Source: http://cop24.gov.pl/presidency/what-is-cop24/

You may be wondering, “WHAT IS THE #COP24 YOUTH DELEGATION?” 

WHAT: In a nutshell, we are a branch of the official Conference of Parties. COP youth delegates receive access to opportunities such as environmental conferences, trips, scholarships, research funding, and many other financial awards. In simple terms, it's an extracurricular 'club' on a global scale. 

WHY: The Conference of Parties and its affiliates believe that YOUTH are the future. Academic education, when combined with hands-on experience, will provide such individuals with a proper foundation to create a sustainable earth. Essentially, we seek to lend both of these key aspects to adolescents all over the world. 

WHO: As briefly stated above, membership is open to individuals ages 12 to 18. Applicants must demonstrate a willingness to actively research, educate, and promote topics relating to climate change. Application forms can be downloaded at the website (link: https://sites.google.com/a/gapps.yrdsb.ca/cop24-youth-delegates/).    

WHERE: The youth delegation is an international group. This means that although we are based in Newmarket, Ontario, membership is available for adolescents across the nation and the globe. Branches of the youth delegation itself may also be formed within individual schools or communities. Please view the application form for further details.

Climate change is far more than an environmental issue, as it also holds severe political and social implications. Anyone keeping up with world news can tell you that the mere mention of the ‘environment’ is surrounded by controversy. As governments of major emitters such as the U.S.A. have merely a few years (i.e. the length of their term), it is nearly impossible for any long-term progress to be achieved. The world's leaders, policies, and agreements are constantly changing. "Global warming" is the literal product of centuries; therefore, it's going to take far more than a few years to eradicate.

Contrary to popular belief, climate change is far more complex than mere ‘global warming’. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has agreed that a planetary warming of more than 2 degrees celsius would result in the following: (1) destabilization of the polar ice caps, (2) increases in severe weather (stronger storms, changes in precipitation, extreme temperatures, forest fires), (3) agricultural productivity loss, and (4) sea level rise. By the time all fossil fuels on the planet are consumed, there will be a complete melting of all ice caps in Antarctica, leading to 50 metre sea level rise. Approximately one billion people will become environmental refugees, as coastal areas and major cities such as New York City, Miami, and Venice will be wiped off the map. Other locations will be extremely hot and dry, leading to crop failure, plant and animal extinction, plus global food system collapse.

Not even Canada is immune to such changes. In the last two decades, humans have been responsible for about 70% of the mass loss from small glaciers and ice caps. The Yukon, for instance, warmed by 2C in past 50 years; and at least another 3C predicted by the turn of the century. As for more urban Canadians, cities such as Toronto and Montreal will see close to a 50 to 60 percent increase of potentially disastrous and costly events (for example, just consider freezing rain, or the thunderstorms and widespread flooding which occurred in Toronto over the past summer). If no action is taken, Toronto could also see 51 days per year above 30 Celsius by 2050—the current average of which is merely 16 days. Given the fact that national summer temperatures have risen by more than 1 Celsius, this would undoubtedly lead to an increase in Montreal’s 51 heat-related deaths of July 2018.  

Strange as it may seem, even the smallest change in degree is a matter of life-and-death. According to the United Nations, if the world’s leaders limited “future human-caused warming” to just a half degree Celsius from now:

-  “Half as many people would suffer from lack of water.

-  “There would be fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog, and infectious diseases.

-   “Seas would rise nearly 10 centimetres less.

-   “Half as many animals with backbones and plants would lose the majority of their habitats.

-  The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting”, and

-   “…it just may be enough to save most of the world’s coral reefs from dying” (The Associated Press).  

Clearly, climate change is far more than a distant event or a governmental ruse. Rather, it is an issue which impacts us all immediately. In the words of German biologist Hans-Otto Portner, “If action is not taken, it will take the planet into an unprecedented climate future.”

In 2013, the IPCC released a report stating that, as a global community, we must adhere to a “carbon budget” if we hope to attain at least a 66% chance of staying below the aforementioned 2 degree Celsius target. This budget allows for 1 trillion tons of CO2 to be emitted; however, these calculations also include the massive amounts of emissions which were released from the Industrial Era. Unlike other molecules, carbon remains stored in the atmosphere for centuries after it is emitted. Keeping this in mind, we’ve already used up about 52% of this “budget”. 

According to CBC Learning’s “News in Review”, the Paris Agreement may have been “...the most significant international agreement in human history”. 

In December 2015, nearly 200 countries managed to agree on negotiations regarding climate change. This was unlike the previous Kyoto Protocols, in which “...many nations, including the United States (...) failed to ratify the deal once they brought it back home” (CBC). With the help of rising extreme weather incidents, however, global leaders were now keenly aware of the harsh consequences of climate change. Developed countries agreed to give developing countries a “massive cash incentive" for those seeking to employ alternative energy sources (CBC). More specifically, they pledged 100 billion dollars between 2015 and 2020, and 100 billion dollars every year from 2021 to 2025. 

Although each individual nation negotiated a unique framework for their own citizens and government(s), as a whole, the countries agreed to limit warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels. This was a more ambitious goal than the 2-degree plan discussed before the Paris Agreement. 

Canada's response takes form as "The Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change". This document was created by the government of Canada in order to attain the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal #16, aka “Climate Action”. According to the official website, it is a plan to “...meet our emissions reduction targets, grow the economy, and build resilience to a changing climate”, which “...includes a pan-Canadian approach to pricing carbon pollution, and measures to achieve reductions across all sectors of the economy” (source: https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/pan-canadian-framework.html). 

The Framework consists of four main pillars:
1. “PRICING CARBON POLLUTION”

Although this is a certainly effective method to ‘encourage’ businesses and citizens to reduce emissions, this pillar by itself would likely cost much in terms of a) the economy and b) the plan’s popularity. 
2. “COMPLEMENTARY MEASURES TO FURTHER REDUCE EMISSIONS ACROSS THE ECONOMY”

These complimentary actions seek to “...reduce emissions by addressing market barriers where pricing alone is insufficient or not timely enough to reduce emissions in the pre-2030 timeframe”. More specifically, this would look like “...tightening energy efficiency standards and codes” while also “...helping consumers save money by using less energy” (“Pan-Canadian Framework”).
3. “MEASURES TO ADAPT TO THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND BUILD RESILIENCE”

As Canada is already beginning to experience the consequences of climate change, it is both necessary and practical for the country to begin “adapt(ing) and build(ing) resilience”. Essentially, the government must ensure that communities are prepared for floods, wildfires, droughts, etc.-- especially more “vulnerable” communities such as Indigenous, northern, coastal, and remote.
4. “ACTIONS TO ACCELERATE INNOVATION, SUPPORT CLEAN TECHNOLOGY, AND CREATE JOBS”

This last pillar specifically seeks to help the economy. By investing in clean technologies, this will not only create new jobs but will also help Canada remain competitive in the international market. 

Canada’s specific 2030 target is to reduce emissions to 523 Mt. According to the Global Carbon Atlas, we are currently at 563 MtCO2. 

Although the Pan-Canadian Framework pledges to “report regularly and transparently” to Canadians on “...progress towards GHG-reduction targets”, the accessibility of these reports is certainly questionable. As Canada’s youth represent the country’s future, it is necessary that children and adolescents have clear and direct access to these reports. Solution(s) to this issue are simple. The education system ought to integrate aspects of climate change and global warming events into the curriculum; moreover, perhaps governments and politicians ought to release a separate, more ‘kid-friendly’ (i.e. easily understood) version of the Framework and its following reports. Without a foundational understanding of climate change & its effects, how will societal change ever truly be achieved? 

In my opinion, the Pan-Canadian Framework takes a far too optimistic view of climate change. It is false and potentially deceptive to approach the issue from a solely “it’ll-benefit-the-economy” perspective. Rather, the government must emphasize the fact that inconveniences-- perhaps even economic losses--- may be a necessary step in order to achieve the radical change required. Politicians and citizens must be willing to tackle those challenges in order to meet the aforementioned goals.

Link: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-paris-targets-2016-1.4624480

Various members of the First Nations have expressed their frustration regarding the environment’s current state. According to the Assembly of First Nations regional chief for Alberta, Craig Makinaw, government-provided funding is “not enough”, and the government “...still need(s) a lot more to get things up to par” (Smith). Although the Pan-Canadian Framework promises Indigenous awareness and inclusivity, First Nations individuals may feel greatly disappointed by the Paris Agreement. In the words of Canada’s representative on the Inuit Circumpolar Council, this agreement is “30 years overdue” (Brake). In the last two decades, for instance, humans are responsible for about 70% of the mass loss from small glaciers and ice caps. While some positive change may be achieved, no amount of promises or discussion will mend previous damage. Essentially, First Nations peoples may feel that the goal of 1.5 degree Celsius is “necessary but inadequate” (Brake). 

Consider the following quotes from the Indigenous Climate Action Network: 

“Transition needs to happen now. We need to stop doing what we’ve been doing, and begin something new.” 

“Canada and its whole system… its whole economic paradigm is fundamentally out of sync with what real tangible action on climate looks like.”

(2) FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES 
NOTE: When speaking of "fossil fuel companies", it’s important to remember that we are not exclusively discussing presidents, CEOs, or filthy-rich businessmen. Rather, all workers in the industry are involved. 

Individuals employed in the fossil fuel industry are likely dismayed by the Paris Agreement-- especially by Canada's plan for a "national coal phase out" (Abedi). There are thousands of communities and families whose livelihoods are directly connected to fossil fuels; and if their places of employment are potentially restricted (i.e. lose business), then they themselves will be out of a job. Although the Framework promises "new economic opportunities" and "good jobs" for Canadians, it is unlikely that many have either experience or education with reusable energy sources. Therefore, their chances of finding employment in more ‘ecologically friendly’ fields are small, if not nonexistent. While it is highly unlikely that they take any pleasure in 'sabotaging' the environment, the threat of economic instability may drive workers to feel worry, anger, and/or denial regarding the Paris Agreement and climate change's effects.   

Please view the following post for exact data regarding the number of individuals employed in fossil fuel-related industries.

(3) COASTAL COMMUNITIES
South Pacific:
In a documentary entitled “Before the Flood”, coastal countries in the South Pacific (such as Kiribati, Palau, and Sumatra) are experiencing severe flooding-- even to the point where citizens need to be relocated. With rising sea levels, degradation of coral reefs, and the destruction of fisheries, it is likely that many demand more extreme measures than those agreed on  (i.e. the 1.5 degrees Celsius) in the Paris Agreement. As difficult as effective change may be, it is necessary in order to prevent further damage to these communities. Although they have contributed the least carbon emissions, they are the ones most directly impacted by its consequences. Therefore, such individuals may demand (1) more definitive action from and/or (2) harsher penalties for big emitters such as the USA and China.

Alternatively, Eric Reguly of The Globe and Mail reports that "None of the 195 countries at the Paris climate change conference got exactly what it wanted when the gavel went down (...) but the world's small island states seemed happier than most". He adds that Thoriq Ibrahim, Minister of Environment and Energy for the Maldives, "beamed" at the decision, stating: "We're happy with this" (Reguly). This is largely due to the countries' agreement to prevent temperatures from rising 1.5 degrees Celsius rather than the 2 originally discussed. The 1.5 goal is something which the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) had campaigned for previously. Keeping this in mind, it's likely that some coastal countries were well pleased with the conference's results. 
 
North America:
In the city of Miami, Florida, rising sea levels have caused water to flow back into the drains, thereby flooding streets and communities. The city has already had to invest 400 million dollars in the construction of pumps and raised roadways, which will buy the city about 40 to 50 more years of relative safety. It is likely that citizens of coastal cities (such as Miami) were encouraged and comforted by the Paris Agreement. However, the governor of Florida does not believe in human-caused climate change. Without either governor Rick Scott's or President Donald Trump's financial or political support, it is unlikely that the city will be able to make any real improvements.

(4) The continent of ASIA
Although Canada's pledge to "... by 2030, cut its emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels" is nice, it is hardly enough to combat the severe risks facing the continent of Asia (CBC). With regards to climate vulnerability, countries such as China, India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines consistently rank as the most vulnerable to extreme weather, sea level rise, agricultural productivity loss, and overall risk. China and India are two of the world’s top emitters; however, it is likely that they, too, expect other countries to participate in the reduction of carbon emissions. 

According to Stats Canada, 82.4% of the country’s newcomers come from Asia (including the Middle East). It is likely that these individuals have family members and loved ones they have left behind in their native countries; loved ones who will face frequent occurrences of the four ‘climate consequences’ listed previously. With an ever-increasing number of environmental refugees, it is inevitable that Canadians will be directly affected by Asia’s environmental plight. Now that the U.S. has pulled out of the agreement, Asian governments and people may turn to Canada for further reductions and potentially financial assistance.  

It goes without saying that these species require immediate action from the Canadian government. Perhaps even 2030 will be 'too late' in terms of their habitats and their own survival. 

 

3) MONITOR.
While events such as the Paris Agreement-- or even the Conference of Parties-- may be effective, the relatively long gaps of time in between these meetings might allow climate change to slip leaders' and citizens' minds. Perhaps the United Nations ought to force countries to present data on a semi-annual or annual basis. Not only will politicians and delegates present the world with their progress, but they also ought to outline the measures and policies they've put into place (this might serve as 'inspiration' for other countries). Leaders themselves need not be physically present; however, their representatives must present data to the international audience. Live news coverage would allow citizens to have access to this data as well.

4) CREATE A PYRAMID OR 'SCALE'.
Whether you like it or not, big emissions and large GDP's seem to go hand-in-hand. Keeping this in mind, it makes sense that these countries would face the harshest restrictions and penalties. They themselves will be far from pleased; however, countries such as China and the USA are real 'game-changers' regarding long-term climate improvement. But overall emissions may not be the best measure of a country's emission status. After all, it may be a nation's size which causes such large emissions (rather than their actual methods or policies). Therefore, it is most logical to use "emissions per capita" when determining a country's responsibility on the 'scale'. 
 
5) WORK TOGETHER.
However obvious this may be, it's true: positive climate change will never be achieved until cooperation and unity are key. As described in the above video, "The Tragedy of the Commons", the nationalistic, 'dog-eat-dog' mentality holds only disaster for humanity and the environment. Ultimately, groups such as the United Nations must seek to remind countries that emissions reductions are not 'punishments'; rather, they are crucial 'stepping-stones' on the pathway to a universally sustainable future. If citizens across the globe band together and show their respective governments the need for reductions, anything is possible. This is why international COP Youth Delegates play such a crucial role in the issue of climate change. Our struggles ought to unite us, not divide us. 

This solution is simple yet effective. Forests are “carbon sinks”, meaning that they remove carbon from the atmosphere. When deforestation occurs, however, that stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere. If the Canadian government chooses to plant more trees and protect existing ‘green spaces’ and forests, these “carbon sinks” will help to reduce our carbon footprint. Moreover, the act of planting forests is relatively popular and cheap-- especially when compared to other more ‘radical’ policies. 

 

2) INVEST IN WIND ELECTRICITY. 

It is a mistaken belief to think that renewable energy sources are somehow ‘inconvenient’ and ‘unattainable’ when used to fuel an entire nation. On the contrary, countries such as Germany, Denmark, and Sweden are living proof of the benefits of wind farms. A whopping 100 percent of Denmark’s electricity comes from wind energy, with a more moderate 30% of solar and wind energy in Germany. As for Sweden, their government has already declared that they will become the first fossil fuel-free nation.

But what about the cost?

According to this article by Smithsonian magazine, although the “...initial investment for wind energy is huge”, “...developments in wind power technology, coupled with wider acceptance of wind as a method for producing power, have brought the price of wind power on a per unit basis down to a point where it’s lower than building new fossil-fuel power plants”. Michael Drexler of The World Economic Forum adds, “Renewable energy has reached a tipping point—it now constitutes the best chance to reverse global warming (...) Solar and wind have just become very competitive, and costs continue to fall”. Ultimately, the issue of ‘cost’ is no excuse. Wind power today is “more affordable than ever before” (Eschner). 

But I don’t want that in my backyard. Windmills are noisy and ugly! 

Kat Eschner of “The Smithsonian” states that “...one concern about wind turbines is that they are noisy, but the Department of Energy notes that at a distance of 750 feet, they make about as much noise as a household fridge”. 

And as for those concerned with aesthetics, it’s safe to say that fossil fuel plants aren’t exactly rainbows and daisies. Consider these unappealing Google Search results for “pictures of fossil fuel plants”.

3) INVEST IN SOLAR ELECTRICITY.

Solar energy is, according to the Renewable Resources Coalition, “usable almost anywhere”. Once access to the panels themselves is provided, even developing countries can reap the benefits. Additionally, solar electricity grants homeowners a sort of “energy independence”, as they no longer need to rely on utility companies. Although it is less powerful than its nuclear counterpart, solar energy is an incredibly versatile resource. Among other items, it can be used to power street lights, homes, cars, and even small electronic devices such as your phone. The possibilities are virtually endless!

Unfortunately, much like wind energy, the start-up costs of solar energy are high. However, governments and citizens must remember that it is extremely low-maintenance. The Coalition reports that “most residential solar panels require cleaning once, maybe twice per year. The typical manufacturer’s warranty lasts anywhere from 20 to 25 years. Even though they might have higher upfront costs, you can see how easily recouped they can be over their lifespan”.

Obviously, solar energy is not ideal for the climates of British Columbia or Newfoundland. However, it is a viable option for “the sunniest cities in Canada” such as Calgary, Winnipeg, Edmonton, and many others located in the Prairie provinces. 

Although energy storage for solar electricity is quite expensive, this only re-emphasizes Canada’s need for proper funding. If grants and awards are provided for areas of “...Quantum physics research and advancements in nanotech”, Canada may gain an edge over countries like Germany in the renewable energy market (Renewable Resources Coalition). 

4) IMPOSE A CARBON TAX.

Interestingly enough, both the Canadian Broadcasting Company and the Financial Post report that the federal government is already “on track” to implement this policy by 2019. 

Mia Rabson states that “under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act, provinces that don’t have at least a $20-per-tonne price on carbon emissions by Jan. 1 will have such a price applied by Ottawa. All revenues from it are to be returned to people of the province where the money is collected”; however, “...the details about how that rebate system will work have yet to be announced”. If provinces wished to avoid the tax, they had to submit their carbon pricing plans by September 1st. According to Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, “...only Saskatchewan and Ontario were clearly lacking” (Rabson).  

Naturally, the federal government has been met with intense resistance. Saskatchewan plans to sue Ottawa, while Ontario premier Doug Ford “...cancelled that province’s cap and trade system almost before the ink on its swearing-in papers was dry” (Rabson).

The federal levy of $20/tonne will begin on January 1st, and will increase to $50/tonne in 2022. Additionally, a levy on fuel will be added in April of 2019. A total of four provinces, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, will be affected.

Although the idea of a ‘carbon tax’ may seem unappealing, it is ultimately an extremely effective method to reduce carbon emissions. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology reports that “putting a price on carbon, in the form of a fee or tax on the use of fossil fuels, coupled with returning the generated revenue to the public in one form or another, can be an effective way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases”. Their analysis displays that “...starting with a $50 per ton carbon tax and increasing it by 5 percent per year would lead to a 63 percent reduction in total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050” (MIT). Although Canada’s economy differs from that of the United States, it is highly likely that a structurally similar policy could also reap these benefits. 

But what about the economically disadvantaged? How would they be affected?
Fortunately, the aforementioned study finds that “... depending on the exact mechanism chosen, such a tax can also be fair and not hurt low-income households”. Professor Caron, the lead author of the paper, states: "By taxing carbon (...) we will collect a lot of money that can be used to supplant other taxes that we like less. Why tax something that we like?” By using just a "small portion" of that revenue, less than 10 percent, Caron argues that it is possible to "...compensate the lower-income people and neutralize the regressivity" (MIT). 

***solutions continued on Post #9

6) RAISE AWARENESS.
While children and adolescents may be exposed to such topics in school, it is unlikely that all Canadian adults know the benefits and "myths" surrounding carbon emissions, renewable energy sources, and climate change. Their awareness is essential for not only Canada's environmental progress, but also for that of the globe. If voting citizens petitioned industries and businesses to (quite literally) 'clean up' their act, this would necessitate sustainable climate recovery. However, such environmental concern will never occur until people's mindsets are informed. The Canadian government, not to mention appropriate organizations, may wish to educate their citizens by