AUDIO:

The following is a rough machine transcript. Click the words to skip to that point in the audio.

TOM WHEELER:

Welcome to the Econews Report. I'm your host this week, Tom Wheeler, Executive Director of EPIC, the Environmental Protection Information Center. We are talking about international climate agreements, and we have two folks who have recently returned from Azerbaijan from COP29, Michelle McMillan, a student at Vermont Law School, and Derek Walker, adjunct professor in international climate change law. Welcome to the Econews Report, gang.

So I know Michelle from our work together in Mendocino County, trying to protect and defend the Jackson Demonstration State Forest. And I was thrilled when Michelle decided to go to law school and decided to go to Vermont Law, which is an absolute leader in environmental law. So Michelle, it sounds like you are going through some cool experiences. You got to go to an international climate conference. Do you want to just tell us a little bit about the trip and the most intense field trip I think I've ever heard about for any sort of a school program?

MICHELLE McMILLAN:

Easily the most intense field trip I've heard of either, let alone been on. Yeah, I mean, the course itself was really incredible and the conference experience at the end was a capstone. But thankfully, because we were at school, we did have a semester to prepare for that intensity. And Derek, the professor who you'll hear from, really walked us through what the conference was gonna look like and the structure of what is done at those conferences. So we were in many ways prepared for the intensity and still it's the whole world coming together to work on something really ungainly and there's simply no really preparing for it.

WHEELER:

And Derek, what is it like to be a professor bringing, you know, law school students are different, right? It's, I teach at Cal Poly Humboldt. So I am familiar with college students. College students are kind of baby adults, but law school students, they're full grown adults. So maybe it's less intense and not quite as difficult, but what is it like to be a professor bringing a cohort to an international climate conference?

DEREK WALKER:

Well, it's a huge responsibility, Tom, because I see Michelle and the others in the class as the people who are gonna be forging ahead with the solutions we need in the decades ahead. And for some of them, this is the most intensive exposure they've had to a range of issues that touch the climate crisis. And so it also is really an unmatched privilege to be able to walk the halls with the students and to see how they're taking in the conversations that they're part of and the events that we're able to go to together, the kinds of people that they meet and the insights they're drawing from them. I really saw a number of instances where students were discovering new avenues for potential career exploration just based on the very organic interactions that they had there.

And so it was a privilege, it was a thrill, but I take it really, really seriously. And as Michelle said, we had a semester of buildup where we could establish some of the context about what all these countries and individuals are doing, gathering together in a far-flung part of the world in a windowless conference center built into a soccer stadium.

WHEELER:

So this was COP 29. You were there in November 2024. I say COP as if I even know what that means. I believe it's Conference of the Parties, but what are we talking about? What is the COP annual conference and how does it fit into this system of international climate law? And Derek, as a professor of international climate law, I will pick on you for this question.

WALKER:

So it is Conference of the Parties, that's the correct answer. First quiz question, you aced it. 30 years ago, countries passed this convention treaty as a way of creating space to have conversations about how to tackle climate change. And there's been a lot of peaks and valleys, annual meetings ever since 1992. Ever since 1995, 1992 was the very first time that there was a climate-related meeting that was globally attended. And what it has become is a combination of backroom intensive negotiations over very abstract text, and a lot of very public trade show-like exposition of ideas and organizations and individuals who bring a really dizzying array of talents and expertise to the conferences. There were 65,000 people who came to Azerbaijan for this conference.

And so it is a place where the legal dimensions of the climate issue are alive and resonant in all of the conversations. However, that doesn't mean that there are conclusive outcomes that get baked into laws and regulations that govern how parties actually have to act. It is very much of a soft power domain where you have a lot of relationship-based engagements, a lot of commitments without constraints, and a lot of committing to act a certain way without committing to actually taking the action underlying the way you're acting. And certainly there's not a lot of accountability structure built in. So it's this weird mix of a high-minded, idealistic gathering with a lot of potential to forge ahead with new solutions. And then at the end of the day, often a very disappointing outcome if you're thinking about the net output.

WHEELER:

So you talked about soft power and the commitments that are important to a meeting like this. You went in the wake of the most recent presidential election. I imagine that had a pretty large impact in this conference. As one of the largest greenhouse gas producers in the world, as the largest economy in the world, the United States' decisions on climate action have an outsized impact. And now we have climate denier-in-chief in the White House. How has that impacted our international standing at some of these conferences and our ability to participate in the tenor of COP 29?

WALKER:

Maybe I'll say maybe I'll talk about it with a little big picture and then Michelle can add a little bit on what she experienced in the hallway conversations. Much like the first election of Donald Trump, this political moment is creating a huge opportunity for other countries to step up and lead, not only rhetorically by announcing commitments that the Trump administration would never join, but also cutting deals on creating the materials and products and technologies that are going to be essential to the clean energy transition.

