Being a Real Estate & Urban Economics Major in the UConn@COP30 Fellowship program in Belém, Brazil has both made me a better climate advocate and provided significant personal growth. At first, I believed it would be huge rooms solely discussing policy, asking well-researched questions, and hoping that local initiatives would be addressed within the vast nature of it all. While all 3 remain true, there was an entire world filled with spontaneous solution ideation sessions in hallways with the world’s climate leaders spanning from NGOs to the private sector, opportunities to ask on-the-spot questions about topics you didn’t previously know existed, and having unique opportunities to address critical issues in your region in ways that will have a lasting impact.

The theme of this year’s COP is implementation, turning ambition into tangible realities. It is both a necessity for addressing the climate crisis and a possible personal philosophy that I believe all students should incorporate, especially if they have a potential solution for a better future. The reason COP needs to choose this topic is that we are seeing a slowdown (and often a regression) in the significant progress made during the Paris Agreement of 2015. The Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) is one of many ambitious financial mechanisms that aim to compensate countries for restoration and conservation efforts. There are a plethora of factors, including land ownership, land use, historical conditioning, and more, that can create complex variables in the conversation. How do you ask 83+ countries to agree on a joint solution? It is a question that is continually revisited. Not to mention incorporating the perspectives of indigenous communities who have harmoniously lived amongst the many vulnerable lands that would benefit from these conservation efforts, but aren’t often represented in policy-making.

What does that mean as a student studying business? It means finding strong mentorship, building a diverse network, and being crystal clear on the risks, mitigations, & next steps needed to take toward meaningful action.

A group of us students met an individual who was quite familiar with the UConn Huskies and helped shed some light on the topic. We took a walk-through of the Country Pavilions with the Director of the Deloitte Center for Sustainable Progress, Dr. Freedom-Kai Phillips, who was a former student of Professor Stephen Park (Associate Professor of Business Law at the UConn School of Business). He explained how “Sustainability can be a Rubik’s cube, confusing at first, but with the right pattern-identification, and consistent ambition, you’ll be able to get the right solutions you need”. It became apparent that most of the professionals at COP30 not only identify patterns but are actively building meaningful relationships to solve the complex Rubik’s Cube. Understanding localized players within your space is critical as a diverse network of technical and non-technical actors will help create high-integrity assets for your value chain. The COP experience highlighted how it also supports economic innovation and job creation, enabling the execution of these ambitious frameworks and financial mechanisms.

I look beyond this educational experience with significant hope about the direction we’re headed. Awakening a commitment to keeping my eyes peeled for patterns in capacity-building and seeking potential solutions or frameworks to bring back to our communities back home.

Aminieli Hopson is a senior studying Real Estate and Urban Economics.

It is easy to get swept up in buzzwords when discussing climate change. On Day 3 of COP30, I attended a session called “America is All In: U.S. Climate Action Continues.” This panel featured former U.S. climate policy leaders who expressed their enthusiasm for continuing the fight against climate change despite the U.S. federal government not actively participating in COP30 negotiations.

More than learning about the U.S.’s persistence in staying engaged internationally, I was surprised by the diverse professional backgrounds of these officials, as someone who hopes to enter public service and contribute to policymaking on an international scale, seeing how their careers were shaped by both technical expertise and administrative experience was very insightful.

I appreciated that the U.S. representatives in this session included former negotiators who brought a mix of technical expertise as well as project and change management skills. Notably, one negotiator and former U.S. Department of State employee was trained as an environmental engineer and held a Ph.D. in the subject. He joined the Department of State after a prestigious post-doctoral fellowship at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is a testament to how much technical expertise and domain knowledge are valued in the policymaking space. I also appreciated that there was an event titled “Jobs for the Public Sector: Building a Recurrent Supply of Skilled Experts for NDCs.” Events like this signal that there is a real need for technical experts (financial analysts, scientists, legal specialists, and others) in addition to policy experts.

