When I was 19, I created this blog in the hopes that writing about my travels and my impressions about the world would inspire others to pursue their dreams and use their talents to fight for justice. I hoped that the questions I posed myself and the insights I gained might be worthy of a broader audience. I still hold on to that hope.

On the eve of my 23rd birthday, I find myself afraid to explore my thoughts and ask questions on this blog. This is for several reasons: First, over the past few years I’ve received several comments and emails calling me “un-American” or hinting that my ideas are wrong or dangerous. As a result, I’ve been left to question whether or not it is worth sharing my thoughts at all. Second, I’ve grown confused about why I maintain this blog. Is it to keep my family and friends apprised of my travels? To promote social entrepreneurship? To just post my thoughts and random musings about the future? I’ve gone through stages where each of these things serve as my motivation for posting, but nowadays I just feel the blog’s purpose escapes me.

So I have been playing it safe. I post infrequently, and when I do, I often write about topics and ideas that don’t necessarily reflect my true thoughts. While caution about what one puts on the internet is always valid, my confusion over the purpose of this blog and my self-censureship have deeply compromised the blog’s viability. I feel I am at a crossroads: I need to figure out what I’m writing for, and fast, or else consider shutting the blog down.

While part of why I write has always been to keep friends and family updated on my life, that wasn’t why I made this site in the first place. No. My real reason for writing is to spark reflection and debate over the solutions to the myriad social and environmental problems the world faces today. In many ways I feel I’ve successfully done that. At various points on this blog, I’ve written about:

• empowering untouchables in India through education, microfinance, and political action,
• the work of social entrepreneurs in Haiti to deliver sanitation and employment after the 2010 earthquake,
• critical development theory and social entrepreneurship in Cameroon,
• the environmental justice movement in the US,
• getting psyched about Bernie Sanders’ vision for the future of America,
• attending COP 23 on climate change in Bonn, Germany,
• and much more.

As I’ve matured intellectually and reflected on these experiences, my understanding of society’s problems and how to resolve them have evolved as well. I want to take this moment to reflect on the journey that has produced these insights, and to see how it might offer clues as to the new purpose of this blog moving forward.

My focus has shifted from the transformative potential embedded within social entrepreneurship to the need for political and governance solutions to climate change and environmental protection.

– – – – –

Initially when I arrived in college, unsure of how to leave my mark on the world, I decided to pursue a business degree to figure out how businesses thought and functioned. From the very beginning I wanted to figure out how to make businesses more ethical and responsible to their communities. I was familiar with the unscrupulous lengths many large corporations were willing to go to in the name of profits, including lying, cheating, stealing, and exploiting both people and the environment for monetary gain. My belief was that many of the social problems we faced (inequality, poverty, human rights abuses, environmental destruction) could be resolved if only we had more moral businesses, ones which, alongside the pursuit of profit, respected the rights of stakeholders, treated its employees well, protected the environment, and generated socially beneficial products. This seemed to me a basic bar for corporate social responsibility.

By approaching the subject of business social responsibility, I quickly stumbled onto the field of social entrepreneurship (thanks in no small part to the Opus Prize).  I soaked up every bit of information I could get my hands on about the new ways of conducting business social entrepreneurs promoted. From microfinance organizations to Ashoka Fellows to B-Corps companies, the solutions the world needed most were being developed by social entrepreneurs! These included the leaders of groups like B-Lab, REBUILD Globally, and Janodayam, highlighted below:

I was lucky enough to personally meet dozens of social entrepreneurs at conferences and through research I conducted in Haiti and Cameroon, as well as contribute directly to the work being done by two incredible social entrepreneurs, Gollapalli Isreal in Chennai, India and Julie Columbino in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. Their work never ceases to inspire me, and I am proud to have gotten to know them both personally and to work alongside Julie professionally.

Alleviating poverty, providing parity of opportunity, creating jobs, remediating economic, social, and political inequality. That is what social entrepreneurship and socially responsible business can deliver. I still believe that today, despite having my academic interests shift away from social entrepreneurship in my junior year of college when I studied abroad.

In the fall of 2015, I travelled to the central African nation of Cameroon to study international development and sociology through the School for International Training. Over the course of my four months there, I conducted research into the potential for social entrepreneurship to serve as an alternative development paradigm to that of the Washington Consensus, and I found it to be a powerful idea that is already starting to take root in the country. But at the same time, my attention began to pivot in a different direction based on my experiences there. In addition to the problems of poverty, lack of opportunity, and inequality that I had witnessed in Haiti and India, I encountered three more problems that, at first glance, didn’t appear resolvable by social entrepreneurship.  These problems were the following:

1. Corporate Exploitation of Weak Governments: Multinational companies were exploiting the low wage requirements and lax environmental regulations/enforcement measures in Cameroon to extract natural resources (plants, timber, metals) for profit, leaving behind polluted and depleted ecosystems.
2. Climate Change: Multinational companies were increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, while also converting carbon sinks such as forests and rich soil into commercial plantations and mines.
3. Indigenous Rights Violations: The Cameroonian government was so desperate for foreign direct investment and tax revenue that they ignored claims by indigenous peoples to specific areas of land, selling the rights right out from under their feet to multinational companies. Local farmers were also at risk of losing their farms and their livelihoods under many of these arrangements.

All of these problems with the current mode of development were raised in our program, and we got to travel and speak to indigenous groups whose land had been sold out from under their feet, hear from experts on corporate accountability about the human rights and environmental abuses taking place across the country, and the importance a sustainable development model for Africa not based on fossil fuels or resource extraction. For an example of these three problems in action, take a look at the following videos about a proposed 70,000 hectare palm oil plantation in Southwest Cameroon operated by American-based Herakles Farms (videos 1 and 2 are from 2012 and 2016 respectively). Then, consider the testimony of Jeanne Noah, a local indigenous community leader in the South of Cameroon, talking about the theft of her community’s land and way of life by the government and a rubber company:

What I realize now, reflecting back, is that while social entrepreneurship and socially responsible business can indeed be used to alleviate poverty and increase access to opportunity, it is not a panacea.

