Climate Change Movements and Social Media

Students and youth from around the United States met with sustainability representatives of Facebook at an event organized at the U.S. pavilion at COP21.  The representatives of the social media conglomerate led discussion based around the communication strategies of climate change and the use of the Facebook platform for climate change action and organizing. 

I was reluctant to recognize the role of Facebook and suspicious of the already ubiquitous company, believing that true action on climate change comes through genuine interpersonal contact.  I must admit that based off of our conversation their concerns and intentions are in good faith, but yet I was disturbed by the reliance of students upon Facebook combined with the continued limited role of social media. 

Facebook and social media does offer a unique and effective platform for communication and organizing.  Likeminded individuals are becoming linked through electronic ties, sharing information and merging movements in ways never before possible.  But the Facebook role in this exchange is only as a tool utilized by individuals and organizations—Facebook does not constitute the movement itself.

This distinction is incredibly important as social movements take on an increasingly electronic nature, but one that has been lost by both Facebook as an organization and by concerned individuals.  Facebook has been venturing into the realm of politics, suggesting options to openly share affiliation with movements and prompting political responses and posts.  They faced backlash for their selective political and humanitarian concern most recently with the terror attacks in Paris, which received official recognition within the platform, while other instances of terror were neglected by the endorsed Facebook infrastructure.

Organizers and social activists have become dependent on the institution of Facebook, so much so that in the discussion at COP21, organizers requested that Facebook take the lead in efforts to mobilize public support.  The hoped that Facebook could develop universal and official programs that would force individuals to explicitly declare their allegiances in political matters like climate change.  Instead of activists using Facebook to promote social change, activists asked Facebook itself to promote the change. 

This is dangerous—not in a paranoid, big brother sort of way—but in a much more practical and productive sense.  If activists and organizers become increasingly reliant on Facebook to realize and implement social change, the authenticity of these movements is undercut and the effectiveness of the movement is limited to Facebook’s limited and selective reach.  Individuals will become lazy, believing that social change will be delivered to them by multinational corporations which require only require a ‘like’ and an account.

Facebook is limited by its very nature.  Facebook consolidates the network for those who are already interested and connected to the climate change movement, but works counterproductively when attempting to make the movement inclusive and popular. Users, while intensely connected into their own self-selected network, are insulated form those who hold opposing and contrary views.  While climate change activists can share their views on a highly visible platform, this information reaches only those who are already engaged and not those who deny the importance of climate change or are uninvolved.  Users choose and are structurally encouraged to ignore those who should be engaged most. 

Users must recognize that social media is a tool, a crucial and highly effective tool, of movement building and applicable to mobilizing support for climate change.  However, we must recognize social media’s limitations and boundaries in order to build authentic, motivated, and universal movements that address climate change in an equitable and just manner.

Meeting of the President of COP21 and Observer Organizations

The President of COP, French Minister Laurent Fabius, held a meeting with observer organizations on Wednesday, December 2^nd, to discuss the developments within negotiations and dialogue with observer organizations.  He engaged comments and concerns from organizations on procedural matters of transparency, as well as issues regarding the negotiation of the agreement.

Minister Fabius highlighted the “major role” that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) play in the COP process.  He said that meetings between COP leadership and NGOs have taken place throughout the year and into this first week of negotiations, as his administration is striving to be as “open, transparent, and inclusive as possible” in order to reach a “good agreement for all.”

“Your actions are quite decisive…to change the paradigm of climate change,” Fabius said, thanking NGOs for their role as organizers, networks of information, and representatives of local concerns.  The issue of climate change “is not just a role of government” but of all stakeholders. 

He said that COP21 was unprecedented in terms of NGO and civil society participation, but due to the tragic terrorist attacks in Paris, some events were regrettably canceled for security reasons.  He stressed that these events must not prevent the expression of civil society participation and that he intends to keep “close and personal contact” between civil society and the Presidency of the COP. 

The former President of COP20, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, offered to be a bridge and focal point for civil society participation in COP21.  Recognized for his work with NGOs in previous COPs, Pulgar-Vidal invited all observers to continue discussion on transparency issues to facilitate greater and more effective civil society involvement. 

CAN Press Brief Summary: Dec. 3rd

With days left for negotiators to compile a workable agreement to the ministers who will take over the negotiation process next week, CAN representatives argued the need to clarify specific language in the text of the COP 21 Paris climate convention.  They noted some optimistic developments and progress, but also highlighted the gaps that exist between Parties that are reflected in the multiple options still bracketed within the text.

Kaisa Kosomen of Greenpeace articulated the need to revise specific sentences with stronger environmental language.  She spoke of implementing exact language with regards to the long term goal in the agreement and how to achieve it.  Currently the long term goal is set at a reduction in global temperature between 1.5 degrees and 2 degrees Celsius, but many Parties and observers are calling for reductions at 1.5 degrees or lower. 

Raman Mehta of the Vasuhda Foundation spoke from the perspective of the developing countries, arguing for needed developments in the areas of differentiation and finance.  He noted that some Parties were disturbed by the disregard for the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), which recognizes the historical and national circumstances of Parties. He characterized some nations as arguing instead for a “symmetrical” model of obligation and responsibilities.

Alex Doukas of Oil Change International noted the persistent gap in climate change related finance.  Despite countries reluctance and dialogue of their inability to find funds, Doukas argued that money being used to subsidize the fossil fuel industry could be shifted to funding climate action.  This transfer would dually help the mitigation of greenhouse gases, while also funding and supporting a shift to renewable energy and adaptive technologies. 

