cami: Loss & Damage finance.
Casey: You described this as a proposal to pay vulnerable countries for the damage climate change causes them. So it’s more climate finance, but a little different this time?
Cami: Exactly. To better understand Loss & Damage, we spoke to Arunima Sircar, a fellow YSE student who attended COP with me this year. She helped us get a better sense of what Loss & Damage really means:
Arunima: [9:35] “Things like loss of homes, loss of ecosystems, loss of culture & heritage as a result of forced migration because of climate change, that sort of thing. That's what loss and damage deals with.”
Casey: Loss & damage finance is to compensate for things such as buildings destroyed by wildfires or hurricanes, and it can even describe non-economic losses, like the social impacts of having to leave your community. That’s different from the need to adapt to climate change, doing the work to avoid those damages in the first place; for example, building hurricane-resistant homes.
Cami: Loss and damage finance pays for damage. Adaptation finance pays to prevent damage.
Casey: Right.
Cami: And within the loss & damage issue, there are two competing ideas: do we focus on paying for damages of the future, or damages from the past and present? The status quo at COP is to only discuss the future. But many impacts and damages have already occurred, and folks like Arunima would like to see those represented in the negotiations for new climate finance mechanisms:
Arunima: “I like to frame it in terms of the idea of compensation and climate reparations, which I think has a lot more equity and justice involved in it because it accounts for historical emissions, it accounts for the people who've been responsible for climate change so far to then take action… That is not at all what UNFCCC and COP deals with… But I think it's an important way to think about loss and damage.”
Casey: It seems like this would be an uncomfortable conversation, to say the least. Paying for past damages is like reparations, which, however right and just, make powerful people and organizations nervous.
Cami: Yeah, it can seem like a slippery slope with no clearly defined bottom.
Casey: Okay, so what sort of progress did negotiators make on Loss & Damage finance at COP26?
Cami: Unfortunately, not much. We spoke to Ineza Grace, the co-founder of the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition, who attended COP26 with the Rwandan delegation:
Ineza Grace: “My name is Ineza Grace, and I like to be called Ineza because it's a Rwandan name that means ‘kindness.’...I am a junior negotiator, so I’ve followed the climate change negotiations since 2018.”
Cami: Ineza Grace says she and her team arrived at COP26 with high hopes, but it didn’t take long for her to become disheartened by the process:
Ineza: “...After one week, my hope started to go down because I started to realize that some countries really don't want to see the truth in face. Because what vulnerable countries are putting forward as a priority for them to survive, (which is really backed up with data and everything), it's not something that developed countries are willing to accept.”
Cami: Ineza Grace said that the vulnerable countries expressed the need for financial support to address Loss and Damage:
Ineza: “All the vulnerable countries… They're the biggest part of the world, they wanted to have specific action, and then have a loss and damage facility on financing these impacts.”
Cami: A loss & damage “facility” would be a formal body in charge of transferring funds to the countries that have lost the most and experienced the most damage from fossil fuel emissions.
Ineza: “So it was very clear, very well articulated. But developed countries really did not listen. And it really shows you how much the power is imbalanced. Because only five countries from developed countries, they will be like, “no, we don't want it,” and automatically, all the other countries' voices come to zero… ”
Cami: In the end, negotiators only agreed to continue discussing the issue throughout the year. Even though vulnerable countries banded together, they couldn’t overcome opposition from the US and European Union.
Casey: I’m not surprised, but why did the US and EU governments oppose creating an organization to enable loss & damage payments?
Cami: Because, as major emitters, they fear that it might make them legally liable for their past emissions.
Casey: Aha. So it’s the climate “reparations” concern. This would open up governments and fossil fuel producers to legal action, I assume because it would recognize the damages past emissions caused, and it would create precedents that the entities that caused those damages should compensate the countries that were harmed. I’m guessing big financial and fossil fuel interests, and probably centrist and right-leaning political leaders in the US, would oppose that pretty strongly…
*music*
Cami: Ineza Grace’s story highlights one of the main reasons why COP negotiations move so slowly: A few high-emitting countries effectively have veto power in the negotiating room.
