I just got back from Los Angeles where I attended Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Governors’ Global Climate Summit. I must say that I was a little skeptical about how honest the conversations were going to be due to the Governor’s lack of follow-through on major environmental initiatives and the long list of fossil-happy corporate sponsors, but I was wrong in my assumption. I left the summit ecstatic, energized, full of hope, and with a large stack of business cards in my wallet received from inspiring young entrepreneurs, activists and journalists.
I arrived at the summit just in time to catch Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson’s announcement that her agency will finally be complying with the Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide must be regulated as a pollutant. This set the stage for the other speakers to have equally uplifting debates. Sub-national government officials, industry leaders and journalists from Nigeria, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia, Wales, and many other countries proudly announced their ambitious initiatives to end deforestation, boost renewable energy, implement energy efficiency and promote alternative forms of transportation.
The general feeling at the conference was one of tremendous excitement for the opportunities presented by solving the climate challenge. Panelist after panelist, regardless of their country of origin, repeatedly exclaimed the win-win nature of climate solutions, from increased job growth, to improved air quality, to better quality of life for their citizens. One of the best parts of the conference was when the British Columbia Premier proudly talked about his region’s successful carbon tax and how him and everyone involved in the process easily won re-election. Pragmatic optimism about the power of regional change was universal.
On the other hand, skepticism about the role of national and international action was rampant. Even though the conference’s subtitle was On the Road to Copenhagen, most attendees were skeptical not only about the possibility of securing a global treaty, but even of its necessity. Many of the public officials in attendance hailed from countries that are actively trying to undermine the international treaty or whose economies are dependent on climate damaging enterprises. Nigeria – the eighth largest exporter of Oil, Canada – home to the climate dooming tar sands, Indonesia – 3rd largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions due to rampant deforestation, and the United States – notorious number one obstacle to a meaningful climate treaty.
Despite their respective nations’ horrible legacies, these regional leaders were strong advocates for the power of sub-national governments to make a difference. As Leslie Berliant observes at SolveClimate.com, it is up to “state, provincial and regional leaders [to] implement an estimated 50-80 percent of the international reduction targets”. At this summit it was clear that many of our regional leaders are ready to take on the challenge. Even though national actors might cower away from making bold commitments in Copenhagen, there is a significant amount that is happening – and will continue to happen – at the sub-national level to buy us time and maintain momentum for the development of climate solutions until national leaders rise up to the challenge.
The conference led me to believe that the importance of getting an international climate treaty in Copenhagen is not to force countries into intangible emission reduction targets or set up complicated carbon trading schemes. What absolutely needs to come out of the negotiations are pledges of financial assistance to the under-developed world in order to leapfrog polluting technologies and deal with the current and future impacts of the climate crisis, along with a financial framework to facilitate the financing of renewable energy and energy efficiency programs.
The conference was certainly a success, but there were a couple of issues that I think are important to bring up. The lack of interaction between the speakers and the audience was frustrating and left many attendees dissatisfied with the panels. There were between 6 and 12 people on every panel and by the time all of them managed to introduce themselves, there was barely any time left for questions from the audience. Some of the most significant learning moments happened in the hallways and lobby rooms where people congregated when they tired of being talked to or weren’t interested in where the panel was going despite the extremely high caliber of the speakers.
Another significant drawback was that, despite the impressive amount of international diversity, most panelists from the United States were white men. When I brought this up with other attendees, many argued that it was more of an indication of who holds leadership roles in our society rather than a failure on behalf of the conference organizers to value diversity. While that is partially true, there are plenty of non-white-male institutional figures that have been making significant inroads in tackling the climate crisis, especially in combining issues of environmental health and poverty reduction with climate solutions. Striving to diversify panelists is an essential part of breaking boundaries, promoting leadership among diverse constituencies, and inviting different viewpoints into the conversation. I must add that there is a difference between actively promoting diversity and tokenizing. Unfortunately the role of young people at the conference provides a perfect example of the latter.
It was clear that the conference organizers had an honest commitment to include young people since over 60 of us were able to attend for free (the hefty $750 registration fee would have made it close to impossible for most recent college graduates to attend), but the role of young people within the program seemed limited and somewhat tokenized. A group of high school and college students dubbed “The California Climate Champions” was paraded onstage over and over again when the topic of conversation turned to ‘young people’. Too bad that the only thing that these “champions” actually did was recite scripted, cheesy one-liners, as they passed the mike from one to the other and ended with a pathetic cheer (”I am the next clean tech entrepreneur” *mike is passed* “I am the next green architect” *mike is passed* “I am the next climate friendly politician” *all huddle around mike* “We are the future!!!”). I’m not sure what the point of this spectacle was. Maybe to endear the public? To give “voice” to tomorrow’s “leaders”? To give these kids a fun story to brag about when they get back to their high schools with the hope of scoring some popularity points (as if saying that you spent your week at a climate event could get you a girlfriend)? Young people also got a panel of our own and I heard a lot of attendants comment that the youth panel was one of the most interesting ones they attended because it was more honest in its portrayal of the challenges ahead and the necessary solutions. Everything from stimulating entrepreneurship to taking on lifestyle changes was addressed head on, without beating around the bush as tended to happen in the other panels. Unfortunately, this was the only time during the whole three day conference that young people were given a seat on the stage to express their points of view (unscripted that is) and share the needs of our generation. We weren’t even given a voice when Thomas Friedman launched his typical and unfounded attack on our generation (the rest of his speech was actually really good, too bad he ended on such an idiotic note) during the closing act. Way to end a conference on a positive note!
Despite these shortcomings, the Summit was an inspiring experience that supplied me with a surge of optimism and new meaningful friendships. I’ve always known that real change happens at the local level, but now I am more committed than ever to focus more of my energy and time to empowering leaders throughout the United States to find new and creative ways to engage their local businesses and elected officials. A climate bill would help, but the fact of the matter is that over 50% of the people living in the United States are currently covered by a regional greenhouse gas reduction agreement. These strong sub-national actors will help stimulate the growth of new approaches and cheaper technologies to solve the climate crisis.