We’ve all heard it before. When political strings are attached to climate negotiations, the environment becomes collateral damage, reduced to little more than a leveraging tool in the greater pursuit for political gain.

The belief that politics has no place in climate discussions is at the heart of climate activism today. Activists make a passionate case for the urgency of the impending climate crisis and the need for international cooperation, emphasizing the de-politicization of climate change as the key to progress. 

But perhaps that’s exactly the problem. Maybe climate discussions are not political enough. 

Turkey’s very own Marie-Antoinette, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has perfected this fine art of weaponizing the climate crisis as part of his political agenda. Most recently, he cancelled plans to attend COP26 in Glasgow over a last-minute security dispute. Though Erdoğan made his political statement, Turkish leadership was ultimately left unrepresented at the conference — despite Turkey’s significant role as both a contributor and victim of climate change. For authoritarian heads of state, apparently, that’s a small price to pay for a trivial show of power to Western counterparts. 

That’s the moral of the story, though. Non-democracies cannot be reigned in, because diplomatically speaking, they’ve got nothing to lose. And the environment does not seem to be a real concern for dictators whose most vulnerable citizens bear the brunt of the casualties of the climate crisis, opting to scapegoat minorities and political rivals, instead. 

The same can be said of China and Russia, whose presidents failed to attend COP26 despite being two of the largest global polluters. Turkmenistan, whose excessive methane emissions surge on under the leadership of a dentist-turned-dictator. Saudi Arabia, one of the main exporters of oil whose role at the conference was resistant, at best, and saboteur, at worst. And the list goes on, some of the worst global abusers of human rights and democracy assuming the least productive roles in Glasgow. 

Non-democracies play by a different set of rules. To them, climate negotiations are political leverage, another tool in their long-running ploy to consolidate power. Another international platform to compromise with unreasonable demands and deplorable human rights records. But to democracies, they’re a fighting chance — a promise made to constituents that they have a responsibility to keep. 

When domestic political realities prove to be such a liability for climate progress, it begs the question: is democracy-building the missing piece of the climate puzzle?

Keeping politics separate from the sphere of cooperation on environmental issues has proven to be unproductive. It has only succeeded in giving some of the biggest bullies on the global stage a platform to legitimize international influence and solidify their grip on power domestically, facilitating further abuse against their own citizens. A healthy injection of political progress from successful democracies could be the effort that climate conferences like COP26 need moving forward. It could be the catalyst to true change. 

Democracy-building is a powerful tool. And Western democracies have commitments to uphold when it comes to promoting democratic and human rights-oriented values abroad. It’s time for them to make good on this promise, because autocratic regimes are a threat to the future of our planet. 

Democratization is as relevant a precedent to mitigating climate change as CO2 emission reduction efforts or corporate engagement. Monitoring international elections, supporting citizen participation, ensuring the inclusion of marginalized groups, facilitating debates and political party competition are all tried and true means to democracy-building efforts, and can be incorporated into the COP negotiations framework. If introducing new methods is not feasible, then bringing in the expertise of organizations like the National Democracy Institute into the process may be. 

The time has come for a new platform of engagement at COP conferences moving forward. Democracy as a prerequisite, rather than a bargaining chip. Politics as an agent for positive change, rather than de facto sabotage. Human rights protection as a demand, and not a compromise. 

Because the alternative is much too dire. COP26 becoming yet another bullet point on the long-running list of humanity’s failures in cooperation on key issues. And although corporate dollars and climate denialism remain huge obstacles in addressing the climate crisis, they are largely Western concerns.

Throughout much of the world, governments lack the political will to participate in climate negotiations, even to the performative extent that many democracies do. Dictators have no constituents to respond to, no voter base to appease. So autocrats like Turkey’s Erdogan, Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi can afford to be absent, because they answer to no one but themselves. They muster the recklessness to remove themselves from global efforts entirely.

Ultimately, the environment and their citizens pay the price. Democracy is not just a civil rights battle. It’s as relevant to human rights, national security and climate mitigation as anything else. 

The future of our planet lies in our hands. With democracy in that future, our prospects don’t seem nearly as bleak. One can only hope that by the time we realize this, it won’t be too late. 

The post Democracy Building is the Missing Piece of the Climate Puzzle appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

You have given up private interests to advocate in the name of the public good. You may have sacrificed personal luxuries, such as meat and dairy consumption or the relaxation of a long shower and you face anxiety for  what the future holds. If global action is not undertaken in a world that is on track to be 12 degrees celsius warmer by the end of the century, you worry if the crisis can even be mitigated at all. You understand the unimaginable destruction that most definitely will occur should the world not pivot toward sustainable solutions, whether it be permafrost melting and releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide or a boom in severe and fatal natural disasters. 

As you arrive in Scotland for the UN Climate Change Conference, or  COP26, which experts have nicknamed “the world’s last best chance” for avoiding the full extent of climate change destruction, you feel both excitement and fear. You are apprehensive, as you understand the extent of the problem that must be addressed, but you have a glimmer of hope that the world may finally take it seriously given how bad it has already gotten. 

You arrive in Glasgow, march to the conference site and as you turn the corner the first booth you see is — a stand promoting one of the world’s top plastic producers?

This is not a bad plot for a comedy (or horror film). This was the actual reality at COP26, where the incredulous decision was made to not only include, but increase, the conference’s corporate sponsorship.  

The firms backing COP26 are wide ranging, from energy companies to car manufacturers. As they are proudly described in the conference’s website, the “principal partners” of this year’s conference represent quite the lineup, such as Unilevel, one of the world’s largest polluters and among the top three producers of plastic in the world. Other sponsors include, but are not limited to, Scottish energy firm SSE, which is the second largest pollutant in all of Scotland, and Land Rover Jaguar, a car manufacturer rated one of the worst for carbon emissions among its peers. Sainsbury, a grocery market chain that Greenpeace labelled the worst supermarket for reducing plastic waste, was a sponsor, as well. 

These institutions are among the handful that can largely be blamed for the very crisis COP26 aims to address. It is undeniable that corporations are the overwhelming cause of pollution and emissions. Only 100 companies are responsible for a staggering 71% of global emissions, and 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions are due to electricity generation from firms like SSE. Another 14% is due to transportation, a sector dominated by airline companies like Qatar Airways, which is partnered with COP26 sponsor Sky.

These businesses were afforded prime real estate at the conference. They displayed their supposed sustainability initiatives and received support from British politicians who visited their spaces and attended their events.   

COP26 allowed the very corporations which have consciously and consistently caused mass environmental destruction to masquerade as ethical pioneers advocating for change, all while boosting their brands and products. This blatant hypocrisy is unacceptable. 

To rub even more salt into the wound, the number of corporate sponsors has increased from COP21, even though during the last five years, temperatures increased further due to a rise in carbon emissions and fossil-fuel production, to which many of those sponsors contributed.

Some critics of this argument may say that the world must work with — not against — giant corporations that loom over our world’s economy in order to create change. They point out that the international community will likely have a better chance of convincing businesses to become more sustainable through debate and advocacy, than to attempt to fully regulate and control them. 

Yet, corporations have proven time and time again they are not genuinely committed to change. Research from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation has found that companies that claim initiatives to reduce plastic production tend to also be the ones who continuously produce the most — Unilever being an example. Microsoft, a primary sponsor of COP26, broadcasted impressive promises to be carbon neutral within four years; yet, behind closed doors, the company partners with major oil extractors like ExxonMobile in the Permian Basin. Boston Consulting Group, another conference sponsor, made similar sustainability commitments, but also conducts backdoor deals with multiple carbon-emitting industries. 

The cultural narrative regarding corporations must change in order for sustainability efforts to truly progress. Large and highly profitable institutions continue to be framed in an idealistic light. 

They are viewed as paramount institutions that guard the doors to success. They are hailed as the gems of our capitalist world structure. Now, it seems that the organizers of COP26 expected the global public to believe they are also the largest proponents for going green and saving the Earth. 

This is simply not true. 

Corporations continuously prove that their true and singular focus is profit. The world must stop trusting, let alone relying on, these firms. It’s time to strip these companies of their de facto support, and instead, find ways to limit and regulate their detrimental impacts on the climate. 

While it is true that individualistic actions are also a part of the problem, it defies logic to scold individuals for leaving one light on too long, while enabling and promoting the mega transnational corporations that have almost single-handedly wrecked our planet. There must be collective outrage and pushback for society to be released from the chokehold of uber-capitalist and for-profit ideologies. Only then may it become more normalized to sincerely prioritize the health of the planet. Too much damage has been done, and too much is on the line, for corporations to continue being excused and supported. Now is the time to hold them accountable. 