Casey: Hang on, Cami… You said earlier that these negotiated agreements had to be unanimous. Doesn’t that mean that all countries have veto power? Why do you say that only a few countries have it?
Cami: Because there’s an imbalance of power in the negotiating room.
Casey: How do you mean?
Cami: If a high-emitting party like the US or the European Union says they won’t uphold part of the agreement, that has a much bigger impact on global emissions than if, say, Rwanda, or Belize decided not to participate. They emit a tiny fraction of the greenhouse gasses the US and the European Union do.
Casey: Oh that’s a doozy. So since there’s always a risk that a high-emitting country will walk away from the agreement, negotiators are concerned with keeping them happy?
Cami: Yep
Casey: It’s like on the playground… One kid brought the soccer ball, so you gotta make sure they score some goals or else they’ll pack up, go home and take the ball with them.
Cami: Yeah you nailed it. And this imbalance of power can feel deeply unfair. We spoke to climate activist Patience Nabukalu who attended COP, and was disturbed by what she encountered:
Patience: [2:39] “I was really shocked. I'm like, really? How can someone who is not really affected, who doesn't know the pain, who is not experienced at all when it comes to the climate crisis… when they hold climate conferences, are the same people who make the decisions.”
Cami: And not to pile on here…but…OK, to pile on here: several major emitters don’t just hold back the ambition of COP agreements. Patience Nabukalu pointed out that some countries with the most negotiating power are still supporting major fossil fuel projects. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron has voiced support for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, a highly controversial pipeline that has raised environmental and human rights concerns:
Patience: That is the East African pipeline that is going to pass through Uganda, Tanzania and other African countries. This is a threat to our natural resources like Lake Victoria… A lot of people are going to be displaced…”
Casey: I can see why Patience Nabukalu is frustrated… The leader of a major EU member state favors a harmful new fossil fuel project in her home. And other countries with significant power in the negotiating room also support fossil fuel expansion. It’s perverse -- the more a country emits, the more power it has in the how-to-stop-emitting negotiating room.
*music*
Casey: So, while the negotiations are officially ruled by unanimous consent, it’s more like control is in the hands of a powerful minority. In a way that seems like it shouldn’t be allowed, the larger a country’s emissions, the more ability it has to shape the agreement.
Cami: Right.
Casey: It seems so patently wrong, and yet how could we create a more balanced power dynamic? The fact that some countries emit more greenhouse gasses than others gives them a kind of natural negotiating strength. In a way, it doesn’t matter how unfair it is. The agreement wouldn’t do much without major emitters, so we need them in, and that need gives them inherent power.
Cami: And this becomes a problem when low-emitting countries and high-emitting countries disagree about the urgency of the climate crisis.
Ineza: [7:49] “The concern I'm having is that, in the negotiations, people seem to think that we have time to address every issue, but for us who are living in the area where the climate change impacts is quite visible, we don't have the time.”
Cami: Ineza Grace says that many negotiators see climate change as a problem of the future, while others are facing its impacts today, and every day:
Ineza: [25:15] “Sometimes I think people forget that we do share one planet. They think maybe some impact would be happening in one part of the world… But then my message to them is like, dude, just remember, we are all part of one boat. There's no way one side's going to sink and another’s gonna float. If we sink, we sink together. If we’re going to survive, we’re going to survive together.”
Casey: While it’s true that the immediate impacts of climate change will not affect us all equally, none of us will avoid this crisis. Those demonstrators standing outside the entrance to COP, pleading through a bullhorn to every person who walks in…they appear more rational the more we learn.
*music*
Cami: We’ve heard about three negotiated elements at COP26 that relate to carbon pricing: We started with the Article 6 carbon trading system, finalized at COP26; We discussed the slow progress on the $100 billion climate finance pledge to support mitigation and adaptation in vulnerable countries; And we learned about disagreements around Loss & Damage finance, an effort to pay vulnerable countries for the damages they experience as a result of climate change.
