lowest price for generic pills azithromycin canada Canadian online pharmacy amoxicillin canada azithromycin canada

Planetary Emergency or Sellable Democracy?


Trudging along through the muggy heat of Lima at the UN Climate Conference, nothing would indicate that we were standing at a conference that is slated to respond to a planetary emergency. Delegates lounge at tables on the grass, under the shade of trees, conducting interviews and swapping notes about the latest plenary. Delegates and civil society alike sweat in the temporary structures that house the COP, which are no more than huge tents with glass roofs, the same design as a greenhouse. Muttered jokes reference the UNFCCC’s desire for the delegates to feel the heat; others reference the cartoon featuring a frog in a boiling pot of water.

I arrived in Lima three days ago as an observer delegate with SustainUS for the 20th

Conference of the Parties (COP), under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC was created over 20 years ago to deal with the rising issue of climate change, providing a forum for global governments and the UN alike to negotiate strategies to mitigate and adapt to the worst impacts. Every year, the UNFCCC hosts a COP, where teams of negotiators from each country converge for two weeks to negotiate each country’s commitments—the level of emissions each country should cut, the amount of finance each country should pledge, and the policies each country should adopt to deal with adaptation. While it is well intentioned, the COP has failed to produce any type of binding treaty; COP20 is the 20th of these conferences, and governments have only managed to agree that they want to limit global mean temperature to 2 degrees Celsius of warming.

On my flight coming over, I had to ask myself why I’d decided to return to COP. I attended COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, which had quickly earned the name “The Corporate COP.” COP19 was heavily funded by multiple industries, and made no effort to hide it. There were bean-bag chairs strewn throughout the halls branded with “Emirates”; large signs proudly touting their sponsors, BMW and PGE among them; and the Executive Secretary, Christina Figueres, became the keynote speaker to the global coal conference that ran alongside. At the end of the two weeks, after incredible frustration, disillusionment, and days of running in circles[1], I joined 400 other civil society members and walked out of the COP in protest.

So why did we return? During that walkout, we wore shirts with “Polluters Talk, We Walk” on the front and “volveremos” on the back—we will return. And so we did. We returned to see if we could make some change in Lima.

COP 20 is possibly the most important climate conference we’ve had. It is the last COP before COP21 in Paris, where countries are slated to sign onto a treaty that will outline mitigation, adaptation, and finance from 2015 to 2020, and another set of agreements for post-2020. Paris will reportedly be then next Copenhagen—hopes are high, but it is unlikely we’ll see the results we want to see. As Lima sets the discussions and early commitments that will inform the decisions made in Paris, it becomes increasingly obvious that they will not satisfy the needs of global societies.

But before we can understand what is being discussed and decided in Lima, we first need to set the context.

There is a huge rift between the developed nations and the developing and least developed nations (LDCs). To begin with, developed countries are focusing on mitigation. The Umbrella Group, which includes the US and Australia, is the most powerful group in the negotiations. It is leading the effort to push for all countries (including developing countries) to make pledges on individual emissions cuts. However, it is that very group that has been historically responsible for the bulk of emissions, and is not yet experiencing the worst impacts of climate change. Developing countries and LDC are pushing for adaptation and loss and damage (finance) to be considered by the negotiations process. Rightly so, they are hesitant to pledge any amount of emissions cuts if they are not guaranteed to have the financial support to do so, and have the support to implement adaptation and fight current impacts of climate change. By ignoring this demand, the Umbrella Group and associates are condemning hundreds of millions of people to unconscionable suffering.

In November 2014, the United States and China announced a historical, and unexpected, agreement—they had met separately and before COP20 announced their own pledges for emissions reductions. It was a fantastic moment. For one, Obama made it quite clear that his legacy is to be a leader in climate action. It also set the tone for COP20, indirectly urging other countries to do the same. This announcement has given civil society something to hold onto to push Obama for even greater commitments that we desperately need to stay under 1.5 degrees[2]. However, if you dig a bit deeper, you’ll realize this is no cause for celebration. The US-China deal announced pledges that place us on track for a 4-6 degree warmer world. The US’s commitment in particular would only cut 14% of emissions by 2025 of 1990 levels.  Many NGOs are latching onto this agreement as a tiny glimmer of hope; but science and math shows that this will not deliver anywhere near the level of ambition needed.

