023: App State at COP29

On this episode of Find Your Sustain Ability, Host Laura England welcomes Dr. Dave McEvoy, professor and chair of the Department of Economics in the Walker College of Business at Appalachian State University, along with students Nicole Tran, a senior majoring in political science with a concentration in international and comparative politics, and Grace Knapp, a senior majoring in global studies with minors in Spanish and political science, as they discuss their experience as observers at COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Dr. McEvoy explains the UNFCCC’s role in global climate negotiations and App State’s involvement. Nicole and Grace share how they found out about the trip as well as their insights on indigenous communities, climate refugees and the financial challenges of climate action, particularly in conflict-affected areas. They highlight issues of accessibility for marginalized voices and the slow progress of international climate finance. The discussion also touches on the emotional impact of climate change and activism, the challenges of large-scale climate action and plans for future student delegations at COP 30 in Brazil.

 

Show Notes

mcevoydm@appstate.edu 

englandle@appstate.edu 

https://www.instagram.com/appstatetocop/ 

https://unfccc.int/ 

 

Transcript

Laura:
Hello everyone and welcome to the Find Your Sustainability Podcast. I'm your host, Laura England, from the Department of Sustainable Development, and I'm currently working full-time on App State's five-year climate literacy initiative called Pathways to Resilience. Today's episode is a bit different from the others that I've hosted. We have a bit of a party here in the studio today. I'm here with not just one guest, not two, but three wonderful guests. This team has recently returned from Baku Azerbaijan, where they served as App State's delegation of observers at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change's 29th Conference of the Parties or COP 29 for short. I'll briefly introduce each of our guests and then we'll get to know more about each of them as we go. Dr. Dave McEvoy is professor and chair of the Department of Economics here at App State. He has graduate degrees in environmental economics from the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the University College London.
His research focuses on the design and effectiveness of international environmental agreements. And relevant to today's conversation, Dr. McEvoy serves as the organization head for App State's involvement in the United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. Also with us is Nicole Tran, a senior majoring in political science with a concentration in international and comparative politics and a minor in leadership studies. And we also welcome Grace Knapp, a senior majoring in global studies with double minors in Spanish and political science. Thanks so much Dave and Nicole and Grace for coming on the podcast, for being in the studio with me, and I'm really excited to hear more about your recent experience as observers of international climate negotiations.

Dave:
Definitely happy to be here. Thanks.

Nicole:
Thanks for having us.

Grace:
Yeah, thank you for having us. I'm happy to be here.

Laura:
Excellent. Well, first let's start with some context for our listeners. Dave, can you talk about the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change? A brief history, the purpose of the annual conference of the parties, what it's accomplished so far, a semester's worth in like three minutes.

Dave:
Three minutes?

Laura:
No pressure.

Dave:
Sure. The UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, is an international treaty that's designed to try to move countries collectively towards a common goal of avoiding dangerous climate change. It was drafted in '92, entered into force in 1994, and since then, every year minus Covid and a couple weird situations, there's been an annual conference of the parties. And those parties, around 200 countries try to work together to make things better. And it's a gradual process, but typically, countries are working under a treaty or a protocol that's kind of under the umbrella UNFCCC. These days, it's called the Paris Agreement. And so I think most people, while they may not know what the acronym UNFCCC means, they've probably heard of the Paris Agreement, which is, again, a treaty or an agreement under the UNFCCC, and that's the main context of the 29th conference of the parties that we just came back from and every conference of the party since COP 1.

Laura:
That's excellent. And I know, David, thanks to your leadership that App State has the possibility of bringing a delegation. Can you say a bit about what that process involved and also the course that you developed that parallels the delegation?

Dave:
Sure. So App State and many, not too many, but quite a few research institutions, even in this state, I can think of Duke and UNC Chapel Hill that are observers to the UNFCCC. And it was an application, it was a tedious process. Actually, if we had someone in Lower England's position right now helping with QAP and having your pulse on what's going on in climate-related initiatives across campus then, it would've been a huge help. But I had to gather everything that was going on in curriculum, in coursework, but also in research. So I just had to find everyone in any department working on climate-related research and take from their CVs a list of publications, any grant work that came in that had to do with it, and it ultimately had to go to the chancellor for a signature. And so it's Appalachian State that is an observer institution to the UNFCCC.
It's not a particular college or person. I might be the focal point, but it's an institution membership. And as long as you don't screw it up, there's a code of conduct that we all follow. It's in perpetuity. And so it's not something you need to renew every year. And with that, the whole goal of doing that in my mind back in 2019, was to have ultimately a delegation of students that are interested in global climate policy and have a course that establishes the framework behind all this and how it all works and how climate negotiations work internationally, and actually, and how that feeds into domestic decisions. But then ultimately, we could participate as observers at the International Climate Negotiations Cop every year. So that's kind of what the course is. It's small because you can't just take as many people and whoever you want to these conferences.

