Act NOW with the LONG view in mind.

Posted on December 12, 2018 by christashute

Every report and every session at COP24 has emphasized that we need to do more – faster – sooner – NOW. There is also a real emphasis on the importance of long term planning – of looking to at least 2050. Long term planning matters in climate change policy for three primary reasons.

First, a long-term strategy can inform short-term actions. For example, if a developing country understands and incorporates into its strategy electrification for its rural residents through renewables, then it can effectively bypass investment in fossil fuel infrastructure. Developing countries still need to grow to meet the needs of their residents – but the paradigm shift must move from expanding to grow to intensifying to grow. Long-term investments in energy and water infrastructure must be done with this long-term strategy. But the developed world needs to assist the developing world in identifying what the future looks like so they can leap frog.

Second, a long-term strategy can help bring people together around a common vision because it goes beyond the immediate economic consequence to sectors or individuals. There are tradeoffs, people and industries that are impacted by the transition we must make. The more time we have, the easier it is to forge consensus about how we get there and do so justly and equitably. People may disagree on tomorrow – but it is easier to agree in the long term. Long-term visions can also provide certainty for the private sector accelerating investment.

Third, building off the previous two, is the ability to create the more ambitious trajectory we need to save our planet. To be ambitious we must build the political support from the ground up. To be ambitious we must provide enough certainty to motivate investors to invest in the development of new technology and the projects that will build our future. To be ambitious we must not only understand where we need to go, but develop the strategies on how to get there.

For more information on long-term strategy, go to the World Resources Institute website for a collection of expert perspectives, case studies, and working papers.

Local climate data at your finger tips

Posted on October 21, 2018 by tbach

The scientists at Climate Analytics – the ones that gave us the invaluable Climate Action Tracker (CAT) – have done it again.

They have taken the global research and stats featured in the IPCC’s reports and scaled them down to more locally understandable and useful info. Thus far they have developed four online tools that allow you to learn how:

the warming climate will affect staple crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa,
the projections of local sea level rise for different warming levels,
climate projections will affect extreme weather conditions at the African national and provincial levels, and
to attribute global warming increases.

Bookmark this site, for Climate Analytics is due to publish more tools in the next few months.

RE100 Businesses Pave the Way for Transitioning to Renewable Energy

Posted on October 5, 2018 by charliekuo

Ambition, pace, scale—these are the themes in shifting to an economy recognizing climate change. Companies pioneering this economic shift incorporated climate change as an significant factor in conducting business.

One of the leading organizations spearheading this movement is RE100. RE100 is a collaborative movement uniting over 150 well recognized companies across the world to commit to using 100% renewable energy. What is even more impressive is that these companies have acted on their own in addressing climate change, ahead of government direction. Remarkably, these corporations were able to shift to 100% renewable electricity, which garnered a competitive advantage enabling them to financially outpace their competitors.

A study by RE100 and Capgemini compared RE100 companies to non-RE100 companies by sector. It concluded that RE100 companies earn an average profit of 7.7% more than their competitors. Admittedly, the report’s analysis in no way suggests that switching to 100% renewable electricity is the sole cause of the profit difference. However, it is compelling that all RE100 companies have consistently outperformed the competition in their respective industries. Thus, it would suggest a strong correlation between switching to renewable electricity and above-average financial performance.

The switch to renewable electricity is done using multiple mechanisms simultaneously. Companies utilize a combination of energy power purchase agreements (PPA) and self-generated renewable electricity technology. Moreover, RE100 companies have developed new management structures, such as silo model, centralized model, and global model, to coordinate renewable electricity sourcing and efficient use infrastructure. The benefits of transitioning are significant.

For example, General Motors harnessed renewable energy sources from landfill gas, solar arrays, and wind farms. This combination has lowered operation costs by $80 million. The cost savings result largely from improved, cost-effective renewable technologies and government incentives. Landfill gas allows companies to lock into long-term prices that are cheaper and more stable than fluctuating natural gas prices. GM strategically built their own solar arrays and benefited from government feed-in-tariff programs. Finally, GM built wind projects in Mexico and Texas that generate over 34 MW, enough to power five manufacturing facilities.

