Draft
Report on my COP26 experience to the AAG from Paul C.
Sutton
It was an honor and a
privilege to serve as an AAG observer to the COP26 United Nations
Climate Summit in Glasgow this fall. I write this report primarily
as a summary of my first-person observations, reflections, and
opinions. These opinions are mine alone and do not represent the
AAG or any other persons, organizations, or institutions. I
provide this report in the hope that it is informative,
interesting, and provocative. There are an abundance of summaries
of the COP26 event and its related agreements. I provide a few
links to these summaries but will not attempt to do this in my
report.
The
big picture with respect to what needs to happen with respect to
emissions reduction is well summarized in this New
York Times article : Latest National Climate Plans
Still Fall Far Short, UN Report warns. Wealthy developed
countries have caused the climate change that has already
occurred and will likely cause most of future climate change.
China is currently the number one emitter of CO2 (~30% of global
emissions) followed by the United States (~14% of global
emissions) and India (roughly ~7% of global emissions) (Source).
One
of the major points of contention at COP26 was the question of the
‘phasing out’ or ‘phasing down’ of coal. China and India are two
countries that insisted on the term ‘phasing down’ of coal. It is
perhaps somewhat ironic that during the COP26, New Delhi was forced
to shut down its schools and construction sites because of a
worsening air pollution
crisis. Ending subsidies to fossil fuels was another priority
that appears to have resulted in a promise to ‘revisit and
strengthen’ new plans by the end of 2022. Of course, simply defining
‘fossil fuel subsidy’ can be problematic. Are U.S. military
expenditures in the middle east a ‘fossil fuel subsidy’ that
provides security for big oil? In some respects, the real
questions are: How do we tax things we want less of and
subsidize what we want more of ? The 2019 Copenhagen COP
resulted in a promise by the rich nations to provide $100 Billion in
funds to help less wealthy nations adapt to climate change and
mitigate further rises in temperature. That promise did not manifest
significantly and renewed claims that the wealthy nations need to
help the less wealthy nations was another point of contention at the
COP in Glasgow.
Is failure an option?
One
particularly interesting session I attended at the COP26 was
presented by Tim Jackson and Ed Gemmell on a new paper titled: World
Scientists Warning Into Action. The World
Scientists Warning Into Action paper is still seeking
signatures from qualified scientists. This paper is in press with
the SAGE journal, Science Progress. The paper states that the time
for empty commitments for the distant future of 2050 is over. The
paper argues that we need large-scale, rapid, trans-formative
changes in our economies, societies, cultures, and politics. The
paper makes recommendations in the following areas: Energy,
Atmospheric pollutants, Nature, Food Systems, Population
Stabilization, and Economic Reforms. The sense of the message I got
at this session was that the protesters on the street had a more
realistic understanding of the urgency of the climate crisis than
the politicians and negotiators within the COP.
Nonetheless, the urgency expressed by the authors of the World
Scientists Warning into Action does not seem to be shared by all. I
read an article in the Atlantic
interviewing Brian O’Neill, the director of the Joint Global Change
Research Institute who was one of the lead architects of the modeled
scenarios known as the “Shared Socioeconomic Pathways” (SSPs). The
SSPs were future scenarios of the economy used for informing the
IPCC’s ‘Representative Concentration Pathways’ or RCPs (different
scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions moving into the future). Brian
Oneill’s assessment seemed strikingly less alarmed than the
assessment of the Scientist’s Warning authors (Brian O’neill is
quoted from the Atlantic article below):
“The path we seem to be on, at least for now, looks closer to SSP
2, which the authors call “Middle of the Road.” This is a world in
which “social, economic, and technological trends do not shift
markedly from historical patterns.” A world, in other words, in
which we do not heroically rise to the occasion to fix things, but
in which we also don’t get much worse than we already are.
So what does this SSP 2 world feel like? It depends, O’Neill told
me, on who you are. One thing he wants to make very clear is that
all the paths, even the hottest ones, show improvements in human
well-being on average. IPCC scientists expect that average life
expectancy will continue to rise, that poverty and hunger rates
will continue to decline, and that average incomes will go up in
every single plausible future, simply because they always have.
“There isn’t, you know, like a Mad Max scenario among the SSPs,”
O’Neill said. Climate change will ruin individual lives and kill
individual people, and it may even drag down rates of improvement
in human well-being, but on average, he said,
“we’re generally in the climate-change field not talking about
futures that are worse than today.”
I find it striking that ALL the SSP scenarios in the IPCC report
result in increased average life expectancy, increased GDP, and
increased average levels of human well-being. A layperson might ask:
‘What are we so concerned about?’. I asked several scientists
about the fact that all the SSPs resulted in improved average human
well-being, increased GDP, and longer life expectancy. Every
scientist I spoke with at the COP told me the SSPs were either
unrealistic fantasies or did not consider environmental feedbacks
that would result in scenarios that were much less pleasant than
where we are now. It appears to me failure is an option and we
should be more honest and explicit about that.
This lack of consilience regarding the impact of climate change on
the economy and society going into the future is disturbing. It is
said that truth passes through three stages: First, it is
ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third,
it is accepted as having always been true. The reality of climate
change as measured by rising average global temperatures seems to
have passed through these three phases; however, there seems to be
little agreement as to what impact climate change will have on our
economy and society. One thing that does seem to be certain is that
just as there are significant geographic differences as to the responsibility
for climate change there are significant geographic differences
with respect to the impacts and consequences of climate
change. Climate change has likely exacerbated the economic
inequality associated with historical disparities in energy
consumption (Source).
The poorer, hotter countries of the global south have experienced
more negative consequences from climate change; and, anticipated
future climate change will continue to impact them
disproportionately.
Scenarios of possible
futures: Envisioning a Just, Sustainable, and Desirable Future
Scientists are increasingly engaged in the development of plausible
scenarios of future social, economic, and environmental realities.
Capturing the interactions between these phenomena is one of the
trickier elements of scenario modeling. It is believed that the
presentation of scenarios will inform decision making to produce
better outcomes. The IPCC report has scenarios of 'socioeconomic
pathways' projecting changes to the global population and economy;
and, RCPs projecting future levels of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. It is not clear how these models capture
interactions between changing environmental circumstances and
population and economic realities. All of these scenarios envision a
growing global population with increased average levels of
well-being. Of course averages can hide the nature of distributions.
Occupy Wall Street has raised awareness of how important
distributions are. I would argue that Occupy Wall Street's greatest
success was getting the idea of the 1% and the 99% into our
collective consciousness. Painting rosy scenarios of current
scenarios and future trajectories can be a dangerous and deceptive
enterprise. Bill Gates is quite optimistic about the trajectory of
our society as demonstrated in this tweet of his:
Numbers matter. Choosing silly numbers can be very deceptive. The
infographic above defines 'Extreme poverty' is as $1.90 a day or
less. If the entire population of people living in extreme poverty
had their average incomes increase to $2.25 a day we'd have an
increase in well-being for all of them. Jason
Hickel makes some very cogent points as to why this is a
dangerous and deceptive way to understand what is happening. It
turns out that $7.40 per day is needed to achieve basic nutrition
and normal human life expectancy. Hickel argues that the absolute
number of people living on $7.40 per day or less has been increasing
since 1981. The question: Has global poverty declined
dramatically? has sparked an enormous debate involving Bill
Gates, Stephen Pinker, Jason Hickel, Max Roser (Our World In Data), and
others. It seems it would be a relatively easy question to answer
but it is not. An excellent summary of this debate has been written
up by Dylan Matthews (Vox).
My sense is that a big unspoken element of these debates is the
population taboo. What role does population growth have with
respect to the interactions of economic development, population
growth, and environmental degradation? George
Monbiot's position can perhaps be summarized as, 'Don't
worry about fertility rates. They are not the real problem and
it's racist to say they are'. Monbiot's position was the most
prevalent at the COP26. Nonetheless there are those who
fundamentally believe that our long term end game seeking a
sustainable, desirable, and just future will necessarily have a
significantly smaller human population than the current 7.9 billion
(https://www.realgnd.org/). A
rebuttal to Monbiot's position has been prepared by Max
Kummerow. My position on this question is essentially based on
'The
Limits to Growth'. Our failure to discuss the population
component of a just, sustainable, and desirable future essentially
dooms us to the Yogi Berra maxim: 'If you don't know where you
are going you'll end up someplace else.". I published a piece
in The
Hill with that very title.