Casey: And we discovered that there’s a clear imbalance of power in the negotiating room. As a result, the needs of the most vulnerable countries often are not being met in negotiated agreements. With the need to get every country on board, the negotiations have serious limits. Enter the non-negotiated elements, or as I like to think of them, the “We’re gonna make it up and just go for it” progress that happens at COP.
Cami: You are incorrigible.
Casey: Thank you. Countries are only one kind of actor in the climate story. And the negotiations are only one theater of action.
Cami: To understand the informal, or non-negotiated elements that come out of each COP, we talked with Jonathan Elkind, a senior research scholar at Columbia’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
Casey: In the early 90s, he helped negotiate the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on behalf of the United States.
Cami: Jon Elkind explained that in the Conference of the Parties process, not everything happens in a formal, negotiated manner. Sometimes progress bubbles up from elsewhere. And this was true at COP26 as well:
Jon: “…[Progress] also came in lots of the non-Paris agreement elements… that were brought to Glasgow in order to have proper focus.”
Cami: COP provides a platform to talk about critically important climate solutions. Often, COP is used to announce pledges that don’t fall into the negotiated agreement, but are still coordinated by countries and groups from around the world. At COP26, these informal agreements included things like:
Jon: [5:47] “the global methane pledge…”
Cami: A pledge, signed by more than 100 countries, to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels, by 2030.
Jon: “This is a first, and it’s a terribly important case of low-hanging fruit that needs lots of focus and lots of urgency.”
Cami: Reducing methane emissions will be critical in the effort to slow rising global temperatures… Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, and a lot of methane emissions around the world are relatively easy to prevent. To learn more, check out the Volts podcast where our frequent guest, David Roberts, talks about the importance of methane reduction with Yale alum Sarah Smith. You can find the link on our substack page.
Casey: Where else at COP26 was there progress on informal initiatives?
Jon: “The progress that was made in regard to coal is also super strategically significant. The Powering Past Coal Alliance got 28 new members at COP 26… the Global Energy Alliance is another step in the direction of moving us past coal.”
Cami: Okay Casey, it’s time to see if you were paying attention during your trip to Glasgow… pop quiz: What is the Powering Past Coal Alliance?
Casey: Oof, really putting me in the hot-seat Cami. Okay: *thinking hard* The Powering Past Coal Alliance is a group of governments, and I think businesses, and NGOs working to speed the transition away from coal. And as Jon Elkind mentioned, at COP26 a bunch of organizations joined. I think it’s got over 150 members now.
Cami: Ding ding! Nicely done Casey. Here’s another: What’s the Global Energy Alliance?
Casey: Okay this one I definitely know. It’s a new group that wants to raise billions of dollars to expand clean energy access around the world to displace coal and create good jobs.
Cami: Excellent Casey. 2-for-2.
Casey: *gaining momentum* There were more, you know. You wanna hear about more coal stuff? The Asian Development Bank is helping Indonesia and the Philippines close half their coal power plants within 15 years, and [Cami get ready to cut Casey off] a handful of countries made a deal with South Africa to provide $8.5 billion in grants and loans to help South Africa--
Cami: *cutting off Casey* Ooookay, we get it, you were definitely paying attention. But you’ve hit on something really important: Coal finally had its day at COP26. You mentioned lots of voluntary pledges to shift away from coal use, and coal even made its way into the negotiated agreement. Countries agreed to phase down their coal use in the Glasgow Climate Pact.
Not only is this the first time that countries have officially agreed to reduce any fossil fuel consumption, it’s actually the first time that a specific fossil fuel has been mentioned in a COP agreement.
Casey: What?! That seems crazy.
Cami: Uh-huh
Casey: Like, what have we been talking about this whole time?