Certain, more intangible problems such as land rights disputes, environmental protection, and climate change mitigation cannot be solved by businesses, no matter how big or responsible. These problems require government and regulatory authority to address. These governance problems were about setting and maintaining limits, while social enterprise and business problems were about expanding personal wealth and opportunity.

This insight set me on the path that I remain on to this day. After returning home from Cameroon, I began to investigate issues of governance more deeply, particularly governance related to climate change. Poverty, inequality, lack of access to basic goods and services like clean water and healthcare… all of these things were largely solvable through social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility. But climate change and environmental protection, on the other hand… those were problems that required setting and maintaining limits on natural resource extraction and pollution, and which required political solutions. 

Governance problems are about setting and maintaining limits, while social enterprise and business problems are about expanding personal wealth and opportunity.

Not only that, but climate change was fundamental for protecting the gains that have been made on all the problems social enterprise and socially responsible business have been resolving. Poverty and inequality? A more arid climate would result in major crop failures around the world, sending subsistence farmers into destitution and millions of climate refugees fleeing increasingly inhospitable regions of the world searching for better opportunities. Most would be treated as outsiders in more stable countries, made to feel unwelcome and uncared for. Clean water? Droughts could lead to water scarcity and social conflict like we’re likely to see occur in Cape Town in the coming months.  Health? With the loss of biodiversity due to ecosystem collapse, the world would lose a wide variety of medicinal plants used for treating a wide variety of ailments.

Climate change and environmental protection are the great unifying challenges of our time, and they are fundamentally governance issues: they require setting limits on the amount of greenhouse gases that could be burned, the amount of natural resources that can be extracted, and the investment of trillions in public and private funds to retrofit existing infrastructure, energy grids and public spaces to cope with the realities of a warming world.

Social entrepreneurship and socially responsible businesses will be just as important, if not more so, in the decades ahead for securing public and private welfare and reducing inequality of opportunity, but they depend on the assumption that effective political solutions can and will be achieved as well.

– – – – – 

I realize now that the purpose of my blog needs to be updated to track with my growth and development. My focus has shifted from the transformative potential of social entrepreneurship and socially responsible businesses to the need for political and governance solutions to climate change and environmental protection.

My ultimate goal remains the same: to inspire others to pursue their dreams and use their talents to fight for justice. Its just that my notion of what needs our attention has shifted and grown more encompassing.

With that in mind, my purpose for writing and the goal for this blog are twofold:

1. To illuminate the need for political solutions to climate change and environmental protection, and
2. To call attention to the ways such political solutions could be designed, advocated for, and implemented.

I look forward to this next chapter of my journey, and I invite you to join me here as we explore the political solutions required to address this unfolding crisis.

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page.

Wintertime in Sweden is cold, dark, and most Swedes opt to stay off the streets. It isn’t all dark and gloomy though! To capture the spirit of this time of year here in Sweden, I figured I’d put together a brief photo-essay for you to enjoy! Without further ado… let there be light!

The darkness around this time of year (3:30 pm-8:30 am) is successfully combatted by a bevy of holiday Christmas lights hung across most of the city’s side-streets!

Lund’s Cathedral is lit up for the season as well

This is Lund’s Central Square, where the Christmas tree went up a couple weeks ago and has been lighting up the surrounding area ever since. As you can see in the background many buildings and apartments will place candles in their windows to combat the darkness.

Most of the activities this time of year are indoors. For instance: my hall-mate Shu (from Japan) and I have been going bowling relatively frequently these days. He bowled a 200 last time and here he is celebrating!

A few weeks ago the University hosted the annual Anna Lindh Memorial Lecture, named after Sweden’s former Minister of Foreign Affairs. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Dr. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, spoke about “Global Challenges to Human Rights Today.” The the link to his talk is included below:

Another high-profile speaker, former President of the UN General Assembly Mogens Lykketoft, visited campus a few weeks ago to answer questions following the screening of a documentary titled “Lykketoft and the Occassionally United Nations” about his time in office.

On December 10th, I turned on the TV and lo and behold the Nobel Prize Awards Ceremony was starting! This year’s Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Literature and Economics were all presented their medals by the King of Sweden (Carl XVI Gustaf), who is seated with the queen and the Crown Princess Victoria in the bottom right of the screen!

One of my favorite Swedish Christmas traditions is definitely Saint Lucia. I went to a Saint Lucia choir concert at the Lund Cathedral on December 10th, where this photo was taken leading up to the event. Every year, a young woman from each community in Sweden is chosen to be Saint Lucia, the bringer of light in the midst of the winter darkness. She wears candles in her hair and is aided by handmaidens, dressed all in white, wielding candles.

Saint Lucia (on the far left of the image, wearing her crown of candles) processes towards the Church steps accompanied by her handmaidens on the right. I took a video of them and their beautiful singing:

Saint Lucia (in the very front and center) surrounded by her handmaidens and the rest of the Church Choir singing traditional Swedish Christmas songs.

Many Saint Lucia concerts happen over the course of the Christmas season, including this outdoor one on the official Saint Lucia Day (December 13). Again, amazing singing:

It’s been a wonderful lead-up to Christmas here in Sweden, and next week I’ll be travelling home to Portland to spend Christmas and New Years with my family. I’ll post after I return to Sweden in January! Happy Holidays!

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Governor Jerry Brown were here in Bonn on Saturday to kick off “America’s Pledge,” a joint effort by American states, cities, businesses, and non-state actors to continue to abide by the Paris Agreement in spite of Donald Trump’s opposition to it.

Former Mayor Michael Bloomberg introducing America’s Pledge

Ask just about anyone here at the conference and they’ll tell you that American climate policy is dictated more by local actors than by Donald Trump, and “America’s Pledge” is a good example of that. The reach and scope of the pledge is impressive. The 2500+ cities, states, businesses and other signatories represent a total of 159 million Americans, $10.1 trillion in Gross Domestic Product, and 2.3 Gigatons of emissions (35 percent of the countrys total).

The kick-off event was held at the U.S. Climate Action Center, a complex funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Hewlett Foundation to serve as an unofficial US pavilion for local climate actors to display their climate initiatives to the world

The launch of “America’s Pledge” was the marquee event to be held at the Center, with the President of COP 23 Frank Bainimarama and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinoza in attendance.

COP 23 President Frank Bainimarama and California Governor Jerry Brown (front right) standing for a photo after the “America’s Pledge” kick-off event with other panelists.

The event did not, however, go according to plan. About midway through the program, right as California Governor Jerry Brown took the stage to tout California’s climate leadership, members of the Indigenous Environmental Network planted in the audience stood up and started asking him what that really meant. They called California’s cap-and-trade system “a false solution to climate change” and criticizing the expansion of dirty oil and gas extraction in the state under the Governor’s leadership. They criticized the handling of the Aliso Canyon methane leak and the continued practice of fracking across the state. As the protesters called for Governor Brown to “Keep it In the Ground,” he lashed out aggressively, shouting “I agree with you, [let’s keep it] in the ground. Let’s put YOU in the ground so we can get on with the show here.” A member of California’s assembly, flanked by a representative from the International Emissions Trading Association, started to chant “We’re still in! We’re still in!” in Brown’s defense and was quickly joined by the rest of the crowd, their voices drowning out the protesters as they were escorted out by security. You can watch part of the protest here and here.

This scene captured the tension I had felt growing all week, and now it was at the boiling point. The moment when “market-based” and “social-movement-based” approaches to climate action collided head on, splitting along fault lines of irreconcilable difference over whether to prioritize economics or justice.

As the last of the protesters were escorted out by security, Governor Brown turned back towards the crowd and uttered the phrase “I think to get the job done we’re going to need a little more intellectual content than just repeating slogans.” The distain in his voice was evident. “Unfortunately in politics, we don’t have a magic wand. I don’t wake up in the morning and say ‘Stop, there’s no more oil, there’s no more coal.’ No! It takes a plan. Otherwise all you get is noise – and that is really good noise! But it doesn’t get the job done….” As thunderous applause broke out, he concluded: “California‘s climate policy is the most aggressive, the most far reaching in the country, in the Western Hemisphere!… We’re here, we’re in, and we’re not going away!”

While I understand that there are political realities that limit what types of climate policies are feasible for people like Governor Brown to implement, I agree strongly with the protesters claiming he could be doing more. He has rejected efforts to impose a moratorium on fracking in the state, for instance. California’s cap-and-trade system allows  polluters like Chevron and Shell to avoid paying for their emissions by issuing free allowances and allows for the purchase of dubious carbon offsets instead of reducing emissions at their source (thanks in large part to millions in corporate lobbying efforts during the drafting of the legislation). For a quick primer on the problems with cap-and-trade, check out Annie Leonard’s video below:

Serious climate action can only occur when oil and gas companies are acknowledged to be rogue entities that stand in the way of climate action, not stakeholders to be bargained with. In the words of Bill McKibben, “They’re outlaws… not outlaws against the laws of the state, they get to write those for the most part. But they’re outlaws against the laws of physics. If they carry out their business plan, the planet tanks,” as 350.org explains in their excellent mini-documentary “Do the Math”:

Once we realize we don’t need to play by the oil industry’s rules, real climate solutions begin to emerge. The political environment will change drastically when oil companies if and when companies like Exxon, Tesoro, and Phillips 66 aren’t allowed to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars into political campaigns and use lobbyists to protect their interests anymore. We would be able to ban fracking, prevent conflicts like Standing Rock by ceasing to construct new pipelines, and achieve a just transition to a clean energy economy through what Pittsburg Mayor Bill Peduto calls an “American Marshall Plan.” We could train professionals to work in well-paying renewable energy jobs in formerly fossil-fuel dependent areas such as West Virginia, East Ohio, Montana, and North Dakota. We could build on the foundation of the Bluegreen Alliance between labor movements and environmental organizations and promote a just transition away from fossil fuels. And we could pass national-level legislation such as Senator Jeff Merkley’s 100by50 bill that makes clear our vision for 100% renewable energy by 2050 and which provides a clear signal to states and cities to continue moving in that direction, as many of them already are.

Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) was in Bonn promoting US climate action at COP 23

In short, we need systems change, and that won’t come as long as our leaders are making deals with the corporate outlaws that are destroying our planet. It will only happen if we keep pushing the envelope, keep challenging the status quo, and keep fighting for the future we need.

So thank you Indigenous Environmental Network for calling attention to the work that still needs to be done. I stand with you in your fight. Governor Brown, you’re welcome to join us whenever you’re ready.

Dallas Goldtooth, Keep it in the Ground organizer at the Indigenous Environmental Network and pipeline activist, in Bonn to protest the before the “America’s Pledge” event.

Over the past couple of days I’ve identified two very different perspectives on the climate change negotiations being described in side events and panels.

The first is a predominantly markets-based perspective that sees carbon markets and private finance as the key to achieve global emissions reductions. The other is a social-movements-based approach that sees the forced phase-out of fossil-fuels coupled with public funding for renewables as the key strategies for curbing climate change. In this blog post, I want to look a big more closely at each of these perspectives and who supports them.

Let’s start by looking at the markets-based perspective. The markets-based climate action narrative is a pragmatic one. It is embraced by most governments here at the negotitions, and it builds on the legacy of the market-based “clean development mechanisms” that emerged from the Kyoto Protocol. To put it simply, the idea underpinning the markets-based perspective is that emissions reductions anywhere in the world are equivalent. It doesn’t matter if a ton of CO2 is prevented from entering the atmosphere in Brazil, or China, or Australia, since it all collects in the same atmosphere. At the end of the day, a ton is a ton. And therefore under the Paris Agreement, if a country is having a difficult time reducing it’s emissions to the level it has pledged, it will be allowed to pay for emissions reduction “credits” generated via privately financed projects around the world. These credits are created when projects prevent CO2 from entering the atmosphere in one way or another, whether through improved forest management to sequester carbon, destruction of refrigerant gasses with high greenhouse gas potentials, or the installation of biogas and renewable energy in areas where the financing would otherwise have been unavailable. Each ton of CO2 prevented from entering the atmosphere is awarded a credit, and after independent verification, can be bought and sold through exchanges by countries where it would then count towards their own emissions reduction targets.

The benefit of this approach is the improved flexibility it gives to governments for achieving their emissions reduction targets. The shortcomings, however, are numerous. First there is the problem of proving that the emissions reductions projects receiving credits would not have been pursued otherwise. This is known as the “additionality” problem, and it is impossible to prove definitively. Second, by allowing carbon credits generated abroad to be counted towards domestic emissions reduction targets, domestic communities which experience industrial CO2 emissions don’t enjoy the co-benefits of reducing emissions locally, which can include reduced asthma incidences and improved air quality. Thirdly, by allowing carbon credits to be purchased and used by governments towards their emissions reduction goals, this system can delay systemic transformations such as eliminating coal and oil electricity generation by providing a more politically-feasible, if not entirely scientifically valid, alternative.

Multiple events I’ve attended in the past couple days have focused on developing these market-based emissions reduction schemes. These tend to be dominated by business alliances (e.g. the World Business Council on Sustainable Development, Sustainable Cement Initiative), industry trade groups (e.g. the Climate Markets and Investment Association, the Project Developer Forum), and financial institutions (e.g. the Asian Development Bank). They also include high-level government officials . For instance, the Government of Morocco sent one of it’s Directors in the Ministry of the Environment to a panel I attended to present on “The Role of Market Mechanisms in Morocco’s [Nationally Determined Contribution] NDC Implementation Strategy” (pictured below).

Markets-minded conference attendees are paying particular attention to the negotiations happening on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, which describes these market-based approaches to fulfilling NDC pledges, and how the Parties will define the rules around additionality, oversight, and projects/sectors eligible for carbon trading.

Muhammed Nbou, Director in the Moroccan Ministry of the Environment, presenting at a side event titled “Market Mechanisms 2.0: Moving from the Kyoto Regime to the Paris Scheme”

Patrick Burgi from the South Pole Group (representing the carbon market Project Developer’s Forum) presenting on “Operationalization of Articles 6.2 and 6.4” in the Paris Agreement related to market mechanisms.

In contrast, the other approach to climate change policy I’ve encountered here favors a social-movement-based phase out of fossil fuels and large-scale public sector financing of renewable energy projects. This approach has largely developed in response to the expansion in fossil fuel exploration and consumption around the world, particularly as frontline and indigenous communities experiencing the harms of fossil fuel extraction and energy-production first-hand organize themselves through the international climate justice movement. Their approach follow this logical framework:

1. “At present, fossil fuel operations, be they coal mines or oil wells, fracking rigs or oil pipelines, coal-fired power plants or oil refineries, are harming our communities.”
2. “At the same time scientists are saying we need to keep large amounts of remaining fossil fuels in the ground to meet the Paris Agreement temperature targets.”
3. “Therefore, in order to prevent future harm to ourselves, future generations, and the planet, we must push the government to stop building new fossil fuel infrastructure, close existing infrastructure, and invest in renewable energy alternatives that place the wellbeing of us, the people, ahead of businesses and profits.”
4. “In addition, we must seek to place pressure on banks and investment funds to divest themselves from the fossil fuel companies exploring for, extracting, and burning fossil fuels in our communities.”

The benefit of this approach is that it is relatively straightforward to organize communities in opposition to specific fossil fuel projects and to receive media attention. A con to this approach is that oftentimes governments are eager to please the fossil fuel companies behind these activities, whether for tax reasons, the economic benefits they provide, or simply corruption payments. This can lead to brutal crackdowns on protesters by private or national security forces. Another con is that it can be difficult to translate victories over fossil fuel interests  in specific areas into national policies opposing fossil fuels and favoring renewables.

This social-movements-based approach is followed mostly by environmental groups (e.g. Friends of the Earth, 350.org, Rainforest Action Network), grassroots organizations in frontline and indigenous communities (e.g.  International Coal Network in the Philippines, Health of Mother Earth Foundation in Nigeria), anti-corporate think-tanks (e.g. Corporate Europe Observatory, Oil Change International), and scientific activist organizations (e.g. Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity).

These social-movement-based groups are paying close attention to the negotiations happening on Article 9 of the Paris Agreement on climate finance for adaptation and mitigation from developed countries. There is also strong interest in Article 8 which focuses on loss and damage compensation for those affected by climate change.

Representatives from Nigerian, American, Filipino, Indonesian, Scottish, Belgian, and Indian social-movement-based organizations at a panel titled “Reclaiming Power: People vs Polluters in the Energy Transformation”

Pascoe Sabido of the social-movements-based Corporate Europe Observatory presenting on the influence of natural gas industry lobbying in the EU Parliament at a side event titled “Fossil Gas: Pathway to a Clean Energy Future or a Route to Dangerous Climate Change?”

Some may ask why I’m framing these approaches as if they oppose one another. Surely they can work together towards the common goal of saving the climate? To these people I would answer by painting an image: These two ideological camps are playing tug of war, pulling on a rope representing the global discussion on climate change action. Governments, businesses, banks, and big green organizations like the Environmental Defense Fund and the Nature Conservancy are on one side (i.e. the neoliberals and the capitalists), while civil society, environmental scientists, and frontline and indigenous communities are on the other (i.e. the systems-changers). Whichever side pulls the hardest on the rope wins. The markets-based side pulls using money and lobbying, while the social-movements-based side pulls using people power and community organizing.

Who will ultimately win is still up in the air, but one thing is clear: the markets-based neoliberals and capitalists are currently winning. People must respond by mobilizing to call for an end to fossil fuel use and a just transition to a sustainable society. It’s time to remind our countries and our politicians who they’re negotiating for… and what we have at stake.

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page.

It was indigenous peoples day in the Bonn Zone of COP 23 today, the first time such an event has ever taken place at a COP. The goal was to shine a spotlight on the importance of traditional knowledge and indigenous tenure of ancestral lands for mitigating climate change. 

It can be easy to lose sight of the people in frontline communities when talking about an issue like climate change… I’m guilty of it, that’s for sure. I get caught up in the numbers, the science and the politics of it all. Which is why hearing directly from a plethora of indigenous representatives today was so important.

