So I Went To The COP ... And Here Are My Top 10 Takeaways
Hi – Remember me?
It has been a long time since I have dropped a Blog Post on you. Life was eventful during the mid-part of 2022. Lots of projects popped up, both personal and professional, and I had a long distance move in the mix as well. But I am still here, and still thinking hard about energy and climate change and the intersection of the two. I think I still have some interesting things to say, but of course you will be the judge of that. (:
My “re-entry” Post is spurred by my attendance at COP27 in Egypt. As many of you know, I have been a COP-goer for a long, long time and so I have watched the COPs evolve, allowing me to offer some perspective that you may not get elsewhere. At the same time, my view of COPs has changed as they have changed, and I find myself in my Post below saying some things that I wouldn’t have said before.
Be aware that this is a long Post – almost double the length of the ones I normally write. But the format of this one makes it easy for you to digest. I present 10 takeaways, and you can read the ones that pique your interest. But I hope they all do that. (:
Or, if you want a quick audio version of my thoughts, watch me getting interviewed by an old friend and colleague who runs a brand new climate information center.
Consider me back in the saddle on Blog Posts and stay tuned for more coming soon.
Best,
Dan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blog Post: I Went to the COP...Here are my Top 10 Takeaways
So…I went to another COP.
Some of you may remember my post from just before COP26 in Glasgow which demonstrated how my cynicism about COPs had grown. Much of that remains, but I went to COP27 to help guide a relatively new international NGO, the Long Duration Energy Storage Council (LDES), in further introducing itself to the climate community. That turned out to be a great reason to go the COP, as it played into what the COP has become as I explain below.
Some of my 10 Takeways are long, while some are short. Hopefully the headings will give you a clue as to which ones you want to read. But then of course you could easily read them all. (:
Here they are:
10. The “Other” COP is here to stay
As I explained last year, the COP has become more than just the “Conference of the Parties”. The COP is first and foremost the process of the UN by which it brings nations together to work on climate change policy and programs. It has been going on for almost 30 years (hence COP27). In 2015, the work over the years culminated in the Paris Accord. Now the COPs are supposed to be about implementing Paris.
When I first started going to COPs, it was all about the negotiations among the governments, (i.e. parties - which the P in COP stands for). We went to a COP to be a resource to the negotiators. Mostly we were doing that for the delegates from our own country but sometimes we worked with other countries as well. The only presentations of non-UN content came during the official UN “Side Events”, for which countries and NGOs competed to win one of the coveted session slots handed out.
But around the time of the Paris COP, another COP began to rise alongside the one involving the negotiators. This “EXPO” COP has continued to grow and once again, in Sharm El-Shiekh, there were major Halls filled with large, sophisticated Pavilions, most of which had their own small theaters or presentation spaces. None of the Pavilions are commercial, so I am using EXPO to convey the proper image. The Pavilions are sponsored by individual countries or NGOs (some of which are business NGOs). Each year I explain this to people who are going for the first time and inevitably they are still surprised at what they see.
The amount of content delivered by these Pavilions is enormous over the two weeks of COP. Each one runs a program that usually starts at 9 a.m. and concludes anywhere at anywhere from 5 to 9 p.m. I swear that at some points during the day, there are 50 panelists somewhere in the COP venue speaking at the very same time. But, as I explain below, there are also activities going on outside the COP venue.
This EXPO COP has overtaken the basic COP to the point that it has become the prime feature of a COP. I suspect that most of the 30,000+ people who were on the grounds of the COP didn’t event talk to a negotiator. They attended an EXPO.
I have been critical of this in the past. This year, I took it for what it is – a tremendous opportunity to talk and listen to people from all over the world who care about climate change. It is a chance to sit in on sessions to learn more about any climate-related issue or topic you can think of.
In this sense, this Other COP has become the premier gathering of the “Climate Community”, where policymakers, stakeholders, NGOs, and companies (both start-up and large corporate ones) gather in one place. It is hard to see that going away. But it does present challenges, as I discuss later on.
