Stanford was one of the largest university groups attending the 15th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But the 37 students and 13 professors weren't in Copenhagen just to observe the December negotiations. Students worked for nongovernmental organizations and conducted research, while professors hosted side events and advised national delegations.
"I came to COP15 to learn and network, and to see where it's possible as a citizen and a scientist to make a contribution and influence the process. This is the Woodstock of climate change. The next generation of scientists needs to be here, and that's why I'm here," said Bill Anderegg, a PhD student in biology.
The road to Copenhagen began at the door of biology professor Stephen Schneider, whose work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change helped it garner the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He knew he'd be going to his first COP since the Clinton administration but had no idea he'd be leading a group of 50—from the Woods Institute, Law School, Center for Ocean Solutions, departments of biology, anthropology, environmental earth science systems, geological and environmental sciences, aeronautics and astronautics, and others.
"The idea really came from the students; I began getting emails last summer asking if they could attend COP15 as well," says Schneider. "I recalled that years earlier Stanford had applied for NGO-status for COP conferences, but I didn't know whether we were still credentialed."
They were. Better yet, there was no limit on the number of attendees. An email went out to interested students; so many replied that Schneider decided to teach a course on the upcoming negotiations—the 2-unit Earth Systems 148 and 248.
Conceived as a seminar, the course mushroomed to 45 students and its scope grew. After several introductory lectures, the class broke into groups representing the 14 main COP15 negotiating parties, from the United States to the G77 to industrial NGOs and even climate-change deniers.
"It was just a scream," Schneider says. "The students were brilliant, they acted just like the delegations do at the real thing —there was even 20 minutes of picketing." And just like the real thing, the final session ended in a deadlock, without consensus on a binding treaty.
While in Copenhagen, the Stanford group had morning briefings with Schneider and guest speakers, including the vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a New York Times climate reporter. An investment banker talked about intellectual property issues in technology transfer, and a Costa Rican delegate offered an inside scoop on the negotiating process. For the rest of the day, students attended such side events as talks by Al Gore and Desmond Tutu, went to open negotiating sessions or worked for NGOs.
Biology department staffer Sarah Jo Chadwick was behind the effort to affiliate students with outside organizations. They worked with the Worldwatch Institute, Bellona Foundation, the Huffington Post, the Costa Rican delegation and others. "The idea was to get the students engaged with some group, on some project, so that they have a stake in the negotiations," says Schneider.
What did students take away from it all? One common observation was a noticeable consensus about the basic science of climate change. "What I failed to hear," said Michael Ovadia, "was denial that climate change is happening or that it is not important to address. There was a clear consensus amongst global leaders that we needed to act quickly and decisively. The sticking point was in the 'how' to act." Ovadia is an MBA and doctoral student in the interdisciplinary program in environment and resources.
Despite the best efforts of the Stanford contingent, the Copenhagen Accord has met with mixed reviews. "COP15 turned out worse than I hoped but better than I expected," says Schneider, pointing to the new technology and adaptation funds for poorer countries as a definite sign of progress. "Hard-nosed face-to-face bargaining by Obama and Chinese leaders sets a great precedent for future events, since future functionaries will be hard pressed to weaken principles the national leaders hammered out very publicly in Copenhagen." In the run-up to COP16 in Mexico City in November, Schneider foresees agreements by small-er groups, particularly the U.S. Congress, that may help move the process forward.
He has nothing but enthusiasm about student participation at this and future conferences. "Our citizen-delegates were spectacular—deeply engaged with side events, helping NGOs, start-up energy companies and others to put on a good show. I got great feedback from those leaders on how terrific our kids were. Networking was fabulous too, between students and leaders but also among students from other schools. Overall, I think Copenhagen 2009 was a course in Real World Science and Politics 101 that could not be fully replicated in the classroom."
Stanford was one of the largest university groups attending the 15th Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. But the 37 students and 13 professors weren't in Copenhagen just to observe the December negotiations. Students worked for nongovernmental organizations and conducted research, while professors hosted side events and advised national delegations.
"I came to COP15 to learn and network, and to see where it's possible as a citizen and a scientist to make a contribution and influence the process. This is the Woodstock of climate change. The next generation of scientists needs to be here, and that's why I'm here," said Bill Anderegg, a PhD student in biology.
The road to Copenhagen began at the door of biology professor Stephen Schneider, whose work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change helped it garner the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. He knew he'd be going to his first COP since the Clinton administration but had no idea he'd be leading a group of 50—from the Woods Institute, Law School, Center for Ocean Solutions, departments of biology, anthropology, environmental earth science systems, geological and environmental sciences, aeronautics and astronautics, and others.