In one indigenous peoples panel I attended today, an Amazonian spiritual leader named Benke (second from the right above) spoke passionately (in Spanish) about the importance of a change in mentality among world leaders. “Whose hands is our future in?” he asked, “The scientists, the governments, the economists? Or us? Who will hold those responsible who destroy and kill for gold, oil, and cash crops? We have dead rivers and indigenous villages which have been massacred, who have shed their blood in defense of Mother Earth…” As he said this, his voice tailed off and he was on the verge of tears, speaking through clenched teeth and struggling to find the right words in his non-native tongue (Spanish). “I’m not here to just tell you the harm we’re doing to the planet, but to talk about how our villages are universities for academics to come and learn how to care for the planet.”

Robert Guimaraes describing the impacts of palm oil plantations on indigenous populations in Peru

Benke’s colleague Robert Guimaraes, a land defender who has received innumerable death threats for his work defending the land of the Santa Clara de Uchunya community in Peru, echoed many of the same thoughts. After elaborating on how important forests are for the cultures of indigenous peoples, he then described the conflicts that emerge when indigenous land rights are threatened. He explained how government-sanctioned palm oil industry concessions on indigenous lands not only destroy the forests and their ability to sequester carbon, but also indigenous peoples culture and safety. Recently, six farmers from Guimaraes’ community were killed for not giving up their land to a local gang eager to profit from the palm oil trade. He called for greater commitment by the international community to protect the forest from development by partnering directly with indigenous populations, and vowed to continue fighting for the forest hand in hand with his fellow land-defenders.

The stories participants heard today marked the latest in the COP’s attempts to integrate indigenous knowledge and traditional practices into the global climate mitigation and adaptation discussion. The biggest step was taken in 2015, when the Paris Agreement included a provision for the creation of an indigenous peoples platform intended for the “exchange of experiences and sharing of best practices on [climate] mitigation and adaptation” that has been under development ever since. Yesterday, as negotiations began at COP 23, one of the proposed agenda items was to operationalize the platform by the close of the talks in two weeks.

Representatives of the Canadian and Belgian official negotiating teams described the importance of the indigenous peoples platform by stressing that these groups have a “rightful voice” in the UNFCCC, while also being careful to note that the platform would not serve as a negotiating body or a “party” to the COP negotiations.

Indigenous representatives from Nepal, Siberia, Chad and beyond, meanwhile, called for faster operationalization of the platform so that indigenous communities can begin more formally engaging with parties in dialogue and have an impact on the nationally determined contributions due in 2020.

Although an exciting first, COP 23’s Indigenous Peoples Day is not a sufficient end in itself. It must be followed by strong, ongoing engagement with a well-funded, robust indigenous peoples platform by COP members. In the meantime, it will be important to see whether the document adopted by the parties in two weeks time will advance this platform and signal to indigenous peoples that their voices are indeed being heard.

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page.

On the day that it officially accepted the COP Presidency from Morocco, Fiji burst onto the international stage by kicking off the first “Pacific COP” in the UNFCCC’s history.

In his prepared remarks this morning, Frank Bainimarama, Fiji’s Prime Minister and President of COP 23, urged the 195 gathered nations to use this opportunity to “maintain the course we set in Paris” and “to advance ambition and support for climate action before 2020.”

In veiled reference to Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, Bainimarama stressed that ” the only way for [a] nation to put itself first is to lock arms with all other nations and move forward together.” A similar theme emerged in outgoing Moroccan COP 22 President Salaheddine Mezouar’s prepared statement, which emphasized that “In this process there are only winners. There are only winners. There are no power-plays to make. There are only displays of ingenuity and action.”

Frank Bainimarama accepting the Presidency of COP 23 from COP 22 President Salaheddine Mezouar

The Fijian influence on the conference is easily detectable. Beyond the wave and tropical blue and green color scheme, Fijian culture features prominently. Pictures of Fijian children and adults in traditional clothes are scattered throughout the conference venues, as are poignant aerial shots of low-laying islands fated to succumb to rising sea levels.

One of the primary goals of the conference is to agree on the format of the so-called “Talanoa Dialogue” which will take place during 2018. The Dialogue is intended to increase the ambition of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) in order to bring emissions into alignment with the 1.5 and 2 degree climate scenarios laid out in the Paris Agreement. Originally referred to as the Facilitative Dialogue, it was re-named the Talanoa Dialogue in order to invoke the Pacific Talanoa Spirit of understanding and mutual respect. The Talanoa Dialogue is seen as a intended to carry forward an inclusive, transparent dialogue between parties and non-party stakeholders (civil society, cities, businesses, indigenous peoples). Talanoa is a recurring theme at the conference. The Talanoa area in the Bonn Zone, pictured below, serves as a briefing area for non-party stakeholders to hear about life in Fiji as well as the outcomes of the day’s negotiations. The spirit is further reflected in the Fijian Presidency’s pioneering attempt to bring civil society to the Bula Zone on Wednesday, November 8th to debate increasing the ambition of NDCs with official party members. It remains to be seen whether this increased party-non-party engagement through Talanoa will impact the conference’s negotiated position.

The Talanoa Space in the Bonn Zone

The conference tagline has also been set, if only informally. Invoked several times in side-events I attended, the phrase emerged from Bainimarama’s closing remarks to the opening plenary. I think they are fitting words that capture the spirit of day one:

“Excellencies, Distinguished Delegates: this is our moment of truth – when all of us in this room will be tested. We must not be found wanting. We are all in the same canoe, which is why we have a drua – a Fijian ocean-going canoe – in the foyer. To remind us of our duty to fill its sail with a collective determination to achieve our mission. So let’s make the hard decisions that have to be made for the sake of ourselves and the generations to come. Let’s use the next two weeks to get the job done.”

The Drua, a Fijian ocean-going canoe, guarded by two Fijian men in traditional clothing.

We are indeed all in the same canoe… only time will tell however if those steering will listen to the ones watching the horizon.

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page.

Greetings from Bonn, Germany! I’m here from November 4th through 12th to take part in the 23rd annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, which kicks off on Monday. After a grueling 12-hour bus ride from Copenhagen to Bonn, I’m safely settled in with my couch-surfing host Sebastian and busy getting ready for the conference.