Laura:
So Nicole and Grace, you had to apply, I understand, to be a part of the course and then the trip to Azerbaijan. So maybe we'll start with Nicole and then Grace. Can you say a bit about first your interest in climate change and then what drew you to apply to this course in the program?

Nicole:
So my interest in climate change actually grew the past couple of five years of just it's unthinkable about, how is it getting this hot? And one thing about me, I don't like warm weather, so this is really perking up my interest of, where is this coming from? Especially being from a city and then going to the mountains where it's supposed to be cooler but it's not getting any cooler.

Laura:
Mm-hmm.

Nicole:
And so that's where my interest in climate change came from. But because I've always approached things from a more social justice and advocating for vulnerable communities, I wanted to see if there was a different approach to that. At the time when the applications came out, it was through the Honors College that introduced me to Dr. McEvoy's class and the application process. And I was like, "Hmm, I want to see if globally, people are interested in how can we help and support vulnerable communities that don't have the resources that global North or Western areas typically have." And so that's where my interest grew. And prior to that, I went on a trip with Dr. Baker Perry on the Mount Everest Space Camp Trek.

Laura:
Oh, wow.

Nicole:
So it was just going hand in hand of, "I'm about to go experience one of the coldest regions that isn't really getting cold anymore." And so just following that experience and seeing that if that's getting addressed on the global stage in policymaking or with any delegation around the world.

Laura:
Wow. So you've had lived experience with one of the more extreme environments where climate change is having a big impact and now also the experience of the international climate negotiations. Wow, that's fantastic. Okay, Grace, how about you? What's your interest in climate change and what drew you to apply to this program?

Grace:
Yeah, of course. I have a couple of different things that motivated me to apply for this course. So I've always been pretty interested in creating a sustainable community and protecting our environment. My parents really raised us to compost and recycle since the day that I can remember. So that definitely encouraged me. But a couple of things come to mind when I think about what really motivated me throughout my college career to become more passionate about this issue. So during my freshman year, I started working with a national organization called the Sunrise Movement, and I started doing some phone banking and just small little meetings in my high school and freshman year of college with just friends and community members that I knew were passionate about climate change. And it wasn't a App State organization, but I worked online doing phone banking to politicians and encouraging a Green New Deal.
And that was probably the number one thing that really brought me, number one, to a community that was full of like-minded people and cared about this issue as much as I did, but also motivated me to start doing things in my everyday life that impacted the environment in a positive way. For example, I started doing little workshops with students collaging making art out of recycled magazines. I find that to be really rewarding, while it's not impacting anyone on an international level, but it is a sustainable way to create art.

Laura:
Mm-hmm.

Grace:
And then the second thing is I studied abroad in Spain spring of 2023, and I took international relations classes there at that university. And in Spain at the university I went to, I went to Universidad de Europea, and you get to shape what you focus your projects on during most of those classes. And I chose to look at climate change issues and sustainability, and I got to learn a lot about how climate change is affecting Spain and droughts and heat waves that they've experienced.
I found that to be particularly interesting, but very, very important. I currently work and have worked at Melanie's, a local restaurant, and last year I was talking to one of the customers there and it was just a single guy and it was right after COP 28. He had just took a cohort of students from UNC Chapel Hill to COP 28, and he was telling me about this and I was also sharing my passions and interest for climate change and policymaking and human rights. And he was telling me, he was like, "I think App State as a cohort or something you can apply to. You should certainly apply," since this was going to be my senior year. And so I started doing research and I actually emailed Dr. McEvoy a couple of months before, probably twice, being like, "Has the application opened yet?" So that's actually how I found out that App State had a cohort, so I'm very grateful for that small little random connection and I've certainly learned a lot about the connection between policymaking, human rights, and climate change,

Laura:
And what a great experience for both of you in your senior year here at App State. I can see why you chose these two among the group to go with you, Dave.