Anheuser-Busch, another RE100 company, has procured PPAs for onshore wind projects to offset its dependence on traditional energy sources. Anheuser-Busch is in line to become the largest purchaser of renewable electricity and one of the forerunners in advertising renewable energy. The beer manufacturer uses its brand influence in its renewable electricity symbol campaign, where every pack of Budweiser will carry the symbol to celebrate its commitment to brew with 100% renewable energy.

The trend toward renewable energy is now gaining traction, and signals a tipping point to mass renewable. Since RE100’s inception, companies partnered through renewable energy purchase agreements have created 100% renewable energy demand of more than 184.6 TWh—enough energy to power Poland. Moreover, RE100 company surveys yielded that renewable energy costs have reduced significantly where it has been cost competitive against fossil fuels. Therefore the RE100 momentum would suggest that this trend is welcomed with open arms and significantly contributing to how other companies shape their tactics to address climate change.

Teachers Without Borders

Posted on November 6, 2017 by simonne

In the context of climate change, capacity building focuses upon developing the infrastructure, response and communication mechanisms, access to finance, climate awareness, and human capital of developing countries. This in turn enables the countries to meet carbon emission goals and develop sustainably. Developing countries face significant capacity challenges, which frustrate their ability to carry out their commitments under interactional climate change agreements. These issues stem from a lack of public awareness, shortage of experts and research institutions, insufficient international, aid and domestic political instability.

The COP 23 capacity building session entitled “Balancing Inte rnational Standards & National C ontext” further delved into this issue. Speaker John O Niles, representing the Carbon Institute, identified the need of a stable workforce that can measure, report and verify obligations under international agreements as invaluable elements of effective capacity building. For instance, the Paris Agreement requires “soft” pledges of domestic commitments to take inventories of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), submit national communications, make pledges, and then implement those pledges over time. This essentially requires capacity in the form of a “GHG accountant” at each step of the process to be making assessments and informing policy decisions. Without an active educated workforce, this process falls apart.

Ideal capacity building allows for sustained and transformative development of domestic infrastructure. In other words, ideal projects would lead to the creation of an educated workforce well-equipped and funded to address international climate change obligations. Traditionally, capacity building has taken the form of monetary investment paired with training by experts. These are usually conducted via bilateral and multilateral efforts. This often involves a developing country investing money in consultancy companies which provide training workshops. These short-term assistance projects can be unresponsive or unadaptable to the local customs, political climate, and economic markets. In addition, many are considered high risk investments that deter possible foreign investors. Thus, capacity building has met with many challenges to effective implementation. However, new strategies to implementing capacity building have been gaining traction.

One such expanding category of capacity building that has met with increased success is the trans-border partnership of academic institutions. These allow for sustained negotiations and trainings between developed institutions and developing countries. For instance, Emory University initiated the Global Climate Initiative by partnering with Nanjing University. This relationship provides mutually beneficial collaboration on climate change issues and trains a new generation of internationally-aware students. Additionally, the Norad Program allows for training of faculty and universities. Norad connects higher education institutions within Ethiopia, Malawi, and Norway. This program develops an educated faculty, improves regional collaboration, and enhances outreach to local communities by their home institutions. These partnerships between academia and developing governments is beneficial because it allows national governments and their respective universities to build a qualified workforce.

New U.S. public opinion data on climate change contradicts Trump Administration policies

Posted on March 22, 2017 by tbach

At the same time that the Trump Administration is moving to rescind the Clean Power Plan and other EPA rules on climate change, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication reports that 7 out of 10 Americans support limits on CO2 emissions by coal-fired power plants. Huh?

Bob Inglis, a former Republican congressman from South Carolina, sums up the political calculus: focused activists, like those in the Tea Party, can shape a politician’s approach because “those are the ones who can take you out at the next primary.” Mr. Inglis should know. He lost a 2010 primary election to Trey Gowdy, a Tea Party candidate who challenged his views on climate change.