I thought I’d kick off my week of reporting on the conference by answering a few frequently asked questions about it:

1. What is the UN Climate Change Conference?
   It’s an annual gathering of delegates from 195 countries who seek to implement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), signed at the Rio “Earth” Summit in 1992 (it entered into force in 1994 and meetings began in 1995). 

   In addition to the official delegates, tens of thousands of people participate in various ways over the course of the conference (November 6-17). Some people are here to protest and call for more radical action to curb climate change; others are here as stakeholders from civil society, businesses, and indigenous communities to present their ideas for combatting climate change. Others are simply here to learn from these groups, report on what’s going on, and network with other organizations working on similar issues.

2. What is the structure of the conference?
   The conference will take place on two separate tracks: The official negotiations will take place in the so-called “Bula Zone” over the two weeks, while in the separate “Bonn Zone” NGOs, businesses, and other stakeholders will hold events and exhibitions on climate research and strategies.
   This year’s conference is hosted by the government of Fiji and its prime minister, Frank Bainimarama. Most years the conference happens in the country that is hosting it, but since Fiji lacks the capacity to host the tens of thousands of anticipated attendees it decided to partner with the government of Germany to hold the conference at the UN Climate Secretariat in Bonn.As an island nation that risks being severely flooded under “business as usual” climate scenarios, Fiji’s president intends to stress the importance of developed countries setting more aggressive CO2 reduction targets, developing implementation guidelines for the Paris Agreement signed at the conclusion of COP 21 in 2015, and moving towards the goal of $100 billion in climate adaptation and mitigation financing provided to developing countries annually by 2020.

    

3. What will you be doing there?
   I will be serving as an official observer of the negotiations for the Center for Sustainable Economy, so I will have access to the open meetings that take place in the “Bula” zone as well as the exhibitions and events occurring in the “Bonn” zone. While I haven’t quite finalized my schedule as of yet, I’ll be splitting my time between listening to delegates and negotiators discuss their countries’ expectations when it comes to the climate talks and interfacing with NGOs and businesses discussing their research and body of work on reducing greenhouse gases. 
4. Do these meetings actually accomplish anything?
   At first glance, twenty-two years and counting of climate negotiations appear to have yielded little in terms of concrete results. The closest thing to progress was in 2015 when the world signed the “Paris Agreement” at COP 21, which set a target of keeping global warming to 2 degrees Celsius or, ideally, 1.5 degrees Celcius, and under which countries submit voluntary plans for reducing emissions (called “nationally determined contributions,” or NDCs). This agreement was the cumulative result of all the previous COPs.
   
   There are a lot of problems with the Paris Agreement. For starters, it is a non-binding agreement, and even if all the nationally determined contributions are achieved, the world would still miss the 2 degrees Celcius target, as the latest “Emissions Gap” report by UNEP shows. But the point is that countries are discussing climate issues, and progress can only come when decision makers are sitting down at the table together.
   

   The “Emissions Gap” report by UNEP indicates current nationally determined contributions will be insufficient to stay beneath 2 degrees Celsius of warming. (Source: UNEP 2017, xvii)

   
   

5. What effect does Trump pulling out of the Paris Agreement have on the conference?
   To be determined. Technically the US can’t withdraw from the agreement until 2020, so until then it will still have delegates participating in the discussions around implementation. That being said, Trump and his EPA chief Scott Pruitt have been actively dismantling the Obama-era “Clean Power Plan” which fulfilled the United States’ emissions reduction targets. Individual states are picking up some of that abdicated federal leadership on emissions reductions, but it likely won’t be enough to offset the loss of the Clean Power Plan. We will see whether other countries step up their efforts to lead the international community on these issues, such as China and Germany. 
6. What will a successful COP 23 look like?
   Ultimately, the success or failure of COP 23 will likely be judged by Fiji’s ability to force developed countries to adopt rigorous implementation guidelines for the Paris Agreement, begin to formulate much more aggressive nationally determined contributions looking ahead to 2020, and making progress on securing climate funding for developing countries.

I’ll be the first to admit that the global political response to address climate change has been severely lacking, especially in light of the overwhelming scientific consensus on it’s causes and the pathways towards mitigation. My short answer to the question “Do these conferences do anything?” is yes, they do, but international agreements are only as strong as their weakest link. Getting the entire world in a room to discuss any issue is bound to run into complications, and it’s just a fact of international politics that different countries have different agendas to pursue. We’ll see whether Fiji’s leadership can bring them more into alignment.

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page.

On Wednesday I went to a lecture hosted by the Lund Association of Foreign Affairs featuring the Russian ambassador to Sweden, Viktor Tatarintsev. The event was described as such:

“With tensions between Europe and Russia at its highest since the Cold War, dialogue between the parties is essential. The Russian and European narratives are often quite different, and this is your chance to hear the Russian side of the tale.

Viktor Ivanovitj Tatarintsev, who is Russia’s Ambassador to Sweden, has a background in the Ukraine and has been working with diplomacy for 37 years. Hear his perspective on relations and agreements in the past, present, and future. “

Over the course of an hour and a half the ambassador, among other things:

• Rejected the notion that Russia had interfered in the US Presidential election,
• Justified the invasion and annexation of Crimea by alluding to its historical significance to the Russian motherland,
• Characterized international sanctions on the Russian economy as ineffective, saying, and I quote, “We don’t give a SHIT about your sanction politics. Anything you do to Mother Russia makes us stronger.”
• Implied that Sweden joining NATO would result in Russian military countermeasures that would destabilize the Baltic region, cryptically adding “Sometimes the best option is the status quo… I’ll let you interpret that as you will”,
• Accused Swedes of being incapable of critically analyzing their public media for brainwashing stories meant to promote “Russia-phobia”,

It was pretty surreal being in the same room as a bona fide Russian diplomat who was parroting the words of Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. I could tell the 300 or so Swedes in the room were deeply skeptical of what the ambassador had to  say, but in true Swedish fashion they were quiet and listened politely, even as the ambassador attacked their ability to think critically and understand what really was going on in the world.

