The state (and future) of the Paris Climate Agreement, from a journalist on the ground at COP29

In Baku, Azerbaijan, heads of state, leading climate scientists, environmental activists and regulatory officials from some 190 countries all gathered this week for the 29th meeting of the U.N. Climate Change Conference, better known as COP.

The stakes are as high as ever, as the impacts of climate change continue to ravage nearly every corner of the world, and the response to it feels slow and uncoordinated. The vast consensus at this gathering is that climate change poses an existential threat to the planet. 

I attended COP21 a decade ago when the United States, under the leadership of then Secretary of State John Kerry, signed the first global climate agreement setting specific standards for countries to reduce carbon emissions and prevent the Earth’s relentless rise in temperature from greenhouse gasses. This year I wanted to hear how the COP was going, particularly with the election of Donald Trump, and the threat in the air that he will pull the U.S. out of the international agreement again.

Managing Editor Wilson Liévano and I set up a Zoom call with veteran climate journalist Bob Berwyn, who was in Baku covering this extraordinarily important global event for the Pulitzer Prize-winning news organization Inside Climate News, to get a sense of what were the main themes of the conference and if those reflected the urgency and worry of the communities that are feeling the brunt of climate change. 

Back in 2015, I interviewed Kerry in Paris just after he had signed the agreement. The applause was still in the air when he asked me to walk with him to the U.S. delegation in the sprawling event compound and as we made our way he said that this treaty was immune to the whims of a single world leader who decided to pull out because it was an interlocking agreement and because it included a process of incentivizing private investment to create more renewable energy. His argument was that it has an inevitable to it, and so I wanted to ask Berwyn if that still held true with a second Trump presidency looming:

“We’re going to cross the 1.5-degree threshold this year,” he stated bluntly, setting up the context in which these developments are happening , “Fossil fuel use is as high as ever. And emissions are reaching new record levels,” he added, warning that “To have a key player like the U.S. fall out of that, or perhaps even be disruptive, is a huge problem for the rest of the world.” While the conference has seen countries like Germany and the European Union stepping up to fill the void, the loss of U.S. leadership—and the possibility of active obstruction—adds weight to an already fragile process.

Even without Trump’s involvement, the progress made since the signing of the Paris Agreement, which includes the rise of renewable energy and the implementation of local climate solutions, has been slowed down. Berwyn points at the obstructionism of big players in the fossil fuel industry, like Saudi Arabia, as big roadblocks to reach agreements even on the most basic concepts: “One of the reasons COP ended two days late last year was because Saudi Arabia wouldn’t agree to the language to phase out fossil fuels,” he said.  

This trend of active resistance from fossil fuel stakeholders, combined with disinformation campaigns and political roadblocks, has become a persistent hurdle for an agreement, that already suffers from a key design flaw, according to Berwyn: “There’s a fundamental flaw in the Paris Agreement in that they adopted a temperature target and left it up to the individual countries to decide on how to get there, rather than an emissions target,” he explained. 

Even so, Berwyn highlights areas of focus where progress can still be made, particularly on climate finance—helping nations already facing devastating impacts of climate change—and the submission of more ambitious national climate plans next year. 

“Climate finance is really key. We need to find ways to help people who are being hurt and who are losing their lives and livelihoods,” he emphasized.

Berwyn also had words of advice for the journalists covering not only these policy events, but the impact of their decisions (and of climate change) in their communities. “We have to tell the stories of people who are affected and show why this matters to them,” he said, while pointing out that as an industry, we need to dedicate more resources to this type of coverage and do a better job explaining the consequences of political and business decisions that affect our ecosystems. 

COP29 may not provide all the answers, but Berwyn highlighted the shared concern of most participants for the future of the planet and a willingness to improve on the original text of the accord, something he refers to as “COP reform”: “There have been successes. But how do we improve the process and how do we make this go a little faster? How do we work better to implement what we’ve already agreed on, the Paris Agreement? And are there real steps that can be taken for that?” 

Please take the time to read the full interview, which includes great advice for environmental reporters, and watch the accompanying videos. 