Cami: Yeah, I know. Countries have agreed to reduce emissions in the past, but the actual phrase “fossil fuels” hasn’t made it in before. So at least now we know what we’re talking about. That’s progress made!
Casey: Wow. Feels like we should have made that progress a long time ago, but okay... The coal industry can no longer pump carbon into the atmosphere and tell us it’s the gaseous emanations of unicorns. That is progress made.
*music*
Casey: So, other than by delivering cold, hard realities like, CO2 comes from fossil fuels, there are two main ways a Conference of the Parties can deliver progress: binding agreements between the Parties officially in Conference—the formal, negotiated elements—and then everything outside the formal negotiations. While negotiated progress was slow, the world made headway at COP26 through these informal developments.
Cami: Yeah Casey, COP26 definitely generated progress. But it’s important to remember that that doesn’t necessarily make COP26 a success. Progress is good, but if it’s not at the scale of the problem, should we really be celebrating?
Casey: What about all the advancements Jon Elkind outlined? It sounded like COP26 was flush with pledges...
Cami: Well, even if all the pledges from COP26 are met, optimistic estimates from the International Energy Agency say we’d only hold global temperature rise to 1.8 degrees Celsius.
Casey: That’s way better than the 3 degrees predicted a few years ago. And it’s better than the 2.1 degrees the IEA predicted just months before COP26.
Cami: But we’re still not on track for our 1.5 degree Celsius goal. And we can’t forget that these pledges are voluntary… we’ll have to see if countries follow through. As we saw with the $100 billion climate finance pledge, promises have been broken in the past.
Casey: Cami, for the sake of argument, let’s say countries do live up to these pledges, and we hold global temperature rise to 1.8 degrees Celsius… Should we be satisfied with 1.8 degrees Celsius of global warming?
Cami: Definitely not.
Casey: You’re not going to equivocate even a little? Maybe ooooonne little party hat and a Kazoo?
Cami: Hah! No. There’s a reason we set a goal of 1.5C. Every fraction of a degree of warming we can avoid saves millions of lives. And 1.8C is an optimistic estimate. Depending on the model, the prediction swings from 1.8C all the way to 2.7C. Climate Action Tracker, a research organization that models the impact of climate policies and pledges around the world, estimates that we’re headed for 2.4C of warming now, which Patience Nabukalu says is unacceptable:
Patience: [13:26] “That 2.4 degrees target… it’s really really really heartbreaking, because it is a death sentence to countries like mine, to countries like Uganda. 1.2 is already a hell.”
Cami: Some sources say we’re already at 1.2C of warming, and for many areas of the world, that’s almost unlivable. It’s pretty clear that no matter the model you choose, we’ve got a lot of work to do.
Casey: Reflecting on all the challenges we looked at so far… The imbalance of power in the negotiating room, and the possibility that countries won’t follow through on their pledges… These challenges are rooted pretty deep in the COP process. We can’t force countries to do anything they don’t want to do, because they can always walk away from the agreement. And to keep the highest-emitting countries in, we have to keep them reasonably happy. With that in mind, Cami, and I hesitate to ask this, is the Conference of the Parties really the right tool for solving this crisis?
Cami: Well, like all tools, it can’t do everything. You can’t build a house with only a hammer. But also, we’ve been pretty hard on the COP process. It’s true that there are limitations to COP, but it’s also true that it drives progress. And there are other ways that COP contributes to the climate fight that we haven’t mentioned yet. I’ll pass it over to Jacob, who can share a few other things that COP does really well.
Jacob: Thanks Cami. The voluntary pledges and negotiated agreements at COP are crucial for global progress on climate change, and as a result they get a lot of attention. But there are subtle and important things that wouldn’t happen without COP. Let’s hear from graduate student Arunima Sircar again:
Arunima: [36:25] “...I've been really critical of COP and to some extent, I think that is rightly so, because there's a lot that can be improved. Having said that, there's a lot that COP does beyond just the negotiation… You have things like providing people with a platform to campaign and protest, and spread awareness…
Jacob: A lot of the progress we’ve made on climate, both in and outside of COP, is thanks to activists who call attention to the scale of the crisis throughout the year. And COP does a decent job providing them with a space to make their voices heard to the folks who only tune in once a year.
