Author: isabelbaudish

Reviewing Loss & Damage at COP26

What is it, what happened and why does it matter?

This article was written by Angelica Johansson as a guest blog for Climate Change Leadership at Uppsala University. Previously a student in the Climate Change Leadership course, Angelica is now a PhD Candidate working on the ERC funded project: the Politics of Climate Change Loss and Damage with the University College of London’s Political Science Department.


If there was one thing clear at COP26, it was that without significant and immediate mitigation measures, atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be continue to rise to dangerous levels. Moreover average temperature rise to the present day has already led to irreversible impacts, beyond what we can adapt to. People living in the global South, indigenous peoples and vulnerable communities are less able to adapt to (in essence – to bounce back from) the negative climate impacts. These impacts are often manifested as droughts, floods, storms and cyclones. In the UNFCCC terminology, such catastrophic climate changes impact that push the limit of what can be adapted to are referred to as ‘loss and damage.’ Loss and Damage is understood by some as a third pillar of climate action, together with mitigation and adaptation (Roberts and Huq, 2015).

Loss and Damage was institutionalised as a policy field in the UNFCCC in 2013 through the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (the WIM). Its institutionalisation was further strengthened in 2015 through the inclusion of Article 8 in the Paris Agreement, which called for averting, minimising and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change (UNFCCC, 2015, p. 12). The WIM guides the implementation of Article 8 and is mandated to enhance knowledge, strengthen dialogue, as well as action and support through finance, technology and capacity building (UNFCCC, 2021a). While the work of the Executive Committee of the WIM has focused on the two first parts of its mandate, (that is, the enhancement of knowledge and the strengthening of dialogue), the progress to address loss and damage has been criticised for being too slow. For example, the Loss and Damage Youth Coalition argues that the WIM has failed to address the losses and damages in vulnerable countries and that the WIM lacks the resources to fully deliver its mandate.

At COP26, the Loss and Damage agenda focused on the operationalisation of the Santiago Network; the institutional governance of the WIM (should the WIM be governed under the UNFCCC Convention, the Paris Agreement or both?); and finally (but definitely not the least) Loss and Damage finance.

The Santiago Network was established at COP25 in 2019 and can be described as the operational arm of the WIM. As the Santiago Network is a relatively new institutional addition to the WIM, the negotiating countries used COP26 to decide what the function of the network would be. Discussions on the Santiago Network’s functions started during COP’s first week – at the same time as the World Leaders Summit (UNFCCC, 2021b). As a result, observers were excluded from the negotiation space and were left to watch the negotiation on the COP26 platform – a tool designed for observers to follow the negotiations digitally. The negotiating parties managed to agree on the functions of the Santiago Network, but unsurprisingly with some difficulty. Before an agreement was reached, parties had different preferred options on how to operationalise the Santiago Network. The negotiating block containing mainly developing countries and emerging economies, G77+China, wanted to discuss the Santiago Network’s functions and form separately, based on a logic where one first decides to go from point A to point B (i.e. the function) and then decides how to arrive at point B (i.e. the institutional set-up). While the US and EU initially wanted to discuss form and function together, the outcome ultimately reveled that whilst the functions were finalised, the institutional form of the SN will only be discussed in June at the intersessional meeting.

For many countries, particularly within the Global South, there is a lot riding on Loss and Damage negotiations and, as with many aspects of the COP processes, a strong geopolitical charge underpins these talks. During informal consultations, the spokesperson for G77+China made a notable intervention with political undertones describing the functions as a means of transport. He said that one could go by walking, biking, by tuk-tuk or SUV, and highlighted that SUV’s are a very popular car in countries like the EU and the US. He finished his intervention by suggesting that one could also use a tank and that tanks have been imported in many of G77’s countries in the Middle East. There was an audible gasp in the room as this point was made.

The second Loss and Damage item on the agenda was that of the governance of the WIM. The WIM is currently governed under the UNFCCC Convention – the COP – as well as the Paris Agreement – the CMA. At COP25 in Madrid 2019, some countries proposed that the WIM should solely be governed under the CMA. This proposition was strongly opposed by developing countries and for COP26 they asked for the governance structure to remain jointly between the COP and the CMA (PowershiftAfrica, 2021). In Glasgow, we expected this issue to be further discussed (Calliari, 2021). However, during the World Leaders Summit and the first days of the negotiations, rumours started circulating inside the venue around how ministers had decided to postpone the governance issue until COP27. These rumours proved to be founded as the CMA decision text notes that the governance issue did not reach an outcome and will be further discussed next year.