Another polling mismatch reported by the Yale Program researchers is in perceiving personal risks from climate change. Most people polled believe that climate change is already harming people in the United States and will harm people in developing countries and in future generations. Yet only a fraction of the polled public – 40% – thinks that it will harm them personally. This huh? moment is chalked up to the human brain’s inability to perceive and be alarmed by slow-onset threats like sea-level rise and moving disease vectors caused by the gradual warming of the atmosphere.

The climate change perception deception can also be seen geographically. Poll data from Texas and Florida displayed on maps in the New York Times illustrate this point well. The climate change impacts felt in Florida include salt-water intrusion into drinking water sources and sunny day flooding. In Texas, they include droughts in the west and hurricane damage on the state’s eastern Gulf Coast. Unsurprisingly, the more affected areas are populated by people who are more worried about climate change. Even though these threats can sneak up on us and varying degrees of scientific uncertainty can make us question the link between our greenhouse-gas emitting behaviors and global warming events, once they/we do, we begin to see climate change as a threat requiring action.

Which brings us back to the Trump Administration’s proposed policies and Mr. Inglis’ observation about how like-minded voters can affect members of Congress. In addition to the support noted for placing limits on power plant emissions, the majority of those polled also favor government funding for renewable energy research (82%), regulating CO2 as a pollutant (75%), and requiring that renewables produce 20% of electricity (66%). Yet these policy actions are exactly the sort opposed by the White House. Could focused voters “take out” senators and representatives up for reelection in 2018 who side with the Trump Administration?

Is Time Running Out?

Posted on November 16, 2016 by jenny

COP 22 hourglass display representing the limited time left to avoid irreversible climate change before the year 2100.

Referencing the response to climate change at today’s COP 22, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry presented the issue in terms of time. He stated, “The question is not whether we will transition to a clean energy economy. The question is whether we will have the will power to make the transition in time. Time is not on our side.” He was speaking to a group in Marrakech, but his question was really to the world.

Secretary of State John Kerry in Marrakech, Morocco for the COP 22 Climate negotiations.

Sec. Kerry confirmed that the global community is more united than ever and taking real action this year, as evidenced in such historic global agreements as the Paris Agreement, the ICAO Agreement and the Kigali Agreement. Sec. Kerry reassured his listeners that despite the uncertainty that is coming from recent election results, climate change is not a partisan issue. The majority of Americans, scientists, military leaders, intelligence community, state and city leaders, business leaders, advocacy groups and community organizers are committed to fighting against the problems that contribute to climate change. The Secretary emphasized that although he would not speculate on the incoming administration’s policies regarding the Paris Agreement, he took heart because “issues look very different on the campaign trail than when you are actually in office.” In fact, the U.S. is on its way to meet its Paris Agreement goals based on market forces and state regulations already in place. Investing in clean energy makes good market sense because as the Secretary said, “you can do good and do well at the same time.”

It’s a Small (Virtual) World: Using VR as a Knowledge Sharing Tool

Posted on November 9, 2016 by Amy Pickering

Source: Stanford Virtual Human Interaction Lab

Yesterday, during the Informal Consultation on the Nairobi work programme (NWP) the Secretariat provided an update of progress made since SBSTA 44 back in May. In the report, the Secretariat highlighted the success of social media efforts to-date, which included a video interview series designed to raise awareness on the importance of working with vulnerable communities. What if instead of viewing the interviews on Youtube viewers could virtually experience the experts as if they were in the same room? Or better yet, what if the interviews took the viewer to communities most affected by climate change?

The idea is not that far away. As technology continues to advance, so do our platforms for information sharing. It is likely that virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) will soon become as commonplace as Facebook and Twitter. Who hasn’t heard of Pokemon Go? Virtual reality provides people the opportunity to experience the first-hand effects of climate change. For instance, Party delegates from Canada could experience the aftermath of a typhoon in the Philippines or drought in Sri Lanka. The tool could be an incredibly effective way to both humanize climate experiences and expose people to on-the-ground implementation of new adaptation actions.

Developers are already creating these experiences. Researchers at Stanford recently created a virtual ocean acidification experience. Likewise, David Attenborough has a coral reef VR experience. Not to mention, there are a number of COP 22 exhibits promoting VR technology as a tool for climate change. In an effort to increase awareness and share knowledge, it is not unreasonable to imagine the NWP adding VR and AR to its modalities of communication. Perhaps allowing people step into someone’s world can provide just enough empathy and awareness to generate more effective adaptation actions.

The Paris Agreement’s Debut: Priorities at CMA1

Posted on October 17, 2016 by jenny

On October 5, 2016, the Paris Agreement passed the threshold required to go into force on November 4, 2016. Over 55 Parties to the Convention have submitted their instruments of ratification, accounting for over 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the first session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA1) will occur in Marrakech in conjunction with COP22/CMP12. What will be the priority at CMA1? Currently, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) website lists no CMA1 agenda documents. However, the Secretariat’s Progress Tracker of relevant requests from the Paris Agreement and Decision 1/CP.21 provides a good predictor of CMA1’s focus.

The Progress Tracker indicates renewed discussion of Article 6’s market-based mechanisms at CMA1, as Paris Agreement Parties redouble their efforts to establish the system to achieve their pledged contributions. Article 6 provides the starting point for market-based mechanisms. Interestingly, nowhere does Article 6’s language actually use the term market-based mechanisms. Instead, Article 6.1 refers to “voluntary cooperation” when implementing NDCs with Article 6.2’s “internationally transferred mitigation outcomes” [ITMOs] and “robust accounting.” Roughly translated, Article 6’s voluntary cooperation works through a carbon trading, market-based mechanism, using ITMOs.

Recent meetings of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific Technology and Advice (SBSTA44) also point to Article 6 priorities during CMA1. At the May 2016 SBSTA44 meeting, Parties emphasized the Paris Agreement’s changed context, in that all Parties have NDCs. Now, with most Parties planning to consider some form of market mechanism to reach their mitigation pledges, they remain divided on how best to proceed. For example, Parties maintain varying views about whether Article 6’s scope should include REDD+. Given these unresolved concerns, SBSTA44 agreed to continue Article 6 work in Marrakech and invited submissions on the Parties’ varying Article 6 views for discussion at SBSTA45.

Accordingly, over a hundred countries submitted their Article 6 statements, fueling continued Article 6 debate during CMA1. Some countries’ submissions came as part of a broad range of major negotiation groups; submissions from the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), Forestry Commission of Central Africa (COMIFAC), Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Environmental Integrity Group (EIG), European Union (EU), and Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) addressed an equally broad range of priorities. Prevalent themes involved differences between developed and developing countries’ priorities, concerns regarding transparency in accounting, and the need for clarity in Decision 1/CP.21 § 36 language addressing emissions “corresponding adjustments.”

Additionally, multiple side events scheduled during the Marrakech meeting demonstrate strong support from civil society and the research community for Parties to clarify and implement Article 6. Organizations like the Green Climate Fund, Institute for Environmental Global Strategies, International Carbon Action Partnership and country representatives from around the world will present at these sessions.

Based on the Progress Tracker, SB44 discussions and submissions, and side event interest, Article 6 issues will not only appear on the SBSTA45 agenda. They will also likely play a major role at the inaugural CMA1 meeting, as the Paris Agreement enters into force on the world stage.

EU Environment Ministers fast-track ratification of the Paris Agreement

Posted on October 1, 2016 by Roxana-Andreea Mastor

Commissioner Cañete and Slovak minister Solymos spoke of the EU ratification decision historic moment (Photo: Council of the European Union)

Commissioner Cañete and Slovak minister Solymos spoke of the EU ratification decision (Photo: Council of the European Union)

The EU Environment Ministers voted on Friday at the extraordinary meeting of the Environment Council a historic decision to ratify the Paris Agreement. The decision proposal was adopted in June by the European Commission, thus starting the ratification process of the Paris Agreement on behalf of the EU, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, articles 192(1) together with article 218(6). The decision, as adopted on Friday, now awaits action by the European Parliament, which must formally consent to the Council’s decision followed by the formal ratification by the Council, before the EU may submit its instrument of ratification with the UN: “It can be done very quickly, in one day,” Cañete said, pointing to 5^th of October as a potential deadline. The EU represents just over 12 per cent of emissions and is considered to be the key to the entry into force of the Paris Agreement before the October 7 deadline, which is the last date when the parties can timely ratify the agreement for entry into force before COP 22.