And so from what I see, there is a fair amount of sympathy towards the American delegation at these conferences. And there's also a feeling that this is whether it's Brussels or Beijing or Buenos Aires, there's other global opportunities for leadership that are becoming more clear. But Michelle, I don't know if you want to add anything you picked up, because I know we went together to some events with U.S. stakeholders.

McMILLAN:

Yeah, I think one of the things that we were reflecting on after COP was how a lot of the U.S. led events, at least that we were there for, because there were far too many events in any one day to catch them all. A lot of them seem to be repeating what had been done rather than focusing on what we were going to be doing at the national or state level, simply because of the lack of certainty that the new administration creates. We can all envision the worst case scenario, which hopefully won't come to be.

But so, yeah, there was that looking back as opposed to looking forward was really a consistent theme. At the same time, the language from members of the U.S. delegation that we got to speak to and from others was very much that while the administration might be pulling out, the United States will still be doing what work is available to be done. And so just trying to find hope wherever it could be found and trying to find ways to continue doing the work quietly or steadily when possible.

WHEELER:

So I get to live in the great state of California. California has, again, one of the largest economies in the world, larger than I think all but six other countries. We produce also a lot of greenhouse gases, but we as a state are committed to reducing our carbon footprint. After the last Trump administration, state of California worked together with other states. We created compacts. We entered into international agreements or understandings or MOUs with other foreign nations about climate change, what we can do as a state.

Derek, perhaps you could reflect about how maybe the United States' role in these conferences or in international agreements might change in the next four years, and we can perhaps lean more towards this idea of federalism, where the states or local governments or large corporations can continue to do the important work of climate change, avoidance or mitigation or whatever, even if we have a federal government that is hostile to international climate work.

WALKER:

That's going to be essential. And several years ago, the UN process formally welcomed non-country, non-state actors to the table to register their commitments on climate. They have a really big presence at the conferences. There's always a lot of city and state leaders from the US and around the world that participate. And the business community is also out in full force. And a lot of those voices are speaking with a highly ambitious plan for what they intend to accomplish. Even at this COP, Governor Inslee, outgoing governor of the state of Washington, was the only US governor in attendance, but he went around really banging the drum on the importance of states stepping in and the commitment to work with other governors to ensure that states step in. Secretary Crowfoot from California Department of Natural Resources, an old friend of mine, was there, and really waving the flag for the leadership that California has shown.

And so, and of course, as usual, there were a lot of companies that were making various commitments around net zero supply chains or around purchasing large amounts of clean electricity. And so that's going to be even more critical. And what it's also going to mean is that in other venues, like the climate weeks that occur around the world, but most prominently in New York City every September, there's going to be a lot of, I would expect there's going to be a lot of fanfare around the sub-national aspect of climate action. And New York mayor, former New York mayor and climate ambassador, Michael Bloomberg has been a key champion on that as well.

WHEELER:

Current New York mayor. I'm surprised he wasn't there. I'm sure he could have gone through Turkey and had a free flight. A little Eric Adams joke for you, for the fans out there. So I know that this is a conference where, where firm commitments aren't made, but what can be, what progress can be, can be said occurred at cop 29? What, what, what is the benefit of getting together 65,000 people in a windowless room next to a soccer stadium in Baku, Azerbaijan? Why, why, why is this an important thing for us to do? Michelle, perhaps, perhaps you want to tackle that extremely hard question.

McMILLAN:

Sure. I mean, I think it's one that can be answered in a number of different ways. First, there are written agreements that do come out of this. The one we had this year was the Finance Cop, so we had the NCQG, or the New Collective Quantified Goal. We had an agreement on climate funding and climate finance. NCQG, New Collective Quantified Goal, and that was brutally fought for, lower than it should have been, but completed and agreed to, and now a workable framework for climate finance for a period of time.

And so those kinds of global documents are really significant, even if they're disappointing, even if they're lackluster, even if they fall short of providing the level of finance that we might need to use the Finance Cop. They still provide a framework for countries to work with, and they show global intent towards a goal. And I think moving then beyond that, if you're consistently dissatisfied with the written agreements and the outcomes of COP, it still is a massive motivator and a space for the global community to really come together and focus on this issue and hopefully generate ideas and solutions. Not to get pessimistic with your question, but I think also to that, especially at this year's COP or surrounding this year's COP, it seemed there was a heightened sense of, well, why are we doing this, and what is the point? A lot of groups that usually come didn't go. I forget which nation was the first to boycott and just not go to the COP at all. I think part of that to do was with where it was hosted and smaller and more slapdash and concerns about the finance itself.

