'I didn't have one climate denial conversation. Contrast that to a few years ago'
Interview with UK Green Party politician Zack Polanski about his experiences at the recent UN climate change conference in Glasgow
One of the most interesting things about any United Nations (UN) climate change conference, the so-called “COPs”, is the opportunities they always provide for meeting people. On the very last afternoon of this year’s COP26, held in Glasgow, I struck up conversation outside the “Blue Zone”, where the conference itself took place, with a UK Green Party politician and member of the London Assembly, Zack Polanski. What was it like inside, where such important discussions and negotiations were ostensibly taking place? Subsequently, via email, Polanski agreed to be interviewed about his experiences:
DH: When I bumped into you outside the Blue Zone you said the atmosphere inside was “surreal” and “sterile.” Could you elaborate on that? ‘
ZP: I think the time we met was the one example where the outside also seemed quite surreal and sterile as I believe it was the final day and the amazing energy of communities had dissipated – I expect lots of people had returned home to their respective countries. Literally every other day, though, on the streets of Glasgow, I’m sure you’ll have experienced the spontaneous discussions that people were having, the ideas that were being generated and the amazing cross-cultural moments that were alive. And not just from the Glaswegians – who were tremendously hospitable and proud of this moment for their city – but the general mood with visitors too. This was in such stark contrast to inside the ring of steel – the Blue Zone – where everything felt very scripted, predetermined and rehearsed. Now this is not a dig at COP. It’s tremendously important that it happened and some progress has been made – albeit a very disappointing outcome. I was struck recently by remarks Chris Stark - the Chief Exec of the Climate Change Committee - made on a podcast where he said that this is just the beginning of the UK Presidency. The very first event before we have it for the year – there’s now some really important questions about what do we do with this time. I think by far my biggest disappointment inside was the amount of corporate sponsorship that had even infiltrated into panel discussions. I saw one event about climate justice that actually just seemed to be a huge advertisement for an insurance company – even complete with video trailer mid-discussion.
DH: I'd like to hear a bit more about the Blue Zone because, of course, so few people know what it was like in there. Did you meet anyone from any of the government delegations who seemed genuinely motivated and inspired - and inspirational?
ZP: Yes. There were several delegations where people clearly had really good intentions and wanted to make a difference. It was notable that a lot of these countries were small islands - and I don't think it's any coincidence that they're often facing the worst impacts of climate change. I think the clearest example is Mia Mottley, Barbados’s Prime Minister, who gave a phenomenal speech on the opening day spelling out so starkly that the future of her country rested in the hands of less than 200 people who were all in the same room. And unexpectedly here I think it's also important to praise Alok Sharma - who I believe was working incredibly hard to bring people together and who understands the scale of the challenge. Sadly, I think he's in a battle with the PM and the Treasury, who are clearly winning. Once you recognise the scale of the challenge, you also have to recognise the scale of investment needed too.
DH: The same day I met you I spoke at length to an American man, an observer from an NGO in Texas, who said he had been to many COPs in the past and was in the Blue Zone this year too. When I asked how Glasgow compared to all the others in terms of inclusivity and exclusivity, he bunched his fist and said something like: “The most isolated ever.” Did you see that for yourself too - that inside the Blue Zone many civil society observers found themselves obstructed from meaningfully participating, as was reported?
ZP: It was my first COP so I can't compare it to others. I can say, though, I was concerned about the lack of transparency and clarity about procedures and which meetings were open-access or closed. I appreciate the complexities of organising a conference on this mass scale, but it's a fundamental principle that transparency and accessibility is key. As well as the disenfranchisement of many of the young people I spoke to from around the world, I think it's embarrassing for the UK that the Israeli minister had such trouble accessing the building. I think it speaks to how much we need to shift in society to a social model of disability and ensuring access for all.
DH: Global Witness, an NGO I’ve worked for, was one of the organisations that revealed during the conference how many fossil fuel industry representatives had apparently been granted access to the Blue Zone: more than 500, they said, which was more than any one country’s delegation. Inside, was that obvious in any way? Were you aware of their presence making itself felt?