This vote is a rare and creative political move, as it will allow the EU to ratify the Paris Agreement en bloc before each of the 28 member states ratify it nationally. According to Cañete, this decision will not create a precedent, as it “does not preempt or prejudge the decision by national parliaments.” This is possible because the Paris Agreement creates obligations for the EU and for the individual member states, thus it has to be ratified by both the EU and all 28 member states. So far, only seven EU states have individually ratified the Paris Agreement, namely Germany, France, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, Malta, and Portugal, with the UK promising to ratify by the end of this year. If the rest of the member states do not follow through with the ratification of the Paris Agreement, the states that have ratified it may be stuck with fulfilling the EU’s overall promised emission reduction goal. But Cañete believes that this is “a scenario I do not think is possible”. Still, when the EU presented its plan to cut emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, Poland objected to it, in an effort to protect its coal industry. Before Friday’s decision, Poland sought to secure its coal-fired economy by demanding an effective veto over future climate decisions. Nevertheless, the EU environment ministers found a way to get Poland on board.

The Council’s decision reflects both pride and climate leadership. The EU is regarded as a leader in developing clean energy technologies, but today countries like China are gaining momentum. The EU has to step up to the plate and be an example of unity, solidarity and global climate leadership for the entire world by demonstrating its commitment to the implementation and enforcement of the Paris Agreement. By ratifying the Paris Agreement, the EU has a place at the table “when the parties will start meeting to design the rules of how the Paris agreement will be implemented” said Jonathan Goventa, London director of E3G, a European climate and energy think tank. According to Cañete:“Today’s agreement shows unity and solidarity as Member States take a European approach, just as we did in Paris. This is what Europe is all about. In difficult times, we get our act together, and we make the difference. (..) Ratification is a crucial step towards implementing the Paris Agreement. But let’s be clear, ratification is not the end goal. It’s only the first step.”

Fair and balanced?

Posted on April 28, 2016 by tbach

A recent study concludes that CNN viewers see more fossil fuel ads than reporting on climate change.

Oil industry advertisements outstripped climate-related coverage by almost 5 to 1 in periods following major climate announcements, according to Media Matters. For example, after reporting that 2015 was the hottest year on record and that February 2016 was the most abnormally hot month on record, CNN ran 5 minutes of climate news coverage, compared to 23.5 minutes of fossil fuel ads. “That disparity does not even account for dozens of Koch Industries ads that also ran on CNN, which were not energy-focused but did serve to boost the image of the oil billionaire Koch brothers’ primary corporation,” wrote researcher Kevin Kalhoefer. This is one concrete example of the broader trend of Big Oil’s anti-climate policy influence we wrote about here a few weeks ago.

And where is the study on Fox “News”?

Nations in ‘Glass Houses’: The Rules of Transparency

Posted on December 14, 2015 by linda

While not as publicly flashy as the issue of ambition, transparency received a good deal of attention during the negotiations that brought us to the Final Agreement in Paris on Saturday. Parties had to come to a consensus about how exposed their internal policies and actions would be to scrutiny. This is a key point, each Party is a sovereign nation yet they are subjected to evaluation by an outside group. The Transparency framework therefore must be implemented in “a facilitative, non-intrusive, and non-punitive manner respectful of national sovereignty.” (Art. 13.1) Essentially, they have moved into “glass houses”. Equality in Transparency requirements attempts to prevent stone throwing.

Why is transparency so important? Parties need to be able to see what each other is doing in order to build confidence and trust in the system (Art. 13.1). The framework for Transparency is constructed around both actions and support, therefore affecting all other sections of the Final Agreement. Transparency requirements apply to Parties’ mitigation efforts, adaptation projects and policies, technology transfers, capacity-building, and financial support. Parties are more likely to act in furthering their efforts in mitigation and implementing their NDC plans if they can clearly see that others are doing so as well. Further, developed country Parties, other Parties in a position to do so, and private investors are more likely to provide resources to the developing countries Parties if they can account for the monetary flows and technology transfer.