9. The Near-COPs and the Corporate Presence is Also Here to Stay
When I discussed above what I call the EXPO COP, I was talking about the actual COP Venue, which in UN terminology is called the Blue Zone. But with each year there are more and more events, conferences, receptions, etc. that are held elsewhere in the COP city. These "Near-COP" events offer up even more content, and chances for networking. Given the challenges of getting a UN Badge to enter the Blue Zone, these Non-COP events offer another option for members of the climate community who want to gather in proximity to the actual COP. For example, there are entirely separate events sponsored by the NYT and Bloomberg, respectively, and also a separate event called the World Climate Summit.
These Near-COP events certainly helped increase the corporate presence at the COP, but that increase was not just via these outside events. It was evident in the Blue Zone as well. This is not necessarily a bad thing, though. We all have to realize that corporate emitters (via Scopes 1, 2 and/or 3) are the root of the total emissions problems and therefor have to be part of the solution. Thus, they deserve a place at the EXPO COP – although it would be good if there was a way to tone down the greenwashing, of which there was an expected abundance of (and not only from the private sector but from some of the countries themselves). Corporate influence on the negotiators is and should be a bigger concern. But if the UN COP process is never going to have the teeth (and timetable) to adequately tackle climate change, then should that perhaps not be such a concern? I discuss this further later on.
8. The UN needs to take Conference Planning 101
I am certain that the UN did not anticipate in 1995 that it would one day be trying to plan and manage an event that drew over 30,000 attendees. But that is where it finds itself. And COP27 was a mess in terms of any of the basics of event planning and management. In the early days after the Blue Zone opened, there was essentially no food or water other than the painfully few “grab and go” food stalls with their intimidating lines. Signage was non-existent; same for adequate bathrooms. Logistics were a big challenge, and a distraction from the main activity. The UN must realize and accept that it is in the business of putting on a major conference each year.
7. Indigenous Stakeholders are Showing Up
At past COPs, there have been a few attendees from Amazonia who stood out because of their traditional dress. This year, the number of “indigenous” stakeholders – from the Amazon as well as elsewhere – ramped up considerably. This is a good development and may have had some impact on the issue of loss and damages. It also for me helped to make up for the lack of protesters (see #6 below). What I didn’t like seeing was the many COP attendees taking selfies with these indigenous attendees undoubtedly so that they could show off to their friends and colleagues. It looked disrespectful to me and is just plain not right.
6. There Were Essentially no Protests – and it Made a Difference
At past COPs, all of us going to the Blue Zone had to pass through or by protests, some of them large. Many were youth oriented, but not all. Egypt, which controlled what happened outside of the UN Zone at COP27 allowed no protests.
The lack of demonstrations is a negative mark on COP27. It is necessary to hear all voices at a COP. But those protests also served another purpose. They grounded us in the fact we are in a serious situation when it comes to climate change. The presence of protesters, and especially youth protesters, always helped remind me and hopefully other attendees of why we were there. Its absence was detrimental to COP27 in that it wasn’t there to balance out the EXPO part of it.
Next year, COP28 is in the United Arab Emirates where I am told even stricter rules against any kind of protest exist. The UN should really incorporate a “Protest Zone” adjacent to the Blue Zone but controlled by the UN where those who want to express their views but lack a UN Badge can assemble.
5. The Announcement on “Loss and Damages” was a Pleasant Surprise - But Won't make a Difference
You probably heard or read about this issue in the run-up to COP27 and during it. It refers to a means of recognizing that nearly all the emissions in the atmosphere have come from the industrialized growth of nations that are now referred to as the “developed” world, while the developing world is poised to incur the impact of the warming those emissions have caused. Loss and Damage is the political term that has begun to be used instead of “reparations”.
The case for loss and damages is a strong one. The data on who created the emissions versus who will suffer most because of their impact is quite straightforward.
But I still did not expect any kind of agreement to be reached. I am still wondering if the negotiators realized as COP27 grew to a close that they had not really produced any kind of major agreement on anything so that they had better at least say something on this one.