Patience: [3:05] “I was so happy that I was at COP as a member of Fridays for the Future. It gave me the opportunity to connect with very many activists around the world…”
Jacob: That’s activist Patience Nabukalu again. In Glasgow, there were tens of thousands of climate activists… COP presented a perfect opportunity for them to meet one another, share their stories and experiences, and build out their networks. Of course, if they could get there.
Casey: And that’s not the only kind of networking that happens at COP -- For example, we were able to find lots of guests for the show! I even got to chat with Kim Stanley Robinson in the Hard Rock Cafe.
Jacob: Right! It’s not just a space for heads of state and negotiators to talk about climate solutions…
Arunima: “It's a convening space for business leaders and state and local actors and mayors from all over the world to come together and exchange ideas.
At COP you also have things like “capacity building opportunities” where you're literally teaching delegations, parties and observers, actual skills and exchanging ideas of how to make tangible changes, what real on the ground projects they can start pursuing if they have the capacity, and then also ways to think of more finance.”
Jacob: COP sometimes serves as a classroom. The COP brings together experts from around the world who provide guidance about how to access climate finance, how to adapt to the effects of climate change, how to track and report carbon emissions, and how to participate in the carbon trading markets we looked at last episode. Some delegations have far fewer resources than others. COP provides an opportunity for vulnerable countries to overcome those resource and information barriers.
Let’s return to Jon Elkind, who sees this type of collaboration and cooperation as the fundamental role of COP:
Jon Elkind: [9:43] “The Paris Agreement, by design, is an exercise in the global community, all clapping arms around each other and saying, we're going to walk forward, and we are together going to deal with the climate crisis. …
There's a lot of lamenting, sometimes with very good reason, lamenting a tendency toward lowest common denominator, but a core feature of the Paris agreement is the idea of exhorting and enabling and helping each other to move as far forward as possible. And that's a really powerful force… And it operated in this time.
Casey: That captures it for me: the image of us all putting our arms around each other and saying we're going to walk forward together. Now, to fill out that analogy, imagine a big birthday party on the beach and we're all doing a three-legged race, except some kid tied all our legs together. Now a huge wave is coming at us. We're stuck together. Have to figure out how to walk together. And we start making progress up the beach, away from the wave. People keep tripping and holding everyone else back. But we keep at it. …Now, we're moving relative to the beach. But the wave is moving faster than we are. So the question is, are we making progress? Yes, relative to the beach, and no relative to the wave. It takes us back to Cami’s question of “progress” versus “success” -- we can see progress, without being completely successful. That's how I think of the COP process. Much to celebrate, and much to improve.
*music*
Casey: I have hope for the COP process. It’s definitely better to have it than not. It helps us clap arms around each other and move forward together. It serves as an annual deadline for commitments and a focal point for global attention and accountability on climate. And it helps those working hard on climate issues to learn, network, and build coalitions.
I’m a little stuck though. The biggest emitters still have outsized influence. The most vulnerable people are still struggling to be heard. We seem to be bending the curve in the right direction, but we’re still not on track to hit the 1.5 degrees Celsius goal. With all these climate-savvy people in one place… What can we do to make COP more effective?
Jacob: When we asked our guests how to improve COP, we heard two things: First, shift the balance of power in negotiating rooms in favor of the most vulnerable countries. Easier said than done, but Ineza Grace has some ideas for how to make it happen. Second, include under-represented communities better--that includes women, the LGBTQ+ community, young people, and non-english speakers. Now, Cami, for some people looking at this process, they might say, hey, I thought this was about how to decarbonize the global economy. Eliminating emissions in factories and transportation. Why are we now talking about shifting power in negotiating rooms and including more voices?