Of course, the cross-cutting issue of differentiation plays a large role in Transparency as well. During the negotiations, recognition that some Parties would have different capacities to assess and then report progress towards full implementation of the Agreement was a sticking point. Ultimately, the “older” system of “Common But Differentiated Responsibility” or “CBDR” was replaced in the Transparency section with “flexibility” considering the respective capacities of the Parties (Art. 13.2). This is more akin to a sliding scale of ability rather than the older systems of bifurcation. There remains special consideration for LDCs and SIDS in the establishment of the transparency framework (Art. 13.3).

Each Party will report on emissions and removals according to methodologies accepted by the IPCC, information relating to the Party’s NDC, and climate change impacts (Art. 13.7). These reports are to be submitted biennially, with an exception for LDCs and SIDS. The technical expert review of the information submitted will undergo a facilitative, multilateral consideration of their progress. For developing Parties, this review shall include assistance in identifying capacity-building needs (Art. 13.11). Support for the implementation of this and all other requirements of this Article shall be provided on a continuing basis. (Art. 13.14 and 13.15).

Living in a “glass house” requires that Parties keep to their promises made in Paris and that they help others with their housekeeping to clear the view of activities and support. A cleaner world will be our reward.

Clambering Up the Tower of Babel to Reach the Paris Package

Posted on December 6, 2015 by bonnie

Imagine a room full of delegates from 196 different countries waiting to begin a high-stake negotiation. The cacophonous sound of conversations in dozens of languages reverberates around the room. The meeting commences and then proceeds in
English.

Delegate after delegate raises concerns and offers ideal solutions to a controversial draft text addressing the problem of climate change. Sometimes the delegates argue for half an hour over the meaning of a single word. They are all working toward the same end goal: to produce a final climate change agreement by December 11. The delegates’ overarching goal is the same, but they approach it with different blue prints. They are trying to build a solid structure using a miscellany of materials that do not always dovetail.

Coming from so many backgrounds, the delegates do not only come to the negotiation table with differing positions on issues, but also with vastly different ways of reading and interpreting language. As the delegates strive to work through substantive areas of disagreement and allow all voices to speak, one cannot help but wonder if a single, collective voice will form and sing out above the sonorities of divergence.

After a week of negotiations, the Parties agreed yesterday on a draft agreement to send to the Conference of the Parties (COP) next week. The draft is far from perfect and will require more negotiations between the Parties. It is, however, workable. Overall the Parties seemed optimistic during Saturday’s closing ADP plenary session. Speaking on behalf of the G-77 + China, South African Ambassador Nozipho Mxakato-Diseko said, “we have come a long way, but much more must be done next week to fulfill the task.” She struck an emotional and hopeful chord with the room when she quoted Nelson Mandela: “It always seems impossible until it’s done.”

Having seen the Parties work past linguistic, cultural, and positional differences to produce a workable text for the COP to use next week has been inspiring for me. It has shown me the importance of remaining optimistic and hopeful during times of controversy, and also of focusing on shared end-goals while trying to achieve seemingly impossible agreements. I walk away from the first week of COP21 with optimism. Although it will be difficult, I believe the Parties will be able to focus on their collective, long-term goal of curbing the global temperature increase and will reach an agreement. The top of the tower is in sight.

Will some be left behind? The significance of climate finance

Posted on December 3, 2015 by madhavi

For countries on the front lines of climate change, access, availability, and urgency of funding needs are significant. As an example, rising sea levels in Senegal and Gambia have already impacted agricultural production. Saltwater intrusion into agriculturally productive lands has reduced food production. Further, warming temperatures and resulting increased length of seasons have heightened health risks associated with vector borne diseases. The impoverished state of these countries does not position them to to enter world markets to offset domestic deficiencies through imports. The conditions they face cannot be attributed to a random occurrence, though. Instead the plight of Senegal and Gambia and many other least developed countries (LDCs), as well as small island developing states (SIDS), and landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) is one of significant challenges.

In spite of not being large emitters, the effects of climate change are disproportionately high for these countries; unlike developed countries, these countries have made negligible contributions to the increased speed of climate change, as presently observed. They are the poor, vulnerable, low-emitter nations that are negotiating for the right for climate finance from the developed world. However, funding for mitigation and adaptation projects has been limited. Recent commitments for funding, though on the surface robust to the casual observer, have not inspired confidence across all LDCs, SIDS, or LLDCs.