Dave:
There were thousands of applicants. Yeah. They're fantastic students.

Laura:
Yeah. Well, I understand that this year's conference of the parties, there were about 60,000 delegates from, like you said, about 200 countries, and that's pretty enormous. There are lots of panels and sessions going on at the same time, I assume. I understand there's a Green Zone and a Blue Zone. Can one of you talk about the Blue Zone Green Zone organization of the conference of the parties, how that works, and what you all had access to as observers from App State?

Grace:
Yeah, I can add a little bit and anybody else can chime on. But essentially the Blue Zone incorporated, first off the main negotiations that were going on, but then honestly, we could not get into a lot of the big negotiations. While it was open to observers, they either filled up really quick, but another major thing was we went during the first week and all the COPs consist of two weeks. And so a lot of them got pushed back and when they were open, we were not allowed to get into all of them. So I know for me personally, I went to a lot of the press conferences, I went to the pavilions. There were side events and there were also exhibits, which App State had one that partnered with Vanderbilt University. And then the Green Zone consisted of activities and different businesses. It was almost similar to a career fair in my opinion.

Laura:
Exhibits?

Grace:
Well, the Green Zone area.

Laura:
Yeah.

Grace:
If anybody wants to add on to that. I don't know exactly how I'd explain the Green Zone.

Nicole:
I feel like I would explain the Green Zone, it's an area where you would separate yourself for a second from all of the logistics and negotiations of the conference. So like Grace was saying, that's where businesses are, that's where activities, like Grace went to yoga over there. It's essentially an area for people and delegates to feel like, "Oh, I can relax for a second and not be so overwhelmed by everybody running around, rushing to do things." So it's a very slow paced area.

Dave:
Yeah, I would say that that seems like a good description of the Green Zone. The primary thing is that to get into the Blue Zone, you need a badge. Any delegation that is going through this UNFCCC process that we do has a Blue Zone badge for at least some fraction of the days. And back in COP 1, COP was the Blue Zone, and not only that, it was just the negotiations, so it was just parties negotiating. There were always the ability of observers to do exactly that, to observe. But over the years, now, if you think of the nucleus or the center of a big circle in the Blue Zone is like the negotiations. Then you have these side events that a lot of academics, a lot of institutions, students, youth groups, they can give presentations. And then what Grace mentioned, the pavilion space, these pavilions are country pavilions and organization pavilions, but the United States has their own pavilion, for instance.
It may not be the most colorful and exciting, but it's busy. It's busy from 9:00 to 6:00 every day for two weeks with a lot of governors, senators, people in the policy space, also academics, sometimes students. And that's just the United States Pavilion, and I don't know how many pavilions there were. There were not 200. I mean, there's some countries that aren't going to have them, and then there are organizations that have them. But it's a crazy space. I mean, it's like a World's Fair. That's the way to describe that area. And so all this stuff is going on at the same time. And then the Green Zone is public facing, so anybody can go to the Green Zone. And so this year was a little bit more corporate than I've seen in the past, like Deloitte and McKinsey, maybe they're there, but the feeling of the Green Zone in the previous years has been outdoor space, a lot of interactive stuff, kids, like school groups. What was interesting about Baku is they just had remote school for two weeks for the COP.

Laura:
Oh, wow.

Dave:
So there were no students from K to 12 or the equivalent going to school, and there weren't those school groups going through the Green Zone, and so it seemed like a more business-y vibe.

Laura:
Hm. A missed opportunity for those school kids.

Dave:
Yeah, I think it was. It's public facing, so it's where, if you're looking for greenwashing, you're going to find it there for sure, because it's a lot of just businesses saying, "Look what we're doing." Whether they were selling caviar from the Caspian Sea or whatever they were showcasing. We didn't spend a lot of time there. To be honest, we just bought some junk and left. But it was a missed opportunity to have something for just the public to enjoy more than just a business-y trade fair.

Laura:
Yeah. Well, so there's a lot going on at any given time, and I understand that each student in the course had selected a focus to follow ahead of time. And so I'd love to hear from you, Nicole, and Grace, about what you chose to follow, what you experienced as you followed that topic, what you learned, what you felt. Maybe we start with Grace this time and then go to Nicole.