Russian ambassador to Sweden, Viktor Tatarintsev, speaking at Lund University on October 18th, 2017

My biggest takeaway from the evening was  that the ambassador genuinely believed the things he was saying. He honestly considered Russia to be the victim of a Western destabilization campaign intended to destroy the reputation of his homeland, and he was the virtuous messenger crying fowl. He categorically refused to consider that Russia may indeed be guilty of the hacks and political sabotage that it has been accused of (see here, here, and here). To me, this was the ultimate irony of the evening: the man who was calling out students for being unwilling or incapable of seeing what was really going on in the world was himself incapable of viewing the facts of the matter and recognizing what his own government was doing.

In the end, an event which promised to lay out “the Russian side of the tale” ended up being a dogmatic diatribe against the US, NATO, and Swedish neutrality. The opportunity to hear it firsthand and reflect on it, however, made it well worth the while.

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page

This week was pretty busy for me, largely because I was helping to volunteer at a three-day conference hosted by the Earth System Governance project here in Lund. Over 200 researchers from around the globe arrived in Lund to take part in the conference, and many presented about their research on various themes including climate change adaptation and mitigation, environmental justice, climate governance strategies, and sustainable development.

Vasna Ramasar, Conference Chair and Human Ecology Lecturer

I was able to sit in on multiple sessions and presentations in between my shifts, and I was amazed by the sheer diversity of the topics covered. I learned about Pakistani regional climate adaptation strategies, mapping conflict zones between indigenous and extractive development actors in Ecuador and Peru, how to unify the UN Sustainable Development Goals with strong climate policy, and much more.

Salvatore E. Pappalardo, PhD, presenting at the Earth System Governance Conference

Patrick Bond, professor of political economy at the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, talking about the shortcomings of the Paris Agreement

One of the conference’s semi-plenary session kicking off talking about the UN Sustainable Devleopment Goals

Conference participants exchanging ideas over lunch

I could write separate posts on half a dozen of the talks I went to, but I’ll boil my thoughts on the conference down to three main takeaways:

1. Many of the presentations I went to stressed that now more than ever scientists and researchers need to be active in fighting for a better world. In a world where post-truth and anti-intellectual trains of thought quite literally hold power, there is a moral obligation for academics to stand up, speak out, and band together with the rest of society to fight for progress. This means linking arms with activists in the streets, setting ambitious research agendas with peers, and establishing relationships with internal champions in the halls of power to push for a systemic political-economic transition towards sustainability. We need to end the use of fossil fuels, team up with labor unions to put people to work in the green economy, and fight for environmental justice for the areas hardest hit by climate change and the impacts of fossil fuel and mining extraction over the decades.
2. People are starting to do this everywhere. Not necessarily as fast as it needs to happen, but we’re on our way. The Earth System Governance project has twelve research centers and over four hundred members on six continents, and that gives me hope that we can simultaneously work locally and organize globally to address the oncoming crises and build towards an alternative vision for the future.
3. I don’t yet know how I’m meant to contribute to the work being done in this burgeoning movement, but I’m confident that I’ll  be able to discern it as I go along … Jesuit education has taught me well!

Now that the conference is over, my first step is looking for ways to stay involved with the Earth System Governance project. I might have the opportunity to do an internship with the International Project Office based here in Lund, and I’m going to follow up with several of the researchers I met at the conference and see where it leads!

I’ll keep you posted!

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page

Most days I wake up and I don’t feel like I’m in Sweden. It’s actually quite remarkable how “familiar” things can seem here: the cold, windy days remind me of Fall in Spokane; the bright red ivy leaves on the academic buildings are just like those on the trees in front of College Hall that I used to walk past everyday; and I have many of the same things from Gonzaga in my apartment year. In other words, most days I feel comfortable.

Me being comfortable

But some days something feels out of place. Maybe it’s the dozens of trains, busses and bicycles I see coming and going from the transit center next to my dorm. Or maybe it’s the fact that the bank (and just about every other store around here) opens at 10 and closes at 4 everyday. Or maybe it’s simply looking down and recognizing that the crosswalks here are white cobble-stones built directly into the road!!!!!!

Yeah, I know, crazy!

Life moves at a slower pace over here. The atmosphere of the town can best be described as “laid back”, “comfortable”, even “tame” (Mind you, I haven’t been frequenting the college party scene, so I’m sure there’s plenty of “excitement” out there!). Coursework is also more “laid back”. Professors have us call them by their first names. We only have three two-hour classes per week, and my only assignment so far is a 7-10 page term paper due at the end of October. Contrast that with the 21 credits (~18 classes per week) I was taking most semesters at Gonzaga, not to mention the weekly smattering of tests, essays, and presentations… Suffice it to say I have a lot more time than I know what to do with.

Sometimes that extra time is great. But other times it sucks. Several times this week I’ve had a strong wave of ennui wash over me. Sometimes I lay in bed until 1, 2, 3 pm just because I have no meetings, classes, or other engagements to attend. Many days I don’t HAVE TO do anything. And that’s difficult to grapple with.

I’m starting to come up with ways of combatting this feeling though. Last Saturday I went to Copenhagen for a day trip at the urging of my girlfriend (Thanks Kerri!). Friday my Japanese hall mate and I went bowling. And a few weeks back I went with one of my classmates from Taiwan to visit several museums here in Lund. But perhaps most importantly as of tonight I’ve set a goal of one blog post per week for the foreseeable future. That way I’ll be giving myself an assignment and a deadline to stick to, and someone to hold me accountable… you! Ready or not, from here on out you’ll be hearing from me much more frequently. Let me know if you have any questions or topics you want me to cover in future blog posts. Suggestions would be very much appreciated! 

I’ll wrap up this post with a couple of the photos I took in Copenhagen during my visit last weekend… Enjoy!

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page!

If you would like to contact me directly, please do so via email: adanowski@zagmail.gonzaga.edu

One of the first questions people ask me here in Lund is why I chose to study here. After they learn I’m from Oregon and that it took 14 hours to get here, they stare at me incredulously, as if I’m about to tell them I’m just lost, not actually supposed to be here.