On Monday, the starting day of COP21, eleven developed countries made commitments to the Least Developed Country Fund (LDCF). Total pledges to the LDCF totaled $248 million. The sum was an auspicious signal, a numeric gesture in parallel with the phrase “no one left behind.” However, at a side event on the same day of the announcement, LDCs commented on the difficulty of accessing funding, the rigorous nature of the application process, and the limited appearance of urgency from funding bodies. Two days later, on Wednesday, at another side venue, other LDCs commented on the difficulty of access to funding and the need to develop national climate finance strategies. Cambodia noted that the prospects of international financing are good but the modes of financing remain uncertain and the process is slow. The Gambia noted that demand for LDCF resources exceed the funds available for approved projects.

Some observers have voiced that funding is perceived by the developed world as financial aid when it should be viewed as the promotion of the common good. A communal perception could foster access and availability of funding provided from developed countries to developing countries in a more expeditious manner.

Mary Robinson, the former President of Ireland, noted in her remarks in Monday, following the LDCF funding announcement, that climate change is a global problem, stating, “Climate change is a problem for all.” She went on to advocate, “The agreement itself needs to be people-centered. The needs of LDCs need to be heard.” At the close of the third negotiating day, it was not clear whether the needs of LDCs were being considered under no one left behind.

In the remaining twenty-four hours of the first phase of COP21, discussion will continue with respect to language that would expedite funding. Additionally, the amount of aggregate funding available to developing countries from 2020 onward remains outstanding. In a few more days the group work of COP21 will set the trajectory for climate finance as the world sets its course to recalibrate its relationship with the planet. The decision will be significant and will send a strong signal with respect to the balance of developing country needs and developed country committment.

Influential strangers: a journey home from COP 21

Posted on December 2, 2015 by madhavi

At an international meeting it only makes sense that the people you would end up meeting may be across the border from you! However, it is not necessarily expected that your new acquaintance would be across a state border. But the latter was just the case on my ride home this evening from COP21.

After three months of learning about the art of negotiation, my VLS colleagues, Bonnie Smith and Rachel Stevens, and I had had the opportunity to meet Thomas Fuitak, author, professor and founding member of Mediators without Borders International (MBBI) on our short bus ride from Le Bourget, the home of COP21, to the train station bearing the same name. Fuitak was an animated personality who at first asked questions related to our traveling trio’s experiences at COP21. However, after entertaining our questions and cautious prodding, he revealed his status as an author, mediator and relevant party of the Paris draft agreement (Agreement).

Our short-term companion was not a household name but one of the generally anonymous that is well known in his circle of expertise!

Professor and mediator, Dr. Thomas Fiutak founded the Conflict and Change Center at the University of Minnesota and is currently a Senior Fellow in the Technological Leadership Institute, and lecturer in Conservation Biology. Our engaged companion has trained mediators in the US, Canada, Europe, Asia and Africa and as is noted founding member of Mediators Beyond Borders International or MBBI. According to his University biography, his work with MBBI has taken him to Zimbabwe, Denmark, Germany, Mexico, Haiti, Thailand, and Panama. He presently leads the MBBI Climate Change team, which has Observer status within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A past Executive Director of the International Association of Conflict Management and World Bank consultant, his first book Le Mediateur dans l’arene (The Mediator in the Arena) was published in France in 2009.

In his fifteen-minute companionship, Dr. Fiutak became an inspiration to us. His comments resonated with our threesome. He understood the insecurity of COP observation, the perspective of questioning the value of our naïve input and was quick to provide reassurance. His advice was that not everyone has the opportunity to observe or participate in a COP and therefore, we should personally acknowledge the value of our communications from just that simple a perspective. His commentary to us was amplified by his unpretentious comment on the potential insertion of language in the final Paris agreement that would provide ability for mediation to play a role in the continuous evaluation of the Paris Agreement. The latter is a significant incorporation for an anonymous bystander, who was a founding member of the voluntary organization of Mediators Beyond Borders International.