But really, I think there comes a point where there's growing concern over the trade show nature of the COP and everyone flying out and the climate implications and the goals falling short. And so that's, I would anticipate, going to be a conversation or a theme over the next few years, hopefully. Otherwise, maybe just increasing concern and lack of effort and showing up should be a big problem.

WHEELER:

You are listening to the Econews Report. Talking about international climate agreements, and we have two folks who have recently returned from Azerbaijan from COP29, Michelle McMillan, a student at Vermont Law School, and Derek Walker, adjunct professor in international climate change law.

So on the finance piece, as you said, this is the first time that we perhaps have kind of have some sort of a deal on international finance for climate action for the global north to better help the global south, make an energy transition to industrialize in a way that is going to be safe for our climate, but also gives some degree of justice and equity, and allows these countries to have the opportunities that we've been able to enjoy. I think it's, I'll build on your earlier answer, I think even if it might be kind of a disappointing and somewhat lackluster first outcome, we've breached the dam at least. And now this has been a thing that has been agreed to, and we can start to add additional layers to it in future agreements. And so hopefully that can be part of this too, is that we've gotten over a hump here and are able to move forward. So there are high-level negotiations taking place in some rooms, in other rooms you have the conference fair-like atmosphere of vendors and food courts and whatever else.

Michelle, as a participant, as someone who attended this, tell us about your experience in the COP and how you attempted to have meaningful conversations.

McMILLAN:

Yeah, wow. I mean, so the first day showing up, we were A, supremely jet lagged and B, incredibly exhausted. And C, just had no idea what we were in for in terms of the, like, physicality and energy of the space. You're in a converted stadium. It's packed with people. The floors were soft. So we all kept out like, oh my gosh, like, is there an earthquake? Am I falling over? And so there was no way to not be in motion. Even if you were sitting in a corner, there was still people moving past you. You still had that feeling of the floor. And it was just so completely overwhelming. And then on top of that, all of a sudden, you're at the UN Conference of the Parties. This is the climate moment. This is it. This is where everything happens.

And yeah, so really trying to take that in was, leave me at a complete loss for words. And then trying to talk to people, trying to learn things, trying to retain information. I was looking back at my notes before this interview, and a lot of them are just utter nonsense because I was trying to write down the things that different people were saying. And you have these translation headsets for a lot of the different talks, and they wouldn't work, or they would go in and out of these channels or whatever, a myriad of problems. So just to set the scene for trying to have conversations. But we did find on that too, is that no one really seemed to be functioning as if these were the circumstances. So people would just stop in the middle of an intersection, but the intersection is only two people wide. And all of a sudden you have this crazy stop and go traffic of people.

With that, though, it was really easy to just look up, make eye contact, start a conversation with anybody there. We were able to meet fascinating US representatives, climate leaders, just making eye contact or refilling a water bottle. I made a really fabulous connection while I was standing watching the live recording of Democracy Now!, and a woman just came and stood next to me, and we had one of the most amazing conversations, inspiring, exciting to me, which I think really speaks to just everyone more or less being there for the same thing. There were plenty of people, again, I think especially this year, that were there for the trade show aspects. If anyone wants a good laugh, Yungo, the youth coalition, put out a video of people getting that acronym COP wrong, which is just depressing when there are people that are attending the conference itself.

But for the most part, when you have that many people who share not just any common interest, but the common interest of humanity surviving and thriving, even under really adverse circumstances for a normal human conversation, you're able to have some of the best conversations you've ever had.

WHEELER:

There's a degree when you attend conferences like these that I don't know if I leave feeling more hopeful, but I at least leave feeling sustained in some way that I'm not in this alone in this sort of work. That's how I feel every year I go to the environmental law conference at the University of Oregon and you sit through eight hours of presentations about how everything's screwed and how we have these enormous challenges before us, but I feel better because at least I can see other people in the room who share the same values as me. I imagine it must be very nice on this international level where you can see folks from small developing islands that are at risk because the sea level rise and I imagine it might be nice for them to see a delegation of students from some small little state in Vermont attending.

Michelle, you're still in school, you are working towards your law degree. Has this clarified any of your career goals or desires?

McMILLAN:

It hasn't, it hasn't. I think I, on the one hand, was exposed to so many more possible pathways. And even just hearing different people's job titles, being like, oh, what? That's a thing? Which I guess is kind of a constant life exploration, learning new ways to work. It also, though, I was looking into intergenerational equity as a theme while at COP. I was on what ended up becoming more or less a wild goose chase. And that led me into some really unexpected rooms. And it was incredible because I really was following this loose theme, which let me reflect on what was interesting to me and what made me want to get up at 7 AM after being up late, exhausted, drive myself into a room, what would keep me awake and listening in those moments. And I have an activist background.

