At times when thinking of the climate crisis, it comes at extremes. We think of a sustainable just future (as we should) and we also subject ourselves to a certain gloom pessimistic lens (valid because of our current conditions). But when it comes to overshooting, I don’t think it should be seen as an antithesis to our hope. It is also not the end all be all like our gloom. It is answering the practical ‘what-ifs’ and what our next steps should be in case we get there.
The COP process can inform the pathways by showing them case scenarios and what solutions we can hold. Normalizing that we do have a pretty large chance of overshooting but normalizing action to mitigate. If the world started implementing policies based on COP30 issues, I feel like it would cause a positive ripple effect. Climate justice is intersectional in its ways. Therefore it will inadvertently be addressing existing adversities. But in order for the world to approach this governance it would have to shift to be people-oriented. Isn’t it ironic that they teach us democracy is for the people in elementary school but try to get rid of our voices now? But that’s what we need, all voices. All leaders from diverse organizations especially the ones on the frontlines. Their voices should be heard and not just an excluded protest outside COP. Their voices should be held in high regard as our policymakers. They should be our policymakers. Because if one of the main concerns of COP30 is equity, then those people who we have concern for should be able to make space for their people in the rooms where change is being made.
The thought I would like for people to hold especially when it comes to climate finance, reparations and loss/damage funding is — what would you expect from those who exploited others to do when called to be accountable? Do we wait on them to agree? Or should it be something required out of them?