It’s Up to You New York, New York: Catalyzing Action at the 2014 Climate Change Summit

There's a slight chill in the air as the old city of London begins to settle back into its grey and gloomy self again. Summer has waved its last goodbye, and as always, I welcome with open arms the arrival of Fall (or Autumn, as it is referred to here in the UK), which I regard as the most sentimental season of the year. My attachment to it lies in seeing the changing colors of the leaves, how they would slowly flutter down one by one, pile up on the sidewalk, and patch the streets in rich and rusty shades of gold and amber. Then there's the indelible aroma of roasted chestnuts mingling in the playful breeze that would rustle up the crimson pile, and cause them to twirl around in a silent dance.

Source: www.thelmagazine.com

But more than its nonchalant ambience, the crisp air of Fall holds the power to conjure memories of a place I once called home – New York City, in which the descent of foliage at this time of year makes the smoky, steely, blackened concrete jungle appear scarlet, bucolic, and nostalgic.

In the city that never sleeps, the early days of Fall are  also accompanied by the arrivals of Heads of State and Government from around the world. Reminiscing on my teenage years, I remember seeing diplomats shuffling themselves home like zombies in the morning as I hastily ran to catch the M15 bus to school, the noticeable presence of high-security enforcement officers and “men-in-black” figures surrounding the United Nations (UN) vicinity, and the rerouting of M42 buses, which of course resulted in a classic display of New Yorker “attitudes” i.e. incessant cursing along with open expressions of annoyance over the sudden increase of roadblocks, traffic, police (or just about anything else that  caused them to wait a nano-second longer than necessary). 

Such scenarios served as an indication to me that it was time for the big “GA” or General Assembly, described by CNN's Richard Roth as the "Superbowl of diplomacy". Annually, leaders from around the globe would gather to attend this momentous event, which is convened and hosted by the UN at its headquarters in the Big Apple. 

The GA was established in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations and according to the UN, it “occupies a central position as the chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ of the United Nations” as well as providing “a unique forum for multilateral discussion of the full spectrum of international issues covered by the Charter”. 

What is especially memorable about the GA is its General Debate, which provides each leader with an opportunity to speak on behalf of their nations by addressing their counterparts, and the rest of the world that is watching, at the iconic green marble podium. This year, however, the 69^th session of the GA was preceded by the 2014 Climate Summit.

What is the 2014 Climate Summit?

The Climate Summit is regarded as the largest gathering of world leaders in one place at one time to address the urgent issue of climate change. The Summit was convened recently on Tuesday, 23 September, by UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-moon who had urged leaders back in 2013 to announce bold pledges in their countries’ reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 

As explained by the UN, the Climate Summit serves to promote climate action and aims to "show that leaders across sectors and at all levels are taking action, thus expanding the reach of what is possible today, in 2015, and beyond.” 

The Summit is not part of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiating process. This means that whatever was stated or discussed at the event shall not be considered as a formal agreement or binding decision on climate change. However, the event did set the stage for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference (also known as the 21st Conference of the Parties on Climate Change or COP21) that is scheduled for Paris in 2015. COP21 is expected to result in a new meaningful, robust, and universal legal climate agreement, with the first draft due in Lima by the end of 2014. It is one of the reasons why world leaders are being publicly pressured more than ever to improve their commitments and display their best political will.

As apparent in the following statement released by the UN:

“The Summit will serve as a public platform for leaders at the highest level – all UN Member States, as well as finance, business, civil society and local leaders from public and private sectors – to catalyze ambitious action on the ground to reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience and mobilize political will for an ambitious global agreement by 2015 that limits the world to a less than 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature. The Climate Summit will be about action and solutions that are focused on accelerating progress in areas that can significantly contribute to reducing emissions and strengthening resilience.”

Mr. Ban also reiterated the vital need for political momentum and transformative action through his summary speech, as follows:

“The purpose of the 2014 Climate Summit was to raise political momentum for a meaningful universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015 and to galvanize transformative action in all countries to reduce emissions and build resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change. I asked leaders from government, business, finance and civil society to crystallize a global vision for low-carbon economic growth and to advance climate action on five fronts: cutting emissions; mobilizing money and markets; pricing carbon; strengthening resilience; and mobilizing new coalitions.” 

