Less than a week after the 21^st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris, The London School of Economics hosted a panel discussion, chaired by Lord Nicholas Stern to reflect on the apparent success of the event.

Bleary eyed from what was no doubt a manic fortnight in France, an impressive panel lined up to provide insight from industry, academia and government. The line-up had all attended COP21, and consisted of:

• Peter Betts – Direction of International Climate Change at the Department of Energy and Climate Change
• Anne Bolle – Senior Advisor on Climate Change Policy at Statkraft
• Zoe Knight – Managing Director of Climate Change Centre at HSBC
• Alina Averchenkova – Co-Head of Climate Policy at the Grantham Research Institute

Lord Stern began by reflecting on just how significant an achievement it was to obtain such a bold climate agreement signed by 195 countries, an accomplishment that sees other such global agreements throughout history pale into comparison. This was a sentiment shared by all of the panel members, unanimously agreeing that the outcome of COP21 was at the very top end, and in places above any prior expectations as to how successful it could have been. Broadly, the topics of discussion could be split into three categories – What happened before and during talks to generate such an ambitious agreement, and what will have to happen after the COP21 to ensure its successful implementation.

Leading up to COP21

Homage was paid first and foremost to recent COP meetings, in particular Durban (COP17) and Lima (COP20). Lord Stern cited Durban as the birthplace of an increasingly collective effort between the developed and developing nations, especially larger ones such as China and India. Countries such as these began to acknowledge that the transition to a low carbon economy is an appealing prospect, and is essentially the only feasible option given the deeper understanding of the realities of climate change we now possess. Issues of air quality in China, which have received notable media coverage of late, generate public pressure for the switch to renewable energies, which a number of panel members feel is a move that is now more affordable and effective than ever.

Likewise, Lima was praised for inviting nations to submit Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), a series of documents outlying what various countries post 2020 climate ambitions are.  This provided negotiators with a base line climate commitment from submissions reflecting targets from 185 countries, and served to provide the smaller parameter of expectations held by negotiators leading up to talks.

Both Lord Stern and Zoe Knight said that the past 18 months of discussions between USA and China, both of whom are undoubtedly massively important players in global climate politics, were of critical importance. Given the adversarial nature that often characterises this complex relationship, and with fingers pointed at China for the hindrance of previous discussions (in particular the disastrous COP15 in Copenhagen), the importance of having them on board at Paris cannot be understated.

During COP21

The panellists portrayed an event that from the off had a very different feel to COP’s before it. The presence of 150 leaders of state from the first week of the event was symbolic of the importance levied on the discussions. This was in stark contrast, Lord Stern noted, from Copenhagen, where national leaders simply came to ‘clean up the mess’ at the end of the meeting. A focus on combined actions, and ‘ramping up’ countries INDCs as opposed to sanctions may have generated the trusting, optimistic feeling around the talks that many of the panellists commented on. This feel good factor may have been furthered still by talks commencing with what Peter Betts felt were a more honest set of expectations, based around a realistic range of possible outcomes – a lesson learnt he felt from Copenhagen.

The USA may not have always been synonymous with successful climate policies, evident through their objection to the otherwise widely agreed upon Kyoto Protocol. However, Mr Betts spoke very highly of their role in ensuring talks went smoothly, referring to the massive time and capital invested by the USA into the proceedings. This was second he said only to the French, also praised not only for their hosting abilities but their diplomatic approach to creating an inclusive environment in which discussions could be held. He also noted the importance of the USA’s role in alleviating concerns of vulnerable nations about loss and damage, a primary focus of many for obvious reasons. By cementing agreements early on loss and damage, Betts said, it facilitated the vulnerable nations to focus negotiating efforts on mitigation, helping move the process forward.

As lead negotiator for Britain and the EU, Betts was well placed to provide insight on Britain’s aims going into the discussions. Three that received special mention were:

• Implementation of a 5 year review cycle
• Improved transparency and accounting mechanisms
• Legally binding agreements wherever possible

He appeared content that these have been achieved, which is no mean feat considering the difficult balancing act of keeping the USA on board, and facing larger developing nations that often wanted none of the above through fears of infringement on national sovereignty.