Cami: Well there are some fundamental limitations to the COP process, as we’ve seen. For example, power is concentrated in the countries that have the least incentive to solve the climate crisis. And even within wealthy countries, the most vulnerable people are those with the least power. When people with the most power speak for their country, they can be systematically blind to the deep, hard realities climate change is bringing to those with the least protection.
Casey: And vulnerable people are likely to have the highest ambitions for COP. They’re facing the highest stakes. Right now, the people with the most influence in the negotiating rooms don’t necessarily want the most ambitious solutions. Ineza Grace of the Youth Loss and Damage Coalition had ideas to address that. She told a story about how activists, in concert with philanthropic organizations, helped secure a small amount of progress on Loss & Damage:
Ineza: [15:43] “They managed to align the voices for all the civil society for many countries, I think it was 179 or something. And they got the philanthropies, like the big donors, if I could say, aligning themselves to say to the secretariat, ‘Hey, we heard that developing countries are demanding the loss and damage facility, we are ready to give, I think it's 3 million… to the secretariat, in case this facility’s established.’ So after having that open statement, it was really a major change in the negotiating room...
Now they're like, ‘We are going to discuss anything about the loss & damage facility or finance mechanism at the workshop in 2022.’ I think for me it was only possible because the outside pressure was aligned with the inside gap that was happening… If civil society comes as one voice, trust me, that will be a strong voice that a country cannot ignore.”
Casey: It was a domino effect… Activists made lots of noise about Loss & Damage… That got philanthropic organizations on board, who said we’re willing to put up money to support the vulnerable countries. And then vulnerable countries gained leverage in the negotiating room because they had big donors waiting in the wings. In the end, negotiators agreed to discuss the establishment of a loss & damage facility, an organization that enables the flow of money to places where loss & damage has occurred. It was a small victory, but it wouldn’t have been possible without that first, noisy domino.
Jacob: Ineza Grace also says we need to match the public pressure inside the negotiating rooms to the pressure outside. Activists, and civil society members are making public demands of the negotiators. Ineza now wants to see it inside the room too, so negotiators can’t simply tune it out from behind a closed door.
Casey: How do we increase pressure inside the room?
Jacob: Ineza Grace says negotiators from vulnerable countries need support in the form of data and media coverage they can bring with them to the negotiating room.
Ineza Grace: [12:01] “some people think we are exaggerating. They're like, “Ooh, that thing did not happen. You're just making it up.” Because we don't have strong media to cover everything or to do stories or blogs, everything….”
Casey: Ineza Grace is saying, the more evidence and media coverage negotiators have, the harder it is to dismiss their needs.
Jacob: Yeah, these negotiations are being made by real people in real rooms -- the stronger the evidence you bring to the table, the more difficult it is for your opponents to argue with a straight face. For example, the Foreign Minister of Tuvalu gave a video speech knee deep in water that had flooded the island. You can’t really claim that sea levels aren’t rising rapidly when you’re looking at a stark example like that.
*music*
Cami: Some of our guests emphasized that COP needs to be more inclusive of under-represented communities. Whoever holds the microphone can shape the conversation. There are four groups of under-represented voices that stood out to us -- the voices of women, LGBTQ+ people, youth, and non-english speakers.
Casey: As we think about the COP process, we’re building new understandings of the power and limitations of that process. Although COP has featured a Gender Day since 2012, the topic received a level of attention at Glasgow unlike it had before. Let’s explore why.
Anelise Zimmer, another graduate student at Yale, pointed out the gender imbalance at COP. According to the 2021 Gender Composition report, which analyzed UNFCCC meetings held between COP25 and COP26, women make up 50% of party delegates, but they’re only 40% of heads and deputy heads of delegations. And this imbalance extends into speaking time. Men spoke for 74% of the time during these meetings. We asked Anelise: why is this gender imbalance important?
Anelise: “Women are more vulnerable to climate change. Women and girls are more vulnerable to climate change because they have less access to a lot of traditional sources of wealth, and less access to education. So we need to have representation from those folks too.”