CAN Press Brief Summary: Dec. 2nd

At the daily press conference of the Climate Action Network (CAN) on Wednesday, December 2^nd, 2015, panelists commented on the first day of negotiations and the further actions needed to achieve a sustainable and effective deal at COP 21 in Paris. 

Alden Meyers, director of strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, argued that after day one’s initial optimism due to head of state speeches, negotiations have stalled especially in the areas of climate finance.  CAN called for a general need to “scale up” financial commitments, especially by developed countries, to mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damages.  They stipulated that these contributions must be new contributions and separate from existing aid packages, thus increasing the availability of funds in developing countries most vulnerable to climate change.

CAN discussed the European Union’s role in negotiation, noting their general partnership with lesser developed countries (LDCs), but their lack of action in mobilizing these alliances.  They also commented on the exclusion of the EU from negotiations, much like the events of Copenhagen in 2009.  CAN argued that “strong signals” are needed from the EU in order to achieve a lasting agreement.

India’s negotiating position was also discussed and their role as either a leader in or a blocking force for an agreement in Paris.  As the world’s thirds largest emitter but with a low per capita emissions and huge need for electricity, India is poised to either be a leader in clean energy development or to continue on a path of traditional carbon emitting fuels.  1/3^rd of India’s population is also vulnerable to the effects of climate change, making adaptation and loss and damage aspects of the agreement especially important.  

Ultimately, the key issue of for Indian negotiators is the issue of finance, with a CAN representative reporting the Indian positions saying: “finance is the accelerator to the common finish line of less than 2 degrees warming.”  In order to reach that goal, India says the agreement must mobilize finances and technology for low carbon development and that schedules agreements to increase ambitions over time. 

Loss and Damage

A key issue in the crafting of the Paris Agreement at COP21 is the inclusion or exclusion of Article 5 known as “Loss and Damages.”  This article seeks to formalize an international mechanism that provides financial and non-economic support for the losses and damages that communities experience due to the irreversible and permanent effects of climate change, especially to the most vulnerable in developing countries. 

            
Negotiators from G77+China countries and from the Like-Minded Developing Countries block introduced Article 5 to draft texts of the agreement in October, but in other versions of the text, supported by the United States and other developed countries, the Loss and Damage clause is completely excluded. 

            
Developing countries argue that in addition to efforts to mitigate and adapt, mechanisms must be in place to compensate those effected for the loss of their livelihoods and property, especially by countries most responsible for the emissions that have caused this issue. They site instances of the submergence of small island nations, desertification of agricultural land, and melting glacial sources of fresh water supplies that impact communities and individual’s ability to continue their current life, oftentimes existential crises that cannot be adapted to.  Programs offer risk insurance, preparatory support and assistance in managing losses, and migration and relocation related funds. 

            
Sponsors of the text without Article 5, like the United States, have commented that they support the principle of Loss and Damage, but they will resist the inclusion of language that makes any mention to liability for climate change or compensation requirements.  They argue that Article 5 is redundant in the agreement, and that the loss and damage principle is covered within the articles on adaptation. 

            
In 2013, the UNFCCC agreed upon the Warsaw Mechanism which implements a program that does offer some support and cooperation for climate change related loss and damage.  But negotiators of many nations have urged that the loss and damage framework must be incorporated in the Paris Agreement to ensure the continuation of support for climate change victims post 2020.  The Paris Agreement is set to be a durable document that will govern the future of climate change response in the areas of adaptation, mitigation, and finance. 

Compromise is possible and has been hinted at from observers, as negotiators decide between the inclusion or exclusion of Article 5 and Loss and Damages.  A hybrid of the Article, one that recognizes the need for Loss and Damage framework, but does not make any specific commitments or distinguish any direct responsibility, is predicted and hoped for in the creation of a lasting Paris Agreement.   

CAN Press Briefing Summary: Dec. 1st

[I will be doing a series of summaries on the communication made by the international environmental organization, the Climate Action Network, a group that coordinates many other environmental NGOs and is a prominent voice in civil society here at COP21.  They give a daily press briefing which is a good summary of the state of affairs at COP21 and is widely attended by many press organizations as well as other NGOs.]

CAN COP21 Press Conference: Tuesday, Dec 1^st, 2015.

At the daily Press brief of Climate Action Network (CAN), members expressed cautious optimism from their observations of the first day of negotiations.  Positive signs from countries like India and China suggest that a deal is possible, considering their previous role as a stopping power in earlier negotiations.  Prime Minster Modi’s “constructive tone” was noted as a sign of flexibility from India, especially with the launch of the International Solar Alliance with the French President Francois Hollande.  However, some expressed frustration with the negotiations outside of the head of state forum, saying that “negotiators are stuck in negotiation mode,” while there is necessity for actual agreement and action.

Developments from the Climate Vulnerable Forum, a group of 43 of the most vulnerable nations to climate change, expressed that plans to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius would not be enough to protect the most vulnerable people, arguing instead that a goal of 1.5 degrees would be necessary to protect all.  A representative said that this goal is “difficult but not impossible,” and that a need for increased push for a commitment to full decarbonation. 

This goal of 1.5 degrees has caused a rift in the major block of G77 countries, with some nations maintaining the agreed upon 2-degree commitment.  Sanjay Vashit, a director of Climate Action Network South Asia, noted that even nations like India agree with the 1.5-degree commitment, but that this increased mitigation must happen in or be financially facilitated by developed countries.