Is the Developed World saying to the Developing
World: It sucks to be you?
David Attenborough is a beloved figure who featured
prominently at the entrance to the COP26 (image below). Attenborough
describes the problem as primarily a political and communications
challenge. The sense I got in my communications with people inside
the Blue Zone of the COP and at the street protests was that this is
simply a political challenge at this point. Governments need to lead
by engaging in serious monitoring and enforcement of greenhouse gas
emissions, cease fossil fuel subsidies, and provide assistance to
the developing world in meeting current challenges and mitigating
future impacts. No-one I spoke to was confident that billionaires,
corporations, venture capitalists, or market forces were going
address our climate challenges. In fact, there was a significant
sense both inside the COP and on the street that unfettered
capitalism had to be reigned in and the governments of the world
were the only institutions with the capacity to do so.
There was a lot of pushback on the idea that the wealthy countries
should provide significant financial support to the less wealthy
countries to help them deal with current challenges and mitigate
future change. Warnings about the impacts of climate change have
been going on for decades. The corporate response has been one
dominated by denial of the science and refusal to take significant
action. This satirical video
describing the ‘Fuck You’ policy of an apocryphal ‘Australian
Coal Mining Company’ describes what many would say has been the
unstated subtext of the corporate response to calls for corporate
social responsibility with respect to climate change.
I am a big fan of Mathis Wackernagel and the idea of an ‘Ecological
Footprint’ he developed with William Rees. His Global Footprint Network
e-mail titled: COP-out: From MAD to SAD captures my
sentiments pretty well. Wackernagel states:
There is a
misconception that COP26 in Glasgow did not produce concrete
decisions. But it did. World leaders decided that it is not
worth saving the Maldives. No wonder the youth ambassadors
from around the world participating at COP26 are livid.
In the
Cold War, there was a grim strategy that kept the world from
complete catastrophe. It was MAD: Mutually Assured
Destruction. Arguably, this strategy contributed to no nuclear
bombs being dropped on people since Nagasaki. Now, by
stark contrast, we are defaulting to SAD: Self-Assured
Destruction.
It may not
be surprising that nation states do not want to save others
from the effects of climate change and resource constraints.
But it is utter madness that they do not even seem to want to
save themselves. Why? Because sustainability action is not
about "enlightened self-interest." It is simply practical. If
your country is not preparing itself for the predictable
future of climate change and resource constraints, your
country will not be prepared. It seems obvious. So, what
part of zero emissions are nations negotiating about?
It’s like
we are standing on a train track with a train coming at high
speed, and it is getting uncomfortably close. Why are we
spending time convincing others to throw in another $5 of
incentives to step off the track? SAD!
All
nations continue to be woefully underprepared for this
predictable future. As if the train will not (or hasn’t
already) hit them, because they are exceptional. But guess
what: we all think we are exceptional. It’s universal.
Luckily, some cities and companies are starting to recognize
what is coming and are shifting their trajectories. What
are all the others waiting for?
As the
world community and its national governments fail to lead the
way, the climate and resource context is becoming ever more
difficult for all. Without national support, each city or
community, region or company, has to prepare itself even
more vigorously to persist.
International
agreements
with teeth would be great. But waiting for them is
self-defeating. What would COP26 have looked like if it
were driven by the love for people rather than positions?
Without
meaningful agreements, your action to address your own
overshoot becomes even more important for your own future. It
is also strategic: Like with COVID, protecting yourself also
protects the larger community. If you love yourself and
your community, just do it.
It appears to me that the developed world is betting that they will
survive climate change while the developing world will suffer the
most consequences. Events like COP26 seem to be brief embarrassing
moments when the developed world's disregard for the developing
world comes into clearer focus. So, in answer to the question: Is
the developed world saying to the developing world: It sucks to be
you? It looks to me like the answer is yes.
A message of Hope?
As an
academic I often wonder if my work makes any difference at all.
What I found most inspiring at the COP26 were the street protests.