Moving Forward from COP21

On paper, even the most sceptical amongst us would struggle to say that COP21 was not a relative success, although saying that global temperature increase will be limited to 2, with an aim of 1.5 degrees and actually doing it are quite clearly two very different things. Whilst nothing can be taken away from the accomplishments of COP21, leaders are now faced with difficult questions of implementation. As Alina Averchenkova pointed out, emission cuts in the INDCs submitted amount to 55 gigatonnes, with 40 needed to achieve the desired limitation of global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees. Whilst not insurmountable, she expressed the necessity for the trust built in recent years to continue for implementation to be successful. Also, increased public awareness and improved decision making structures in developing countries are very important factors in reaching the set targets.

Many of the further suggestions emerging from the panel on how to successfully implement the COP21 agreement were rooted within the market. Learning how to effectively encourage and spend private investments, carbon pricing and increasing knowledge amongst the financial sector on climate change were all named as means of doing so. Zoe Knight felt that the commitments made in Paris will break the cycle of blame that emerges between industry and the government, as industry can now feel more comfortable investing in a low carbon economy thanks to a more concrete, long term commitment from world leaders. She also believes that the knock on effect of China delivering on their cuts (whose signals she felt, suggest they will) will have a knock on effect on countries that export high carbon products to China, meaning a rethink amongst them on how they do business.

Having realistic expectations was apparently vital to the COP21 proceedings, and I feel also necessary as an audience member of this panel debate. Beyond the mutual backpattery, I came out feeling that given the calibre of speakers I hadn’t gained quite as much insight as I may have liked. Difficult questions from the crowd were on occasion tactfully (and sometimes not so tactfully) dodged. This included issues such as continued fossil fuel subsidies and Britain’s recent cuts to renewable investment, which are incongruous with the glowing picture of our mitigation ambitions painted by Mr Betts. Something I did feel was interesting however was the makeup of the audience. It was not full of the hemp laden, academic types that one may expect at such an event, but suit wearing, industry representatives, which may bolster the rhetoric that the private sector is starting to pay climate change the attention it deserves, and desperately requires.

It is probably unfair to expect answers to tough policy questions, especially within seven days of such a historic and no doubt arduous event. As Zoe Knights pointed out, it is important to remember that Paris is simply a first step towards tackling climate change, not the solution. In this case however, scepticism is healthy, and necessary if climate change is to be kept a priority in the months and years to come.

By Callum Nolan, Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar

On the 29^th of November thousands of people took to the streets all over the world to have their voices heard by the world leaders negotiating climate action in Paris. Being PhD students passionate about tackling climate change we could not let this opportunity pass by to get up from our desks and add our voices to those of activists, NGOs, religious groups and countless ordinary people trying to speak up. So, we joined in the action in London!

Looking back at COP21 in Paris, which concluded on the 11^th of December, and considering the Paris agreement one cannot help but feel that a small victory has been won. A hundred and ninety-five countries have agreed to decrease or limit their emissions by 2020 to cause no more than a 2°C rise in global average temperature compared to pre-industrial levels (pre 1800), with the ambition to keep it close to 1.5 degrees.[1] The question we are left with however is: in what way has all this activism helped towards reaching this agreement?

It’s hard to put a figure on just how much activism influences those seeking and reaching political agreements. However, actions like these are sure to make an impression, even if it’s only visually. From our own experience, being only two people in a sea of protesters, we can say it feels empowering to be part of sending the univocal message “make Paris a success”. We noticed many banners calling for climate justice, and felt glad that this was a clear part of the protest’s message. Even if there were a multitude of slogans being carried proudly in the march and divergent religious and non-religious groups of people representing their beliefs, we all contributed to sending this clear message together. This just goes to show: the health of our planet is something everyone can (and arguably should) care about. Surely solidarity and speaking up is important for galvanising public support for climate action and climate justice. We are glad to be making a contribution to the wider pursuit of climate justice through our research.

To conclude, this is our message to all the climate-activist sympathisers out there (particularly those normally sitting behind a desk researching climate change): if you feel tempted to take to the streets, don’t hesitate; storm those barricades!