Editor’s note: Managing editor Wilson Liévano and Charles Sennott spoke with veteran climate journalist Bob Berwyn, who was in Baku covering the annual United Nations’ Conference of the Parties (COP29) for the Pulitzer Prize winning news organization Inside Climate News, to get a sense of what were the main themes of the conference and if those reflected the urgency and worry of the communities that are feeling the brunt of climate change. The conversation has been edited for length and clarity: 

GroundTruth: Back at COP21 in Paris, we had the opportunity to speak with John Kerry, one of the architects of the climate accord signed at that conference. He said that the way we will judge the success of the agreement is based on the investments that the private sector makes in renewable energy and the returns on that investment. Is there truth to that? Does this have an inevitability to it now that there is so much commerce built around renewable energy? 

Bob Berwyn: I would disagree with the basic premise. The only way to judge the success of the agreement is if we bend the emissions curve down and limit global warming. And right now, what we’re doing is adding more energy through renewables and not really reducing fossil fuel use. 

Fossil fuel use is as high as ever. And emissions are reaching new record levels than they have each year since the Paris agreement. Emissions have gone up, except in the year of the pandemic. I think that there’s a fundamental flaw in the Paris agreement in that they adopted a temperature target. And left it up to the individual countries to decide on how to get there, rather than an emissions target. And it was the only thing that everybody would agree to. Theoretically it can work and it probably will, slowly and incrementally. There is a lot of momentum toward an energy transition. But it’s not even close to fast enough. Based on increasing emissions, record levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and record temperatures, we’re going to cross the 1.5 degree threshold this year.

GroundTruth: Are there ways in which state, local governments in the United States and independent governments around the world can come together to keep this agreement moving, despite the efforts of the president of the United States to undercut it? 

Berwyn: It’s really hard to say if that’s the case or not. […] From what I’m hearing here, the EU is trying to step up and take a leadership role. Germany as an industrial country. China obviously doesn’t say much, but they will probably try to increase their ambition a little bit. So mathematically, you can say that. You know, globally, other countries could make up for whatever increases in emissions the U.S. sees under Trump. […]

For the U.S. as a country, I would hope to see places step up. Local communities and businesses and states and big cities especially work as hard as they can to cut emissions.

GroundTruth: What are you focusing on at this COP, and what do you see as the biggest trends that have emerged from this year? 

Berwyn: What I focused on so far is what I’ve been calling COP reform. There’s been a growing acknowledgment the last few years that this triple C process isn’t working quite as well as intended. That’s not to say it’s a complete failure. There have been successes. But how do we improve the process and how do we make this go a little faster? How do we work better to implement what we’ve already agreed on, the Paris Agreement. And are there real steps that can be taken for that? 

[…] A big reason that this process isn’t working as fast as it could be or should be is because of the outright obstructionism, that’s been documented and academic peer reviewed, by first and foremost Saudi Arabia but many other countries as well. One of the reasons COP ended two days late last year was because Saudi Arabia wouldn’t agree to the language to phase out fossil fuels, which was the big focus of last year’s COP. 

If there’s a trend, since the Paris Agreement, it would be the obstructionism on the part of the fossil fuel stakeholders and these petro-states has been ramped up because they feel the noose tightening and we’re fighting harder than ever. And don’t forget, they’ve been misleading us for the last decades about the science of climate change. They’ve been actively funding climate disinformation. They actively support political leaders who oppose climate action. So this idea of reforming cop is: Can we reduce that? Can we reduce that effect, that influence somehow? 

GroundTruth: What would you say are the top themes that you’re seeing in your coverage that are the most important takeaways from Cop 29? 

Berwyn: Given the lack of progress on cutting emissions, climate impacts are ramping up. Thousands and thousands of people have been killed by extreme weather that has been intensified by global warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. And so,climate finance is really key. We need to find ways to help people who are being hurt and who are losing their lives and livelihoods. […] So number one is climate financing, where we come up with a package that is fair and that meets the needs of these countries that are being hurt through very little fault of their own. […]

Second, as I mentioned very briefly before, next year this new round of national climate plans is due. Again, that’s something that all countries agreed to under the Paris Agreement: that every five years they would submit a new climate plan showing what actions they’re going to take to reach the goal of the Paris Agreement and the specific language in the Paris Agreement about ratcheting up ambition. I think those are actually the exact words. 

GroundTruth: It does interest me a lot as an American journalist that the role of the U.S., particularly with the election of Donald Trump and his vow, I think it’s fair to say, to take the US out of the treaty again. Was that a big theme? Is that something that maybe we in America are overexaggerating? 