Grace:
Yeah, for sure. So yeah, me and Nicole sort of focused on similar issues, but definitely had our differences. So I focused on how indigenous communities are affected by these mitigation and adaptation plans, but also primarily indigenous communities in small island developing states. And the acronym for that is SIDS, so the entirety of COP is made up of acronyms. But I essentially followed a lot of issues on two major things, how marginalized communities, specifically indigenous communities are affected by climate change and climate disasters, but also what they are doing sustainably to combat these climate disasters. But the biggest issue that I found was they really lack funding in these small island developing states, but also any given indigenous population needs some sort of funding to continue these sustainable practices. And while that funding is present in a lot of different communities, there's a lack of political implantation that I've seen.
And one of the most impactful talks I went to, it was a press conference, that I went to with Nicole actually, was an indigenous group, a women's group, it was called We Can, I believe, and it was a group of indigenous Brazilian speakers and leaders that were speaking on how, one, their communities were being affected by not only climate disasters, but also the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energies, but not in a sustainable manner, if that makes sense.
There's a lot of land grabbing and a lack of understanding of whose indigenous land this is. And not only are indigenous people being affected by this, but there's also a lack of understanding for the needs that women and youth need to continue to prosper. And this talk was done in their language, in Portuguese, and then translated. And that within itself was very impactful to me, that concept of translation and how powerful it was to hear them speak in their language and still be so welcoming because COP 30 is actually being held in Brazil. So the major concept they highlighted during that was the concept of a just transition. So when we are transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy, it's to incorporate human rights and understanding for the necessities that these communities need while doing this transition sustainably.

Laura:
So not to just replicate the extractive approach that our fossil fuel economy has used.

Grace:
Exactly.

Laura:
Yeah. Did you find that, in your observation, did the indigenous leaders and speakers, did they have the same spaces and audiences and access to influence at the conference of the parties that maybe representatives of more western wealthier type?

Grace:
Yeah, definitely not. Most of these talks that I went to that indigenous speakers were headlining and at, were press conferences. So these press conferences are essentially a panel of five or six different people, and they tend to only get 30 minutes to speak. And the audience was primarily other indigenous people. So I found that very interesting. While there were some other students and younger people there that weren't indigenous people, it was still interesting to see, one, the crowds weren't as big, and two, they weren't as diverse. There were indigenous people supporting other indigenous people, which is fantastic. But I feel like there should have been officials from Western countries hearing their perspective and their experiences to accommodate and gain a different perspective.

Laura:
Well, thanks for sharing about your experience. Nicole, what topic did you select to follow? What did you learn? What was the experience like for you?

Nicole:
So me and Grace, we basically were following the same kind of topic, which I'm grateful for because then that meant that someone was with me half the time, but my main focus was on climate change and missed conflict and war and conflict and what that looks like. More of what does it mean to be a climate refugee versus someone who has been displaced by war, but also the intersections of war and climate change, which is something that people primarily really don't focus on because when it comes down to it, what we are scared of is war, and we don't ever see the after effects of war, especially on vulnerable communities. So I was focusing on the Loss and Damage Fund that was created around COP 27, and its mission was to essentially have this funding for vulnerable communities or any country that has been affected by climate change at any vast moment that they could pull money out for it.
But the issue with that is that there was a lack of consideration of conflict affected areas, so we were talking about the Middle East, any war that has been put in tiny or smaller countries. And so it was a really valuable experience, especially because at the time of this conference, the term climate refugee was pretty normalized, which is interesting because this was less than two weeks ago. But as soon as I got back, people started writing articles and research about how climate refugee is not a term that we should be using, how if we're going to talk about climate refugee and displacement, that we should be using ecological displaced person, only because the term and the connotation around refugee, it's always racially connected, which further disappropriates people, which makes it harder for them to gain resources and access to financial funds, such as the loss and damage fund.
So that was an interesting obstacle I ran into because while at the conference, people were using climate refugee a lot because it's like, "We're getting displaced not only because of this conflict, but because this ruined infrastructure and this pollution and people having no choice but to move out of their homeland, also the climate there has been terrible, and so we haven't been focusing on that." So I got to attend a lot of press conferences with Grace and be able to listen to a lot of people calling for energy embargo, so that would be our BP gas stations pulling out of investments in oil extraction in other countries.
It would also be like a arms embargo. So a lot of the press conferences were calling for that because these are two main factors, energy and arms, that basically contribute to climate change that we see here. So I actually grew a lot of fascination, this is going to sound weird, for this older woman who was a panelist named Lola who's from the Philippines, and she's been doing advocacy on behalf of affected conflict and climate affected communities for over 20 years at this point.

