Special Report 1.5 Degrees Celsius: The Existential Tightrope of International Climate Diplomacy

Posted by Alexander Rezk



        COP is a place of many themes and many frames. People from all across the world come to discuss the most pressing issues in climate and environmental policy. At COP24, one theme in particular has been dominant: the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 Degrees Celsius as a warming-cap goal (to be referred to here on out as SR1.5). The mainstream media may be better acquainted with this report as the "...there are only 12 years left to control catastrophic climate change..." document. Either way, the effect this recently released report has had upon the global climate policy sphere is undeniable.

        Yesterday, on Tuesday the 4th of December, a major Plenary meeting was held titled SBSTA-IPCC Special Event: Unpacking the New Scientific Knowledge and Key Findings in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. It was a massive gathering of both Official Parties (Nation State Representatives), Civil Society (NGOs and other organizational bodies), and Observers (Yours truly, other researchers, press corps members, and affiliates). I attended because I felt that given the political climate of the COP (pun intended?) I would have been remiss in not witnessing the largest single forum on the SR1.5 that had yet taken place. I was not mistaken to have done so...

        The meeting began with opening statements from various members of IPCC leadership, and then the above video was unveiled to the audience. Following this two sets of scientific presentations were held. The presentations focused mainly upon explaining the methodological framing behind the SR1.5. Following these, the floor was opened to Party responses to the Special Report, and what unfolded was beyond my imagining. It was a whirlwind. I felt as though I sat at the epicenter of a global epiphany, a moment of realization and inquiry that would only happen but this once.


        Nation states of all walks answered the call for comment. The Maldives were quick to respond with an appeal to the severity of the issue at hand, and a lengthy call for increased Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from developed nations. Next, Nicaragua entered the field, and levied the criticism that if 1.5 Degrees of warming was our new target, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were essentially rendered meaningless through their incompatibility with the decreased growth such emission reductions would require. Iran chimed in, accusing the IPCC of flat out under-estimating the danger of Climate Change. Their argument? That countries experience warming at different rates, and that the Middle East has already experienced warming well beyond 1.5 Degrees. The IPCC members responded that the 1.5 metric was a global average and not representative of individual zones, but the tension remained high and Iran seemed unconvinced. Jamaica would enter the fray, arguing that a world in which people die of heat exposure in Ottawa is a world in which Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are doomed. China, meanwhile questioned whether 1.5 Degrees was a feasible goalpost, to which the panel responded that such dichotomous questions run against the grain of the report's framing.

        All in all, this scenario revealed a tenuous paradox at the heart of these proceedings: the fine line between the knowledge of what we must do, what we are doing, and what we can achieve. It was clear many nations, especially the most vulnerable SIDS and other states which stood to lose everything were caught in an existential rut. Most seem aware that the current level of NDCs are insufficient to achieve 1.5 Degrees of warming. Some would argue that our present NDC engagement may even be insufficient to achieve the prior standard of 2 Degrees. The resultant conversations end up revolving around articulations of existential dread and political optimism. The tagline being: We have the geophysical capability to achieve the goals of SR1.5, all we need is the political will. This makes sense in the Global North (most developed Nations), but does it fit for those on the other end of the development spectrum?


        Such conversations echoed further into today, where I attended several events hosted by the IPCC which focused upon regional responses to the SR1.5 (one hosted by the Alliance of Small Island States, or, AOSIS and one by Africa), where amidst conversations about Loss and Damage, Resilience, and Disaster Recovery, this existential refrain manifest. What do we do? How do we do it? And where do we place our awareness that we already suspect we may be unable to do enough? One of the key takeaways from these meetings was that this question is situated differently in time for different nations. Based on their relative vulnerability, some nations have already reached what the IPCC referred to as their Adaptation Limit (for example, SIDS). If this is true, how do we approach the optimism of our leadership while also maintaining a pragmatic eye for the relative risk present in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the most geographically and economically disadvantaged locations? A tightrope walk indeed. One I am interested to see play out and navigate as the week progresses and the literature evolves.


P.S.

The highlight of my day was having one of my Twitter comments read aloud and posted on two screens during the President's Open Dialogue!


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pleas to Reason, Appeals for Hope

If food waste were a country...