The Summit carried out its purpose through the star-powered opening ceremony, the Plenary Sessions where Heads of State and Government introduced their new national strategies for action, the Private Sector Forum lunch that focused on the issue of carbon pricing and statements of new commitments by private and public actors, the announcements of new initiatives delivered by coalitions of governments, businesses, and civil society organizations, and finally the Thematic Sessions, which focused on policy and practices in critical issues of climate action.

What was the outcome of the Climate Summit?

According to the UN, the outcome of the Summit was expected to be “the sum total of the announcements made by the leaders of government, business, finance, and civil society during the Summit to address climate change, along with a renewed sense of hope, optimism and momentum”.

Source: www.businessinsider.com

While the Summit did not essentially produce any formal decisions or agreements (as was briefly mentioned earlier), it did manage to bring climate change to the forefront by pushing leaders to pledge their countries’ commitments, mobilizing active public participation on climate change, acknowledging the science surrounding the phenomenon, and emphasizing the urgent need to address the problem as a global community at stake.

The Climate Summit was also met with the support of A-list celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio who joined in to influence decision-makers and the public in taking serious action (“you can make history or be vilified by it” – watch Leo’s speech here), and industry leaders such as from oil and gas who, according to Mr. Ban, “made an historic commitment to identify and reduce methane emissions by 2020”. Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner, a Marshallese poet who spoke on behalf of civil society delivered a moving poem, stating that “we deserve to do more than just survive, we deserve to thrive”.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
at the People's Climate March (Source: UN)

At the same time, a huge People’s Climate March was organised around the globe (including here in London) as civil society’s way of demanding action on climate change. Even UN Sec-Gen Ban Ki-Moon joined in the street rally in Manhattan, telling reporters, “This is the planet where our subsequent generations will live…There is no 'Plan B' because we do not have 'Planet B'.” 

Events, activities and high-profile meetings were also held under Climate Week NYC to provide the public with planned activities targeted on informing and educating as well as getting people to participate.

Further details of the outcomes are outlined in Mr. Ban’s summary speech, which can be read here.

Malaysia’s Commitment to Climate Change

As for Malaysia, our Prime Minister, Hon. Dato' Sri Najib Razak announced that the country is “well on track” in its previously pledged target to reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 40% by the year 2020 (His entire speech can be found here). He stated that the emissions intensity of Malaysia’s GDP has been reduced by more than 33% and that this progress was being achieved through the implementation of national policies on climate change and green technology, as well as other initiatives such as gazetting new forest reserves and passing the Renewable Energy Act, which establishes a feed-in-tariff for renewables.

He also mentioned that Malaysia continues to struggle in managing both mitigation and adaption to climate change, and that the country has yet to receive any financial assistance or technology transfer from Annex I countries (i.e. the industrialized, developed countries):

Prime Minister of Malaysia addressing the 69th General Assembly at the UN
(Source: Reuters)

“That target we set in Copenhagen was conditional on finance and technology transfer from Annex I countries. Yet neither condition was met. We did not receive the assistance we were promised under article 4.7 of the Convention”.

Nevertheless, the Prime Minister remains optimistic in Malaysia’s efforts, explaining that there are new policies aimed to promote energy efficient vehicles, a corporate greenhouse gas reporting programme, a building sector energy efficiency project and a low carbon city framework, in addition to plans for construction of a new urban mass transit system that could halve the number of cars on city streets. But the PM also continued to emphasise the need for ALL countries to commit to their pledges as it would be futile if they are announced without serious intention and consistent action:

“Malaysia continued to cut its emissions intensity, for the sake of our people – and our planet. This time must be different. This time, all countries should commit to an ambitious deal to reduce emissions. And they must follow-up that commitment with consistent action….We can grow our economies, increase prosperity and reduce emissions all at the same time. We stand ready to work with other fast-developing nations to argue for greater ambition in 2015; and to show that economic development and climate action are not competing goals, but common ambitions”.