Laura:
Wow.

Nicole:
And so she's on the panel, the first panel I see her at, and she's sitting there and she's like, "I'm kind of sick of this. I've been here multiple times. I've been to this conference every year. I've advocated for the same thing. I've talked to people about the same thing. We're asking for more money in the Loss and Damage Fund."
And so the conference this year was called the Finance COP, and so that's all we're talking about every single day is money. How much money are we putting in? Where are this money going? Who's getting the money? Are contributors going to add more money? Things like that. And so Lola is like, Every year I'm here and I'm telling people, 'We need more money.' Not only because you're seeing on mass media that these countries are clearly not going to sustain any life at any point." For example, in Palestine, they're saying that people cannot come back for another 30 years, that it's been that destroyed by climate and war, that there is no way of turning back.
There's just no way. And so Lola is saying, "We need $5 trillion." And obviously to anybody, if I asked Dr. McEvoy to give me $5 trillion right now, he'd be like, "That's insane."

Dave:
Just give me minute, give me a minute.

Nicole:
And so while I understand that, and I understand that for any country, giving up any large proportion to contribute to $5 trillion is a lot. When we really think about it, we're thinking about communities that we don't even know about, indigenous people we don't know about that have been extremely affected by climate change and that need a Loss and Damage Fund.
I've learned a lot just from that conference alone and just from all of the things following it and the research following it. But I really do think that at COP 30, that you will see Lola again and you will see the Pay Up Campaign that is advocating for $5 trillion simply because there's not an amount of money that you could ever put in the Loss and Damage Fund to recover the countries that can never turn back. But one thing that you can do is make sure that the people who are going through these experiences, the indigenous people who are making their way all the way to COP and using all their expenses to talk for their communities, are listened to and that they're in these negotiation rooms. That's one thing, if anything, I took away from this is that we need to keep pushing for indigenous voices and vulnerable communities to be able to access these rooms that their badges can get them where they need to be because, if anything, the documents and the policies should at least say that one indigenous person was in that room and was able to speak, so.

Laura:
Well. You both followed some really important and really heavy topics while you were there. Nicole, you brought up finance is the overarching topic for this conference of the parties. Maybe Dave, you could speak to the trajectory of getting to this point where, in 2024, finance is like the topic and maybe it's going to be the one for the next few years too. What progress are we making at the international level on finance to address climate change? Both loss and damage, which is about once there's already been damage created and also the more prevention mitigation side, how are we doing on this?

Dave:
Well, you make a good point because... And part of the negotiations this year about finance were because there was something called the new collective quantified goal on finance. This is the big thing. COP makes things hard on purpose, but they use the term quantum, which just means, how much? What's the number? But part of the negotiation is, is the number we're working on now going to feed into loss and damage? Ultimately, and we didn't realize this until we left, we left after the first week, is that it's not. So you make a good distinction because there's all kinds of money flowing for climate action.
There's money to try to enhance mitigation, which is what you need to address the cause of this problem. Then there's money for adaptation, which you need to help countries most vulnerable to live in a world with climate damage. No matter what we do right now, we're still suffering damage. So even if we stop the emissions today, we still have warming. And then there's loss and damage, and just like you said, that's for damages that people are already suffering or have suffered. The tricky part is that the most vulnerable nations that suffer the most and will suffer the most have contributed the least, which also means they have the least leverage to help solve the climate change problem, too.

Laura:
When you say contributed the least, you mean-

Dave:
In emissions.

Laura:
... the least emissions. Contributed the least to the cause.

Dave:
To the cause of climate change. So there's sufferings for something that they had very little fraction in terms of the whole of greenhouse gas emissions. And what that also means is that they can't do a lot to help solve that problem. And this is why things are so thorny. So when the United States, and relative to the United States historic emissions, current emissions place in the world, the GDP, they're not large contributors relative to those metrics, but they're not going to say, "This is money towards loss and damage." Government funds flowing for climate action are not going to use that terminology. It's too contentious. But what they're going to do, or what a lot of countries do is say, "This is what we're giving to climate action." They can lump that altogether. But it really matters where it goes. And so this year, to answer your question of where we're coming from, I think it was in 2009, there was a collective goal of $100 billion a year.
This wasn't loss and damage because Nicole's right, that came about in COP 27 and then in COP 28, the first day that fund was created. Which was a big thing because, you can imagine, loss and damage, that's not getting at the root cause of climate change, that is trying to make countries and people and communities whole that have been suffering. But it's a different goal. So that $100 billion was not towards loss and damage. There was some adaptation, but it's mitigation.
The money flows from the global north or the global south or developed terminology changes, but this is the flow of funds and it makes sense because if the western world wants the rest of the globe to not take that same development path that we did, it's going to take a lot of money and resources and capacity to not use fossil fuels in the same way. So that's where that money traditionally had been targeted. And this is back in 2009. And then in 2020, it was supposed to start, it didn't get there, it failed. 2023, the global community finally hit the $100 billion. But it's just not even close. Trillions of dollars are talking about that.