[1] UNFCCC Adoption of the Paris Agreement Paris, 30 November to 11 December 2015: pp.2 and 22

By Vera Van Gool (Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar) and Phil Coventry (PhD candidate in the Department of Geography and Environmental Science)

Edinburgh, 20 November 2015

Recently we attended a symposium addressing the UN climate change Conference of the Parties in Paris, due to begin at the end of November. The symposium started with a challenge from Sandra Boyack, MSP, for attendees to engage with civil society groups, raise awareness about climate change and climate justice, and disseminate our research through new and unconventional channels. This set the tone for a wide-ranging discussion, with panels covering domestic French politics and climate change, climate politics and justice, and the civil society response to climate change negotiations.

All of the panels considered the circumstances of the Paris conference, both in terms of the political moment, and the local and global reaction to the recent terrorist attacks. This would become a key theme of the day.

Speakers in the first panel, about French politics, went beyond political parties’ positions and discussed how the Paris conference is an important event in President Hollande’s term of office, since the outcome will inevitably provide political capital to either him or his opponents. This significance is only heightened by the terrorist attacks, which have placed a spotlight on the president and his handling of the aftermath. Dr Carl Death took a broader perspective in the second panel, describing Paris as a moment of political theatre where all participants are on show and need to be seen performing their respective roles.

Civil society panellists discussed the effect of restrictions recently placed on public protests and advocacy in Paris. While an important obstacle to the impact civil society groups hoped to have on the delegates and the media, panellists made clear that the restrictions have stimulated new and imaginative methods of communicating with the public and making their messages visible to conference delegates.

The significance of civil society was a second theme that ran through the symposium, and was specifically addressed in the third panel. Adrian Shaw, from the Church of Scotland, picked up on Sandra Boyack’s point that faith groups offer a substantial and potentially influential cohort to engage and motivate about climate change. Mary Church provided an insight into Friends of the Earth activities and priorities in Paris, and Louisa Casson, from E3G, brought a wider perspective on civil society activists and campaigners. These contributions made clear that national and transnational groups are gearing up to provide the vocal and insightful pressure from the outside of the Paris conference that is so vital to robust governance.

The second panel, covering climate politics and expectations for Paris, emphasised the role of civil society in providing visible activity but also the need for their in-depth analysis and information more quietly behind the scenes. This echoed Sandra Boyack’s insight into the important contribution civil society groups made to Scottish climate change legislation, by providing authoritative suggestions that fed directly into wording, targets and principles.

While nowhere near as dynamic as civil society, numerous panellists commented that climate change governance does show signs of evolution; this was a third core theme of the day. Central to this is the model of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), where individual countries design their own voluntary commitments. Dr Paul Tobin described these changes as ‘politically promising’, but translating them into a robust treaty remains a significant challenge. The idea of ratcheting up expectations and commitments was raised by several speakers. This would involve scheduled checkpoints every few years to review progress and new technology, and agree more stringent measures. Ratcheting up is emerging as a potential means to turn the INDCs, which have fallen short of what is necessary to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees, into scientifically adequate action.

Dr Tobin described the potential for more bottom-up, individualised contributions to secure ongoing engagement from states within the UNFCCC and underpin the changing governance process. Dr Sherilyn Macgregor pointed out that behind this promise lies the actual and potential inequality of INDCs. A lack of consultation and representation in the creation process has generated concerns that vulnerable groups within national societies will be disproportionately affected by climate change policies or simply neglected.

Dr Death reminded us that even if climate governance is evolving, some debates, such as a 1.5 or 2 degree temperature limit, seem to have been lost by vulnerable groups. Revisions to the negotiating text in advance of Paris have been portrayed by developing countries as embodying US interests, suggesting that established political themes and controversies remain important in climate governance, and will undoubtedly play a role in Paris.

The symposium ended with small group discussions, which proved lively and fruitful. In our group, talk turned to how differentiation between states, with reference to the Common but Differentiated Responsibility principle built into the UNFCCC, can develop alongside INDCs. There was optimism that the combative focus on burden sharing and geopolitical manoeuvring that was so damaging in Copenhagen may be exorcised through the voluntary contributions approach. Nevertheless, the discussion mirrored the panellists in concluding that Paris will be, in the words of Dr Tobin, ‘environmentally insufficient’.

Despite the challenges, the symposium was a reminder that a huge amount of effort is being poured into the future of climate governance by the academic and civil society communities. While the challenge to disseminate our research and engage with policymakers should remain with us in the months and years ahead, as the moment of truth draws near we must pressure and encourage our representatives, and hope they emerge in three weeks’ time with the beginning of a new and promising chapter in climate governance.

