Welcome back to another week of The Grumpy Optimists. This week, we’re looking at the highs and lows of COP27, an event taking place at luxury resorts in a country that will be dramatically impacted by climate change. It’s not all bad news though, Brazil under their new leader Lula made their climate commitments clear, a new loss and damage fund was created and progress has still been made.
Without further ado, let’s dig into this week.👇
Thanks for reading The Grumpy Optimists! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.
🌍 COP27 - A Grumpy Optimist Take
As the 27th Conference of Parties draws to a close, here are our thoughts on the positives and negatives.
The Positives
✅ A global fund for “loss and damage”. Governments from around the world have agreed to establish a dedicated fund to assist “developing countries” in responding to hazards and disasters that are caused or aggravated by climate change, such as extreme weather events. The “Santiago Network for Loss and Damage” will also facilitate technical assistance in responding to climate change.
✅ Progress on the Global Goal for Adaptation. The Sharm-El-Sheikh Adaptation Agenda sets out 30 adaptation outcomes needed to address the gap between the growing risk of climate change and current action to adapt to its impacts. It also pledges to build climate change resilience for 4 billion people by 2030.
The Negatives
❌ Inertia over goal to keep 1.5°C goal alive. Ambition has stalled on how countries are going to limit their carbon emissions and keep the 1.5°C dream alive. Many fossil fuel-dependent countries pushed back on the goal; vague language on “low emissions energy” could risk loopholes where certain fossil fuels are considered “green”, and an atmosphere of chaos and disinformation has been reported.
❌ A climate event overrun by fossil fuel lobbyists. Over 600 people at the talks in Egypt are linked to fossil fuels, a rise of 25% from last year. The lobbyists could in part be the reason why the conference led to more talks about oil and gas exploration, particularly in Africa.
❌ Stark gender inequality in COP27 leadership and participation. Women made up less than 34% of country negotiating teams - one of the lowest percentages seen at COPs. Some teams were 90% male! Many have commented on the negative impacts this will have on the inclusivity and realism of targets or pledges made.
Working in climate change adaptation policy makes me starkly aware of how adaptation - i.e. responding to climate change impacts - is often overshadowed by mitigation - i.e. reducing emissions. The leapfrogs made in agreements and funding for resilience and adaptation at COP27 is therefore music to my ears. Even if the world were to stop emitting greenhouse gases tomorrow, the complexity of the Earth’s system means we would still see warming up to the 2050s. And we’re not going to reach carbon neutrality tomorrow. We’re going to need to push for a lot longer before we see sufficient carbon reductions - as evidenced by the disappointing outcomes of negotiations on emissions reduction at COP27. This means it is all the more important that we learn how to prepare for the shocks and hazards that a changing climate will bring.
The language surrounding “loss and damage” is interesting. Many people like Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s climate change Minister, are pointing out that “assistance” is too close to previous colonialist language like “aid” and “charity”, and is not an appropriate word, given that the “West” has historically contributed far more to climate change. In contrast, the ex-World Bank chief economist has warned that language around “reparations” could lead to legal complications and pushback.
I am pretty disappointed in the lack of gender equality in negotiations - not just in terms of cis women, but also non-binary and trans folk. Action Aid have reported that women and girls face increased and specific climate-related risks. Women, trans and gender fluid folk are disproportionately impacted by climate change. This means it’s imperative that they are part of the solution so that it’s tailored to a diverse set of needs and genders.
Overall a mixed bag of things to be grumpy and optimistic about. It was great as ever to see the degree of enthusiasm and commitment from many environmental NGOs, bodies and individuals who are committed to change from the bottom up.
George’s Take:
Overall opinion? This COP has not given me the same level of excitement or optimism that COP26 did, perhaps due to proximity. I feel as though this has been more of the same, promises, squabbles and a lack of action - this in a week where the greenhouse gas emissions we release into the atmosphere have reached new highs.
The politics of progress. While I do believe that the “loss and damage” fund is critically important in the broader context and that wealthy countries should be doing more to clean up their mess, I do worry about the political weaponry it could give to the net zero naysayers here in the UK and that we’ve got bigger problems at home.
I see more drive and determination taking place in the corporate world than I do in the world of governance while that is incredibly motivating, companies need more guidance, support and financial commitment to really take on the challenge. I’m stubbornly optimistic that we’re no longer relying on COP to take action, we’re still experiencing real ground-up determination to tackle climate change and COP will no longer be the indicator of success.
📈 Know your carbon emissions numbers. The Global Carbon Project have published its annual update on global CO2 emissions - this year it includes new information on estimated emissions from land use change, extending all the way back to 1750! This data will be hugely helpful for actions such as carbon budget planning.
🦈 A happy shark tale. A landmark vote at the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), which has 186 party nations, will protect 54 shark species by limiting or regulating the international trade of their fins.
Why does this matter? Studies suggest that 37% of shark and ray species are at risk of extinction. Pelagic (ocean-going) shark numbers have declined by over 70% in just 50 years. Sharks play a huge role in regulating food chains and as an indicator for ocean health, therefore the protection of this beautiful and misunderstood animal is hugely welcome.
A lemon shark - one of the multiple species that will benefit from this landmark decision. Photograph: Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images. Source: The Guardian.
🪨 Rich countries give $20bn to wean Indonesia off coal. Indonesia gets around 60% of its energy from coal but that is set to change as a mix of public and private finance help Indonesia shut their coal plants and bring forward its peak emissions by 7 years. The funding is likely to be the single largest climate finance transaction so far.
🐟 US approves largest dam removal to save endangered salmon. Four dams will be removed on the California-Oregon border to improve the health of the Klamath River and improve stressed salmon numbers. The dams currently provide enough power for 70,000 homes, however, energy can be replaced, whereas making fish species go extinct is near impossible to reverse.
🌧️ Floods do more damage to roads than just stop oil. Isn’t it funny how flooding blocks roads, holds up commuters and creates property damage but doesn’t quite have the same bad rep as just stop oil? As temperatures rise flooding will become more frequent and extreme, it’s almost as if just stop oil isn’t the problem.
📱A social media account to check out
Tired of doomscrolling?The Happy Broadcast provides a range of tools to help raise awareness about all the good things happening in the world.
They also have an app to help improve your mental health and a podcast to spread good news. Check this one on the world’s first land-based coral farm and Europe’s first elephant retirement home (a little old but still well worth a listen!).
