By Joyce Chimbi
BAKU, Azerbaijan (IPS) – At a time when the COP29 summit is primarily focused on climate finance as a tool to cool catastrophically high global temperatures and reverse consequences for all life on earth, delegates—alarmed and concerned by the state of world peace and stability—are seeking ways to enhance safety.Delegates at a side event organized by Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and SGI-UK, British Quakers, Quaker Earthcare Witness, and Friends World Committee for Consultation (Quakers), Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF), explored key questions on what climate action approaches contribute to a safer world for people and planet or risk a more unsafe world. ｜FRENCH｜JAPANESE｜THAI|
“We are negotiating in this COP for increased finance, yet everyone in this room who is a major fossil fuel extraction country, except Colombia, is increasing their oil and gas extraction. And outside, war is spreading, and finance for the military is at levels higher than at any time since the Cold War. We bring experts from various walks of life into discussions on what really makes us safe,” said event moderator Lindsey Fielder Cook from the Quaker United Nations Office.
There were experts on techno-fixed reliance and risks to techno-fixed reliance, military spending, peace activists, climate finance in fragile states, and also others who spoke about their lives, faith, and working with youth. They talked about peace, climate finance, and climate action in an existential time and how human activities are also driving existential rates of species extinction and chemical pollution as we know.
Andrew Okem from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and an expert in science adaptation, vulnerability, and impacts observed, “Science has given us a range of actions that we as a society can implement and can contribute towards making our society better and safer for all of us, such as building climate-resilient agri-food systems. This includes diversifying climate-smart coping and climate-smart practices. Rapid decarbonization is critical, hence the need to phase out fossil fuels and a shift to renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydropower.”
Okem spoke about the need for nature-based solutions, integrated water management, sustainable cities, and inclusive governance and decision-making. Emphasizing that any further delay “in concerted, anticipated global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss this great and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a developed and sustainable future for all.”
Lucy Plummer, member of the international grassroots lay Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai International, which actively engages in society in the areas of peace, culture, and education, said she wanted to “amplify the COP16 message. We need to make peace with nature. I have closely followed discussions, including the round table on the global framework on children, youth, peace, and climate security.”
Saying that it was encouraging that the interconnection of climate and peace is being recognized and that there was great support for this initiative from states and other key stakeholders. But Plummer also felt that the most key issue was not mentioned at all—”our ongoing war with nature. It is a war because there is so much violence in the way that we relate to nature. We urgently need to disarm our ways of thinking about nature.”
“In yesterday’s peace talks and in all of the talks happening all around the COP29, this vital piece of the puzzle is missing. Humans’ separation from nature is the root of the climate crisis, and unless we rectify this and make peace with nature, we simply will not have the wisdom needed to resolve this crisis and prevent so much suffering. The Indigenous peoples know it and have been coming to these COPs every year trying to get us to understand this. Their messages have not changed. They get it, but for some reason we are not ready to hear it or we do not want to hear it.”
Dr. Duncan McLaren, a research fellow from the UCLA School of Law and an expert in technofixes and ethical mitigation options, spoke about his research that explores the justice and political implications of global technologies, including carbon removal. His recent work explores the geopolitics of geoengineering and the governance of carbon removal techniques in the context of net zero policy goals.
“Climate insecurity is all around us. We’ve seen floods, wildfires, droughts, and storms. Clearly, emissions cuts alone can no longer avert dangerous climate change. It is wishful thinking that we can avoid reaching 1.5 degrees Celsius with just more emissions at 8,000. So that is why I have been looking at other technologies and how they might work. Carbon removal can contribute to climate repair, the repair of humanity’s relationship with the earth,” McLaren emphasized.
“Carbon removal techniques can help us counterbalance recalcitrant emissions to achieve net zero. And more importantly, deal with the unfairly generated legacy of excess emissions. But as Professor Corrie and I show in our briefing paper for the Quaker UN Office, they will only make us safer if we keep the tasks they ask us to do small. Emissions need to be cut by 95 percent.”
Harriet Mackaill-Hill from International Alert spoke about climate, conflict, and finance and the need to define the COP29 New Collective Quantified Goal through these lenses. She said the linkages between “climate and conflict are well established. While climate is never the sole cause of conflict, it is very much a stressor. Climate will exacerbate various stressors for conflict. These can be human security, food security, or competition over natural resources, which will in turn very much create and worsen conflict. How can people adapt to the impacts of climate change when in extreme vulnerability, sometimes conflict, when livelihoods or lives are at stake?”
Deborah Burton, co-founder of Tipping Point North South, spoke about the intersection between military spending and climate finance. Giving a perspective on what makes people unsafe in terms of military spending and military missions, she said there is a need to understand “the scale of global military missions in peacetime and war and the associated scale of military spending that enables those missions.”
“They combine to achieve one thing and one thing only: the undermining of human safety in this climate emergency. So, the estimated global military carbon footprint, and it is an estimate because it’s not fully reported by any stretch of the imagination, is estimated to be at 5.5 percent of total global emissions. This is more than the combined annual emissions of the 54 nations of the African continent. It is twice as much as emissions of civilian aviation, and that estimate does not include conflict-related emissions.”
Shirine Jurdi spoke of her lived experience from Lebanon linking to climate finance. She said, “There is no climate justice during war, and there is no ecological justice during war. With every bomb that drops, the land, the sea, and the people suffer irreparable harm.”
Stressing that “safety is not only about survival and its destruction. It is about thriving in peace under skies that are blue, not filled with smoke or phosphorus bombs. To create a safer world, let’s stop colonization and redirect resources from destruction to building sustainable, productive communities. Let us invest in ecological peacebuilding and restore the lands and the ecosystems damaged by conflict.”
Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.
INPS Japan/ IPS UN Bureau Report