Berwyn: I think, you know, the first few days that I was here, a lot of people were talking about it. And since then and I’ve been to a lot of different events and sessions and talks and negotiations, I wouldn’t say that it’s pervasive or dominating. But yeah, you can throw that in there as a third theme. But questions do come up. That was one of the questions that was asked in relation to the negotiations on climate finance. And it will come up in relation to these NDCs, because other countries are going to be looking at it, (and say) ‘if the U.S. isn’t going to deliver emissions cuts, what do we need to do? Or are we losing motivation?’

GroundTruth: What role do journalists need to play in highlighting climate change and where do we need to do better? 

Berwyn: In terms of the role of journalism, well, you know, we’re truth tellers. We try to explain complicated things in a way that makes them relevant to people. When you say ‘we as journalists,’ that’s a pretty big world. There’s a lot of journalism out there. I would say that mainstream media, until very recently, completely failed in this area. This ‘both sides’’ type of journalism that doesn’t work in a situation where you actually have facts based on physics is one side of the equation. And then people, saying opinions about it on the other side of the equation. I don’t think there’s any balance between those two things myself. So there’s a false equivalency there that doesn’t work for this topic. 

Another aspect of your question was how do we do it? And I think there’s a lot of different ways. We have to tell the stories of people who are affected. And show why this matters to them. We have to explain the science of it to people. The big picture science, which is like a big part of my work. And InsideClimate News is writing about new research on how global warming affects ecosystems and therefore the people that depend on them. We have to try and explain the politics surrounding it in a very clear way. I think we’ve gotten better at all those things. And I think there’s a lot of really good climate journalism out there. There’s room for improvement. 

One of the things that I keep hearing is that we need to be sure that these different parts of journalism organizations are connected to each other and that there’s some cross B kind of communication going on. I mean, you still see in the same newspaper stories that are really enthusiastic about some sort of business development that seems good short term economically, but that actually is really harmful to the climate. And to me, that seems like a total journalistic disconnect. 

Another area for improvement is more resources for this type of reporting. I’m a sports fan, but it frustrates me to no end that some papers have 20 sports reporters, you know, are writing about everything from high school lacrosse to, you know, to wrestling or whatever.  And they have, if they’re lucky, one environmental reporter covering a global beat that addresses existential issues of whether or not humanity will survive, whether our civilization will survive in its present form in a very short term time frame. To me, that’s never added up.

 

GroundTruth:  What’s your advice to reporters of the next generation who are out there in small newsrooms? How do you stay with it? How do you find your way forward to do work that matters for local journalism? 

Berwyn: Follow your passion. Be passionate about what you do. I think you need to practice this craft with heart, with compassion, and you need to really listen to people and what they’re saying, not be thinking about your next question, but really trying to take it in and give them a good a good give them a chance to really say what’s on their heart and on their mind and don’t be afraid to ask them about what your sources are feeling, what your contacts are feeling. 

Some of the stories that I’ve had the most feedback on were when I got scientists to talk about how crushing it is to them emotionally. You know, to watch a species they’ve been studying for their whole career go extinct or to go near extinction and how it makes them feel, how it makes them sound. 

When I started in journalism, I thought I needed to be sort of a distant observer. And try to stay sort of emotionally neutral. And especially on this topic of global warming. I find myself feeling all this stuff much more deeply. And I think some of it relates to the knowledge that I’ve gathered over the years, but also because I’ve changed as a human being. 

As I run around the halls here, sometimes, you know, somebody grabs me and asks ‘how are you doing?’ And I’m always just about to say, fine. And then sometimes now I say, you know, actually, I’m not really fine and I’m hurting, you know, because of the election. I’m hurting because of the damage, the carnage that we’re inflicting on this planet, on other species, on other people. 

I feel a responsibility as a citizen of a rich, developed country, because I talk to people here every day from countries that are just being hammered by these giant hurricanes and saltwater intrusion where sea level is rising way faster than the global average, where they’re telling me, well, you know, last year our well was fine. This year it’s salty. We can’t use it anymore. So they’re seeing these impacts accelerate and they’re telling me stories with pain and suffering in their eyes when I’m allowing myself to feel it. And. And I think that’s helped my journalism career and sharpened my focus. 

 

The post The state (and future) of the Paris Climate Agreement, from a journalist on the ground at COP29 appeared first on The GroundTruth Project.

from The GroundTruth Project https://ift.tt/iFbe9um
https://ift.tt/7QNL0cW