by Duygu Ozcan

I wanted to join the UConn COP program to represent students who aspire to bring sustainable innovations to the business world. This year, our group is more diverse than ever because climate change is being understood across various dimensions; it is the fight of all humans and we want to contribute in each of our unique ways. Since business will always be a part of society’s drive to meet human’s needs, current and future leaders need to be equipped with the right knowledge and measures to contribute to the climate movement.

The events I attended at the COP26 climate change summit had the common goal of collaboration. They highlighted that, through overcoming differences and divisions, we can eliminate the disconnect between various groups and especially the decision makers and those who are directly affected by climate change. In the Advancing Gender Equality Conference, panelist Angelica Ponce Chambi stated that refugees, indigenous communities and people from the Global South dream to participate in the decision-making process of conferences such as COP. In another forum, panelists suggested that this disconnect can be solved through having conversations as equals and talking “with” people rather than talking to them. For a meeting featuring C40 leaders (Cities Climate Leadership Group- consisting of 97 cities around the world whose mayors are taking urgent action to confront the climate crisis), a youth activist mentioned a program where young activists meet and discuss their demands with the leaders, and they collaboratively come up with solutions. This serves as one of the examples of meaningful participation and sharing inspiring initiatives of innovation.

When collaborating, it is also important to share the stories of those who actively fight to restore the loss and damages of climate change.  As the activist and poet Emtithal Mahmoud suggested, we should find inspiration in the efforts of those who provide aid to communities affected by climate change. These people often have limited resources, but they organize and help the affected populations firsthand.  There should be more media coverage and storytelling of groups like such to convey the critical importance of immediate action and inspire people to support them financially. The stories should also center around affected communities and what their demands are with regards to preventing and repairing the damages so there is a complete analysis of needs.

The same collaboration work frame can apply to sustainable business models. Companies should not only collaborate with citizens but also their competitors and, in return, will achieve greater results. This year, it was the first time in 10 years that a fashion company (House of Baukjen) won the UN Global Climate Action Award. When I spoke with Geoff van Sonsbeeck (CEO), he mentioned the importance of setting a mission and following it across all functions of the supply chain. Contrary to most CEO’s visions, he actively encourages competitors or anyone else in the industry to reach out to his team so they can help them adopt to similar circular production models. Climate action should be a common goal that requires not prioritizing our own interests and when they adapted this belief, they not only contributed to a larger impact but also became more successful. By implementing a strong vision and a clear plan, they were able to reduce their carbon emissions by 50% and achieve net zero in 2 years. Within the same period, consumers recognized their efforts and their profits increased by five times. When a brand sets a standard of ethical and conscious business practices, it communicates a powerful signal for others to follow.

by Maizey MabrySmith 

I’ve always been fascinated by the legal side of global affairs. That’s why, upon arrival at the United Nations summit on climate change (COP26), my primary goal was to observe a negotiation. On Wednesday, I happened to stumble upon one of the rare negotiations that allowed non-party observers. I entered a small room with a large rectangular table and realized I was among a sea of delegates, each one prepared with their respective country’s name tag displayed in front of them. With the Chilean delegate to my left, and the UNFCCC Secretariat to my right, I stuck out like a sore thumb.

The two hours that followed were simultaneously the most monotonous yet captivating I’ve experienced at COP. Clearly a continuation of lengthy negotiations prior, this discussion hit the ground running–so much so that it took me the first hour to understand what exactly was being negotiated.

As it turns out, this session intended to revise the composition and purpose of the Advisory Board to the Climate Technology Center and Network (CTCN), the leaders in technology transfer appointed by the UNFCCC. The negotiation centered around one overarching goal: to improve the efficiency of the CTCN Advisory Board without jeopardizing the equitable participation of some members. It became evident that the achievement of this goal was to be determined by two focal issues: 1) the addition of two new government representatives to the Advisory Board, and 2) the inclusion of three NGO constituencies representing womxn (WGC), youth (YOUNGO), and indigenous peoples (IPO).

Both issues addressed a fundamental question: how many members is too many? Widespread support for the inclusion of the NGO voices appeared to be halted by multiple delegates. One such example is a comment from the Saudi Arabian representative who referenced a commonly adopted rule of management science to argue that the size of the Advisory Board shall not exceed the “ideal” number of twenty-two members. More obstacles were erected when the delegate from the Republic of Korea proposed that one representative could be appointed to speak for all three NGO applicants, claiming that the opinions of womxn, youth, and indigenous peoples appeared similar enough in character. China echoed this sentiment, but fortunately both were met with strong opposition from Mexico’s delegation. As discussions continued, the European Union, the United States, and Chile joined Mexico to identify themselves as strong proponents of prioritizing inclusivity over efficiency, if necessary in decisions to expand the size of the Advisory Board.

Due to the length of discussion, the negotiations never reached a consensus on the proposed amendments to the Constitution within the allotted time. The delegates were urged to meet later that night and swiftly reach a decision in the spirit of compromise. I returned the next morning expecting more of the same. I was pleasantly surprised to find that a consensus had been reached during the night. Three NGO representatives were welcomed onto the Advisory Board and two additional members were added without explicit plans to remove existing seats. I left with a strong sense of accomplishment despite my negligible role in the outcome.

One key takeaway from my observation of this session was the level of technical, language-oriented attention to detail. The addition or deletion of a single word was subject to a full discussion, requiring a complete consensus before proceeding. Such a commitment to precision in language is both fascinating and slightly humbling, as I often find myself frustrated by a lack of urgency in global efforts to mitigate the impacts of climate change. Another takeaway was the presence of obvious contention between certain representatives and the NGO applicants. The decision to include a representative from each organization was made under the condition that they would participate as non-voting members of the Advisory Board, with essentially zero influence on the decision-making process. Thus, a lack of support for their mere presence was concerning to say the least.

Ultimately, this experience shattered any prior expectations I had of UN climate negotiations. While I may or may not apply the intricacies of the CTCN Advisory Board constitution to my own career, its lessons will continue to influence me for the rest of my life. In reality, this negotiation was a part of the massive web of the climate crisis, and the effort expended to achieve such a small win served as a simple reminder of this. I have a newfound respect for the delegates working hard to make change in these conversations and truly hope that these sentiments are echoed in the larger issues being tackled at COP.

By Chase Mack

Thus far, the United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP) in Glasgow this year has been more than I could have fathomed. Never have I mingled with such a diverse array of global citizens, ranging from the Minister of the Environment for Rwanda to an industrial representative of Danish industries and even including a Sudanese American poet. This wide collection of individuals has shown that the world is ready to collaborate and combat the climate crisis, yet the United States hesitates. How can cities like Utrecht emphasize growth centered on clean public transportation and flood mitigation while American cities sit idle with the belief that growth comes with tax reduction and the status quo? How can students from Burundi be searching for clean biomass energy sources to reduce local air pollution and investing in long-term human health while the United States subsidizes fossil fuels? Countries globally recognize the climate crisis, yet our country sets an example of performative action (e.g., nationally talking about being a leader in clean energy)  and hesitancy from a stubborn mindset.

Looking at the world, I was not given hope by the pledges and promises discussed by global leaders. Rather, I was given hope by those who are on the ground engaging in their local communities. Mayors, scientists, activists, and business are the engine for change, and those who dictate the policy at the top receive too much credit. Our society idolizes certain figures as beyond human and deserving of both the positives and negatives of the universe around us. Do John Kerry, AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden deserve the recognition of doing the bare minimum and stepping us back into the climate accords, when people on the ground are making that change happen? I believe not, and this sentiment was reinforced at COP. This takeaway occurred on
the first day, listening to an event put on by the United Nations Refugee Council.

Whether the United States joins or not, the world is moving beyond performative action. Activists like Emtithal Mahmoud, a Sudanese American poet from Yale, are educating the world around them about meaningful dialogue.  I was stirred when she said, “My father was born in a village that doesn’t exist anymore.” For context, this village was destroyed by the worsening effect of desertification, which is decimating populations across Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in areas like where her father was born in the Darfur region of South Sudan. This statement made me question my existing beliefs, since the imperative nature of the climate crisis had not set in. Conflicts and mass migration will occur due to climate change, but with proper resource allocation and resiliency projects.

A climate advisor from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) named Andrew Harper emphasized the need to invest in peace. This idea awaken something inside of me, forcing me to question, how is our country investing in peace? Many Americans are still ignoring the catastrophe on our doorstep, instead debating about if it is truly there. Is that investing in peace? Every budget allocation debate between our esteemed public officials offers earmarks for strengthening our military-industrial complex, rather than strengthening resiliency projects here at home or investing abroad. Other entities within our nation are debating short-minded issues, without ever addressing the root causes. The climate crisis has no time for these sorts of shenanigans, with Mahmoud also stating that “We must engage with power” and further stating that friendships may not be permanent, but relationships are. This stuck with me, since as difficult and unfair the power structures are within our society, crises like the one we are entering, don’t always have the time to have endless debates. If we as a nation fail to address the climate crisis, power structures globally will be only reinforced.

A country that opened my mind to the destructive capacity of these endless debates was Rwanda. I had the privilege of meeting and interacting with the Rwanda Green Fund CEO Teddy Mugabo. The conversation I had with her was informative and spontaneous, lasting over half an hour. She opened my eyes to how the echo chamber of the U.S political quarrels has led to sluggish change, while Rwanda has an active legislature empowering national change. I must acknowledge the negatives like the political dictatorship within their nation, and the positives like their extremely high female political engagement, with over 2/3rds of the legislature being female. Rwanda, as a nation, banned plastic bags before 2012, and in 2018 banned single-use plastic items. Their Green Fund is utilizing grants from European nations, building affordable, clean housing in the capital Kigali, while improving the infrastructure of their rural communities in areas of landslide risk. Rwanda is an example of powerful national change paired with local leadership, and I believe that this is an example to us at UConn and nationally. I found that Rwanda, learning from their historical tragedies, has learned to invest in peace.

Endless debate is an investment in the status quo, which will lead to countless millions of climate casualties, refugees, and externalities. We must invest together in peace for a better world.