But ...
Announcements are easy and the one on “Loss and Damages” will likely not actually do what it sounds like it will.
At COP15 in Paris, there was an agreement among the Parties that a fund would be created that would provide $100 Billion (US) a year to developing countries to be used for climate adaption (separate issue from reparations). The announcement was a big one, but as with many announcements, it has not been followed by action to back it up. Countries are not anteing up as they promised. The same could very well happen with this new Loss and Damage announcement coming out of Sharm el-Sheikh.
4. China is still considered a “Developing Nation”?
I am betting that very few of you reading this knew that the UN still considers China to be a developing nation. That designation was given when the COPs began – almost 30 years ago, when I will assume there was an argument then that could be made for it. But today China’s economy and its associated emissions can hardly be characterized as being in the same category as Namibia (for example).
In the case of the “Loss and Damage” debate at COP27, whether China should be a country that donates to the Loss and Damage fund was a hot one. In the end, China won as I understand it.
3. All I Heard Were Weak Verbs
One of my biggest gripes at the COP (and pretty much anywhere else that climate is discussed these days) is the choice of verbs by speakers. I am really tired of hearing phrases with modal verbs like “we must” and “we have to” and “we should” when they are coupled with a generic phrase like “reduce emissions”.
The Expo part of the COP has become a breeding ground for this kind of talk.
We don’t have time to continue using the cheap and easy verbs. We don’t have time to continue to talk in abstract terms about what has to be done.
We are at the point where the only verb that means anything in a climate sentence or statement is “We will”. Even better I suppose would be “We did”.
2. What About the Emissions?
There is an important UN term that I didn’t hear enough of at COP27 – Stocktaking. That refers to having countries report on the emissions reductions they pledged in Paris to make (known as the Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs).
It is important to remember that these NDCs were numbers put forth by each country for itself. Yet these NDCs were in many cases not enough even if they were met to allow global temperatures to stay below 1.5 degrees C.
But the NDCs are not being met. No country is on track to meet the NDC it agreed to in Paris. Countries were supposed to increase their NDCs at certain COPs in the years following Paris. But they aren’t doing it. Yes, some countries did at COP26 in Glasgow, but as one UN official was quoted then “the amount of increase in NDCs so far is akin to an elephant giving birth to a mouse”
So where is the big emissions announcement out of COP27? Did I miss it?
1. The UN COP Process Will Not Save Us
The COP process is taking a long, long time. Over the many years that COPs have been held, emissions have increased significantly, and the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have skyrocketed.
Let’s face it, the UN does not have the ability to act on climate change on a timetable that will meet the temperature limits it talks about (e.g. 1.5 or 2.0 degrees C). When I chatted at COP27 with other COP veterans like me, we didn’t mince words. We agreed we have already lost in the battle to keep below 1.5. Yes, we could do it, which is the way that you will hear it from folks like John Kerry and other climate leaders when they make public statements. But we won’t do it if we look to the COP process as the way it will happen. It is too late for that.
We can’t keep looking to the UN. We will need the major nations to work together via bilateral or multilateral agreements. It may be that the G-7 and G-20 become the real vehicles for meeting the challenge of climate change. We need to look from a national standpoint at the competitive advantage that those who step up on climate will have – instead of worrying about being harmed if we step up. We need the same from subnational governments (e.g. states and cities) who have more flexibility and more tools for reducing emissions than exist at the federal level. We will need corporations to move beyond talking about what they will do in the future and start reporting on the results of what they just did.
I plan to continue to go to COPs, and help others go, but I will go because I want to gather with my fellow members of the climate community. Being with each other is important. But I will go with my eyes open as to what the COP has become, and how it can be used as a passenger vehicle for bringing people together to learn from each other and make progress on climate action. I won't look at it being a delivery van that drops off a climate solution at our doors.
Best,
Dan
Links to Past Posts:
Efficiency & Clean Energy - More vs. Faster