ZP: Yes. It felt like the entire event had been set up with the feeling of a trade fair. Again, I caveat that with: COP has huge potential and is helping us progress, but the urgency just isn't currently there. Along the walls there were several protests/exhibitions each day that felt like the antidote to the fossil fuel companies, but I very quickly realised how stage-managed they were and if you wanted to protest at all you'd have to write to ask permission including where you’d be, who’d be involved and what exactly they'd be saying and the noise level you'd stick to. It's this corporate, controlled view of allowing protest against the climate emergency that I'm very wary of - and of course it's because they feel obligated to balance the rights of people to speak up for people and planet with sponsorship.
DH: Yes, one of the first things I noticed was the panels advertising the “principle partners” and “partners”, including Unilever, SSE, ScottishPower, Sainsbury’s, Natwest, Ikea, Jaguar Land Rover etc, which seems ridiculous for a climate change conference. . . But what would you say was the highlight of the conference for you? Any particularly outstanding moment?
ZP: My highlight was on a moored boat round the corner. One lunch break I left the delegate zone to go chat to people outside and found myself walking along the riverside with an older couple from Argentina, when we ended up at this boat advertising events inside. The event was a panel on climate feminism made up of five young women speaking about their experiences of being a climate activist and a woman in their respective countries: Chile, Madagascar, the Philippines, Spain and the UK. Their energy was alive, urgent and empathic – it felt like real change could happen and their conversation felt like they were working it out with us as an audience. A beautiful aside to this was that later that evening I was on a panel talking about LGBTIQA+ activism and its intersection with environmentalism, and as I was speaking I saw one of the women enter from the back and I was able to thank her personally for her inspiring presentation. Later that evening, when she took the microphone, she announced she was going to found the Green Party of Madagascar. Look out world for Marie Christina Kolo – as it looks like nothing’s going to stop her!
DH: That’s wonderful to hear. Just two more questions before we finish. Obviously, the conference was extremely disappointing in terms of addressing the most fundamental problems, but earlier you said “some progress has been made.” What were you referring to there?
ZP: I think there's been lots of progress made - once again I reiterate not nearly fast enough and couched in greenwashing. But it would also be unhelpful to not point out where we've taken steps forward. The most obvious but highly important is in my time there I didn't have one climate denial conversation. Contrast that to just a few years ago and it's clear that the science narrative has won out. That's no mean feat considering other present issues where people often want to deny the science. We have got some important pledges - and whilst 1.5 isn't being taken with nearly the urgency it needs, there's an acknowledgement now of a target which was more an idea post-Paris. I think the civil society groups coming together and the international cooperation context which is starting to build is highly important, and the conversation about climate justice is at least being paid lip service to - even by world leaders like Bolsanaro! Is lip service enough? Of course not. But it's important progress from not even being acknowledged. Finally, I saw President Obama point out that those countries who moved the fastest at COP21 were the countries where the citizens had the most engaged protest movements domestically who were willing to push their leadership to where they needed to be. There's a clear route for us - we just have to be ready to take it.
DH: That brings us nicely to my final question. What will you and the Greens be focusing on now?
ZP: Over the next few months, myself and Green colleagues want to build on the momentum of the national conversation. There's agreement now on the scale of the emergency - what we need to meet greater agreement on is the urgency for change.
The Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill is one opportunity to do this. At its heart it focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and protecting and restoring our biodiversity. We know from declaring a climate emergency on the London Assembly in 2018 that that's not enough to make change, but it's a really helpful step in bringing the narrative - and the science! - into future decisions which we really badly need.
In London, I'll be continuing to sound the alarm about the risks of flooding and the direct link between our rising emissions and increased climate risk, and I'll be campaigning with everything I have to both stop a new Grand Prix track arriving in the capital and to cancel the Silvertown Tunnel - a new £2.5bn road-building project that was Boris Johnson’s idea and which Sadiq Khan has weirdly continued. Finally, myself and Green colleagues will continue to listen to scientists and follow the data. The last 18 months have demonstrated the absolute need - both with the climate emergency and now a pandemic - to make evidence-based decisions that protect both people and planet.
DH: Zack, thank you and good luck!