The 2014 Climate Summit has witnessed some bold pledges and what appeared to be a more pronounced degree of commitment to combatting climate change. However, the disappointing track record of climate change negotiations in the past would understandably raise doubts as to whether an effective agreement could be reached in Paris by 2015. Indeed, the debate on who should be more responsible and who should commit to cutting more emissions is a complex and never-ending one. While such dimensions of the climate talks are still being discussed and negotiated, it is hoped that the concerns and promises expressed by both civilians and leaders at the Climate Summit would ultimately lead to realising the shared dream of a more just and sustainable world.

And what better place to catalyze action towards such a dream than the City where dreams are made?

A view of my old neighbourhood:
Much has changed in New York & in my life since this shot was taken, 
but my deep sentiments towards the City that raised me & gave me voice remains the same.

The Politicization of Climate Change

Earlier this week, I attended an open conference at EOI on U.S. Climate Change Policies. Our guest speaker of the day is currently attached to the United States Embassy in Madrid. With his background and expertise on environment and climate change, Mr. Ari Nathan gave us a one-and-a-half-hour talk on the evolution of climate talks in the international arena and the latest scenario of climate change politics that has taken place in the U.S. between Democrats and Republicans.

The overall theme of the talk was centered on the reasons why the U.S. has not been able to truly establish climate change policies. The answer, he says, is China. The story goes that the U.S., as the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the world, has refused to commit to international agreements on emissions reduction as long as there are no equal levels of commitment from emerging economies such as China. Under the Kyoto Protocol, economic powerhouses China and India (which have signed and ratified the treaty) are not obligated to reduce GHG emissions as they are considered developing nations. Although then President Bill Clinton had signed the treaty in 1997, the Senate voted against ratifying it, citing that it could bring damage to the U.S economy.

Mr. Nathan also explained that another barrier in forming climate change policies in the U.S. is due to the fact that approximately two-thirds of Republicans think that climate change does not exist, while Democrats argue otherwise. Hence, the topic of climate change has become a partisan issue that is resulting in the polarization of climate change debates and perceptions. The general view is that if a political representative is a Republican, he/she would be expected to think of climate change as a myth; on the other hand, if one is a Democrat, he/she would be expected to see climate change as an issue affecting the world that needs to be addressed. This scenario, of course, directly influences public opinion as people begin choosing sides and associating themselves strongly with the stance of their preferred party, oftentimes without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the complex science behind climate change and the diverse findings of scientific research in this field of study.

Our speaker stated that the abovementioned factors are a few reasons why, in the last two years, the U.S President's State of the Union has shied away from mentioning climate change or global warming. Instead, President Barack Obama has opted to speak more on job opportunities in the green economy, building sources of clean energy, promoting innovation, and increasing energy efficiency in order to compete against Europe and China.

 

The speaker also talked briefly about how recent international climate negotiations are making efforts to engage developing nations and especially emerging economies through an "energy-efficiency" approach on the issue - the idea that climate change agreements need not necessarily mean that a country would be forced to stop developing or slow down its economy to lower emissions, but that it could be advantageous to the country's economy and to the development of the region. The Durban Platform for Enhanced Action has succeeded in getting the U.S., India, and China on board to agreeing on reducing GHG emissions. However, India & China's stance to allow for a more loose treaty clashed with the EU's insistance on introducing a legal instrument that would force all countries to comply with emissions reduction. At the end, the negotiations resulted in a compromise on an “agreed outcome with legal force”, which is considered to be a vague and uncertain phrase in the Durban Platform.

Overall, the talk with our expert speaker was engaging but it felt brief because the juicy parts of the debate, which could have had potential to spark stimulating discussions arrived towards the end of the presentation - just as Mr. Nathan was beginning to get into the politicization of climate change in the U.S. 

The takeaway from the conference is that while the U.S. may not seem to have implemented proper climate change policies, it has expressed commitment in reducing its emissions. The Obama administration is claiming to take actions to fully support the strategy of moving towards a green economy that has potential to generate employment and contribute to growth and development. 

As for the upcoming Presidential elections, it is obvious that the debate on climate change is still expressed as a partisan issue, which is why Mitt Romney's flip-flopping stance on the topic holds political risks that analysts say may result in loss of trust amongst voters.  

Click below to watch an excerpt from President Obama's 2012 State of the Union: