We have teetered over the edge of the climate talks now. The once bustling hallways of the stadium are now eerily empty, and the memories of the enthusiasm we had at the start of COP19 have faded. It is the final hour, metaphorically rather than literally speaking. As per usual for these negotiations, the talks have continued for almost twenty six hours. Earlier today, the Fijian delegate stated during the closing plenary of the ADP agreement,”it’s been a long week, it’s been a long night, and now, it is becoming a long day.” And it was.
Tensions have been simmering under the surface rather than bubbling over here in Warsaw. The mundane nature of COP19 has been seen as both an advantage and a hindrance. There are many reasons why the negotiations should have intensified. As the most corporate COP, the emotional speech by Yeb Sano following Typhoon Haiyan, the walk-out of the G77 and China during the loss and damage debacle have elevated the stakes, this has not necessarily led to additional pressure to put greater ambition on the table by negotiators. A sense of apathy has permeated the plenary walls, with the repetitive statements and a focus on the smaller processes rather than the bigger picture displeasing many. Breaking away from this stagnancy was the mass walk-out of the negotiations a day early by major NGOs and civil society members. Hundreds descended the stairs, adamant that they would return empowered in Lima, Peru next year, having done their own “homework” in their countries, a task they see their negotiators having so far failed. The need to have a solid draft of the ADP, a text that will need to have a legally binding agreement by all parties, cannot be understated.
The faith in the UNFCCC and the capabilities of a global pledge to tackling what is undoubtedly the greatest threat to all mankind comes under scrutiny at every COP. Having attended the conference for twelve days now, including spending the last twenty-four hours sleeping, eating and waiting inside the stadium’s walls, I remain unsure about the validity of this process. The first week seemed far more arbitrary then the last two days, sitting in the plenary, listening as leaders finalize the details of COP19. The three goals that were set for Warsaw have been achieved, including the establishment of a clear pathway for Paris, a financial constitution, and an institutional arrangement on loss and damage. All these successes are noteworthy, but they come at a cost for other mechanisms and the concerns of several parties. New Zealand is not exempt from this criticism. In comparison to Doha last year, we have managed to avoid any controversy, not because we haven’t done anything negative, but because we really haven’t done anything. Having already abandoned the Kyoto Protocol Commitment Period Two, but maintaining the principles of this treaty, our work in Warsaw has been largely unobtrusive. Work is clearly being done, but only by increments, an approach reflective of the tentative and tactical dynamics of the COP as a whole. The ADP co-chair, following several repeated points by different parties stated that these were “constructive suggestions”, but they were not “constructive surgery.” The negotiations feel like a patient waiting on a table, anesthetized, but not yet receiving a lifesaving operation.
For example, mitigation, an issue that remain absolutely paramount to our ability to limiting a temperature increase to .5 degrees, has been overwhelmed by a focus on financial mechanisms in relation to adaptation and loss and damage. This appears to be a convenient distraction from the reality that such measures, while undeniably crucial, will not be sufficient without a considered effort to raise ambition. Major carbon players continue to place their hands up higher and walk away faster from their original emission targets. Japan and Australia were the major perpetrators this year, both lowering their ambition that will mean an increase in emissions. Japan has a new target of 3.8% pre-2005 levels by 2020, and Australia has altogether abandoned efforts to reduce emission between 5 to 25% of 2000 levels by 2020. If we keep changing the rules, how are we supposed to win the game?
Tony Abbott’s philosophy is a childish one, believing that Australia should not reduce emissions by at least 5% until he sees commitments from other nations, a stance New Zealand took at Doha. This whole “I’ll show you mine, if you show me yours” mentally is not only problematic, but is also gravely unfair. The Emissions Trading Scheme has largely failed, carbon credits have become cheap tokens in the gamble with our climate, and developed countries continue to question the needs of developing countries for funding in order to mitigate and adapt to the challenges they face. The adoption of the loss and damage mechanism was held back because of the phrasing that it would under adaptation and remains under provision. The stress has been placed on developing countries to follow terms set by the players of the umbrella group, especially the pushy United States. As Yeb also said on behalf of his G77 comrades: “yet again, we are the ones who have to bend backwards.” If we allow major political and business powers to determine climate action, it seems that actual change will be an unattainable goal that even the light at the top of Eiffel Tower in 2015 cannot save.
I leave COP19 still hopeful that parties will have a greater realization that they must do more. I have seen unwavering dedication from negotiators, but I have also seen the important rolet civil society play at these deliberations. Last night, I participated in an action where we chanted phrases outside the plenary from the stadium stands. Our echoes shattered any illusions that may have been shielded the truth of how these negotiations were really going. While some leaders seemed annoyed, others smiled. I have faith that we can continue to support them and impact our own futures. I, for one, will not give up. See you in Peru.
By Meghan Stuthridge.
within the United Nations process, with many banners calling to ‘change the system, not the climate.’ There is a growing dissatisfaction with the current approach to tackling the climate crisis, and significant opposition to the UN’s REDD+ program, as evidenced by an array of banners and stickers throughout the crowd.
The New Zealand cohort carried a clear message to Tim Groser and the New Zealand government: Cut The Gap. We are deeply disappointed in the growing gap between New Zealand’s growing carbon pollution and our government’s commitments to reduce it, and want to see real action to back up the rhetoric being used here in Lima around doing our “fair share.”
