One of the biggest themes of COP 24 is a commitment to Just Transition, the ideology that as we transition to clean and renewable energy, we do so in a manner that does not further disenfranchise those who are already vulnerable. Indigenous people, people of color, women, migrants and refugees, poor communities, true Just Transition promises to care for all of them as we seek to care for the earth.
Why then is it so hard to turn this ideology into practice?
I sat in the Open Dialogue between the Party and Non-Party Stakeholders at COP 24 panel and listened as ten constituencies and several other country party members declared their commitment and call for Just Transition. The Indigenous Constituency declared that indigenous people have been fighting for the earth, their land, and their own rights for centuries. The Women and Gender Constituency insisted that gender justice must be at the center of Just Transition. The Youth Constituency, YOUNGO (Young NGO), pleaded that because the youth will be the ones who struggle with the consequences of climate change, their voices must be heard and they must be allowed to shape the future alongside everyone else.
Over and over again, calls came out for the necessity of Just Transition, yet no one could say just how we do that.
In my short time here, I have come to realize that part of the problem is that we can’t all decide on just what Just Transition should look like. Throughout the next ten days, negotiations will continue to happen, negotiations that will try to settle the Paris Rulebook, Just Transition, Loss and Damage, and who will play a part in each. One of the problems is that not everyone can admit that they are at fault and that they have a role to play in fixing the devastating climate circumstances we find ourselves in today. And the United States are not the only ones guilty of this. If we can’t admit to being part of the problem, how can we begin to work out the solution?
Another reason has to do with corporate sponsorship and interests. The hidden side of COP 24 is that it is sponsored by some of Poland and Europe’s biggest coal and fossil fuel corporations. Not only are these sponsorships hypocritical but they provide an avenue for those companies to sway the conversation in their favor.
For example, the company JSW is currently supplying the conference with clean hydrogen buses used for transporting attendees into Katowice. However, JSW is Europe’s biggest coal cooking company and the hydrogen that is used by the buses is a byproduct of the coal cooking process being passed off as ‘clean.’ They then use their seat at the table to organize high-level meetings not only for corporate interests but to provide input into negotiations, like those around Just Transition.
In a separate side event, one panelist declared that “corporations protect profit, they do not protect people.” The question then becomes whether or not we can trust that Just Transition will actually come to fruition, and will actually be just, if such corporations have such pull. This might have come into play in the Open Dialogue. Perhaps it was coincidence but I couldn’t help but notice the fact that of the ten constituencies that presented, the International Chamber of Commerce got to go first. It also doesn’t help that the UNFCCC does not have a conflict of interest policy on record.
Despite these issues, I have witnessed many parties, delegations, and individuals who have a passionate and vested interest in seeing Just and Rapid Transition come to fruition. They are fighting against corporations and their interests to ensure that the vulnerable populations of the earth, and the earth itself, find justice and healing. The negotiations have a while yet to go and true Just Transition seems to far away but there are hundreds, if not thousands, here at COP who will not rest until we see it come true, including those of us in the Texas Impact and Interfaith Power and Light delegation.
To read more about the corporate interests at COP 24 and the previous “Corporate COP 19,” located in Warsaw, visit the article written by Corporate Europe Observatory here.