(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In 1989, Bill McKibben published The End of Nature, with a powerful message that humanity was about to leave such a marked trace in the Earth's bio-
sphere that there was hardly any way back. The mechanisms of change that were about to be triggered would forever change nature and thus our living conditions.
For at least 30 years we have known what we are facing, most of them Guardians of the Earthaudience members are so overly aware. The documentary opens with Donald Trump being asked by a journalist about what he wants to do about climate change. But instead of responding, he attacks his predecessor. Obama's statement that global warming is the most serious problem of our time is, according to Trump, the stupidest claim ever made.
It's urgent. We should be grateful that the world does not care much about Trump in this matter. The systematic process, which for some decades has sought to implement more effective climate action internationally, is moving on, and much indicates that it has become a self-reinforcing mechanism. Here, many will object that the process is going too slowly, but after all, the development shows a widespread willingness to do something about climate change. An arena where this will is played out is at the annual climate meetings organized by the UN.
Preferably in personal conversations – "informal meetings" – movements can be created in the direction of good solutions.
After many years of disappointing results, in the fall of 2016, the Paris negotiations led to an important breakthrough. Guardians of the Earth provides an interesting glimpse into the sweltering ant garden of people who met in the French capital. Through a mix of short interviews and observations of the long series of meetings and negotiations, we follow a selection of people from day to day. It is an occasional powerful commitment we are witnessing. Climate change is underway, it is being fixed, and we are having a bad time. It is also emphasized that the goal of maximum 2 degree temperature rise is not good enough. The world must withstand 1,5 degrees, most of all in the face of the world's poorest.
International framework. There is a clear trace from these annual climate meetings back to the Brundtland Commission Our common future from 1987. This report was created as part of an elongated process that helped to strengthen a pragmatic, reform-oriented environmental policy, where it was genuinely believed that technological advances and economic profits should be the bottom line in efforts to save the environment. The ideal was to place the problem solution in the bureaucracy, science, the economy and a self-sustaining technology development.
The condition for this to work on a global scale was that an international framework was established with everything from common objectives to schemes that stimulated the economy in a more climate-friendly direction. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in 1992, and the UN's annual climate meetings have since been decisive to ensure the progress of climate work. Over time, the measures have helped to develop a climate regime that not only contains emission commitments, but also institutional schemes with responsibility for ensuring that climate adaptations, financing schemes, technology transfer and market-based mechanisms work best.
The paradox of discourse. Guardians of the Earth give us insight into how the almost perpetual negotiations are going on. We meet people who have been involved in climate work for many years, and we see their involvement in a hectic process that has to balance the need to get all countries included in the final agreement and the desire to put in place as offensive formulations as possible. This is a world in which the nuances between, who are "must " og «shall" can be absolutely decisive for whether the negotiations are brought on or meet the wall.
To achieve strong enough formulations, it needs alliance building. It's not in the big meetings that things are decided. The actual negotiations take place in smaller groups, and according to one of the informants, it is preferable in personal conversations – "informal informal meetings" – movements can be created in the direction of good solutions.
Some are opposed. Saudi Arabia's negotiator is not the Minister of the Environment, but the Minister of Oil. Australia says there is no reason why
gate to be wound up; their coal is obviously better than other coal, and in any case, the world will not stop using these energy resources. It is marvelous just as everyone is arguing, whether it is Norwegian oil or whatever else needs to be defended. Everyone knows that it is the short-term interests of the nations that are expressed, but the message is baked into a discourse that tells that even picking up oil or coal is good for the sake of the environment.
Trump is securing a place in history, like the president who was absent as the world progressed.
The importance of the market. One of the participants says that the climate negotiations from the beginning were about climate, but that they have increasingly become about financial interests. In this way, it may be symptomatic that large multinational companies have been allowed to buy their right to stand during the negotiations. Or as one activist puts it: They have paid for the right to express themselves and thus influence what happens.
Towards the end of the negotiations, the leading politicians will take over. The Obama administration's Secretary of State John Kerry states that the solution lies in an energy policy that does not liquidate fossil solutions but provides a clear signal to the markets so that alternative solutions can emerge as quickly as possible.
The cheer is great when the meeting ends with 195 countries signing a global contract with a target of a maximum 1,5 degree temperature rise. The agreement is described as historical, where the rich countries have gone beyond what they seemed willing from the start of the Paris meeting. I feel that I am being let go of the hope of the moment.
The film's last response goes to Donald Trump: Did anyone seriously believe that international bureaucrats should be able to control what the US does? We know the answer. This is how Trump secures a place in history, like the president who did not attend as the world progressed.