For the most part, the people I spoke with at the street protests
were highly engaged and very informed. Many told me they were
informed by their teachers and there were many teachers and
students in the crowd. In this world of misinformation,
disinformation, and fake news I am coming to believe that teachers
do make a difference and are trusted to a great extent. I think
those of us teaching geography and environmental science can take
pride in what we do and believe we are making a difference. I am
increasingly convinced that it will be pressure from the people on
the street that will bring about serious commitment to policy to
address climate change. This will be very challenging because I
agree with the tenets of the Scientist's Warning that this must
involve large-scale, rapid, trans-formative changes in
our economies, societies, cultures, and politics.
Photo
Gallery from COP26
The following are photographs I took while in
Glasgow. I provide brief comments below each one. Pictures are
worth a thousand words.
A wonderful sentiment on the Street: All you need is love.
Big sign on building near the Glasgow Central Train Station
Street Poster: Age of Catastrophe
ID card provided to visitors by the Eden Project
Street Protester with Greta Thunberg quote
These protesters were singing a song to the
tune of Queen's 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
Street Protester lamenting loss of biodiversity
Wonderful women I met at the Train Station. They handed me a flyer
that said: "War Causes Climate Change and Climate Change
Causes War"
I met this gentleman in the 'Green Zone'. He was promoting a
game to help people understand the linkages, feedbacks, and
interdependencies of Climate, Society, Biodiversity, and the Economy. I hope to download this game and use it in one of my
classes.
Street Poster by Extinction Rebellion
Street Protester: Do not colonize Mars
Another Street Protester. She said she was thinking of
using- COP: Corporate Owned Policy
COP certainly was funded by many corporations
All of these people Tweeting their brains out.
Very common sentiment expressed in many ways on the streets.
Strange to see such an empty room in a way crowded event.
Sad to see those empty rooms (above), particularly when
participants who actually showed up in Scotland were asked to participate remotely. Not a good look. On my first day I
spent hours in line getting my credentials for the event.
These two men were very pessimistic about the future. They felt they had to show up in solidarity for their
children and grandchildren.
Extinction Rebellion had a big presence at the street protests
The sense of urgency expressed in this flyer was matched by
many of the scientists in the Blue Zone.
Another Extinction Rebellion Street Poster
The eyes of the world are on us
Food Waste as a greenhouse gas source
Strike Friday Street March was for the youth and their future.
Umbrella says: G7 drowning in problems
Is this what it will take?
George Square - Greta Thunberg spoke here on the Friday Strike
March
Chatted with a very seemingly sincere and nice guy from Glaxo
Smith Kline at the GSK site in the Green Zone. I expressed suspicion of 'Greenwashing' and he said the GSK
employees were forcing change from the bottom up. I'd love to know what the truth is within these corporate
entities. We do need corporate change. Will it come from government regulation or from enlightened
self interest?
The 'Green Zone' used a science museum as a publicly available
demonstration zone for many corporate participants
Inside the Green Zone (very circuitous route to access -
perhaps why not crowded)
Microsoft's booth in the Green Zone
Whole lotta photo ops in the Green Zone
The helicopters were always hovering over the street protests.
Survival Manifesto
Street Protest: Mother of Mercy
Lot's of hostility to space colonization for the 1%
Street Protest
What are we saying to this child?
Panorama shot. Crowds estimated to be 100,000? Took over an hour for crowds like this to pass a single
point.
(roughly 1/5 of the population of Glasgow)
Lies, Damn Lies, and Polar Bears
Young Protester on way to march via the train. Nice public
transportation in Glasgow BTW.
Delightful couple I met at the train station on the way to the
protest.
David Attenborough's cogent summary on this street poster: "It is important, it is true, it is happening, and it is an
impending disaster."
Street Protest: The wrong Amazon is burning
Strike Back Against Capitalism
Street Protest Signs
Saturday March (sometimes in the rain): 'How
many COPS to arrest Climate Change?
Stop Killing US
On the way back home I was forced by the airports to wander
through the 'Duty Free' zone of
excessive consumption. It was a strange to see a UN display of
the Sustainable Development Goals right
in the middle of BVGARI, Armani, Hermes, and other overpriced
non-essentials.
Is it just me or is this obscene?
CARTOON GALLERY
The following images are photos I took of a
cartoon display inside the Blue Zone.
I was somewhat surprised as to how cynical
many of these cartoons are about our collective response to this
global challenge.