Cami: And I should add, plenty of women are experts on climate science and policy. We should be skeptical of a space that is supposed to represent the world’s population if mostly men are participating or speaking.
Arunima Sircar added that representation of LGBTQ+ individuals is important too:
Arunima: “One of the things that I heard was, within the Caribbean… LGBTQ plus people are far more likely to be homeless than people who don't identify with that community. When you are homeless, you are far more vulnerable and susceptible to feeling the impacts of climate change… There are so many different social groups that need to be accounted for as a product of their vulnerability… And therefore we need their representation at the forefront of something like COP.
Casey: At its heart, the intersection of climate and identity is about drawing on the expertise of people with many different lived experiences, and about learning from the most at-risk populations.
*music*
Jacob: When we spoke to Ineza Grace, she noted another group that needs better representation at COP. She said that young delegates and attendees are often included, but in a tokenizing way:
Ineza: “Sometimes youth are invited to attend simply to be on panels. ‘Come give a statement here. Talk with the press here… do marches here.’ Which is not bad, trust me. But I’m just trying to also highlight that there’s an opportunity to do more…”
Jacob: Ineza said we can learn from the example set by Rwanda:
Ineza Grace: [27:40] “…Youth from Rwanda, we are included in the climate action in a non-tokenistic manner. We are able to be part of our country delegation, to understand the policy behind, to fit into our country’s… policy design, even campaigning, even strategies.
…Even if we are a small country, [and] we don't have enough resources to mobilize critical action, but still we are trying to do our best in our value as Rwandan youth in our ability to engage. And we do what we can -- we can do research, we can participate in workshops, we can learn… ”
Casey: Young people have changed the conversation on climate. In just a few years, the attention they’ve trained on the issue has been remarkable. The Sunrise Movement and Greta Thunberg and her colleagues are leading the movement I wish I’d had the guts and wherewithal to lead when I was 16. The older I get, the more I think I’m just borrowing time on our kids’ planet.
Jacob: We need to recognize that the stakes are different for young people. The decisions we make today shape our future, so we should have a say in those decisions.
*music*
Casey: We’ve talked about representation of women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and young people. Jacob, what about the last group you mentioned -- non-english speakers?
Jacob: Anelise Zimmer pointed out that almost all of the events and negotiations are conducted in English, her native language, despite the many languages represented at the conference:
Anelise: [32:15] “...I didn't have to think twice about what I could and couldn't attend or the amount of detail that I would be able to pick up from a talk or who I would be able to network with or talk to. It is a huge question mark, as to why we continue to have everything in English when there are hundreds of languages represented by the people who attend the cop. Why not have negotiations done in multiple languages, at the very least of the official languages of the UN…”
Jacob: Ines Ayostina, another graduate student we spoke to, is originally from Indonesia. She shared her experience of COP26 with us:
Ines: [33:54] English is not my first language… I see like a lot of parties have pre-scripted matters that they want it to talk [about] in the negotiations. And when the other party is try to counter that, they could not counter that again, because they haven't prepared for it! Which is very inequitable…”
Casey: Right, the negotiations are already so challenging, given the imbalance of power we looked at today… Imagine how much more difficult it must be when you’re limited to your prepared notes.
*music*
Jacob: The last graduate student we spoke to, Luca Guadagno (gweuh-DAH-nyo), pointed out that we need to consider whose voices are at the table, because COP is about building a different, better world for the future:
Luca: [30:07] The thing that resonates with me is, when we think about COP and climate change there’s this need to restructure the way we do things on a global scale in order to ensure our survival. And whenever we're talking about these large changes, whoever's at the table has a bias to their own lived experience. And if we're excluding people, we're going to be leaving out like a huge swath of the population who have different lived experiences and need to be attended to differently when we do make a lot of these really necessary changes.”
Jacob: Our energy systems, our agricultural practices, our transportation methods, and so on… We’re going to alter millions of interlocking systems in the fight against climate change. We should aspire to make this transition in a just and equitable way.