Laura:
We're off by an order of magnitude.

Dave:
Ultimately, what happened this year is that they've tripled this. There's a commitment by, I think it's by 2035, that it would be 300 billion, and that would be through government funding, that would be through parties, but with this goal of 1.3 trillion, that's also in the decision documents from COP 29. But that gap is going to be made up by private finance, which we had Alex a delegate in our cohort, a student studying finance, was following COP finance, and she makes some great points. Ultimately, all of her students, Nicole and Grace as well, write a policy brief and she made good points of a lot of that funding from the private sector comes in the form of loans. They're responsible for the money as well, and that can be just as contentious and dangerous and unhelpful, right? Yeah. You're not less vulnerable in that kind of world. So I don't know about that gap between 300 billion and 1.3. I'm maybe a little suspect. And even if it does, is that a great thing? Because of the mechanism through which those finances are dispersed.

Laura:
Mm. Mm-hmm.

Dave:
Yeah.

Laura:
Well, so we have a set of countries that have been the lead in terms of causing the problem, our country being among those, and then the country's communities that Nicole and Grace [inaudible 00:34:16] represent, the set of communities, countries around the world that are experiencing the harms first and worst contributed very little to the cause of the problem. We're not seeing enough support and maybe the right kind of support to clean up the mess. I'm going to ask an intentionally naive question here that I think has multiple answers. So when you're growing up, when you're a kid, you're taught by someone in your life, you should clean up your own mess.
And most of us do that. Most of us do that. Most people do that in their lives, at least on a local basis. But we've really failed to scale that beyond very local, in a lot of cases with respect to environmental problems and especially to the global scale with climate change and other global environmental problems. So what are the multiple reasons why? Why are we not applying this clean up your own mess ethic that we have all held dear in our personal lives? Why are we not scaling that up to the global level?

Dave:
I can start chiming in. I just don't think there are incentives for that to work. I think if the United States historically, and pretty soon China will surpass the United States, [inaudible 00:35:38] historic contributions to greenhouse gases. I think that that social norm that maybe I had as a kid to clean up your room is not a norm that would supersede any of the incentives, the motives that drives an economy like the United States.

Laura:
Name some of those motives.

Dave:
Well, just the fraction of what our GDP would account for in terms of fossil fuel based production, industry, transport is pretty large. And so in a simple world, where it's like, "Clean up your act now," it would shut down an economy. Now, if it was a, "Slowly clean up your room by the time I get back," and that might be 30 years, then perhaps. But I think what will drive countries or a country like the United States to make those decisions is the economics of it.
You see that in COP 28 and 29 because they focus a lot, and when I say they, I'm talking about parties or maybe just country representatives that are in the policy space. They focus on what are called super pollutants. That really wasn't even a term a few years ago, but methane is one. So it's a strong greenhouse gas, it has a shorter lifespan. And for all kinds of different reasons that we don't have to get into, they're are low hanging fruit, and so it's cheaper to mitigate them, to reduce them. You get a bigger bang for your buck because they don't spend as much time in the atmosphere.
And so the economics are in its favor, and that is the reason that that's the focus of the US in the last couple of years, the global methane pledge, a focus on nuclear energy, because statistically, it's very safe. Emotionally, it's difficult. But they look to countries like France or Spain that have a high fraction of energy use. And so I think that that's a push that was part of the US negotiations this year in terms of how they're going to meet these things. I guess that's what I'd say is I study what's called the dismal science, so just take this with a fistful of salt, just the incentives to have to be there, I would think, and I just didn't see how they would be for a social norm like that.

Laura:
Nicole and Grace, what do y'all think?

Nicole:
Yeah. I mean, I agree with Dr. McEvoy. I think that it goes down to two things that intersect with each other as well as the economics of it and the public interest on political will of, does the public even care for any of government officials? That's what they're thinking of... "Unless every single person in the nation that I rule over is pushing or pressuring me to do this thing, and if I don't, they're going to push me out of my leadership role," that there's no incentive there. Most of the time when we talk about political leaders of any nation, really, they're trying to keep their power and they want to keep their position and they want to stay as long as possible. So anything that is in public interest, if it's not getting pushed, if climate change and climate action's not getting pushed, then it's really like, "Well, if I don't do it, I'll still be here and I'll do this." And if I can sustain the economy, they're really not going to be mad at me because I can do this and get away with it.
And so in terms with the US, like I was able to get into John Podesta, our Senior Advisor on Climate for the US, being able to hear him talk about what the next steps are for the US in terms of whether or not they're going to be sticking around or what the negotiations are looking like. And obviously he couldn't say much, but it came down to, "If this is something that people really want to happen and they want to see from our federal government, that it goes down to local governments continuing the climate action, public interest pushing for climate action, and climate activists still being out there and doing the work." Because who knows what it's going to look like coming January. But yeah, I mean, it really comes down to economics and public interest.

Grace:
I would say I agree with both of those. In my opinion, the bottom line is the economy sort of rules these developed nations, such as the US and China. And I think also, when it comes down to political will, if the public is not encouraging or advocating for anybody to take accountability or make change in terms of climate action, I think politicians and policymakers at this level are not going to be doing much, unless there is that action by the public and some incentive for the economy, because we do live in a world where the economy is a major factor for any decision that we make. And I also think unfortunately, we also live in a world where if it's not affecting anybody's individual life, then many people do not care. There's a lot more going on and if people aren't paying attention to climate, it's not directly impacting them, there's not going to be much change made.
And I feel like I saw this firsthand when Hurricane Helene hit in October, and I certainly have some friends that are not as cautious when it comes to the environment or definitely not as passionate or aware of climate change. And it is something that really occupies my mind and I'm very aware of and passionate about. But when this hit, it made a lot of conversations come forth, and very important conversations regarding climate change. And so I think unfortunately, I feel like if people do not experience something like a climate disaster, then maybe they don't care as much because it's not impacting their daily life. And I really do hate to say that, but I did see it firsthand when I saw friends asking me more questions on the conference I went to because of Hurricane Helene, and they are more insightful and interested about policymaking and climate change and how they go hand in hand.

Laura:
Yeah, you make really good points there. It's easy for people to feel a psychological distance between their own life and the problem of global scale climate change unless or until the effects do become local. When you were abroad in Baku, did people know that you were from a region that just experienced a climate disaster? When you shared, "We're from App State. We're from Western North Carolina." Did you get any recognition or questions about, "How is your community?" That kind of thing?

Nicole:
I will say if we ran into anybody from the US and we were telling them we were from App State, they would often ask us about the western region and how that went down for us. Our first day when we went to the 9:00 AM RINGO session, so the observer group we're under, basically all RINGO attached organizations were there. I don't know if I'm explaining this right, but-

Dave:
RINGO is research and independent, NGO's non-governmental organizations. So yeah, it's just our constituency group that we are under.

Nicole:
Yeah. So we got split up into what our interests would be during the conference. And I was talking to some people, I think Grace was also there, they were focusing on adaptation, so we went over there as well. We were like, "Oh yeah, we're from App State." And their first question was, "How was the hurricane? Did you experience it? Did you stay while the hurricane was happening?" And typically a lot of people, the way that they saw the hurricane was through TikTok, and so they bring that up too. They were like, "I kept seeing videos." But yeah, outside of that, I didn't really run into anybody internationally that would know about what happened to Western Carolina.

Grace:
I would say the same. Everybody that I talked to that did ask about the hurricane or was like, "Wow. Oh my God, how are you doing?" They were either from the US or they were younger people. There weren't many people internationally that knew what had happened.