That's ... Tom you and I met on the campaign to save Jackson Demonstration Forest. And law school, what a lot of people told me, don't go to law school. You're going to hate it. Like, what are you thinking?

WHEELER:

I think I'd be a bit of those people to say that to you.

McMILLAN:

Oh, you actually were absolutely supportive of the idea. And one of the reasons that I felt emboldened to go forward and do it. So I owe you a lot of gratitude for that because you were definitely right. And it's been the best experience. And then, yeah, so working through this course and getting to see COP and leaning back into that activist, my activist roots, I am really drawn towards just transition work. It's climate change has been with us for a long time. I am one of those in the generation that I never remember not knowing about climate change.

And so being in that space and listening to conversations about adaptation, conversations about mitigation, conversations about blending the two, really what stuck with me is, OK, doing all of that, but making sure we do it in a way that doesn't recreate the same harms that our system has been perpetuating. So what that means in terms of a literal job title is still to be determined. But it did help really click that for me and give me new language, which I was, I think, learning along with a lot of people at the conference who are coming up with it on the spot. So that was really wonderful.

WHEELER:

Very cool. Well, Derek, you should feel good as Michelle's professor that this seems like it was a good, meaningful experience.

WALKER:

No, indeed I do, indeed I do. And I think that the lasting relationships that I've had through being able to teach this course at Vermont Law and Graduate School makes me feel like we are heading forward into the future with some incredibly smart and innovative people like Michelle leading the way.

WHEELER:

So this is COP 29. COP 30 is coming up. It's 2025 now, this year. I believe it will be in Brazil this year. Derek, what, what do we need to move forward to, to have better international agreements to, to have a stronger foundation in international law to address climate change, right? We are likely past 1.5 degrees centigrade of warming. We're in this urgency stage. What, what sort of improvements, what, what, what needs to change to have a stable climate?

WALKER:

Well, it's very easy to say we have to do all the things now and as fast as possible. And that is true. But from an international governance standpoint, the fact that there is so much great power conflict now, and the world is so polarized, not just within countries, but across countries in the world, makes it incredibly challenging to find common ground on the human level.

And so I think that part of what has to happen is a deepening of understanding in the world among actors with the power to move governments and to move markets, that everything is truly interdependent, right? Whether you're talking about intergenerational equity, as Michelle has so eloquently discussed, or whether you're talking about the threats to national security and economic security from the changing climate, those are material things that eventually are going to make it hard for incumbent regimes in countries to maintain their power if there's not a plan, if there's not effective action taken.

And so climate is increasingly the holistic driver of change in many aspects of society that are important to people, whether they know it or not, and whether they see it that way or not. And so I think what we need is even deeper humanization of not only the cost, but also the benefits and the opportunities, and some additional space for actors who stand above and outside of the political fray, who can make the either the moral case or the economic case or the social cohesion case that we need to be in this a little bit more together than we have been.

WHEELER:

So maybe I'll ask this another way, are COPs worth it? Is this continuing to be a useful international meeting? Do we need to rethink how we do international negotiations for climate?

WALKER:

Well, I would say that they are necessary and woefully insufficient. They're necessary because, as Michelle discussed earlier, they are a milestone and a touchstone for things that are happening and can happen, and there's a lot of kinetic energy that gets built up that can be carried forward. There's a lot of new agreements that get made, a lot of commitments to work on issues together, a lot of countries and stakeholders that have few other forums that bring them together in the way that the COP does. I think that relying on an institution that has 198 members, that has no voting rules, so you really have to have essentially a unanimous agreement around anything that happens, is a recipe for paralysis if that's all you've got.

But there are plenty of other forums, whether it's the other places where environmentally-oriented issues are discussed, like the annual biodiversity summits, or the climate weeks that occur, or the meetings of governmental leaders like the G20 and the G7, or increasingly investors weighing in through investor collaboratives, and finally, which has gotten a lot of attention recently, the role of international financial institutions in providing the capital that really is the engine for transforming the future for especially the low- and middle-income countries in the Global South. So COP is part of that constellation, but it doesn't stand in any way, shape, or form on its own. And so we have to strengthen both COP and those other ancillary avenues for progress.

WHEELER:

All right. Well, I'm afraid we're out of time, but that seemed like a good last statement or last thought. Derek, Michelle, thank you so much for coming on the Econews. And I look forward to talking to you both in the near future.

This has been another episode of the Econews Report. Join us again next week on this time and channel for more environmental news from the North Coast of California.