Yet, COP26 has not demonstrated a sincere understanding of this. If anything, it has proven that politicians and governmental institutions remain happy to feign concern over the crisis, while still blatantly playing into the pockets of its main instigators.

If COP26 was truly the world’s last best chance to stop the climate crisis, it’s a shame our world leaders couldn’t step up to the challenge. 

The post Corporate Sponsorship Highlights the Irony of COP26 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

LOS ANGELES — On Oct. 31, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference officially began. This conference, also known as COP 26, revisited the Paris Agreement to evaluate the progress countries have made towards meeting their climate targets and forecast what measures should be implemented to combat the threat of climate change and increases in global temperatures. 

Conversations at COP 26 gave special attention to the carbon emissions question: Who is to blame for greenhouse gas emissions? The debate was a major point of contention at the conference, as developing nations such as China and India continue to argue against rapid emission reductions that are championed by developed countries such as the United States and the European bloc. 

As delegates work towards finding solutions to the pressing climate problems facing the global population, many will be curious whether a compromise will be struck between the two sides — or if the blame game will continue. 

Molly Miller: The UK Is To Blame for Global Emissions

Certainly, international cooperation is needed to combat climate change. Climate change is the very definition of a transnational issue. No single country can achieve meaningful results unilaterally. Nevertheless, the question of who is responsible remains pressing. 

The costs of responding to climate change are large: estimates put the total cost at up to $50 trillion. Considering the magnitude of these costs and the fact that less-developed countries are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change, assigning responsibility is necessary to ensure that the burdens of responding to climate change are equitably shared.

Looking at historical carbon dioxide emissions, it is clear that Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, is responsible for far more cumulative carbon dioxide emissions than China. For example, the UK has generated 7 times more carbon dioxide emissions per capita from 1750 to 2018 than China. Furthermore, the rate of the UK’s declining share of cumulative carbon emissions has flattened out in recent years. Clearly, the UK has had an outsize impact on the carbon content of our atmosphere historically.

The UK’s substantial historical carbon emissions stem from one key source: the UK is the home of the industrial revolution. Certainly, industrialization has done well in raising standards of living worldwide. However, it is also the start of the explosion in carbon emissions which have been the root cause of climate change. The UK’s industrialization projects led to a massive increase in coal mining, kickstarting not only the release of carbon from the Earth’s crust but also large-scale habitat destruction. Even conservative elements of the UK have admitted that the UK needs to lead in climate policy.

The UK’s outsized impact on the climate extends even beyond industrialization on the European continent. For about 500 years, from 1450 to 1950, colonialism brought about British rule across large swathes of the world. The UK distributed its ecological practices throughout its colonial empire, displacing local methods of building and agriculture. This practice has hurt the ability of many colonized countries to adapt to changes in climate. 

For example, in the Sundarbans, British colonizers cut down mangrove forests for timber and land clearing. The destruction of these forests eliminated the sources of construction materials and food for local communities. It has further left the coasts of this region vulnerable to erosion, magnifying the impacts of sea-level rise.

The legacy of colonial exploitation on the climate goes beyond the displacement of local best practices: it has also contributed greatly to environmental degradation and the loss of carbon sinks. The Amazon rainforest exemplifies colonialism’s exploitative, extractive legacy. The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which started during Portuguese colonization, continues under Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil. This massive deforestation process has had dire consequences for the climate as a whole — including cutting down large swathes of forested land — leading to decreased rainfall, higher temperatures, a reduction in carbon drawdown and a potential feedback cascade which causes other climate “tipping points” to be crossed.

Clearly, the entire institution of European colonialism may be to blame for large portions of global carbon emissions. However, as the largest colonizer and most blatant industrialist, the UK shoulders the vast majority of this blame. Moreover, their ongoing lack of meaningful action only emphasizes the UK’s long term impact.

Ultimately, the “blame” for the atmosphere’s growing carbon content lies on the UK. The UK’s past emissions set the trajectory for today’s carbon emission rates. This does not mean that international cooperation in addressing climate change is unnecessary: far from it. Rather, it simply ought to inform our pursuit of equity in pursuing international climate policy. Europe must pay its fair share in addressing the harmful effects of climate change.

Ruhi Ramesh: Hold China Accountable

Although Europe, particularly the UK, has historically contributed the most to climate change, international environmental policy will be more effective with an inclusive “all in this together” strategy than a divisive and backward-facing “you broke it, you fix it” approach. As the current largest emission producer and investor in fossil fuels both domestically and abroad, China must take significant steps toward emissions reduction and climate change mitigation strategies.

In preparation for COP26, Europe’s climate chief said, “we need to talk to China,” pointing to the country’s immense contribution to global carbon emissions and relatively minor commitment to carbon reduction efforts. China has thus far resisted international pressure to revise its carbon reduction timeline, placing the onus instead on more developed countries. 

China quickly emerges as the primary culprit when determining which country is responsible for the most carbon emissions. In 2019, China’s carbon emissions amounted to 14.09 billion tons of greenhouse gases, equating to 27% of carbon emissions globally. Although the United States’ per capita emissions still outpace China’s, the developing country’s rapid economic growth in the early 2000s caused the country to overtake the U.S. in terms of carbon emissions in 2006 and remain the leader today. China unequivocally surpassed the United States (the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases) by almost double. 

With 1,058 coal plants currently in operation in the country — forming half of the world’s coal capacity — there is no doubt that China disproportionately contributes to climate change and has thus far failed to sufficiently mitigate their emissions and fossil fuel production. Therefore, the onus falls on China to take substantial steps in order to combat the consequences of climate change in the future. 

Last year, President Xi Jinping announced China’s plans “to have CO2 emissions peak by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.” China’s commitments to reduce its climate impact strongly parallel European goals, but its concrete actions fall short of meaningful change. For example, China has committed to producing 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, which parallels EU’s goal of a 32% share of energy produced by renewables and carbon neutrality by 2050. Similarly, the 14th Five Year Plan lays out concrete mechanisms and strategies to attain China’s climate targets, indicating China acknowledges its responsibility to reduce emissions but continually procrastinates implementing sustainable development. 

It is evident that the Chinese government is attempting to make good on its promise of hitting its carbon peak. Still, a significant issue with this climate pledge is the vague language surrounding the numerical amount of when this “peak” would be met. 

In 2015, the Chinese government banned the construction of new coal-fired power plants to honor its pledge towards its carbon-neutral goal. However, in 2018, this ban expired, and in 2020, China ramped up its coal production again, creating three times as much coal-generating power capacity as all other countries in the world combined. This sudden surge in coal production capacity is due primarily to the desire of provincial governments around the country to stimulate economic growth in light of the slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To facilitate this growth, Chinese governments have relaxed permit regulations and restrictions on coal-powered “megaprojects.” 

As China looks to increase its production capacity within the manufactured goods market, electricity demands across the country have skyrocketed. To keep up with this demand, the government stated the country would increase its production capacity by 220 million metric tons of coal per year. 

China has historically been against phasing out coal as a fuel source largely because, as a rapidly developing nation, the Chinese government believes it should receive the same opportunity to achieve industrialization that Western countries capitalized on in the previous century.  Although China’s leadership argues that its people deserve the chance to achieve the same level of development and standard of living as Western countries already enjoy, if China waits until it has fully developed to implement sustainable technologies and practices, it will be too late to save the Earth from disaster.

Furthermore, China has exported this tension between development and sustainability to developing countries worldwide. For example, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, is a massive initiative designed to spur economic growth by constructing highways, ports, railways, telecommunication towers and fiber optic cable routes. As a part of this initiative, Chinese banks and companies have played a crucial role in financing this infrastructure. Studies predict this development could, in fact, lead to a 2.7 C increase in global temperature — from the emissions of the countries involved in BRI alone. 

During a six-month period during 2019, China invested $1 billion in coal-powered initiatives. The costs of constructing non-renewable infrastructure are twofold. First, the immediate consequences of BRI projects are increasing emissions and ignoring environmental costs, including declining biodiversity, deforestation and exacerbated air quality. Second, investing in fossil fuels now increases the future costs of switching to renewable energy. Each oil pipeline and coal-powered railroad that China bankrolls further entrenches developing countries on the path to ‘dirty’ development and adds to the burden of climate action for future generations. When promoting industrialization and development in less developed countries, China must prioritize renewable energy infrastructure over fossil fuel extraction.

The debate between industrialization and environmental protection excludes developing countries, such as the Maldives and Costa Rica, that are not positioned to benefit from industrialization yet will inevitably face the worst of industry-induced climate disasters. In fact, as preliminary climate agreements are drawn up in Glasgow, it appears as if India and China have attempted to water down the climate pledge to give themselves more time to take advantage of the industrialization benefits of using coal as a fuel source. 