The Role of Gender in Climate Politics

Posted on October 31, 2015 by sara

Climate change is proven – the vast majority of the scientific community, along with many major businesses and nearly every major insurance provider, all agree that climate change is having real impacts on the world today. Most also believe that those impacts are the result of anthropogenic activity. However, the facts about climate change are not being translated into political action. This is in large part because the facts are not driving the discussion.

Despite the fact that the latest IPCC report states that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia,” and that “human influence on the climate system is clear,” somehow 18% of the US population still does not believe global warming is occurring, and 35% does not believe that it is caused by human activity. Even worse, the 114th Congress includes 162 climate deniers (approximately 30% of Congress) with only eight states represented exclusively by individuals who believe that addressing climate change is a priority.

Sen. James Inhofe

Who are all of these climate deniers? Many Americans, if asked to picture a climate denier, would likely picture a figure like Rush Limbaugh or Senator James Inhofe. It turns out that there is more to this assumption than mere stereotyping. Several studies have been published over the past five years, building on existing bodies of research, which all indicate that climate skeptics are most likely to be white, conservative men. I took a closer look at three psychology and sociology studies from three different continents, all of which came to this same conclusion.

A study out of Cardiff University indicated that men are more skeptical of climate change than women, and that “political affiliation is a strong determinant of skepticism, with Conservative voters amongst the most skeptical.” An American study out of Michigan State University was one of the first to explicitly categorize “conservative white males” as the most skeptical of climate change. This study went a step further to analyze conservative white men who self-reported an above average understanding of global warming (considered “confident conservative white men”). By isolating these individuals, the study found that 48.4% of confident conservative white men believe the effects of global warming will never happen, compared to only 8.6% of all other respondents. Additionally, it found that while 71.6% of confident conservative white men believed that recent temperature increases are not primarily due to human activities, only 34.2% of all other respondents feel that way. Finally, a 2015 study published in the New Zealand Journal of Psychology supported and extended the “conservative white male” effect based on a sample of over 6,000 New Zealanders. This study confirmed that conservative white males (along with older individuals with high levels of socioeconomic status and less education) are disproportionately more likely to be skeptical of the reality of climate change and its anthropogenic cause.

These studies essentially just prove what most of us already knew or assumed. But the impact of the “conservative white man” syndrome is significant. Not only do the studies provide scientific evidence that conservative white men are the least likely to take action on climate change, it also indicates that “beliefs about climate change are fundamentally linked to existing values and worldviews,” and “are not a result of knowledge deficit or misunderstanding.” In other words, they are also least likely to be swayed by the overwhelming scientific consensus or by the urgency of environmental advocates.

Ms. Usha Nair, representative of the global south and current Co-Focal Point of the Women and Gender Constituency stakeholder group

None of this would matter so much if it were not for the fact that political decisions related to climate change are predominantly made by men. The UNFCCC Conference of the Parties is actually mandated to “improve the participation of women in bodies established under the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.” However, progress is slow, and the involvement of women in recent Conferences of the Parties has been limited. Women only represented 36% of the Party delegates to COP20 last year, and only represented 26% of the heads of Party delegations. This year, women represent only 25% of the members of constituted bodies (which is a ~3% decline from last year) and represent only 23% of the regional groups and other Party groupings.

Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, and other Senate republicans

Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to the Conference of the Parties and assume that the participants in the process are all committed to combating climate change, any international agreement that the Parties sign must still be approved by two thirds of the United States Senate for it to become legally binding on the U.S. (although there are alternative mechanisms for the country to deposit its “instrument of ratification” with the UNFCCC). At least one source indicates that 32% of the current Senators are climate deniers, creating a very narrow margin for the 66% approval of any international climate change agreement. The fact that the whole of the U.S. Senate is currently 54% republican, 94% white, and 80% male does not lend hope to the cause.

Now, none of this is to say that every climate denier is a conservative white male, nor is it to say that all conservative white males are climate deniers. It is my ardent hope that the current United States senators (republican, democrat, Caucasian, minority, male, and female alike) will vote to approve the agreement reached at Paris this year. But if they do not, it might be an additional incentive to diversify our elected officials.