Laura:
That must have been a weird feeling. I had the experience of traveling to a conference in late October, which was a few weeks out from the hurricane hitting, but it still felt very fresh here. And it was odd to be in a space where people didn't really understand. They're like, "Oh, you had a hurricane, but that's over now," and it's clearly not over and won't be for a long time in the region. You've shared a lot about what you've learned since the intellectual outcomes from being a part of this experience. What was the emotional journey like?
On this podcast before, we've talked about the ways that climate change is impacting the mental health of people around the world and especially youth. We had a leading expert on the subject, Britt Wray, a few months back, and the more recent research that she's a co-author on is showing the mental health impacts are growing. 38% of 15,000 US youth respondents said that, My climate worry affects my day-to-day life, including things like my ability to eat and sleep and focus on my work and my studies," and that sort of thing. That's significant. You are facing climate change head on in your studies, it sounds like in your change-making work, outside of your studies. You traveled to the international negotiations. What is your climate emotions journey like, both outside of this particular experience and what was it like to be a person in the context of all that you witnessed there?

Grace:
I thought it was very interesting to go to this conference right after the hurricane, and it was actually up in the air if we were even going to go. One, because of the badge issue, and then, two, because of the hurricane. And Dr. McEvoy sent us an email probably only three weeks before going to the conference saying, "Do we still want to do this? And how are we feeling about this?" And I remember responding saying, "I think we should still do this." Especially because for me personally, the hurricane had a very emotional impact on me, and even on parts of my home, it did.
And so it motivated me even more to want to go. And so I've experienced a lot more climate anxiety the past two years because of focusing on a lot of projects within school, focusing on climate action in global climate change, and also just experiencing it firsthand takes a huge toll on you. And then being at the conference was very empowering, but at the same time, very anxiety provoking because it was almost very overwhelming to see this issue at such a global level and have so many aspects being looked at and worked on.

Laura:
And how slow it is.

Grace:
And how slow it was moving. And in my head, I was just getting a little frustrated, but I was also very grateful to be there. So yeah, it was very interesting. I actually did go to a yoga class for decreasing climate anxiety, which the Greenstone had, so I was very grateful for that because I needed that for sure.

Laura:
It's a complex emotional journey. How about you, Nicole?

Nicole:
I think for me, prior to the conference and going through the hurricane, I was just like, "I am overwhelmed. I don't know what's going on, and these are very traumatic experiences, so I can only imagine what other people around the US and globally have gone through and how they dealt with that." And then being at the conference, just the same as Grace was saying, very grateful that I was able to go, but also every time I went to a panel, it was very anxiety inducing of, "Oh wow, so no one knows what to do," or, "There's only so much that we can do."
But I think that it's also been a push for me to see outside of myself for a second and be like, "Wow, there are so many people who need support right now, and how do we support them in the best way possible? How do we meet their ask?" So my mental health around climate has been up and down, but I think that looking outside of that, it's been like, "Oh, there is a lot of change that can happen, but when are we and how are we going to push for that change?" Because it's going to keep adapting as our climate is changing, so.

Laura:
Right. And we need all hands on deck. So I'm grateful to the two of you for the work that you've started, and hopefully will continue. I look forward to following you in the coming years. To wrap things up, Dave, can you tell us, do you intend to offer this course again in the coming year and take a group to the Conference of the Parties in Brazil?

Dave:
Yes, good question. The answer is yes, that we did talk about yesterday in class, our last class or two days ago, what we thought about this whole thing. And everyone feels that there's a lot, like you mentioned, 60,000 people, this is COP 29. I would argue that there's improvements that are made, but of course it is slow, and there's a lot of people traveling and a lot of resources being used. And is this the way we want to do it? Is this just a waste of additional resources contributing to the problem, or is this helping? Or where's the balance with it? And so I grapple with that. So when you mentioned climate emotions, all of this is just kind of wrapped up for me of, "Is it the right thing to do to keep doing this?" And I think the answer is yes, but that's not the only argument. But yeah, next year in Brazil and not a... I forget how to pronounce the name, Belém?

Grace:
Belém, I believe.

Dave:
But not a huge city with hundreds of hotels. I mean, this is a different part of the world and probably a part of the world that needs to be hosting a COP for all the reasons that the last three have been in oil nations. And so it'll be interesting, but it is something I think about.

Laura:
Well, it's an incredible learning experience for students and I'm really grateful, Nicole, and Grace, and Dave for you joining me in the studio and sharing about the experience. I do want to let our listeners know that the cohort from App State did have an Instagram, AppStateToCOP, which I think we can put the link, too, in the show notes, where you can learn more about their experience and especially get a visual sense of their journey. Thanks again, y'all.

Dave:
Thank you.

Nicole:
Thank you.

Grace:
Thank you.