As the chief promoter and investor of industrialization directly impacting these smaller countries and vulnerable islands, China must adopt emission reduction strategies, green technology and other sustainable development strategies. If they fail to deliver on their promises — or continue pushing back the deadlines for action — the smaller countries caught in the crossfire between China and European countries like the UK will disappear.

Unfortunately, governments have been late realizing the harmful effects of climate change and even later implementing effective measures to combat its consequences. Moreover, as countries like China seek to take advantage of rapid growth in the shortest time possible, they are reluctant to give up the means to their ends. 

While China may not be solely responsible for the current impending environmental disaster, there is no doubt that China is the number one player today. In addition to its large-scale emissions at home, China also has a strong influence on fossil fuel infrastructure internationally, further amplifying China’s blame for current global emissions rates. And in a world where China wants to win by industrializing quickly, the Chinese government and the international community must identify China’s critical role in helping the world avoid total disaster. 

Conclusion

Although both China and the UK presented their respective arguments at COP26 discussions, which concluded Nov. 12, leaders from both countries ultimately reasserted their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and doubling down on climate change efforts. 

In a joint statement with the United States, China agreed to step up its efforts to close the “significant gap” between previous climate promises and the reality of ongoing environmental conditions. The UK also doubled down on its efforts to eliminate fossil fuel production, surging toward the overdue elimination of the coal industry that launched the British economy into industrialization over a century ago.

Despite commitments from both countries to reduce emissions, most parties walked away from COP 26 negotiations with the knowledge that pledges fall short of necessary action. China signed on to climate agreements, but many onlookers doubt the prospects that China will willingly adhere to its commitments, considering the treaty is not legally binding and the language of the agreement now demands the “phase down” rather than phasing out of fossil fuels. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed disappointment at the diluted language of fossil fuel pledges and concern about forcing private coal producers to comply with the country’s shift toward renewable energy. 

Regardless of the debate between British versus Chinese responsibility for carbon emissions, international experts, politicians and activists agree current efforts are not enough. All parties must take action to combat climate change, not just those who are the largest contributors.

The post Historical Versus Contemporary Polluters: Who’s Responsible? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

But faced with this convergence of crises, Latin American countries are now at the COP26 summit in Glasgow, Scotland with a proposed solution: debt-for-climate action swaps.These swaps would allow these countries to gain access to more funding for climate projects that reduce carbon emissions, while simultaneously reducing their growing debt. 

Debt-for-climate action swaps are designed to allow nations to pay off their debt by redirecting the money they owe into climate action projects. Creditor nations will reduce debt “either by converting it into local currency, lowering the interest rate, writing off some of the debt, or through a combination of all three.” The debtor country will then redirect the saved revenue towards climate action projects such as preserving biodiversity or reducing carbon emissions.

These initiatives have a history of success for both parties. However, given the growing severity of climate change, these agreements ought to be reformed to create lasting and sustainable incentives for growth. Most critically, debt-for-climate action swaps should increase the amount of debt “forgiven”  in order for countries to fund the large-scale, and realistically expensive, projects needed to tackle climate change. The scale of debt-for-climate action swaps must be reconfigured to match the scale of impending climate catastrophe.

Additionally, these agreements should include a mechanism to monitor countries and ensure that governments are meeting their emission goals. Holding borrowing countries to their environmental commitments appears especially crucial as countries like Argentina call for increased debt-for-nature swaps, even as they remain reliant on fossil fuels and fail to comply with their climate pledges.

Latin America’s economic struggle amid COVID-19 drained funding for climate change projects. In fact, according to the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, the region’s GDP dropped by 7.7% and is not expected to recover until 2024. Since there is a limit on the amount of debt that a country can incur, loans were taken out to help fund the region’s economic and health sectors. For many of these countries, climate change mitigation projects were forced onto the backburner. 

For instance, Honduras took out loans to deal with the public health costs incurred by COVID-19. For the country, which feels the impact of climate change through increasingly severe hurricanes and droughts, increasing costs in other sectors limited the amount of loans directed toward initiatives and policies focused on climate resiliency. 

With Latin American countries already laden with debt and struggling economies, debt-for-climate action swaps provide a viable solution to help reduce their debt and free up revenue that can be applied to projects to reduce their emissions. 

These swaps began in 1989 and have been largely successful. Stockholm University economists found that “since 1990, debt-for-nature swaps globally have raised at least $900 million for conservation, erased nearly $3 billion in debt in at least 21 low- and middle-income countries and resulted in statistically significant reductions in deforestation.” 

In 2005, Uruguay exemplified how debt swaps can potentially fund climate projects. In a debt-for-clean energy swap with Spain, a portion of Uruguay’s debt was swapped in exchange for the installation of solar equipment. As a result, Uruguay now ranks among the cleanest energy systems in Latin America, producing more than 97% of its electricity from renewable sources.

Uruguay’s success demonstrates how these initiatives can be advantageous for Latin America going forward. But, it is crucial to consider the risks involved with these swaps and address the need to increase the scale of debt swaps.

First, it is difficult to verify if a country is hitting its goals for carbon offsets, and there is a risk of countries “greenwashing” how they use the funds. Similar to accountability issues plaguing the nature-based carbon offset market, risks of countries claiming to have protected forests that were in fact never vulnerable to deforestation obscure measurements of these swaps’ efficacy. 

Though satellites and land-based technologies can help monitor carbon emissions to ensure that countries are putting this  money toward meaningful initiatives to offset their emissions. 

Furthermore, the magnitude and urgency of the climate crisis now dwarfs previous debt swap efforts.

The Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development states that billions of dollars of debt will need to be restructured or forgiven to tackle existing climate challenges. Currently, swaps occur at or under $50 million. For example, Seychelles, an archipelago off the coast of East Africa, recently used a debt for nature swap to erase around $22 million dollars of debt in exchange for creating 13 new marine protected areas. While pollution and overfishing severely threatened the biodiversity in the area and made this swap necessary, ongoing destruction and depletion of marine ecosystems in Seychelles and worldwide reveal the insufficiency of current debt-for-climate action swap efforts.

Latin American leaders will need to implement debt-for-climate action swaps at drastically larger levels than ever before. This debt reduction is especially important in developing countries where there is “toxic indebtedness,” according to Argentinian President Alberto Fernández, which refers to the debt crisis that Argentina has faced since 2018 and the increased spending among Latin American countries because of COVID-19. 

Climate-for-debt swaps have the potential to create meaningful change and are desperately needed in a time when Latin America’s economy is struggling. With the consequences of climate change fast approaching, debt-for-climate action swaps are one way — among many — to tackle the climate crisis. 

And for Latin America, solutions are needed now more than ever. According to a news report by the UN, deforestation and forest fires are major concerns, both locally and globally, considering Latin America is home to 57% of the world’s forests, storing approximately 104 gigatons of carbon. According to the World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Professor Petteri Taalas, “[f]ires and deforestation are now threatening one of the world’s largest carbon sinks, with far-reaching and long-lasting repercussions.” 

The UN news report also points out that 27% of the population in Latin America and the Caribbean live along coastal shores, which now face mounting threats from ocean acidification, climbing temperatures and rising sea levels. Droughts across Latin America and the Caribbean have also impeded inland shipping routes, reduced crop yield and limited food production and distribution, exacerbating food insecurity in many communities throughout the region. These are only some of the consequences of climate change already endangering Latin America, and their severity will only worsen without urgent, sweeping action.

If the world hopes to meet its carbon emission reduction goals — as world leaders have recently debated at COP26 — these swaps must be considered, reformed and implemented as one tool in the toolbox.

The post Latin America Will Feel the Worst of Climate Change appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Besides its emissions, Brazil’s climate action (or lack thereof) is of international importance due to the unique natural resource harbored within its borders. The Amazon rainforest, the largest of its kind in the world, stretches for 2.6 million square miles across 8 countries in South America. The majority of the Amazon, however, is in Brazil, granting the country jurisdiction over much of the 100 billion metric tons of carbon  stored in the forest. During deforestation, these carbon stores escape into the atmosphere, exacerbating the greenhouse effect causing climate change and eliminating the oxygenation benefits provided by the rainforest.

The situation of the forest gives Brazil a great responsibility over its preservation.  Brazil’s policies toward the Amazon — which are subject to volatility during changes in leadership and attitudes regarding conservation and protection — have implications beyond climate change: Indigenous rights and land, biodiversity conservation, medicinal innovation and agricultural sectors. With so much at stake, Brazil’s inconsistent and inflammatory environmental policies in the Amazon inflict dire repercussions regionally and globally. 

Bolsonaro and Business in the Amazon

President Bolsonaro took office in 2018 with clear intentions of opening up the Amazon to development. He repeatedly asserted Brazil’s ownership of the Amazon and denied any claims to common regional heritage over the Amazonian ecosystem. In 2019, Bolsonaro criticized European countries for condemning his attitude toward the Amazon and said, “the Amazon is Brazil’s, not yours”. 

With this mindset, Bolsonaro opened the Amazon to business and  exploited natural  resources, including in Indigenous land. This attitude proved to be extremely destructive, as deforestation hit a high point last year. 

Deforestation of the Amazon has been extremely profitable for private corporations, especially the agricultural and mining sectors that have capitalized on dealings with Brazilian politicians. The drive for deforestation has been pushed by large financial, agricultural and mining corporations such as BlackRock investment, JBS and Cargill agriculture. The lobbying and destruction has been abetted by Brazilian politicians like Wilson Lima, the conservative governor of one of the regions that makes up a lot of Brazil’s Amazon. The mutually beneficial relationship established between corporations and politicians further reduces Bolsonaro’s incentive to revise his destructive development policies without sufficient international pressure.

Bolsonaro is only willing to undertake conservation efforts that threaten the booming deforestation business if the international community bears the costs. Bolsonaro has asked the international community for billions of dollars to help in efforts to stop deforestation. President Biden called for international funding of conservation and pledged US contribution. 

However, shifting the financial burden of conservation to the international community  obscures existing funds that the Brazilian government neglects to distribute. Different international leaders like those of the G7 remain willing to contribute to the Amazon fund,  which was created by the international deforestation agreement, REDD+, in order to stop deforestation. Bolsonaro already has access to funds, including from countries that have already followed through on their financial pledges to the Amazon fund, but fails to divert them to conservation efforts, as seen in his budget plan that had the lowest level of funding for conservation in decades. 

Indigenous Voices and Better Investment Choices

Furthermore, money alone may not be enough to stop deforestation, especially if it falls in the wrong hands. Environmental activists and Indigenous groups argue that giving Bolsonaro the money does not ensure that the Amazon will be protected, as the Brazilian president’s past actions have demonstrated that his policies can easily and rapidly change. Domestic climate activists and Indigenous advocates warn that money directed toward Bolsonaro and the Brazilian government may not reduce deforestation and suggest instead that international funds would be better allocated in the hands of local and Indigenous communities. 

Though Bolsonaro promised at the Climate Leaders Summit that happened in April this year to present more ambitious commitments at Glasgow, Indigenous communities have expressed concern. Recently, Brazil has seen protests against an erosion of Indigenous protections, such as a policy which would open Indigenous lands in the Amazon to mining and  a court decision backed by the farming industry that endangered Indigenous land claims.

Indigenous groups have been fighting for their land rights and protection of their lands in the Amazon, which has been essential to protecting the rainforest from destruction. The Brazilian constitution established Indigenous land claims in 1988, but these rights have come up again recently because of challenges from the Brazilian congress about opening these lands to extractive activities. This has resulted in a court case where the claims to land are challenged, but this case is currently at a stand still. There has been a push to get rid of the land rights because there are resources that are protected by Indigenous lands, and mining companies and timber companies want to tap into these. The Indigenous people of the Amazon have primarily been protecting the Amazon through their claims to the land, which do not allow for mining, etc, along with other efforts like the Guajajara Guardians, which are Indigenous militias who protect the Amazon from illegal loggers and others who are contributing to the destruction. 

While Indigenous groups have been successful in protecting their land, they remain vulnerable to threats from the government and the Bolsonaro administration. Being Indigenous in Brazil already endangers these groups, and their efforts to protect the Amazon put them at an even further risk, as being an environmental activist can be life threatening in Latin America, especially when advocates counter economic policies. Over 200 environmental activists have been killed annually over the past few years, and over two-thirds of these deaths have been in Latin America, primarily in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras and Brazil. Indigenous lives  comprise a disproportionate amount of reported deaths. These murders are rarely tried in court or brought to justice.

Indigenous rights and protection for the Amazon then go hand in hand, but both have been neglected in the recent past and during Bolsonaro’s time in office thus far. To get Brazil truly on board then, there has to be commitments to Indigenous rights along with the goals promoted at the Climate Leaders Summit, but counting on Bolsonaro to preserve one of the world’s most essential environments might not be reliable. The implementation process for the commitments for COP26 then should consider empowering Indigenous groups to better ensure there will be more robust protection of the Amazon and human rights. 

Brazil and COP26

Former U.S. President Donald Trump, who demonstrated similar disregard for climate concerns and issued similarly destructive climate policies, did not apply pressure on Brazil. This meant that Bolsonaro could continue his anti-environmental rhetoric and commodification of the Amazon without serious pressure from the United States.

This year, however, Bolsonaro has taken a turn on his original stance. Part of this change in direction is due to the change in US administration, with the election of President Biden, who has pressured Bolsonaro to take action. Biden, along with other states at the Climate Leaders Summit, leveraged financial incentives to get Bolsonaro on board with more ambitious goals for Brazil, including carbon neutrality by 2050 and net-zero deforestation by 2030. 

Some of these goals did translate into Brazil’s commitments at COP so far, specifically the commitment to deforestation. During the first few days of COP, leaders agreed to a deal about ending deforestation by 2030, Brazil was among them despite Bolsonaro not attending the conference. This is promising because they are following up on the commitments made in April. The agreement involves billions of dollars in funds to be used in assisting developing countries address issues like wildfires and to support Indigenous communities. Brazil however was not a part of the pledge to support Indigenous and local communities in recognizing their role in protecting land. 

The deforestation commitment and lack of participation in the pledge to support Indigenous communities were moves that could be expected based on the Bolsonaro administration’s actions this year so far. The deforestation commitment is unreliable because similar commitments have been made in the past but not followed through, but having the Biden administration committed to it and wanting to be a leader for the deforestation agreement, this might change the outcome to being more successful. The failure to join the commitment for supporting Indigenous people is disappointing, but this was what Indigenous communities have been warning about, the Bolsonaro administration refuses to recognize the importance of Indigenous communities and neglects to empower them or protect their rights. 

The actions of Brazil at COP so far are surprising considering the prioritization of the business of deforestation that has been so common for Bolsonaro, but unsurprising in the overlooking of Indigenous voices. Indigenous activists have been saying that the government cannot be relied upon when it comes to issues of the Amazon, and this holds true. Though the Brazilian government has agreed to ending deforestation, it will be hard to verify. The unwillingness to tangibly act on these issues this far into Bolsonaro’s term indicates that commitments are probably not going to be taken seriously.

The post In the Fight Against Climate Change, Where Does Brazil Fit? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Situated between Russia to the North and China to the East, the Central Asian states find themselves enveloped in geopolitical complexity. Add in oil and natural resource conflicts to the mix, and you get a recipe for climate disaster. 

Russian interests in Central Asia remain unrivaled. In an attempt to maintain his sphere of influence in the critical post-Soviet region, President Vladimir Putin’s foreign policy maintains this grip on power, utilizing organizations like the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and media influence in his efforts. 

However, in some regards, Russian security interests have seemingly succumbed to Chinese economic pursuits, yielding to initiatives like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the domination of Chinese trading investments, which indicate growing Eurasian dependence on these foreign economic injections. 

Along with security and infrastructure, Russian and Chinese interests in the region revolve around a key component: energy. 

Central Asia, stuck between the two regional powers, becomes a critical player in global energy security due to its abundance of oil and natural gas — and perhaps more significantly, because “the bulk of [these]resources are available to international companies to develop.” With giant oil and gas fields like Kazakhstan’s Kashagan and Turkmenistan’s South Yoloten, the Central Asian region is a focal point for a “New Great Game” between two of the East’s most prominent global players.

“Over the last decade, China has replaced Russia as the main destination for Central Asian gas,” explains Simon Pirani of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. As Beijing and Moscow engage in a new form of Central Asian foreign policy — one which involves exploiting natural resources — Russian mega-corporations like Gazprom stand to lose the most against Chinese competitors. However, while Central Asian states export gas for profit, fueling this rivalry between foreign powers in the region, dire environmental consequences emerge. 

The environment, alarmingly, is left vulnerable to corporate exploitation. And although lucrative oil and gas production in Central Asia fuel climate change today, this crisis is also the one leaving the region most incapacitated, vulnerable to the devastating impacts of climate change and susceptible to the whims of climate catastrophe.

With Putin and Xi’s seats in Glasgow left vacant, all eyes turn to the five Central Asian republics, each of which seems to hold a different cautionary tale for the rest of the world. A look at some of the most imminent environmental challenges in the region reveals a simple truth: Central Asia matters in climate discussions, and it matters now more than ever. 

When Autocracies Pollute: The Emerging Crisis in Turkmenistan

In 2019, researchers made a startling discovery — a huge methane leak in Turkmenistan’s Korpezhe natural gas field, seemingly active for over five years. 

The finding “provided evidence of what climate scientists have long suspected,” Bloomberg reports. “The world has a serious problem with methane emissions from Turkmenistan.” 

With more than eighty times the warming power of carbon dioxide, methane leaks like the one documented in 2019 have severe impacts on the climate crisis. According to the International Energy Agency, methane emissions are the second leading cause of global warming. Turkmenistan’s excessive methane emissions are utterly unrivaled in intensity and surpassed only by the United States and Russia — both of which have exponentially larger energy industries and populations than the Central Asian states’. Moreover, Turkmenistan accounted for 30 of the 50 most severe methane releases at onshore oil and gas operations analyzed since 2019 by monitoring firm Kayross SAS. These alarming statistics on Turkmenistan’s methane emissions, one of the key driving factors behind the global climate crisis, paint a dismal picture for the region’s environmental future. 

Though climate activists often criticize Western democracies for their inaction in dealing with climate change, engaging autocratic strongholds like Turkmenistan in climate discussions calls for an entirely different approach. 

Turkmenistan is one of the most isolated and repressive countries globally, second only to North Korea. Under the dictatorship of Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov, human rights conditions in Turkmenistan have significantly deteriorated — though experts can only speculate, considering visas to the former Soviet Republic regions are extremely difficult to obtain.

In a state as repressive, isolated and autocratic, yet pivotal to climate discussions as Turkmenistan, how do international structures appeal for a response to the climate crisis? 

With no international leverage to exert on this ultra-isolated state or its dictator, there is little foreign powers can do to engage Ashgabat in emission reduction efforts. 

Turkmenistan is a cautionary tale for the West, and the rest of the world, about the dangers of repressive governments. No matter how isolated, the domestic political circumstances of a country are bound to puncture the international sphere, reaching every corner of our increasingly globalized world. If global powers continue turning a blind eye to the gross human rights violations within the borders of non-democracies, how long until another Turkmenistan emerges? 

When abandoning democratic and human rights commitments abroad in exchange for petrodollars, global players have a lot to consider. Perhaps next time, the scales will tip in favor of humanity and not realpolitik. 

Because left to their own devices, dictators are very, very bad for the environment. 

The South Aral Sea and Post-Mortem Soviet Legacy 

The Soviet legacy remains alive and well in many parts of Central Asia today. Though cultural and political remnants pulsate most strongly throughout the region, further reinforced by contemporary Russian soft power, the legacy of the USSR is far-reaching, multifaceted and all-encompassing. The Soviets managed to leave their mark on the environment, too. 

Along with authoritarianism and an atrocious human rights record, Uzbekistan inherited the devastating impacts of one of the most catastrophic environmental policy failures of the Soviet Union: ill-fated irrigation schemes, which now leave the Aral Sea, one of the largest inland seas in the world, dried up. 

Once the world’s fourth-largest lake, the Aral Sea “has now shrunk by more than 90 percent of its size,” a catastrophe characterized as “one of the planet’s worst environmental disasters” and widely recognized as a man-made crisis. 

Soviet-era environmental policy saw the building of irrigation projects and the rerouting of the Aral Sea’s source rivers. Briefly delving into the history of the Aral Sea region, the lake’s resources gave rise to a booming fishing industry in the 1960s. As part of the Soviet Union’s efforts to promote cotton growth and agriculture, the Aral Sea’s two primary sources were diverted to canals at the expense of water supply in the lake. However, these efforts proved largely unsuccessful, with up to 75% of the water in the poorly-built canals ending up wasted or in the desert. 

In addition to Soviet-era irrigation projects, which continued drastically shrinking the lake into the 21st century, the ecosystem of the Aral Sea and the surrounding land was devastated by the use of toxic pesticides, increased water salinity, the testing of weapons and fertilizer run-offs, among other human-created issues. 

And its damage today extends well beyond the scope of the environment. This man-made, Soviet-sized disaster where a flourishing freshwater lake once flowed poses grave challenges to the people in the South Aral Sea region. 

Though Kazakh efforts were remarkably successful in reviving the North Aral Sea, across the border in Uzbekistan the situation is much direr. For a variety of reasons, not least of which being Uzbekistan’s crippling economic dependence on cotton production, similar efforts in restoring the South Aral Sea have failed. As a result, the people living in and around the Aral Sea area in Uzbekistan face the consequences of the actions of governments both past and present. 

Uzbeks living in the area suffer from health problems related to pollution and shrinking water supply, including respiratory illness, lung disease and high cancer rates. In addition, the dramatic reduction in the size of a major water source in the region has led to adverse climate impacts, changing temperatures and the phenomenon of salt storms which, quite literally, choke inhabitants of the area. Moreover, Uzbekistan’s reliance on cotton production leads to depleting water resources and quality, forced labor in cotton fields and a perpetuating cycle of poverty for people in the region.

If not for human intervention, the Aral Sea and those who depend on it for survival would have been spared the devastating impacts of a Soviet-era policy that leaves the once-thriving lake a sad remnant of what it once was. 

As world leaders congregate in Glasgow to engage in climate discussions, the Aral Sea disaster should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind. If not for Central Asia’s consequential role in the greater Eurasian region and humanitarian concerns, then at the very least, as a grave reminder: when humans meddle with nature, dire consequences emerge. 

And it won’t be long until climate change escalates into an Aral Sea-level crisis. Except this time, on a global scale. 

The time to act was decades ago. Climate change will continue to be a threat whether we’re ready to face it or not. 

Finger on the Climate Trigger: Tajikistan’s Melting Glaciers

In Central Asia, 60% of all water sources originate in the glaciers of Tajikistan.

Temperatures in the country have become 15% hotter over the last 70 years. Today, 1000 of Tajikistan’s glaciers are in danger of melting and up to 30% will shrink or disappear completely by 2050. 

Numbers tell a story. And in the case of Tajikistan, it’s a grim one.

Driven by carbon emissions and human developments in the industrial age, climate change puts the entirety of Central Asia, and the world, at risk. Glaciers are melting at an alarmingly fast rate, posing a grave threat to Tajikistan’s environmental and humanitarian landscape, the latter of which relies on these water sources for survival. 

In the long-term, water shortages and retreating glaciers like the Fedchenko glacier, which has lost more than 30 km of its area in the last three decades, are a serious concern for Tajikistan and the region. Moreover, the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Program in Central Asia warns that “if the temperature [in Tajikistan]rises at the same pace, by the end of the century, the region will literally become one of the ‘hot spots’ on the planet.” Short-term threats, however, are another characteristic of the crisis, with mudslides, landslides and river flooding being some of the more imminent risks for civilians. In 2015, for instance, the Khorog landslide in the Pamir Mountains of Tajikistan transformed the region’s landscape and Barsam Lake area, creating a dangerous environment for the people living there. 

As industrialization, the exploitation of natural resources and technological advancement propel human progress to new heights, climate change rampages some of the most vulnerable regions in the world. With the disparate impacts of the climate crisis on the region, Central Asia needs to be at the forefront of climate discussions — beyond just COP26. 

The critical phenomenon of melting glaciers in Tajikistan and globally is a dire warning of what the world is up against. Environmental impacts will only continue to worsen, and as Central Asia’s main water source depletes, the region is on the brink of a humanitarian crisis. 

The retreat of glaciers is irreversible. At this point, there is no going back. The impending crisis in Central Asia rides entirely on what we choose to do moving forward. 

Because Tajikistan’s shrinking glaciers have their finger on the climate trigger — and it looks like they’re ready to pull. 

Looking Beyond COP26 

The Central Asian states, as some of the biggest contributors (and victims) of the climate crisis, hold important lessons for the rest of the world. 

Autocratic governments like the one in Turkmenistan are a threat of the global scale, and their incapacity to engage in international efforts become increasingly dangerous as climate change raises the stakes of global cooperation. The failed environmental policies of governments past leave a legacy which haunts Uzbekistan to this day, highlighting the dangers of careless human intervention in the pursuit of development. 

And if industrialization at the expense of the environment continues at this rate, the cost of human development will prove to be too high. Faced with a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, Central Asia will soon come face-to-face with the effects of Tajikistan’s rapidly disappearing glaciers. 

As world leaders continue engaging in critical climate negotiations at the COP26 conference in Glasgow, Central Asia should be at the forefront of these discussions. 

From Turkmenistan, we learn that the role of the West in promoting democracy abroad becomes even more consequential when climate risks emerge, endangering the world at large. Perhaps, democratization efforts are the missing piece of the puzzle in climate negotiations at COP26. Moreover, Tajikistan’s melting glaciers and the South Aral Sea crisis become all-the-more relevant as COP26 targets emissions in efforts to mitigate the consequences of man-made climate change. 

With all the urgency and conviction that this impending threat demands, world leaders must adopt new approaches moving forward, recognizing that both autocracies and democracies share a stake in this plight. 

Because now more than ever, the threat of climate change looms large over our heads. And if the planet’s “last best chance” is reduced to just another point in the long-running list of international failures, what happened in Central Asia may not be so unique to the region anymore. 

The same fate awaits the rest of us, should we choose to tempt it. 

The post Dictators are Bad for the Environment and Other Lessons From Central Asia appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

COP is hosted this year by both the UK and Italy, with the latter serving primarily as a logistics and planning hub for the main event. Initially planned to take place in 2020, COP26 was postponed a year due to the COVID-19 pandemic. With several heads of state and other important representatives from 197 countries in attendance, COP26 plays a key role in determining the actions, commitments and strategies that the international community will take to mitigate climate change. 

The presence of several world leaders could also lead to more firm and swift actions taken to fight climate change. Gathering all the UN countries for a focused and uninterrupted discussion on the topic, with the common goal to coordinate climate change commitments – a diverse assortment of policy proposals including carbon emission reduction, technological innovation, sustainable development strategies and more – to achieve significantly more progress than any individual national action could.

Although this is an annual event, this year marks five meetings since COP21, more popularly known as the Paris Climate Conference that produced the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. Furthermore, COP26 will be the first time that short-term commitments, known as “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs), will be evaluated and renegotiated since states initially pledged at the Paris Climate Conference.

Structuring Sustainability Commitments 

NDCs outline the goals each country aims to address, especially regarding current emission levels, and specify their contribution to climate change mitigation and adaptation. The goal of this process  is that, every five years, countries will ramp up their goals and take progressively larger leaps toward net-zero emissions and an environmentally sustainable economy. This process is colloquially called the “ratchet mechanism,” as countries collectively amplify their commitments over time.

Countries were able to submit these new statements starting at the beginning of 2020, and as of the beginning of the conference, 149 countries had uploaded new or updated NDCs. These account for 78% of the Paris Accord signatories and 80% of the world’s CO2 emissions. However, not everyone has updated their commitments, with some of the most prominent countries, including India and Iran, yet to submit new NDCs. As the third and ninth most CO2 emitting countries respectively — accounting for almost 7% of global emissions combined — both countries’ participation in COP26 will have to clear up a lot of the questions left by their lack of a submission. 

NDCs were designed to allow countries to determine their contribution toward the international goal to mitigate the rate of global temperature to under 2C and ideally below 1.5C. However, current emission rates do not align with NDC commitments. Per the preliminary findings of the most recent IPCC report, if the world continues emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) at its current rate, warming will surpass the 1.5C mark in less than 9 years.  

If GHG emissions continue at this rate and global temperatures surpass 1.5C, tens of millions of people will be directly impacted by the resulting climate disaster. Famine, floods, droughts and mass migration will threaten lives worldwide. It is currently estimated that climate change could displace about 216 million people and cost the world economy around $23 trillion in lost revenue by 2050 if the crisis isn’t averted. 

The urgency and dire stakes of climate change has led international leaders, including John Kerry, first US Special President Envoy for Climate, to champion COP26 as the “world’s best last chance.”

Participants in Negotiations

One of the main segments of the event is the World Leader Summit, where heads of state – including US President Joe Biden, Indian prime minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida – gather to  discuss strategies to achieve emission reduction goals. As the leaders of the second, third and fifth most CO2 emitting countries, respectively, these heads of state account for almost a fourth of global emissions. Consequently, negotiations at the World Leader Summit have the potential to directly and efficiently coordinate reduction measures for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. 

Hopefully, uniting leaders at COP26, with the eyes of the international community watching, will incentivize and facilitate urgent, durable national commitments.

Most surprising, however, is who is not on the guest list. Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have stated that they will not attend the summit, citing COVID and safety-related concerns. 

Their absence could signify a potential setback for meaningful negotiations and discussions to take place during the conference. With China and Russia emitting 29% and 5% of the world’s CO2 emissions, respectively, the absence of their heads of state could diminish the impact COP26 could have on the environment. 

Xi Jinping has not left China since January 2020, when he made a trip to Myanmar, shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic began. Xi Jinping instead submitted a written statement urging developed countries to “provide support to help developing countries do better” and opting not to make any significant progress to China’s climate pledges.

In the statement, Jinping underlined three key factors the international community needed to uphold. These were: multilateral consensus on goals, concrete actions taken and accelerating the transition to green energies and resources. Additionally, he highlighted the actions that the Chinese government would be taking moving forward; including the Action Plan for Carbon Dioxide Peaking Before 2030. This plan seeks to have China’s carbon emissions peak before 2030, and have 25% of energy come from non-fossil fuel sources. 

The United States will also play an impactful role in the development of new strategies and plans to mitigate global warming. As the world’s largest economy, the United States will wield enormous influence on the decisions made at COP,as it did in 2015.

The U.S.’ actions at COP will be highly scrutinized, as President Joe Biden has consistently voiced his support for climate activism and reform. After President Trump announced that the United States would leave the Paris Agreement in 2017, Biden made it one of his first decrees to reinstate the United States’ membership. This positioned him as a committed advocate for combating climate change in the eyes of the public. President Biden has also shown his commitment through the appointment of people such as John Kerry and Gina McCarthy to the positions of US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate and White House National Climate Advisor. These newly created positions dedicated to climate advising and his attempts to pass climate legislation in Congress further show Biden’s commitment to the cause. 

Besides world leaders, other notable members that have been invited are veteran documentarian Sir David Attenborough, who has been named the conference’s “people’s advocate.” Youth climate activist Greta Thunberg will also be making an appearance at the summit to speak to the world leaders present.

Lessons from Paris and Key Challenges in Glasgow 

This is the twenty sixth time that the leaders of the world come together to tackle climate change. The first one was in 1995 in Berlin, and since then every year — excluding 2020 due to the pandemic — they have drafted and budgeted new plans to lower emissions. 

However, despite all this, only Gambia — of the countries surveyed by Climate Action Tracker — has policies consistent with Paris’ 1.5C warming target. This makes COP26 a crucial summit for the entire world to settle on a decisive, strict and commitment-heavy plan to mitigate the effects of climate change. 

According to the tracker, if the international community abides by their Paris Accord climate policies and targets, the world temperature would reach a 2.4C increase by 2100. This highlights how the Paris goals are not enough to keep the world’s temperature under 1.5C, as more drastic and harsher measures have to be adopted to effectively and realistically achieve these targets. 

Another limitation of the Paris Accord is the lack of penalties for countries that do not meet their commitments. The non-binding nature of the accord reduces it to a symbolic gesture of intention, rather than an enforceable plan of action. This enables countries to free-ride off of other countries’ achievements with minimal financial or political repercussions. 

Despite its urgent, all-encompassing mission of preventing impending climate disaster, COP26 has garnered substantial controversies and criticism. At the beginning of the summit, an Israeli minister highlighted that she was unable to access the summit in a wheelchair, showcasing the conference’s accessibility issues. Others have criticized the summit for excluding Indigenous representation. Additionally, COP26 negotiators have received criticism for overlooking some failures to fulfill pledges, allowing some countries to obtain the public image of climate leadership without engaging in substantive change.

Another issue faced in Glasgow is the degree of truthfulness to which countries commit to curb CO2 emissions. Some richer countries, such as the United States, pride themselves on moving forward towards a greener and more sustainable future, while they do not put in the financial and policy driven effort needed to meet these goals. Despite the US rejoining the Paris Agreement under Biden, the country is still on track to miss their promised emission levels.

COP26 will therefore have to look into developing a stricter and harsher set of guidelines if the international community wants to truly reach the 2030 goals set by the Paris Agreement. Through updated commitments, more drastic actions, and a wider sense of responsibility on each country’s commitments, the conference will aim to fix the loose guidelines set in 2015, and hopefully achieve much more concrete results.

As world leaders discuss the future of the planet, the temperature will keep rising, and every day those floods, mass migration, famine and death are creeping closer. The outcomes of this summit will show the world the level of apathy or commitment that our leaders have towards saving our planet. So, as the world waits, let us hope that our “last best chance” can actually make meaningful change. 

The post The Conference of Parties, Explained appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

LOS ANGELES — Dire famine in Madagascar, locust invasions driving Ethiopians into food insecurity, devastation from Cyclone Idai in Mozambique – climate change already endangers the lives and livelihoods of people across the African continent. The World Bank predicts 86 million Africans will face climate-caused migration by 2050, an upheaval that could devastate the continental community and economy. 

The entire continent only contributes 4% to the global total of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, its development is most threatened by climate change. As international leaders prepare to discuss environmental policy at COP26, communities across Africa already face the dire repercussions of climate change. Representatives from Africa enter COP26 with various political priorities designed to aid their economies in the transition toward sustainability and fortify their people against the impending onslaught of drought, flood, famine and economic disaster. 

At COP26, African leaders President Félix Tshisekedi of the DRC, Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon, Uhuru Kenyatta of Kenya, Muhammadu Huhari of Nigeria, and Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa will be leading the charge to get the African Union and the continent’s countries the support it needs to combat this crisis. In addition to these main players, the leaders of the Republic of Congo, Gabon, Mauritania, Togo, Angola, CAR, Madagascar, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Namibia, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau will also attend. And even in the face of significant international pressure to participate in this event, some presidents, including those of Senegal, Tunisia, Côte d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Benin and Mauritius, have decided to send their environmental ministers in their place. Despite a consensus that COP26 is crucial for the world’s future, discrepancies in commitment and attendance of Africa’s leadership may reflect disillusionment with recent trends in international climate governance.

For many African countries, difficult decisions must be made about the issues the conference poses. As food insecurity, terrorism, displacement, water scarcity and gender inequity persistently plague the continent, impending climate change disaster threatens to exacerbate the existing human suffering. Thus, the intersection between Africa’s sociopolitical issues and imminent environmental catastrophe will take priority for Africa at the upcoming COP26 discussions.

In Glasgow, countries are planning to work together to create a strategy and set goals for adapting to our new world. The AU’s governments already spend 2 to 9% of their GPD to fund adaptation programs and will need additional support and investment from developed countries to make the costly transition to environmentally sustainable infrastructure. The continent is most concerned with the adaptation goals at this conference for developing countries and is looking for the opportunity to address the unique challenges it faces. 

There are several issues African nations want to highlight. First, they would like to ensure that developed countries do not burden developing countries with unnecessary obligations to benefit themselves economically. Moreover, they aim to strategize and design their economy so that net-zero emissions are achievable by 2050. 

Another critical issue these countries are looking to address is ensuring that developed countries help finance the technology required to make the economic transition toward environmentally stable energy and industrial production. While developed nations will prioritize carbon emission reduction pledges, less developed countries will pursue investment plans to support technological innovation in sustainability sectors. 

Although COVID-19 has presented every nation with unprecedented economic challenges, African countries recognize their unique financial constraints and infrastructural underdevelopment demand significant attention from the international community. They will push for additional financial support from developed nations in the upcoming negotiations.

While Africa looks forward to collaborating on larger initiatives and issues that span various continents, it will bargain for increased support for its initiatives, such as the African Renewable Energy Initiative and the African Adaptation Initiative. Africa has received many loans to support these projects, which has created a large debt burden; therefore, it also needs more grants. With COVID-19, the debt burden has taken a toll on the continent, so in order for the continent to combat the climate crisis, it needs increased support. With leaders from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund present, Africa is hoping for a win.

The economic development of Africa has been a long time goal. For many years, the international community has hoped that Africa can one day be economically, socially and governmentally prosperous. However, climate change poses a distinctive challenge as the continent must be cognizant of the tension between national development goals and international sustainability initiatives. Moreover, climate change has eliminated the paths to development available to more developed nations such as the UK and the U.S. This is critical because Africa’s path toward development will be drastically more challenging and uncharted. 

But, with African leaders’ strong consensus and leadership on this issue, the continent can hope to achieve both development and environmental goals at COP26.

The post Africa’s Plan at COP26 appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Now, Indigenous communities stand on the front lines of the onslaught of climate change disasters across the globe. In Africa’s Kalahari Desert, Indigenous peoples face climbing temperatures, increased wind speeds and drought, sand dune expansion and diminishing vegetation and livestock capacity. Glacial melting disrupts seasonal water flow patterns in the Himalayas, affecting hundreds of millions of rural residents. In the Arctic region, traditional means of subsistence, such as hunting, fishing and gathering, have become increasingly incapable of sustaining Indigenous communities in the wake of warming temperatures, rising sea levels and shifting weather patterns. In the Amazon, deforestation, forest fires, savannization and forest fragmentation threaten Indigenous lives and livelihoods. 

These communities have the most to lose from climate change and the most to teach the international community. In the cacophony of voices on climate change policies at COP26  Glasgow, Indigenous voices merit particular attention and respect from the international community.

Indigenous voices around the world represent a diversity of cultures, perspectives, histories and knowledge systems. The UN estimates that over 476 million Indigenous peoples currently live in 90 countries around the world. Although they represent around 6.2% of the global population, Indigenous peoples inhabit 32% of the world’s land area, much of which houses crucial biodiversity resources. Despite historical exclusion from international deliberations and decision making, Indigenous peoples are custodians of the knowledge reaped from the ecosystems they occupy and are key shareholders in the future of the global environment.

“The social-ecology systems are crucially important within our traditional landscape and territories; through traditional knowledge and wisdom, which enforces governance systems for pastures, water, salt licks, movement of livestock and wildlife, social interaction and use are strongly connected to Indigenous pastoralist livelihoods,” said Justine Ole Nokoran, a local traditional leader from Tanzania.

Environmental protectionism is interwoven into the fabric of Indigenous cultures and economies. Their existence rests on preserving the biodiversity that sustains their livelihoods. A recent analysis of Indigenous peoples and practices indicates that global biodiversity goals will  ultimately be unattainable without comprehensive inclusion of their perspectives and guidance.

Despite the significant body of research revealing the necessity of incorporating indigenous perspectives into international climate policy prescriptions, Indigenous communities are only beginning to receive a seat at the table of global climate talks. 

“Indigenous Peoples are still seen as beneficiaries, as the last link in the chain,” said José Gregorio Díaz Mirabal, the General Coordinator of the Congress of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin. 

Not only does this framework diminish the rights and autonomy of Indigenous peoples, but reducing Indigenous peoples to the role of consultants, incidental or supplementary to the process of climate activism, overlooks their centrality to environmental issues.

Díaz Mirabal will be speaking at COP26 alongside other Indigenous representatives on Nov. 6 and Nov. 7, the days dedicated to discussing Nature and Land Use. The two-hour block devoted to Indigenous perspectives will “explore how governments, scientists and Indigenous Peoples are working with nature to enhance climate ambition and help keep the 1.5°C goal within reach, while delivering benefits for biodiversity and for the millions of people who depend on the land and ocean for their livelihoods.” 

COP26 strategy sessions to create feasible roadmaps for climate adaptation and technological innovation will benefit immensely from the Indigenous leaders attending the conference. However, many communities have asserted that these conversations do not equate to genuine dialogue between international leadership and Indigenous communities. COP26 discussions, and indeed all environmental policy discussions, need to integrate Indigenous voices.

Indigenous communities that have already gained a foothold in international climate discourse through social media and domestic-scale mobilization have a slew of policy recommendations for COP26 discussions, including expanding on emission-reduction targets, cutting pipeline construction, introducing a structure of intellectual property for Indigenous knowledge, legal protections for Indigenous activists and strategies for biodiversity conservation.

Native American Activism

Native American tribes in the western United States have ramped up pressure on the Biden Administration at this year’s “People vs. Fossil Fuels” week of action. Representatives spoke out against the governmental tendency to pay lip service to Indigenous interests while continuing to allow blatantly environmentally damaging industries to continue operating.

“Driving up more funding for carbon capture technology is a subsidy for the fossil fuel industry,” said Tom Goldtooth, the executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network who is of Diné and Dakota ancestry. 

Goldtooth and the over 500 organizations supporting his advocacy urge the international community to plan beyond carbon emission reductions and carbon capture. The U.S. government and the international community cannot hope to eliminate climate change without killing the fossil fuel industry.

First Nations and Renewable Energy

First Nations advocates in Canada similarly advocate for the total elimination of fossil fuels, especially pipeline constructions that destroy entire ecosystems and uproot Indigenous communities. Global leaders should look to Indigenous communities in the creation of renewable energy projects, instead of “repackaging solutions that we have and excluding [Indigenous peoples] from that conversation,” said Rebecca Sinclair, who is Cree from Barren Lands First Nation in Manitoba. Sinclair is currently a policy analyst with Indigenous Climate Action, an NGO based in Winnipeg.

According to First Nations advocacy groups like ICA, renewable energy projects present the Canadian government with the opportunity to increase Indigenous sovereignty and economic opportunities while simultaneously mitigating climate change. Moreover, practical policy solutions such as integrating Indigenous leadership into energy innovation could apply not only to First Nations but also Indigenous communities worldwide.

Safeguarding the Rainforest 

Indigenous advocates in the Amazon rainforest and the Philippines demand greater attention to biodiversity and sustainability research, which require strengthening of intellectual property laws for Indigenous communities and greater legal mechanisms to defend activists from violence. 

“Indigenous Peoples bring essential knowledge, experience and guidance to conservation efforts,” said Minnie Degawan, director of the Indigenous and Traditional Peoples Programme at Conservation International and a member of the Kankanaey-Igorot Indigenous group in the Philippines. “We must be present and our voices must be valued as part of the global conversation.”

Valuing their voices includes formally recognizing Indigenous rights to lands, water and resources. Furthermore, advocates in Brazil and the Philippines want funding to pursue their own conservation efforts.

In addition to formalized recognition and funding, rainforest-based conservation efforts require stricter yet accessible processes for Indigenous communities to crystallize their traditional knowledge into intellectual property. For example, Indigenous knowledge regarding farming methods, plant-based medicine and crops can benefit climate policy if the international community pledges to protect their intellectual property rights without exploiting the Indigenous communities that source this knowledge. Currently, intellectual property protection varies by county, leaving Indigenous communities vulnerable to exploitation and reducing the efficiency of information distribution.

But it’s not just intellectual ownership at stake. 

The fight to defend the environment threatens Indigenous lives, as well. In 2020, 227 environmental activists were murdered in defense of their culture, livelihoods and their home’s biodiversity. Lethal attacks occur within a broader onslaught of violence against environmental activism, including intimidation, surveillance, sexual violence and criminalization. A majority of these attacks occurred in Colombia, Mexico, the Philippines and Brazil, where human rights conditions are deteriorating alongside increasing environmental depletion. In Brazil and Peru, almost 75% of recorded attacks were committed in the Amazon regions of each country, where Indigenous people and local activists were operating in defense of forest ecosystems. Without adequate legal enforcement mechanisms to prevent and punish these crimes, Indigenous communities remain trapped between the destruction of their homeland and the threat of violence in retaliation for protecting it.

Indigenous rights have become inextricably intertwined with environmental protection, and the international community must spotlight the intersection between Indigenous lives and the wellbeing of their communities. Efforts to protect these activists and advance their missions must unfold locally, domestically and internationally. 

Leaders at COP26 must draw attention to the lack of legal protection for Indigenous lives to have any hope of facilitating locally based environmental movements, which ultimately form the building blocks of any successful environmental policy.

Incorporating Indigenous Perspectives

Evidently, recommendations emerging from Indigenous communities are diverse and extensive. Eliminating the fossil fuel industry, introducing community-based renewable energy projects, establishing universal intellectual property protection for Indigenous communities and ensuring protection and justice for climate activists – none of these challenges will be easily overcome.

However, international leaders have an obligation to integrate Indigenous interests into discussions and policy decisions, beginning this week at the COP26 summit in Glasgow.

As the world prepares for the fight for its life, José Gregorio Díaz Mirabal urges international onlookers to reconsider and value Indigenous perspectives, especially in conversations historically dominated by developed countries.

“It is not a relationship of 10 or 20 years, it is a relationship of more than 10,000 years. Throughout these years we have been able, with our culture, with our worldview, with our way of respecting nature, to preserve… Our territories, where the indigenous peoples are, are contrasted with the map of destruction that exists on the planet. Where indigenous peoples live there are forests, rivers, and biodiversity.”

The post Indigenous Rights are Environmental Rights: Voices from the Frontlines of Climate Disaster appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Although climate discussions consistently focus on emission reduction and carbon markets, COP26, in particular, aims to advance much-needed progress in energy policy. Globally, the energy sector contributes over two-thirds of greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, while the energy sector exacerbates climate change, worsening conditions from climate change have detrimentally impacted energy industries in developing countries, affecting water access, transport, and other industry mechanisms. As a result, energy will be a focus area for climate policymakers in Glasgow. 

The organizational framework of COP26 can be best understood through four categories: mitigation, adaptation, finance and collaboration.

Mitigation

The global community is currently not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the warming target outlined in the Paris Agreement. Instead, based on current estimates, warming is projected to be well above 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. In order to prevent catastrophe, the world must halve emissions over the next decade and reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 to prevent rampant global temperature increases. 

COP26 will re-emphasize the importance of nationally determined contributions. According to the Paris Agreement, every country agreed to share and update their emissions reduction targets every five years. 2020 was the end of the first of these five-year cycles, and countries will be entering the conference with updates for their 2030 targets. It is essential for developed countries, the largest emitters, to take the lead on critical action items to reduce emissions: accelerating the transition away from coal, encouraging investment in renewables, protecting and restoring nature by halting deforestation and pushing towards zero-emission vehicles. 

However, national efforts to assuage the onslaught of climate change must begin with mitigation tactics to reduce each nation’s contribution to greenhouse emissions.

Adaptation

Despite mitigation efforts, climate change has already had a devastating impact worldwide, and further change is inevitable. Each country is supposed to produce an adaptation communication, summarizing how they plan to adapt to impacts of climate change and where they need help. A key action item involves planning and financing for improving and building early warning systems, flood defenses, resilient infrastructure and agriculture. Specifically, in the energy sector, initiatives will pertain to constructing renewable energy systems to promote energy transition and reduce energy poverty in the developing world. 

These adaptation strategies should focus on supporting vulnerable populations that are particularly susceptible to the impending impact of climate change. As countries develop their adaptation communication, each plan should foreground high-risk communities in flood zones and on shorelines, directly in the path of climate change without adequate defense. 

Finance and Collaboration 

Significant progress cannot occur without finance and multilateral collaboration. Energy development requires all forms of finance: public finance to develop infrastructure and private finance to fund technology, innovation and climate investment. It is here where developing countries need as much additional support as possible. At COP26, developing countries will push for developed countries to deliver on the promise to raise at least $100 billion annually in climate finance to support clean development. 

Climate NGOs and activists will also advocate for considering a net-zero transition in financial decisions, even in private investment and all spending for pandemic stimulus packages and economic rebuilding. In addition, ey financial actors such as central banks and the private sector (banks, insurers, investors and financial firms) should work towards greater transparency and align this shift to net-zero emissions. 

The broad cooperative goals of COP26 are to finalize the Paris Rulebook and work together towards Action Items. For the rulebook, countries will seek to find a solution on carbon markets with carbon credits that support the net-zero transition, resolve transparency issues by creating a universal system to promote keeping national commitments and broker an agreement that drives governments to focus on the 1.5 degree Celsius goal. 

Multilateral coalitions have already been formed to address key energy concerns, and COP26 will be a critical platform to showcase and further their work. 

To meet the Paris Agreement’s goals, the movement away from coal and towards clean power needs to be 5x faster than current efforts. Fortunately, solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal in most countries. The Energy Transition Council and Powering Past Coal Alliance have already begun facilitating this. With membership from the World Bank, International Energy Agency (IEA), among others, the Energy Transition Council works to ensure clean power is the most viable option for the new power generation. This involves supporting countries in making an equitable transition away from coal. Similarly, the Powering Past Coal Alliance is an international public-private partnership aiming to phase out coal power and end international financing of coal plants. 

COP26 can amplify these coalition’s initial steps by pledging to restrict the construction of new coal plants and phase out coal power entirely by 2030 in developed countries and 2040 in developing countries. While ending coal power, countries should help scale up clean power by encouraging investment into renewables and increasing energy efficiency.

The RE100 initiative, led by the Climate Group, unifies influential businesses committed to 100% renewable energy in the private sector. With over 300 members in 175+ markets, they are already driving 300+ TWh/yr in renewable energy. The Climate Group also enables energy-smart companies to improve energy productivity through the EP100 initiative, lowering global energy demand and accelerating the clean energy transition. This is in conjunction with the IEA’s initiative between 19 member governments to address global energy challenges and promote energy efficiency worldwide. The group seeks to increase transparency and identify best practices and opportunities for cooperation. 

Putting It All Together

Successful buy-in into these multilateral initiatives requires global powers to lead at COP26. The United States, with its re-entry into the Paris Climate Accords and the Biden/Harris Climate Goals, is set to do just that. 

The current administration’s climate goals, ranging from net-zero transition, mobilizing climate finance, transforming energy and transport systems and creating adaptation mechanisms, align directly with the main objectives of COP26. The conference will provide a forum for the United States to pioneer new multilateral initiatives and serve as an opportunity to demonstrate commitment to combating climate change and restoring public trust after the previous administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. 

COP26 can tackle climate change and meet key goals with clearly defined objectives, multilateral cooperation and strong leadership. In the energy sector, discussions must prioritize reducing emissions by prioritizing energy transition and investment into renewable energy, aiming to reach net-zero emissions by 2050 and ending energy poverty in the developing world. 

The United States, along with other developed nations, as the largest emitters have an obligation to not only lead but also support developing nations in reaching their targets. COP26 is the “world’s best last chance” for meaningful climate action, and energy sector reform is essential to save the planet before it is too late. 

The post Empowering the World: COP26 and the Future of Energy Policy appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.