Unfortunately, more and more developed countries are latching onto the idea of reaching an agreement no matter the costs. The orchestrator of this trend is the Obama Administration; Obama has made it disturbingly clear that he wants an agreement in Paris no matter the content. As a part of his legacy, he wants to be seen as the president who was able to orchestrate and reach such an agreement. Yet the proposals he’s putting forward, and the pressure he’s putting on developing countries, would mean game over for the planet and the most vulnerable communities. In addition to the lack of adaptation and finance, under this push for an agreement, developed countries are finding loopholes to avoid ambitious emissions cuts. In March 2015, countries will submit Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) for their intended pledges in Paris. This push for an agreement no matter the cost is allowing countries to draft pledges that determine their own targets for emissions cuts. Allowing countries to determine their own cuts will fail to put us on track to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming.


During each of the last four COPs, the Philippines have been struck by typhoons. Typhoon Haiyan, which struck the Philippines last year during COP19, was the most devastating typhoon to ever hit land; the typhoon left an enormous swath of damage, and killed a total of 6340 people. Yeb Sano, negotiator for the Philippines, delivered the Philippine’s opening speech on the first day of COP19; at that time, he did not know where his brother was. This year, Yeb has not returned. Typhoon Rubyis on track to hit the Philippines this weekend and has reached the status of “superstorm”; many fear that it will have the same impact as Haiyan, if not worse. But the Philippines is not the only place already experiencing the destructive impacts of climate change.

The Maldives are experiencing an increasing rate of storm surges and damaging sea level rise. Large areas in Africa are undergoing extensive drought, killing livestock and crops. More and more people are becoming classified as climate refugees. Adaptation and finance is necessary for these countries, but as long as the Umbrella Group dictates the negotiations, they will never see the assistance they need from the UNFCCC.

When you walk around the COP, listen in on the plenaries and negotiations, and read the materials that countries are providing, you don’t get the sense that this conference was scheduled to respond to a planetary emergency. Human deaths, the discounting of youth and future generations, and the real impacts on oceans, forests, and wildlife are treated as simple statistics and trading cards. It is institutionalized insanity, and one has to wonder how the connection between reality and the bubble that is COP has become white noise. In Yeb Sano’s words, “it is time to stop this madness.”


 [1] Quite literally in circles. The conference venue was in a football stadium (soccer), and the halls were around the circumference. People averaged ten laps per day.

[2] It’s the new 2 degrees Celsius. Much better target.



buy ativan no prescriptionsoma online no prescriptionbuy tramadol onlineadipex for salephentermine online pharmacyprovigil online without prescriptionbuy ultram onlineambien for salevalium online no prescriptionklonopin for sale

Local Action on a Global Stage

Analyzing the tie between state-level action and the United Nation’s Climate Talks

From California to the New York island, it is easy to carry on in the United States without engaging with the UNFCCC, the COPs, the looming INDCs, or the many more wonky acronyms that come along with the UN climate negotiations. For the record, the UNFCCC is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and it serves as the international negotiating body to develop agreements that aim to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” COP is the Conference of the Parties--these are the UN “Climate Talks” which take place at the end of every year to bring all the parties of the UNFCCC together. The INDCs are Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, but we’ll get to those later.

All states in the US are operating on a mirror timeline of decision making to the UN Climate Talks. This summer, the EPA proposed the Clean Power Plan, which tasks each state to develop a unique carbon reduction plan. The last day that the EPA is accepting comments on the Clean Power Plan was December 1st, which also marked the first day of COP20, the 20th round of the UN Climate Talks currently underway in Lima, Peru.

The goal of this round of the Talks is to build the framework and criteria of the next international climate treaty, which will be signed at COP21, the following round of talks that will take place in 2015 in Paris. All countries must submit an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) to the agreement, which is essentially a country specific mitigation target. These submissions are expected by March, 2015, with a hard deadline in June, 2015, the same time that the EPA intends to finalize the Clean Power Plan. States’ reactions and alterations to the Clean Power Plan will reveal if the United States is able to fulfil its own mitigation target and therefore will play a role in shaping the outcome of the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The Paris Agreement, as well as the Clean Power Plan, is set to kick into effect in 2020. The strength of this policy will show the ambition of countries to tackle climate change and will reveal if we are able to prevent warming to exceed two degrees Celsius. Two degrees is the politically and scientifically agreed upon limit of warming beyond which we are projected to experience catastrophic effects of an altered climate system.

A key principle of the UNFCCC is to act in accordance with “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.” Previous agreements of the UNFCCC have focused heavily on the former component of this phrase, creating a strict divide between developed and developing countries by emphasizing differentiated responsibilities.” Considering the policy method of INDCs and state-specific mitigation targets, greater attention is now being placed upon the latter component to the phrase of “respective capabilities.” Both of these policy initiatives have a hybrid form combining bottom-up and top-down strategy, differing from more traditional approaches of setting high level environmental regulations, monitoring, and enforcement.

The bottom up method brings valuable qualities to an agreement. First, the structure brings universal buy-in. Rather than creating an idealized policy from a top-down perspective, a component of the policy rests on the agency of local and regional governance to analyze and produce the local capacity for compliance. Additionally, creating agency at the state or regional level allows for experimentation with alternate strategies and a greater ability to address behavior of citizens. This hybrid method may open up more space for struggle and strife of opposing views, but will ultimately produce more effective strategy that is reflective of local realities and is not at risk of a top-down failure from misguided policy.

So, where do US states stand right now concerning climate action? There is great variety in this answer across the nation--ten states are engaged in market-based programs for greenhouse gas reduction, including the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the East and California Cap-and-trade. Twenty-seven states have energy efficiency standards to reduce overall energy consumption. Furthermore, twenty-nine states have a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to spur development of carbon free power production, while an additional 8 states have an RPS goal. State-level climate policy has been largely voluntarily driven up to this point; the Clean Power Plan provides an opportunity to scale up renewable energy production and energy efficiency programs already underway in a number of states.

Given that the US holds the record by far for the largest amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere historically, it is imperative for the US to commit to bold action to spur ambition from countries around the world leading up to the Paris agreement. The commitments made by the US in the negotiations have global repercussions, just as much as the inaction of the US would create a global roadblock to climate progress. For the US to commit to bold climate action and submit a just INDC, our states must take on the task of reducing carbon emissions locally and leading the charge for local adaptation efforts.

The honest reality is that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan is still not nearly enough. Even if the Plan goes through without being turned into a swiss cheese form of policy, the US still has a great deal of work to do in order to produce a plan to support the international effort to stay below the 2℃ warming limit. The EPA’s Clean Power Plan may be the best policy option that we have right now for greenhouse gas mitigation, but it is one of the many pieces of the global puzzle that currently are not adding up to meet climate stabilization goals.

States have the opportunity to lead on the development of climate policy internationally and must strive to go beyond their assigned carbon reduction targets. States must not make climate policy decisions from the perspective of a single-state actor, but rather, must recognize the larger global context and timeline in which they are situated. The means by which each state will develop, or fail to develop, climate policy will affect the international effort to build a successful climate treaty to support the development of just and stable word.


buy ativan no prescriptionsoma online no prescriptionbuy tramadol onlineadipex for salephentermine online pharmacyprovigil online without prescriptionbuy ultram onlineambien for salevalium online no prescriptionklonopin for sale

SustainUS is now accepting applications for the 59th Commission on the Status on Women!

Apply now!

The Commission on the Status of Women is dedicated to promoting gender equality by identifying challenges and establishing standards for the social, economic, political, and civil rights of women.  Member states and non-government representatives, including the SustainUS delegation, will share and evaluate experiences, lessons, and best practices, as well as identify key goals for further advancement of women.  

SustainUS’s Agents of Change program is now accepting applications to attend the 59th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. Access Application here: http://goo.gl/forms/tCkaLtGGRM    Participants will have the chance to engage in hands-on learning about policymaking at the UN while working with youth from around the world. From crafting effective media strategies and publishing op-eds to developing domestic environmental campaigns and lobbying government officials, the skills that delegates learn are valuable and long-lasting. SustainUS equips its delegates with the capacity to be effective leaders to push for strong sustainable development policies at these conferences and back in their communities.

The session will be held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City from March 9-20, 2015. Applicants are required to be between the ages of 18 and 26 as of March 2015 and to either (a) be a US citizen or (b) have studied or worked in the US for more than six months. The application deadline is Sunday January 18th, 2015. Apply now!


 Application: http://goo.gl/forms/tCkaLtGGRM

SustainUS is committed to supporting a diverse movement, a diversity of people and tactics.

If you have any questions, please contact the AoC Coordinators at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .