Minding the Tragic Gap: COP26 left me reeling in the gap between possibility and reality.
By: Written by Allison Whitaker, Marketing Director for With Many Roots & Collider Member - Dec 2021
“By the tragic gap I mean the gap between the hard realities around us and what we know is possible — not because we wish it were so, but because we’ve seen it with our own eyes.” ~ Parker J. Palmer
“How was COP?” is the wrong question I think. There are a million and one different ways to experience it and far too many events to keep track of.
“How was your COP?” is the more accurate question, so that’s the one I’ll answer.
In a few words, my COP was: validating, exhausting, inspiring, and disappointing.
First, some history. What’s the purpose of COP and what does the 26 stand for? In 1992 the UN realized that nations of the world would have to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists had linked these gasses with warming global temperatures and the gasses were being released at exponential rates. I was 5 years old. They met at the Earth Summit in Rio De Janiero in ’92 which led to the 1994 creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). By then, I was 7. Every year since, with the exception of 2020, delegates from countries around the world have met to agree on commitments to address climate change. That’s where the 26 comes from, it’s simply the number of meetings. Previous COP achievements include The Kyoto Protocol signed in ’97 which ran from 2005–2020. It was the first time countries began to put in place the things they agreed to. In 2015 the Paris Agreement picked up where the Kyoto Protocol left off and notably included a temperature target. The way it’s written “to keep the rise in mean global temperature to well below 2 °C (3.6 °F) above pre-industrial levels, and preferably limit the increase to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F)” is indicative of the nuanced language these negotiations grapple with.
If you followed the math, you’d know I’m now 35. I’ve spent most of those years thinking that because I’m not a politician or scientist, I didn’t have much influence. That began to shift when I realized that my skillset — communications — was actually quite useful in helping people understand climate science. But still, I wasn’t sure if I should go to COP. I’m not a delegate, it’s still a pandemic, and I wasn’t quite sure how it all worked. Then I began to think about historical movements for social change. If I’ve learned anything from them, it’s that numbers matter. Conversations matter. Showing up matters. So that’s how I ended up on a train to Glasgow in November 2021. It would be a COVID COP, which meant daily rapid tests and proof of negative results were required to get into most events. Masks were mandatory.
I spent most of my time in events arranged outside of the official COP26 hubbub. There were so many events to choose from and the fear of missing out lead to my colleague and me creating a detailed spreadsheet. Despite the hard work, I’d gone rogue by day 2. My week started with a morning at the COP26 Coalition People’s Summit for Climate Justice learning the 101 on intersectionality. That was followed by an inspiring afternoon with the Climate Interactive team and fellow Ambassadors. Tuesday morning morphed into an entire day at the She Changes Climate Champions of Solutions event, Wednesday was a day full of awe and inspiration at The New York Times Climate Hub, Thursday and Friday were spent at the COP26 Green Zone checking out the exhibits and spreading climate education with The Climate Fresk. It was a full week of inspiration, I wrote more about it here. By Saturday, I was home again. I sat absolutely exhausted physically and mentally, in a bouldering gym and watched the final proceedings on a smartphone screen. It took a week to regain my energy and process what felt like whiplash too.
The agreements had come in strong and fast in the first week. Methane reduction pledges — a great high-impact solution. A pledge to end deforestation by 2030 by some key players including Brazil, steward of the Amazon rainforest. The president of Barbados delivered a powerful speech; Boris Johnson compared climate change to a Bond villain; David Attenborough rallied us all. There were appearances by Prince William, President Obama, and Emma Watson. But by the final day, the most binding agreements were weakened at the last minute, triggering a heartfelt apology from COP26 President, Alok Sharma.
The commitments made in Glasgow are estimated to put the world on track for 2.4 °C temperature rise. A world this much hotter will see island nations at risk of disappearing, stripping the citizens of their homes, their history, and their way of life. In fact, around 275 million people will be displaced as their homes will be below high tide. The ocean will be more acidic, dissolving plankton shells causing ripples felt all the way up the ocean food chain. This will have a huge impact on the 3.3 billion people who rely on the ocean for 20% of their average intake of protein. Food on land isn’t safe either. This level of warming will cause more than 3x lower corn and wheat yield, and 2 times lower rice yield. There will be more potent hurricanes and tornadoes. Extreme heat will account for 2.5 times as many deaths worldwide as it does today. It’s not just the humans that will suffer, wildlife will too. Insects, the unpaid labor of agriculture, will lose 31% of their range. Mammals, our closest genetic relatives, will lose 13%. Data from En-ROADS. The overall impacts in the examples above are still less bad than the “head in the sand” scenario. Good, but not good enough. We are capable of more.
I’m not sure if it was optimism or naivety, but I expected this year to be the one that brought about radical change. Of course, it didn’t happen that way. And frankly, I’m realizing that the radical change that’s needed never could come about from the way these agreements are made. They are decided based on consensus allowing the bar to be set by the least ambitious parties. This is where a framework I’ve been thinking about a lot recently becomes relevant. Taking a look at the bigger scheme of things where do governmental pledges lie? I think the triangle of inaction does a pretty good job at revealing the role of different change entities. It posits that governments alone won’t (can’t) move fast enough; citizens alone can’t individually make the changes needed, and corporations are using the wrong metrics for success. The easy thing for each of these entities to do is point the blame at each other. Or, if you flip it, each of these entities can push the others to do more.
My time at COP had been spent in spaces full of inspiration, hope, and stubborn optimism. My idea of what was possible had stretched based on the sheer number of committed people who’d shown up, arranged events, and talked about it. I’d spent time with activists, young people, and change makers, but I hadn’t spent time with the decision-makers. So what are the metrics for success for a COP? Is any forward movement worth celebrating? For me, the answer is yes, it’s something even if it’s still not enough. Celebrate today, push tomorrow.
There’s a concept for this “not enough” space, it’s called the tragic gap. It is holding the tension between what is and what’s possible. Imagine stretching a rubber band between two hands.
According to Parker Palmer, founder of the Center for Courage and Renewal, the tragic gap is what’s happening when we’re standing between hard reality and what we know is possible. It means holding the discomfort, regenerating our resilience, reveling in the good, sowing seeds for the future we want. Minding the gap means taking care not to fall out on either side. On one side, there’s cynicism — we’re so screwed. On the other side, idealism — everything is going to be fi-i-i-ne. Palmer argues that while these two positions may seem to be opposites, they’re actually quite similar. Both positions take us out of the action — out of the Tragic Gap. The challenge is finding our own way to hold what might be two radical opposites and continue to move forward step by step. To stay in the action. Managing to hold this space doesn’t guarantee that we’ll fix it all tomorrow. Rarely in history have the people standing in the tragic gap seen the final resolution. This is a long game.
For me, standing in the tragic gap is saying: this COP didn’t fix everything but it did move some things forward. Can you believe 30,000 people showed up in Glasgow to add their voices? What an incredible world we could create by implementing solutions shared here? How might I create longing for the world that’s possible?
I’ve come to realize that I occupy the tragic gap a lot. In my work, I bring robust data, packaged in story, delivered with empathy to decision-makers who want to better understand the science and solutions. The impacts and challenges of climate change are hard realities to grapple with. I’m seeing, however, that understanding can be a bridge to see the other side of the gap — the possibility. Almost everyone I spoke to in Glasgow had moments where everything shifted and they started to understand what could be. So I’ll continue to mind the gap, and work to bring about longing for the world that is possible.
