The prestigious École Normale Supérieure in Paris, which trains future researchers and university teachers, sent seven of its students as observers for these climate negotiations. They have access to the heart of the machine. Thibaud Schlesinger works on transport and the environmental impact of armies; Alice Guipouy-Munoz dissects the geopolitics of energy, climate diplomacy and loss and damage. They tell their diving into the deep end of multilateralism “.
Collected by our special correspondent in Sharm el-Sheikh
RFI: What are your first general reactions to this COP27, after ten days of observation?
Thibaud Schlesinger: I must say there is a bit of disappointment. Many of the negotiations that I have followed have not been successful. The main conclusion was to talk about it again next year or during the next intersessions…
What negotiations are these?
TS: Those concerning the ambitions for greenhouse gas reductions in transport and aviation. This is a separate subject, because it is not each State that decides on these emissions. Two international actors, the International Maritime Organization and the International Air Transport Association, had proposed strategies that countries were discussing.
No one agreed on the proposed strategies for various reasons. Either because it is too ambitious – this is the case of India – or not enough, as for the European Union. China says, for example, “why not make an effort, but developed countries should finance this for developing countries. For Saudi Arabia, there were so many things wrong with the text that they didn’t even want to take it as a basis for negotiations. And to quote a final one, Papua New Guinea, speaking on behalf of her group, said that if restrictions were imposed too strongly, it would be detrimental to her, that she did not have the money to renew its fleet of aircraft compatible with new fuels and that without funding, they would not agree to move in this direction. In short, the conclusion is that we’ll talk about it again next year.
Alice, your impressions?
Alice Guipouy-Munoz: It is a dive into the deep end of multilateralism and the bar is very, very high to understand what is happening. I first try to get used to UN language. We are struck by the technical complexity of the subjects and the slowness of the process, and the very strong gap with the climate emergency. When countries take the floor, it is above all to position themselves and say whether they agree with others. I have attended meetings regarding Articles 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8 of the Paris Agreement and I was surprised to see that the objectives of the Agreement are still under negotiation. There are still Parties who want to change them because they say it will not be feasible.
You promised, before leaving, that you would “show” your comrades in Paris “the underside of this event”. At this point, what are you going to bring back for them?
AG-M. : This week, we will be able to do a live with the students of the ENS. The idea is to show behind the scenes. I mistakenly received an invitation to “informal informal” negotiations. That is to say that there is a first informal negotiation which can be attended and if it does not succeed, the Parties plan a second stage of negotiations. And there, we saw power games that do not necessarily come out in plenary [les assemblées qui rassemblent l’ensemble des pays, NDLR] and which are very explicit. Very clearly, it is the United States that dominates. When the United States speaks, everyone is silent or takes notes and they have the last word on the negotiations. And there, it is something very interpersonal: the delegates meet in very small circle and decide on the way in which they are going to coalesce or not. I imagined it, but seeing it in real life is different.
Your work topics concern, among other things, the geopolitics of energy and the question of loss and damage. It’s your COP ! In France, the question of energy is strongly focused on nuclear power. Is this theme also present in the negotiations ?
AG-M. : We actually saw a few nuclear stands, but the nuclear players are rather marginalized compared to the oil and gas players. It’s a COP, it’s a showcase: what stands out more is the package on renewable energies and not so much nuclear. It also corresponds to sovereignty and military issues which mean that it is not as exportable as wind turbines.
TS: it is true that we feel they are less present in the negotiations compared to the oil-producing countries. But in the stands, we see a lot of pro-nuclear people who have t-shirts and who distribute badges.
AG-M. : As for losses and damages, it is the bulk of this COP that crystallizes a lot of hopes, especially on the part of emerging countries. Senegal, Pakistan, Bangladesh have alarming statements saying that it is already there and that funding is needed. On the other hand, the United States and other much more powerful groups are slowing down and putting summits, dialogues, workshops on the agenda, and we were surprised to see countries like Argentina say, G77 name [groupe des pays émergents et en développement, NDLR] “stop, enough of this bureaucracy” and that. On this subject, the North-South divide is strong, very, while it can be erased on others. What is at stake is who will pay and the recognition of who is causing the emissions and who is vulnerable.
With regard to Ukraine, is there an assessment of the environmental consequences, after nine months or almost of war?
TS: Last week there was a side-event [en marge des négociations, de nombreuses conférences et évènement sont organisés dans les pavillons des pays, NDLR] which talked about the environmental impacts of military activities and the Ukrainians were very present. They have made it the major subject of their pavilion this year. At that conference, they showed that there were several impacts. Those linked to fires started by bombardments, the degradation of natural spaces due to the Russian invasion in the East… They also proposed to the IPCC to set up a methodology to assess the impact of shrapnel. environmental shell, which is apparently quite large. Finally, the reconstruction will generate a lot of greenhouse gases. And there is a debate about the attribution of the emissions: are the emissions caused by the war that the Russians started in Ukraine Russian or Ukrainian?
Measuring the carbon footprint of a conflict may seem out of place when the urgency is to save lives and preserve cities. How is it interesting?
TS: It is important to know exactly how much we emit. But for conflicts, there are many defense secrets that prevent access to data. No one knows today how many percent of global greenhouse gas emissions military activities are responsible for. Revealing data on the pollution generated also means revealing what equipment we have.
There are different estimates, some speak of the order of 5%. It is to be taken with tweezers. But it gives an idea of how colossal it is. There are public data. We know, for example, that the American army is the world’s largest consumer of hydrocarbons. The impacts are therefore enormous, whether in times of war or in times of peace during exercises. Of course, armies have operational objectives, they will never put environmental objectives first. But some agreements could be signed.
To get here, you wanted to reduce your carbon footprint. How did you proceed?
TS: We are in different cases. But for my part, I took the train to Naples and then the plane. We studied different options by boat, but it was very expensive and complex to set up. Going to Istanbul by train could not be done either. I will do the same on the way back. It’s a day of travel, against five hours of plane, but it reduces emissions by about 30%.