Casey: So many challenges we saw from the current COP process are difficult to solve. We can’t magically give small island nations more geopolitical influence. We can’t force high emitters to abandon their fossil fuels with an agreement that’s built on voluntary pledges. However, on the issue of representation, there are concrete steps we can take to improve the COP process.
Jacob: Right. There are actions individual participants at COP can take. For example, declining to speak on panels that feature only men -- “manels,” as we like to call them. Or bringing more young people onto your team, and giving them real responsibilities.
Casey: And there may be institutional solutions as well: Should COP organizers provide more translation services? Should speaker events be held in other official UN languages, like Arabic or Spanish? Could UN researchers publish more data about representation at COP, to identify new areas for improvement?
We may not be able to put a hard cap on global emissions at COP. But if we amplify vulnerable voices, we may improve its outcome.
*long music*
Conclusion:
Casey: We have covered a lot today… We went on a tour of COP26, exploring the pavilion where businesses and companies put their climate solutions on display… We heard the activists chanting and singing…
Cami: We analyzed the power imbalance in the negotiating room, and we learned about pledges individual countries and companies are making to reduce methane emissions and shift away from coal power.
Jacob: We heard that the COP is a useful tool for global collaboration and networking… And how COP could be improved with more equitable representation and more support from civil society.
Casey: At the beginning of all this, we asked: Why do we keep doing this climate conference year after year? Is COP really capable of delivering the solutions we need to solve the climate crisis?
Jacob: Turns out that’s a pretty hard question to answer… On one hand, we’re still not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. We saw the main reason for this -- the COP process can’t force countries to do things they don’t want to do. Right now, when you tally up all the actions that countries want to take, we don’t hit our global warming goal. But on the other hand, we do get closer to that goal every time a country announces a new, more ambitious pledge. COP provides a space where countries are held to public account on those pledges. And it encourages us to work together and support one another in this effort.
Cami: Even if COP isn’t delivering all the solutions we need today, that’s not failure. It’s easy to forget that climate action is not all about COP. Grad student Luca Guadagno pointed out that, as big as COP feels, it’s only a piece of the puzzle:
Luca: [11:35] “It's hard to categorize this COP as a success given the scale of challenge it seems like we face… One quote that I heard at COP that really resonates with me was from one of the directors of forests from WWF… “We don't need one good COP, we need 10 good years.” That really resonated with me because the 10 good years framing encompasses more than just COP. COP can do a couple of things, but it can't do everything.”
Casey: Climate change is a massive challenge, and it is going to take work at every level to tackle this thing. We can’t rely entirely on the COP process, let alone one COP in one year, to solve the climate crisis. A lot can unfold in those two weeks, but more of the work to solve the climate crisis happens in the other 50.
Cami: This is a 24/7-365-days-a-year effort. At the end of COP, the attendees head home to implement their pledges, work on the policies under negotiation, and design new and better policies.
Jacob: Next episode, we’re going to head home as well, and see what year-round, local climate work looks like. We’ll explore some domestic carbon pricing policies that are in operation today, in the United States.
And if you like what you’re hearing, and you think more people should learn about the policy solutions to climate change, help spread the word about Pricing Nature by leaving us a rating and a review on Apple Podcasts. It really does help.
Casey: Thanks for joining us. This is Pricing Nature.
This episode was written by Jacob Miller, with help from Casey Pickett, Cami Ramey, Naomi Shimberg, and Maria Jiang. Sound engineering by Jacob Miller. Original music by Katie Sawicki. Thanks to all of our guests and to Maria Ivanova and Paul Simons for their guidance. You can find more about our guests’ work on our website, pricingnature.substack.com. Special thanks to the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, the Tobin Center for Economic Policy, and the Yale Center for Business and the Environment for their partnership, and to Ryan McEvoy, Stuart DeCew and Heather Fitzgerald for making this episode possible.