I also learned that there is a need for people who can manage projects and navigate the substantial amount of paperwork and administrative complexity involved in these bureaucratic processes. Trigg Talley, a former senior climate negotiator with over thirty years of experience with the State Department, emphasized that they look for people with project-management experience: individuals who can move work forward, negotiate with diverse stakeholders, and simply “get things done.” One of his fellow panelists exemplified this. This panelist did not hold a technical background but instead had relevant project management and oversight experience. Having worked in the UN Secretariat, she had a strong understanding of the legal, technical, and administrative procedures involved in drafting and passing resolutions. This experience provided a comprehensive foundation when she later moved into the U.S. Department of State, where her familiarity with these processes enhanced her negotiating effectiveness. Similarly, another panelist described the extensive inter-agency coordination her role required, particularly in preparing for G-7 and G-20 meetings as well as engagements with the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. 

Understanding how federal and multilateral institutions (such as the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Reserve, World Bank, and International Monetary Fund) function and how to coordinate across them is an important yet often overlooked skill. 

Even though the U.S. has stepped back from formal negotiations, there is still significant demand for these skills. The current U.S. representatives are operating under the slogan “The U.S. is all in,” which signals that while they cannot negotiate, they are still present to represent the climate-forward agenda. Many current representatives and former negotiators are attending under the sponsorship of various organizations and nonprofits, continuing to collaborate with governments, NGOs, civil society, and the broader public. Their presence demonstrates that the U.S. is still “in” and invested in addressing climate change, something that underscored the importance not only of commitments, but of the skilled people who carry them out.

Pranavi Rebala is a senior studying Mathematics, Economics, and Urban & Community Studies.

After my first two days at COP30 in Brazil, I was immersed in Brazil’s culture and learned from representatives of countries around the world.

My first day at the conference was spent in the Green Zone. At the Conference of the Parties (COP), the Green Zone is largely dedicated to demonstrating tangible climate solutions and expanding public awareness of environmental solutions. The Green Zone is open to all, and features pavilions showcasing Brazilian governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private companies. Additionally, the Green Zone promoted national and Amazônia culture, featuring indigenous vendors, local cuisine, and art. Furthermore, an objective of the event was to raise awareness and engage the population of the host city, Belém, with the UN’s climate agenda. I was able to visit a variety of pavilions, but the ones that interested me the most included a talk by the vice president of Brazil, Geraldo Alckmin, a COP and coffee: Oceans talk with Deloitte, and an exhibition by Be8 Energy. Be8 showcased a semi-truck powered by renewable biodiesel. Additionally, the Green Zone featured pavilions advocating for an end to the genocide in Palestine, as Israel’s invasion has devastated the natural environment of the region. Overall, the Green Zone provided me with an immersive experience that framed my perspective as I spent the rest of my week in the Green Zone.

My second day at the conference was spent in the Blue Zone. The Blue Zone is where the “magic” happens. And by magic, I of course mean official climate negotiations. Access to the Blue Zone is restricted to official delegations. For most of the day, I explored the delegation pavilions with fellow UConn@COP fellows, Andy Zhang and Saanya Sharma. The pavilions featured each country’s environmental commitments and national culture. It was extremely interesting to see the variation and organization of each country’s pavilion. Countries like Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, China, Germany, and, of course, the host country, Brazil, were all large and featured alongside the conference’s main promenade. In addition to exploring the pavilions, I sat in on a variety of panels throughout the day. The panels I listened to explored the business coalitions underlying Brazil’s decarbonization, what structural reforms are needed to transition electrical grids away from fossil fuels, and climate resilience engineering. As I reflected upon my day, I realized these panels each demonstrated different methods of change. The panel on Brazilian businesses and climate resilience engineering emphasized the outsized role private involvement must play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This contrasted with the renewable energy panel, which largely focused on making large structural changes, emphasizing societal and governance shifts, including permitting reforms, investing in grids in anticipation of increasing demand, and increasing grid interconnections. Overall, the panels and pavilions demonstrated the diversity of climate solutions on display at COP30, and I am excited to continue to explore the conference over the next 3 days.