By Philip Coventry (PhD candidate in the Department of Geography and Environmental Science) and Josh Wells (Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar)

The Global Economic Governance Programme 2015 Annual Lecture by UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres: “The Imperative of a Global Climate Deal”, at the University of Oxford, 26^th October 2015

Let us begin by reassuring you that there is a reason we titled this post with something worthy of a tabloid newspaper. As we will hopefully show in the following few paragraphs, we think the pun is pretty accurate, as well as pretty bad. Having listened to Christiana Figueres discuss her perspective on climate change, it seems she really has got it all figured out – and by “it”, we mean a strong case for the necessity of action on climate change. The “imperative” of action, as her speech was titled.

In the first half of the lecture, Ms Figueres outlined five imperatives for climate action. She began, as seems appropriate for any lecture on climate change, with the scientific imperative. Evidence of warming of the global climate system is unequivocal, humanity is almost certainly responsible through greenhouse gas emissions, and anything over a rise of 2°C to the global temperature average compared with pre-industrial levels could spell catastrophe for large numbers of people across the world. Unfortunately, none of this is new information – which confirms that little progress to date has been made in meeting the challenge of climate change.

It was particularly interesting to us that Ms Figueres chose the moral imperative as second in her list, above both the economic and political cases for action. As scholars on the Climate Justice programme, we are always on the lookout for mentions of justice and ethics! “Thank God for the Pope”, she began by saying, citing Pope Francis’ encyclical letter “Laudato Si’” from May this year, in which the Pope emphasised the responsibility of humanity to look after both each other and the natural world. She was encouraged to see that virtually all of the world’s major faiths agree on the necessity of preserving nature as much as possible, although her interpretation of the moral imperative didn’t really go beyond a discussion of the role of religious faith in support for climate action.

The third imperative was the technological. Ms Figueres stated, quite rightly, that renewable power generation technologies are today much more economically competitive than they were a few years ago. She followed this statement by saying that she always tries to give a positive message in her speeches, which led us to wonder whether she thinks that renewables still don’t offer an economically justifiable replacement for fossil fuels. Nevertheless, it provided a useful bridge to the fourth imperative – the economic case for action. As we said, we were surprised that this did not garner a spot further up the running order of the lecture, as many of the narratives that feature throughout climate negotiations are of an economic nature – for example, questions of whether states can afford to implement certain policies, arguments over funding arrangements for developing countries, and even how climate action will affect the money in the average person’s pocket. Like Lord Stern, Ms Figueres was optimistic. She said that she sees climate change as an opportunity for global development to emerge from a “growth plateau”, because rebuilding infrastructure all over the world in order to combat climate change will “energise” the global economy. She also thinks this will result in a “brave new world scenario” in which the Global South will play an increasingly central role. Did we mention she was optimistic?

The fifth and final imperative presented was the political. Reinforcing her upbeat tone, Ms Figueres confirmed she certainly is more optimistic than she was five years ago. She said that the “saving-the-world-approach”, which could mean altruism, or perhaps the EU’s more progressive stance, “has been tried and doesn’t work”, and that countries are now motivated by self-interest. This made us wonder again quite why the moral imperative was placed so highly on the agenda. Nevertheless, she was pleased that 155 countries have now submitted their national plans for climate action. Although she did make clear that she only sees this as a stepping stone towards a more effective outcome in Paris, she argued, quite rightly in our view, that it is good to get the ball rolling.

The lecture concluded with four predictions for the future, based on what Ms Figueres has observed during her time as UNFCCC Executive Secretary. She predicted firstly that many decisions on climate action will be taken “along the lines of planetary boundaries” rather than national boundaries. She developed this with her second prediction: solutions will become more localised, but within the context of the global-level governance decisions. Thirdly, she expects new forms of public-private relationships, with TNCs moving towards the governance space, motivated by things other than profit, and the public sector becoming more efficient and effective. The final prediction was that “we are beginning to get over the disease of short-termism” when thinking about climate action. More than any of the others, we hope that this prediction comes true, as an effective and just response climate change requires an understanding of long-term effects, both on the climate system and on humanity’s relationships amongst ourselves and with the world around us.

Ms Figueres is certainly a charismatic speaker, and it was easy to tell that she is well used to speaking to the public. Her explanation of the five imperatives was clear, albeit rather glossy and slightly simplified for public consumption. It was certainly an inspiring lecture, although we wonder to what degree her optimism is genuinely based on expectation of a satisfactory outcome to the Paris COP in December rather than personal hope and the necessity of the UN’s political neutrality. After all, the IPCC has assessed current pledges and determined that at present they would only limit warming to 2.7°C, and the failure of Copenhagen, the last time the UNFCCC attempted to thrash out an all-encompassing agreement, is still fresh in the memory. Still, Ms Figueres’ optimism is admirable, and hopefully it will prove justified. Perhaps we all ought to take lesson from Peter Pan – “anything is possible if you wish hard enough.”

By Danny Waite (Leverhulme Doctoral Scholar) and Phil Coventry (PhD candidate in the Department of Geography and Environmental Science)

Why You Shouldn’t Wait – some thoughts by Joshua Wells and Vera Van Gool (1^st year Leverhulme Doctoral Scholars) on a public lecture given by Lord Nicholas Stern: ‘Why Are We Waiting’, Sheldonian Theatre, 22/10/2015, at the University of Oxford hosted by the Oxford Martin School and the Environmental Change Institute

Standing in one of the many queues leading up to the Sheldonian Theatre in Oxford, we were pondering the question,  ‘Why Are We Waiting?’. However, we were not to find the answer to this question in Lord Stern’s talk. Despite this question being the title of both his book and talk, Stern would emphatically argue that we should not be waiting.

Stern illustrated the importance of this talk by explaining that humanity is at a cross-roads. He appealed to the broad self-interest of humanity. As a species it will cost us more in the long run if we delay action and taking action is becoming ever more urgent. The views he presented here are consistent with his famous review, ‘The Economics of Climate Change: the Stern Review’. Naturally, he also added a new insight to his former work. Surprisingly this insight was that the challenge of overcoming poverty is very much intertwined with combatting climate change. The reason why this is surprising is that the idea has arguably been around for quite some time. He emphasised: “If we fail on the one, we fail on the other”.

Despite this huge challenge humanity faces, Stern is actually very optimistic about the economic incentives that could drive climate-change combatting actions. A transition to a low-carbon economy is where his optimism is placed. He also stresses that the coming century will be determined by the actions we take in the next twenty years. Therefore if his optimism is not to be misplaced we should see significant action within this window. Stern thinks that the success of this will in part be determined by the framing of our actions in combatting climate change. We would need to frame many of our contributions to climate change as cases of market failures. Then it will become ‘extremely attractive’ and ‘feasible’ for policymakers to address these market failures and in doing so climate change.

You might be wondering: isn’t this too good to be true? We were… Stern reassuringly commented that ‘certainty is not on offer’ here. Instead, reduced uncertainty is on offer. We know for sure that our inaction would gravely effect current as well as future generations. So isn’t that enough of a reason to start acting? On the subject of the future, Stern reflected on the way in which economists discount it. He explains that discounting is legitimate when we are engaged with questions of value regarding goods and services. However, he holds that it is not acceptable to apply the discount factor to lives. The value of a life in the future is not contingent upon that future’s wealth.

The talk then progressed to Paris, where Stern shared his thoughts on the upcoming negotiations. There is a general acceptance that the Copenhagen Accord was weak, due to the lack of political coherence and willingness (particularly on the part of the US and China). However, this time things are very different. China has progressed beyond all recognition in the past 6 years and the US now has a president who is in his last term of office and in Stern’s words is ‘seeking a legacy’.  There is now willingness from these two global powers which creates a much more conducive setting for substantial climate change negotiations.

Despite this Stern stressed that the agreement will not be sufficient. The agreement simply will not be strong enough with respect to emissions reductions.  Therefore Stern urged us to take responsibility and persuade our political leaders and representatives that they ought to do the same.

A big welcome to our first cohort of Leverhulme Trust Doctoral Scholars:  Alex McLaughlin, Callum Nolan, Vera Van Gool, Danny Waite and Joshua Wells!  We hope that your time at Reading is rewarding and enjoyable!