I’ll generally reply by summarizing the description of Human Ecology on Lund’s website. I’ll say most universities in the U.S. don’t offer programs like that. But sometimes if people press me on it I’ll tell them I had to get out of the U.S. to escape the ideological constraints of conventional thinking there.

I wanted to choose a masters program that would allow me to explore the idea that protecting the environment means advancing an alternative to capitalism. I needed to think outside the box and surround myself with people who were unafraid to consider potentially controversial solutions to the environmental crisis. I needed to be somewhere where critiquing capitalism was socially acceptable.

I had plenty of graduate school options to choose from. In the United States I was accepted to Yale’s Masters of Environmental Management, University of Michigan’s Masters in Environmental Justice, and University of Montana’s Masters in Environmental Studies. I was also accepted to the University of Edinburgh in the UK and Tromso University in Norway, but none of these schools encouraged a critical analysis of capitalism as much as Lund did.

I see dismantling capitalism as a moral and existential necessity to combat environmental degradation, minimize climate change, and to achieve a socially just society. My rational hinges on three main points:

1. Capitalism is inherently unsustainable. Perpetual economic growth is not possible on a finite planet, and with the impacts of climate change, deforestation, species extinction, and pollution becoming increasingly severe we need to reduce our resource use, not increase it.
2. Capitalism is a racist institution that exploits black and brown communities around the world and which has done so for centuries.
3. Capitalism produces massive inequality between the 1% (the capitalists, or as Bernie Sanders calls them, “the billionaire class”) and the 99%.

I see dismantling capitalism as a moral and existential necessity to combat environmental degradation, minimize climate change, and to achieve a socially just society. And as it turns out, I’m not alone.

Hanging out with some classmates at Lomma Beach, Sweden

My masters program cohort and I went with our program director to his apartment in Malmo, Sweden before going out to dinner together!

Walking to dinner in Malmo, Sweden

My first few weeks of studying Human Ecology here at Lund have offered ample confirmation of this. My peers in the program come from over a dozen countries all have studied the natural and social sciences at universities all over the world. All of us are intent on challenging the way global society thinks about sustainability. And everyone I’ve spoken with so far believes this starts by challenging the logic of capitalism.

Most of the professors in the Human Ecology program are avowed anti-capitalists and eco-Marxists. They aren’t afraid to identify capitalism as the underlying problem behind environmental problems. That is incredibly refreshing after years spent trying to justify my ideas in a business school environment. Not only that, but they’re tremendously approachable and friendly, as in Sweden the classroom is a non-hierarchical environment where professors consider their students as peers.

This kind of academic environment is just one of the reasons I feel I made the right choice coming to Sweden to study. I’ve also gotten to know my corridor-mates better over the last few weeks and we’ve started having weekly hall-dinners on Saturday nights. This last week Shu from Japan and Yun from China made Oden, a common Japanese dish made with Japanese radishes, eggs, and a variety of seafoods.

From left to right: Yun, Eric (photobombing), and Shu posing with the Oden they made!

Owen (third from right) and I made homemade pizza and hotdogs for our first hall dinner on Sept 2.

I’m just now getting my feet under me, but I’m already excited to live and study with this group of global scholars for the next two years examining the unjust, unsustainable social systems of our world and figuring out how to fix them! Stay tuned!

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page!

If you would like to contact me directly, please do so via email: adanowski@zagmail.gonzaga.edu

Greetings from Lund, Sweden!

It’s been a while since my last post, but I arrived in Sweden on August 15th and it’s been a pretty hectic week moving in. Now that I’ve got a second, I wanted to write a quick post about what I’ve been up to and what I’ll be doing here for the next two years!

I’m studying at Lund University, a research institution celebrating its 350th anniversary this year which is home to 42,000 students from 110+ countries. I’m living in a dorm specifically for international students, and in my corridor of nine people we have students from the US, Russia, Ukraine, Japan, China, and Mexico. It’s amazing to have so many international perspectives all in the same place, and we’ve already had several late-night discussions talking about current events, politics, and our home countries.

One of the highlights of this first week has been finding out that the city of Lund is visually stunning. Every time I step out of my dorm room I’m struck by it. Quite simply it’s a joy to walk around and explore the pedestrian friendly streets and marvel at the cobblestones, the parks, and medieval cathedral in the center of town.

Lund’s campus is equally beautiful, filled with a variety of architectural styles and colors: the Administration building is bright white, the main library is red and draped in climbing ivy, and the student union’s name, AF Borgen, literally translates as “Academic Society Castle”!

But I’m here for more than just the beautiful sights and buildings. International student orientation began last week, and 1,800 exchange and degree students arrived from 110 different countries to prepare for the upcoming semester. I’m gearing up for a two-year masters program studying Human Ecology: Culture, Power, and Sustainability. It is housed in one of Lund’s top academic departments, the top Human Geography departments, which is world renowned. But what is human ecology? Or human geography, for that matter? Most people (especially Americans) that I talk to have never heard of them. They aren’t terms that many people come across outside of academia.

Human geography is the study of how humans interact with places. For instance, human geographists study why certain geographies (neighborhoods, cities, and regions) prosper while others are poor (the international development masters here at Lund is located in the Human Geography department). Other human geographists study how globalization is changing the way people live in different places. Still others examine the way people in cities and urban areas live and understand the world. 

Human ecology as a concept falls within the field of human geography, and it examines how people relate to the environment, how the economy unfairly distributes ecological benefits and losses, and why poor places experience more environmental problems (e.g. air pollution, climate change, extractive industry waste) than rich ones. It also looks at how to solve these problems, specifically through big-picture economic, political, and social change.

I plan on blogging every couple of weeks (time permitting) during my studies, so there will be plenty of time to delve into these terms further in the future. In the meantime, be sure to sign up to follow my blog if you’re interested in hearing more about my time in Sweden! Until next time, I leave you with one of my new favorite quotes, courtesy of the Reykjavic airport in Iceland.

Pratar med dig senare!
(“Talk to you later!” in Swedish)

– – – – –

Thanks for visiting aarondanowski.com! Leave you comments below, and be sure to stay up to date on my travels by clicking on the “Following” button on the right hand side of your page!

If you would like to contact me directly, please do so via email: adanowski@zagmail.gonzaga.edu