"The idea really came from the students; I began getting emails last summer asking if they could attend COP15 as well," says Schneider. "I recalled that years earlier Stanford had applied for NGO-status for COP conferences, but I didn't know whether we were still credentialed."
They were. Better yet, there was no limit on the number of attendees. An email went out to interested students; so many replied that Schneider decided to teach a course on the upcoming negotiations—the 2-unit Earth Systems 148 and 248.
Conceived as a seminar, the course mushroomed to 45 students and its scope grew. After several introductory lectures, the class broke into groups representing the 14 main COP15 negotiating parties, from the United States to the G77 to industrial NGOs and even climate-change deniers.
"It was just a scream," Schneider says. "The students were brilliant, they acted just like the delegations do at the real thing —there was even 20 minutes of picketing." And just like the real thing, the final session ended in a deadlock, without consensus on a binding treaty.
While in Copenhagen, the Stanford group had morning briefings with Schneider and guest speakers, including the vice chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a New York Times climate reporter. An investment banker talked about intellectual property issues in technology transfer, and a Costa Rican delegate offered an inside scoop on the negotiating process. For the rest of the day, students attended such side events as talks by Al Gore and Desmond Tutu, went to open negotiating sessions or worked for NGOs.
Biology department staffer Sarah Jo Chadwick was behind the effort to affiliate students with outside organizations. They worked with the Worldwatch Institute, Bellona Foundation, the Huffington Post, the Costa Rican delegation and others. "The idea was to get the students engaged with some group, on some project, so that they have a stake in the negotiations," says Schneider.
What did students take away from it all? One common observation was a noticeable consensus about the basic science of climate change. "What I failed to hear," said Michael Ovadia, "was denial that climate change is happening or that it is not important to address. There was a clear consensus amongst global leaders that we needed to act quickly and decisively. The sticking point was in the 'how' to act." Ovadia is an MBA and doctoral student in the interdisciplinary program in environment and resources.
Despite the best efforts of the Stanford contingent, the Copenhagen Accord has met with mixed reviews. "COP15 turned out worse than I hoped but better than I expected," says Schneider, pointing to the new technology and adaptation funds for poorer countries as a definite sign of progress. "Hard-nosed face-to-face bargaining by Obama and Chinese leaders sets a great precedent for future events, since future functionaries will be hard pressed to weaken principles the national leaders hammered out very publicly in Copenhagen." In the run-up to COP16 in Mexico City in November, Schneider foresees agreements by small-er groups, particularly the U.S. Congress, that may help move the process forward.
He has nothing but enthusiasm about student participation at this and future conferences. "Our citizen-delegates were spectacular—deeply engaged with side events, helping NGOs, start-up energy companies and others to put on a good show. I got great feedback from those leaders on how terrific our kids were. Networking was fabulous too, between students and leaders but also among students from other schools. Overall, I think Copenhagen 2009 was a course in Real World Science and Politics 101 that could not be fully replicated in the classroom."
Given the estimated 170,000 COP15 participants at a venue built for 15,000, it was best to arrive early at the Bella Center in Copenhagen. Still, queuing was part of the education. You could meet people from nearly 200 nations, most looking jetlagged but energized. And the world's varied apparel was on display, from African robes to Indian saris to endangered-animal costumes favored by a group of Chinese schoolchildren.
Reporters and bloggers were ubiquitous. At one point a Danish TV station interviewed a polar bear while the Climate Action Network bestowed its Fossil of the Day award—to the theme from Jurassic Park—on the country that had done the most to obstruct progress that day. (The United States, Australia and Japan won more than once, but it was Canada that won Fossil of the Year.) Chants of protest or applause occasionally punctuated the dull background roar in the cavernous venue.
Two things particularly struck me. The first was the great resource divide between delegations. For example, Bolivia, which announced the most ambitious cuts for greenhouse gas emissions in the world—49 percent below 1990 levels by 2017—had no media resources to get the word out; they relied on volunteers to write press releases. Even worse off was Tuvalu, one of the small island nations that potentially face total destruction due to climate change. They too had to depend on volunteers to represent their interests. At the same time, the Bella Center was reportedly charging more than $100,000 to rent a room at the conference. Only the better-endowed NGOs could afford to put on side events.
Second, press coverage differed strikingly from what was going on. At least for the first week, the mood was one of cautious optimism, not deadlocked disaster. There was excitement in the air and seemingly a collective will to get something important done, at least among the participants. Stanford Law School assistant professor Michael Wara, JD '06, reported learning that a Chinese student jettisoned his personal belongings at the airport rather than leave behind the publications he'd picked up at COP15.
If only the delegates could have displayed such dedication and commitment during the second week, there might have been no need for COP16.
—Scott Shackelford
