By Spencer Showalter

In November 2017, more than 200 countries convened in Bonn, Germany for Conference of the Parties 23 (COP 23), the most recent in the yearly United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conferences. These meetings began in the 1990s with the creation of the Kyoto Protocol, a pioneering international agreement that set the groundwork for substantially reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. COP 23 was a notable meeting for two reasons. Firstly, it was the first meeting since the Trump Administration announced its intention to pull out of the Paris Agreement, the major outcome of COP 21. Secondly, COP 23’s main goal was to iron out the details of the Paris Agreement in order to continue to chase the international goal of limiting warming to under 2˚C (3.6˚F)—a goal that is already on tenuous ground. So, given that the US is not participating in the Paris agreement, what did the American delegation do at the conference? What were the outcomes of the conference?

What did the American delegation do?

The only official appearance of the US delegation was to hold a forum promoting the continued global use of fossil fuels. David Banks, a special adviser on energy and the environment, justified the continuation of coal-fired power plants by emphasizing the president’s “responsibility to protect jobs and industry across the country.” The US delegation also controversially welcomed an executive from Peabody Energy, the largest coal mining company in the United States. The actions were met with a fair amount of backlash; at the panel, the majority of the audience interrupted the speakers by singing for ten minutes in protest before walking out, leaving a crowd that continued to heckle and contradict the speakers. Michael Bloomberg, a UN special envoy for cities and climate change, stated that “promoting coal at a climate summit is like promoting tobacco at a cancer summit.”

There were other official US delegates who managed to draw slightly less ire. Career State Department negotiators showed up to participate in discussions and, by some accounts, did not markedly change their conduct from previous years. However, the New York Times reported that they suppressed proposals for a more complete accounting of climate aid from wealthy countries. This stance was particularly controversial given the US’s decision to cease its contributions to aid for countries more immediately impacted by climate change.

Also present at the conference were non-federal representatives of the United States, including Bloomberg, California Governor Jerry Brown, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee. The group, calling themselves “We Are Still In,” shared their “America’s Pledge,” a report about how American businesses, cities, and states will continue to pursue the Paris Agreement goals. The group represented more than half of the US economy, a size that would make it the third largest economy in the world if it were its own country. Bloomberg was continually outspoken, suggesting that “if the [Trump] administration won’t lead, it should at least get out of the way.”

What did the rest of the conference do?

Ultimately, no matter the actions of the US delegations, the conference marched forward with the relative cooperation of every other country in the world. The original intent of the conference was to create more concrete action items and procedures in order to implement the Paris Agreement, and there was reasonable progress on that front. One major outcome was the creation of the “Powering Past Coal Alliance” by the UK and Canada. The Alliance includes more than 20 members, including the US states of Washington and Oregon. Their main goal is to phase out coal in the European Union and the 35 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development by 2030, and globally by 2050. Unfortunately, the “Powering Past Coal Alliance” did not actually commit signatories to a specific timeline to stop financing their coal power plants. Notably, the US, Germany, Australia, China, and India are not signatories, while Washington state, which is a signatory, already has no coal-powered power plants, and as such does not have to put substantive effort into its membership.

Disappointingly, developing countries who are particularly threatened by climate change saw developed countries oppose steps to compensate them for years of disproportionate climate emissions, despite Fiji’s position as the official host of the talks.

Notwithstanding the mixed messages rising from the presence of both official US delegates and “We Are Still In,” the wheels of global progress towards climate mitigation continued to turn, however slowly. Here’s hoping that the US will eventually return to its role as a global climate leader and that the rest of the world will not wait for us.