Brett Hurley is a second year law student.

COP30 marks the ten-year anniversary since the Paris Climate Change Agreement was passed. Delegates have been speaking about pushing this year’s COP to be the “COP of Implementation” because of the serious inaction that has been taking place since the Paris Climate Change Agreement. One of the key parts of the agreement was keeping global temperature under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Currently, we are on the cusp of 1.5 degrees Celsius and if current trends continue, this target is unachievable. This is a huge point of discussion at COP30. Small Island Developing States (SIDS) are continuously advocating for this goal to not be overlooked and undermined. From what it seems, developed countries do not seem to be too bothered by the fact that this goal is not going to be achieved. In fact, they have shifted their attention to being just below 2 degrees Celsius. 

So, why is this problematic? Many SIDS cannot afford the stakes of the climate projections in regard to global temperatures rising to about 2 degrees Celsius. They are barely surviving with current climate trends as of right now. Tuvalu, in particular, gave an extremely powerful speech at a formal high-level COP30 proceeding. Their delegate said that “the 1.5 target is not just a political aspiration but an obligation”. It is a matter that needs urgent attention and need. If change continues to fail to happen, Tuvalu’s fate becomes extremely doomed. If developed countries fail to keep the 1.5 target in mind and if they continue to be greedy with their donations to the Loss and Damage Fund, the sovereign nation of Tuvalu and many other SIDS will cease to exist by 2050. That’s why action needs to take place now.  

There have been several discussions and plans to implement programs for countries to provide support and aid for those that are disproportionately impacted. Developed countries have even, to a certain extent, owned up to some responsibility for the vast damage they have caused to our environment. However, plans and discussions do not mean execution by any means. We simply do not have the luxury of ten more years until our climate rises past 1.5 degrees Celsius and truly, we have achieved irreparable damage to the environment. 

So, what’s the hold up? Why aren’t developed nations contributing to the Loss and Damage Fund more? After all, they are the ones that are most responsible for the state of our environment currently. There are three main points of contention for developed countries. The first being the admission of some sort of guilt and responsibility for their role in causing climate change. It could, in the future, become a highly legal problem for those countries, and they often hesitate to donate in reaction. Second being that there is a lack of practicality in the mechanisms of developing finance principles for what the fund can be used for. Developed nations can argue that it is hard to tell what a natural climatic event versus an anthropogenic-linked climate event is. So, distributing money is harder because of this struggle. Thirdly, they want to use that money to deal with issues in their own nation and prioritize their people’s needs first. Unfortunately, I do not believe any of these points are valid. The first point regarding legal responsibility is that it is merited. Consequences for actions, whether good or bad, are always going to come around one way or the other. There is no reason to hesitate on the basis of what could happen in the future, even if legal action against the countries who have largely contributed to climate change is in good regard. Millions of people are being displaced because of climatic events; the fund provides a way for them to cope with these changes, and it is important that they are addressed. The second point of contention is also invalid. At this point, every natural disaster event is linked to anthropogenic causes. Even if it follows regular weather patterns, the intensity of the storm surely is linked to anthropogenic causes. There are simply no longer any cases of natural climate variability that exist in modern society that are not linked to anthropogenic causes. Lastly, the third point of contention is, again, unfair to the people of the world. People who have done little to nothing to contribute to the emissions are facing the most amount of impact from climate change. It is a matter of moral obligation that nations put humanity first and contribute to the fund as part of their moral responsibility to the world after the position they put the rest of the world in.  

COP30 must be the “COP of Implementation”. We simply do not have enough time left to reverse the damage that we have caused. I hope developed nations and developing nations are able to come together to come to a consensus that puts Mother Earth at the forefront of all of our solutions. Mother Earth needs to be protected at all costs, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that we are putting in the effort to do so.  

Kanika Chaturvedi is a senior Environmental Studies major.