Intro

**Note: this is a blog post from my time at the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow in 2021. I am now rekindling this blog to track current issues in climate policy, with a particular focus on communication and political engagement. Please see the tabs at the top of the website for detail on my freelance consulting work. If anything catches the eye I would love to hear from you!**

Picture the scene. It is January 2013 and a particularly chilly London morning. A middle aged man is toiling his way down an icy road on his bike. The bike is just slightly too small for him. As the traffic lights turn red he lurches to a halt and claws his jacket further up around his neck, taking in the icicles on the lamppost ahead. Ten minutes later and he’s hunched over his computer, punching at his keyboard to produce the following immortal lines:

“I would not for a moment dispute the wisdom or good intentions of the vast majority of scientists … but I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it 'warming' is obviously to strain the language." (Boris Johnson, 2013 – The Daily Telegraph)

That same man is now the UK's Prime Minister, and is on his way to Glasgow to spearhead a last ditch global attempt to prevent catastrophic levels of global warming. This is both a terrifying and exciting prospect.

It is terrifying for obvious reasons. Is this really the man in whom we are placing so much collective trust? Is this the man to finally convince the world’s major powers to reconfigure the entire global economy with all its institutional layers and vested interests?

It is exciting also because it perfectly symbolises the moment we have reached. Climate change has moved from a fringe issue, viewed by many as an ‘interest’ and the concern only of eccentric tree-huggers, to the top story in global news outlets and the focus of a billion dollar industry. Twelve major economies including Johnson's are now committed by law to bring their emissions to (net) zero and many more are just a step behind. ‘Sustainability’ as a term is pervasive, and companies across the world are racing to convince consumers of their green credentials.

I will be the first to point to the inadequacy of some of these measures, but on the eve of this important week it is imperative that all of us embedded amidst the everyday trees of climate action step back and observe the wood for a moment. We have actually come a long way.

By a fortunate sequence of events, I am making the same journey as our Prime Minister, and will be trying to decipher what’s going on in Glasgow from the ground. Before the conference proper kicks off tomorrow, here is some background. There is so much noise around this event that more information can be counterproductive. My hope with this blog is primarily to inspire interest in the situation. We are constantly subject to the ‘what are you doing for climate change’ narrative. While this is of course important I don’t think it’s the sort of foundation from which emerges genuine positive change. Instead, consider what climate change could do for you, and, by extension, how you can get involved. The issue involves every facet and discipline of society, and presents as much of an opportunity as a challenge. If you, like many of us, are looking ahead to consider careers etc, few areas of life offer more potential. Anyway, here we go.

What is this week all about?

It is very simply about charting a global strategy to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that gets released into the atmosphere in order to limit global temperature rise to between 1.5°C and 2°C above pre-industrial levels. If we fail we will experience increasing heatwaves, droughts, storms and rising sea levels.

But you’ve heard all that before. Are you concerned? Probably a bit. Will you get over it? Probably. If you’re like me, or like most people, the above doesn’t motivate much reaction. What we need to focus on is the human dimension of this equation. These climatic events will trigger mass famine, mass conflict, and mass migration. Wealthy populations may be able to insulate themselves from the immediate effects, but as global inequalities deepen, both the physical dangers and human conflicts will come home to roost. When asked whether he is kept awake at night by the prospect of five degrees of warming, Professor Myles Allen says no, for we will not make it to that level. The global political system will have broken down long before that, with dire consequences.

So how are we doing?

The weeks leading up to COP26 have been far from smooth sailing. A gas crisis has rocked the world, causing global powers to rekindle their relationship with coal; a leak has exposed major global players including Australia and Japan lobbying to influence the IPCC process; a lone democrat has crippled Joe Biden’s keystone clean energy plans; and, finally, with days left until Glasgow’s opening remarks, the UN published its 2021 Emissions Gap report, with damning conclusions for policymakers on their way to Scotland. I’m pretty worried about the report, particularly so with the submission of China’s updated NDC which followed a few days later. The updated NDC sees no change to previous targets of peak emissions in 2030 and Net Zero by 2060 and does not stop the domestic burning of coal before 2025 as was hoped. Meanwhile, India, the world’s third largest current emitter, has said it may not submit an updated NDC at all. While the UK has released a seemingly pioneering Net Zero strategy, it is crucially important to situate it in the context of these global emissions, for it only accounts for emissions produced within the borders of the UK. UK consumption will therefore continue to drive emissions abroad even while the country ratchets down its territorial emissions.

What are the key things to look out for this week?

Firstly, it is all too easy to set distant targets without concrete steps to reach them. We should be looking for such concrete near term commitments during the conference, particularly for the year 2030 which is a crucial milestone. Secondly, as of the UN Emissions Gap report, we simply need more ambition from everyone. Thirdly, the key sticking point from Paris still needs to be ironed out; the infamous Article 6 on carbon markets. Specific points of debate are emissions double counting, the credibility of reductions, ‘share of proceeds’ financing for adaptation, human rights protection and the carryover of previously earned credits. Fourthly, addressing the pledge made in Copenhagen for $100bn of climate finance to flow from the developed to the developing world each year which has to date never been met. This is likely to be crucial in setting the tone of the talks, as previous COPs have been weighed down by friction between developed and developing countries. An interesting subplot for observers will be Brazil’s approach, with congressman Rodrigo Agostinho stating this week that his nation ‘will not be as big of a nuisance this time’ after they ‘sabotaged every discussion’ at COP25. For those after a comprehensive overview of the different national priorities and key points of conflict, see here

Two themes we should particularly be looking out for:

1. Historical and geographical responsibility. Those who have caused the crisis should, in the words of George Monbiot, take a ‘moral lead’ on tackling it. The world requires trillions of dollars of investment to sufficiently restructure its economy. Much of this finance has to come from or be led by the developed world. While the UN has little choice but to use territorial emissions accounting (ie countries are responsible for emissions produced within their borders), we must keep in mind the impact of consumption-based emissions when considering who does what, for many emissions are driven by forces on the other side of the world.
2. Upholding the SDGs. It is all too easy to focus on climate change as a problem of gases, particularly when you’re embedded in the quantitative, specific and often conservative world of finance. Tools like carbon offsets seem from here like perfect ways of balancing emissions. In our haste to reach and implement global emissions commitments we must remember the flawed systems that have caused this problem of gases and be sure that we do not make them worse. For example, offsetting programs such as reforestation have led to the undemocratic mass displacement of vulnerable populations in the developing world by faceless global corporations. As we necessarily reconfigure our systems, we have a golden opportunity to choose how we want them to look going forward.

I’ve never been quite sure about blogging for a variety of reasons. I’ve solved none of them, but with the conference now looming I don’t think it can wait. This, therefore, could be anything: maybe I’ll run out of things to say; maybe what I write will be incomprehensible; maybe my conclusions will be so conflicting that I’ll leave the reader more confused than when they started. Maybe, then, this blog will be quite a good representation of what is to come this week. Let’s hope not.

All photos are my own.