A few weeks ago, IMechE Policy Manager Matt Rooney provided some background to the United Nation’s COP26 climate change meeting, which will be taking place in Glasgow in less than a month, and the key themes that are on the UK’s agenda as the host nation and event President in partnership with Italy. Over the past 15 years I have participated in a number of these Conferences of the Parties, most memorably representing the IMechE in a multinational delegation from engineering institutions at the infamous Copenhagen held COP15, which at the time was billed as the world’s last chance to achieve a global, legally binding, agreement on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. And 12 years later we are acutely aware of how that worked out. The closest we have reached to the aspiration of COP15 to date is the 2015 COP21 Paris Agreement, with its voluntary process based on none-binding Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) which so far don’t add up to enough to keep warming under 2 °C, let alone the desired level of 1.5 °C. So, how are COPs configured, what influence can those attending outside of the official national negotiating teams have, and what is the key difference about this one?
The best way to think of a COP event is as an onion with multiple concentric skins centered on the highly secure negotiation rooms where the government negotiators meet. The latter is where the actual work of national positioning, posturing, political alliance forming, relationship leveraging and negotiation takes place in a quasi-sanctified environment, hermetically sealed from everything going on around it. There is little to no meaningful access available to those from outside of this inner sanctum and a minimal connection between those inside and anything happening in the concentric skins encircling them.
In the first layer out from the core is what Matt rightly noted at COP26 has been termed the ‘Blue Zone’. Access to this layer is restricted to those individuals and organisations that have a status recognised by the UNFCCC and might, for example, include representation from civil society groups, professional bodies, research organisations, knowledge networks and public sector alliances. Indeed, this is the layer that I have previously experienced and where the IMechE will participate with UNFCCC ‘Observer’ status. Here, delegates set up shop in booths, stands and presentation type events in much the same way as in a trade show or exhibition. Most of the day is spent networking, gathering titbits of intelligence, and awaiting briefings on negotiations progress from the inner sanctum that can be reported to policy, communications and media teams, senior managers, and Directors back at HQ. There is almost no opportunity to influence what is going on behind the firmly closed doors beyond.
In the next skin out, and increasingly remote from the inner sanctum, there is another controlled space, which for COP26 is called the ‘Green Zone’. This can be largely thought of as a public exhibition and engagement space, the ‘controlling’ being by the host (ie the UK Government for COP26) in the form of who gets the privilege of doing the exhibiting and engaging, as well as where they do it. In this layer there are typically multiple official exhibit and event venues for public engagement located in the near environs of the core COP site (where the negotiation rooms and Blue Zone reside). A glance at the COP26 Green Zone programme will give you a sense for who and what has been chosen for public consumption.
Beyond these layers is then an unofficial fringe zone, that in today’s world of social media and online meeting / conferencing platforms can be regarded as stretching worldwide. This is the zone where thousands upon thousands of individuals, groups, communities and public and private sector organisations stage events, happenings, protests and communications in the months, weeks and days that lead up to the COP, with the noise from these activities reaching a crescendo around the start of the meeting itself and continuing throughout.
This pattern has been repeated annually at different locations around the globe for at least the past two decades (apart from last year due to the pandemic), the only thing changing being the names assigned to each concentric skin beyond the negotiation rooms at the core of the onion.
So, given that the physical aspects of the event have not changed much over the years, a global legally binding GHG emissions reduction agreement has not been achieved, and humans continue to increase emissions annually regardless of COP outcomes, what is actually different this year?
The key change from my perspective is the slow but sure realisation by an increasing number of UNFCCC participating governments that the human race is going to have to adapt to the inevitability of climate change, both as a result of the emissions we have already made to date, and those we will continue to make as we attempt the transition to a net zero future. Indeed, at the 2009 COP in Copenhagen the very use of the word ‘adaptation’ was regarded as taboo and when earlier that year the IMechE published its groundbreaking “Climate Change: Adapting to the Inevitable?” report, it was thought by many outside the engineering profession to be highly controversial. However, as engineers, we had a deep understanding of the practical realities and the scale of the task involved in decarbonising every aspect of human life, both in terms of the physical magnitude and the time needed to make such a transition, and it was very clear to us that some degree of adaptation to climate change was going to be inevitable. And we have certainly been proven right.
IMechE members have been committed to helping society reduce GHG emissions for at least the past 20 years and a plethora of thought leadership reports, policy papers and government interactions on the topic testify to our engagement - our forthcoming October 28-29th conference on “Engineering a net-zero future” represents the latest contribution. Indeed, delivering a net zero future and adaptation go hand in hand, both in terms of ensuring that:
- -net zero solutions are future proofed and/or adaptive ready to meet their functional and operational performance requirements as the climate changes and sea levels rise (think for example of air cooled heat exchangers and the need for them to perform in a future of higher ambient temperatures and more extreme temperature excursions; or future sea levels leading to groundwater salination and the need for underground services in coastal areas, such a district heating systems, to maintain integrity in a more corrosive environment);
- adaptation solutions do not create additional emissions that further increase global warming and exacerbate the climate change challenge (think for example of adapting indoor space to cope with more frequent and intense heatwaves through the use of power hungry mechanical air-conditioning units, leaking high Global Warming Potential [GWP] refrigerants and rejecting heat to the local, already hot, external environment; or sea wall infrastructure constructed using enormous quantities of concrete and steel reinforcing bars manufactured through high emissions processes).
What is needed is the design and implementation of net-zero solutions based not on historical climate data, but on an analysis of climate change projections, and adaptation solutions that are themselves net-zero. This is the topic that I will be discussing in more detail on October 29th in Day 2 of our conference.
A key feature of COP26 will be a significant increase in the demands from many of the government teams in Glasgow’s negotiating rooms for more focus and action on adaptation, not least of which will come from the Vulnerable 20 Group (V20). Earlier this year, this grouping of the 48 most vulnerable economies demanded a 2020-2024 delivery plan for the missing $100 billion of annual climate assistance, promised in Paris to start in 2020, and urged developed countries to align their contributions under UN agreements by allocating public international climate finance to ensure at least 50% of resources for urgent adaptation needs. Further, pressure is mounting on the UK’s COP26 Presidency, which has as one of its five COP26 campaign themes “Adaptation and Resilience” tag lined as “Supporting those most vulnerable to climate change”, with the formation last month of the ACT2025 consortium and their call for greater focus on supporting adaptation in vulnerable countries.
The UK Presidency has been clear in its pre-COP communications that more action is needed to avert, minimise, and address the loss and damage that is already occurring from climate change and that more finance needs to be put in place to improve early warning systems, flood defences, and build resilient infrastructure and agriculture to avoid further loss of life, livelihoods and natural habitats. These are all areas in which engineers have a major role to play in designing and delivering net-zero adaptation solutions, as well as future proofed, adaptive ready net-zero solutions, and are in fact doing so today, albeit it at a scale that is far too small given the challenges we face from a changing climate in the decades ahead.
Let’s hope that Matt and our Institution colleagues in Glasgow’s Blue Zone have good news to send us on adaptation next month.