Project Survival Media

by Sara Engström

At the Bella Center metro station (Sara Engström)

Since I live just an hour’s train journey away from Copenhagen, I decided to commute between Lund (my hometown) and the COP15 conference. The morning trains were full of people with UNFCCC badges of all colours hanging around their necks – there were delegates, press people, IGOs and NGOs.

One day last week I was sitting next to two delegates from the Swedish delegation, and the next day in the seat next to me was a delegate from Congo (I don’t know which Congo he meant though). As fellow passengers, all three of them were genuinely nice people. I could sit there and have a small chat and even ask them to keep an eye on my things while I went to the toilet. No problem. When sitting next to somebody in the train, you are playing the role of yourself – usually a quite polite and friendly figure.

However, as soon as the four of us – the two members of the Swedish party, the delegate from Congo and myself – got inside the Bella Center, we were immediately divided into separate blocs. We isolated ourselves in the contexts that we belonged to and focused on what we wanted. Sitting down and having a chat with somebody in another position like that is just out of question.

I went to Bonn in August. This was the first UNFCCC negotiation that I participated in. I was then at a quite early stage in my involvement in the youth movement, and travelled down to get some useful experience. I really did learn a lot. It was in Bonn that I realised what a limited perspective I had had (and probably still have) on climate issues: strongly influenced by attitudes of the Western society. At that conference, I had the ability to speak to basically all the delegates and it suddenly became so clear to me how developed and developing countries were lining up on opposite sides – constantly blaming each other for inhibiting progress. They both think that the other side is not showing enough will and commitment. Developing countries think that developed countries are not taking the lead as they should, developed countries that this is impossible to do due to the attitudes of developing countries. Having understood this vicious circle, the problem suddenly became a much more complex one to me as well.

When speaking to delegates, I always get the impression that they are doing the best that they can in their positions. When they put forward their arguments and explain how they reason, everything seems to make perfect sense to me. In Bonn, I found myself having full understanding for both the delegate from Lichtenstein, who said that basically all of his country’s emission cuts will be made through offsets, and for all the delegates from developing countries who emphasised that developed countries should really start by cutting their own emissions (and increase funding, of course).

This was absurd. When I think about it, I realize that I find Lichtenstein’s position absolutely wrong. I don’t think offsetting is the way to combat climate change, and I fully agree with poorer countries that rich countries must take some responsibility and focus on their own emissions.

However, I find it difficult to win that argument. When speaking to the delegate from Lichtenstein, or listening to what the politicians in Sweden are saying, I don’t know what I could say or do to prove them wrong. The reason being that they are using arguments based on values that are the core in our society, values that I have been brought up with and am not used to questioning.

Everyone has started saying that the situation is getting increasingly more dangerous. Everyone is talking in terms of saving humanity and saving our planet. Everyone says that they are committed to taking action.

Still, developed countries again and again show out to be more anxious about saving the economy and – what comes with it, our way of life. And naturally with this attitude, a lot of measures that need to be taken become impossible. Hence, to question what politicians in Sweden, the EU, the USA and so on are saying is difficult. Not because there are no counter-arguments, but because these question basic values – the core principles of society.

When politicians in the EU discuss whether emission reductions should be 20% or 30% by 2020, even though at least 40% would be required, I find myself in some way accepting that. Even though I know that this is not close to being sufficient, and will probably have catastrophic consequences. However, I’ve learned that everything except these proposed targets is economically impossible. Which equals absolutely impossible in every aspect.

So this is one of my big dilemmas. How can I express my opinions on how I think that developed countries should act, without sounding unrealistic or naïve? I don’t want to be seen as a radical when I’m arguing that we must set up targets that, according to science and not to the economical frames, will avoid disastrous climate change. I know that such goals are realistic, but they require a change of attitudes. What is then the best way of changing attitudes?

I asked the delegate from Congo about how he thought that the negotiations were going. He said that the whole thing was arranged by rich countries beforehand already. That was his immediate answer, like it was the most natural thing in the world.

The delegates from Sweden were like most people in general. I actually thought they seemed really friendly. Still, right now it is people like them – who could just as easily have been my neighbours – who are not being ambitious and daring enough, and are thereby denying people in other parts of the world their right to live.

After some in-depth contemplation of this complex dilemma, I’ve found out that there is still just one solution. It is obvious that the developed world must change its values – some of the core principles in our society. After all, it is a question of either putting money or lives at a risk. Surely, no civilised human being should hesitate with that decision.

There is no chance that dangerous climate change can be stopped if developed countries are not willing to change their way of life and their values. Therefore the most effective thing that one can do as a citizen in one of these countries is, simply, to dare to be critical.