The final Loss and Damage item discussed at COP26 was that of finance. Developing countries have called for Loss and Damage finance for years (Fielder Cook et al., 2019) and it also remained a priority at this COP (PowershiftAfrica, 2021). G77+China proposed the creation of a finance facility which would provide funds and help address the losses and damages incurred as a result of negative climate impacts (Farand, 2021). The Scottish Prime Minister, Nicola Sturgeon supported the G77+China’s call for Loss and Damage finance and pledged £2m for Loss and Damage specifically in the Scottish Climate Justice Fund and called for other rich countries to follow (ScotGOV, 2021). To build up pressure for Loss and Damage finance further, a group of philanthropists committed $3m to kick-start the finance facility if the negotiating parties agreed to set it up (CIFF, 2021), and Wallonia decided to earmark €1m for Loss and Damage (TheBrusselsTimes, 2021).

Despite these efforts, the proposal did not gain traction in the plenary. Instead, the call for a ‘Glasgow Finance Facility’ faced strong opposition from the US and the EU (Weise and Mathiesen, 2021), and in the final text, the ‘Glasgow Finance Facility’ became a ‘Glasgow Dialogue’ in which negotiating parties and other stakeholders will discuss the arrangement for funding of activities to avert, minimise and address Loss and Damage. Small Island Developing States, such as the Maldives expressed fear over the dialogue being a delaying tactic (Weise and Mathiesen, 2021), where practical and financial assistance to those impacted by climate change will take even longer before it reaches those on the ground.

To conclude, while COP26 progressed the WIM through the agreement of the SN functions, its third mandate -to address loss and damage – remains under prioritised, and important funding decisions have been kicked down the line again. The Glasgow Climate Pact recognises the science and the urgency for action, yet leaves the countries responsible for causing climate change and its attributable impacts free from taking responsibility for their emissions.


CALLIARI, E. 2021. What is at stake for Loss and Damage at COP 26? Available from: [Accessed 16 November 2021].

CIFF. 2021. Philantropies Offer Kick-start Funds for Prospective Glasgow Loss & Damage Facility to Support Vulnerbale Countries Suffering From Climate Change [Online]. Online: Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. Available: [Accessed 12 November 2021].

FARAND, C. 2021. Climate reparations become a crunch issue as Cop26 goes into overtime [Online]. Online: Climate Home News. Available: [Accessed 12 November 2021].

FIELDER COOK, L., MENKE, I., JOHANSSON, A. & ALEKSANDROVA, M. 2019. RINGO report of the 10th meeting of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanisms for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (‘ExCom 10’) [Online]. Online: RINGO. Available: [Accessed 16 November 2021].

POWERSHIFTAFRICA 2021. COP 26: Delivering the Paris Agreement – A five-point pland for solidarity, fairness and prosperity. Online: Powershift Africa.

ROBERTS, E. & HUQ, S. 2015. Coming full circle: the history of loss and damage under the UNFCCC. International Journal of Global Warming, 8, 141-157.

SCOTGOV. 2021. Scotland to boost climate funding [Online]. Online: Scottish Government. Available: [Accessed 11 November 2021].

THEBRUSSELSTIMES. 2021. COP26: Wallonia earmarks one million euros for loss and damages [Online]. Online: The Brussels Times. Available: [Accessed 14 November 2021].

UKGOV. 2021. PM address at COP26 World Leaders Summit Opening Ceremony [Online]. Online: UK Government. Available: [Accessed 08 November 2021].

UNFCCC. 2015. Paris Agreement [Online]. Online: UNFCCC. Available: [Accessed 08 November 2021].

UNFCCC. 2021a. Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) [Online]. Online: UNFCCC. Available: [Accessed 05 January 2021].

UNFCCC. 2021b. The World Leaders Summit at COP 26 [Online]. Online: UNFCCC. Available: [Accessed 15 November 2021].

WEISE, Z. & MATHIESEN, K. 2021. EU, US block effort for climate disaster funding at COP26 [Online]. Online: Politico. Available: [Accessed 13 November 2021].

COP26 Live: Nearing Gavel Time

As we near the close of COP26 let’s take stock of the core changes this afternoon:

  • G77 and China have conceded on the Glasgow Loss and Damage facility. Speakers from these blocs and the LDCs, Ailac, AOSIS and Africa Group spoke regretfully in their interventions but highlighted that going forward with a text was more important.
  • Doubled adaptation finance was highlighted as one of the key successes, as well as the inclusion of ratcheting ambition every year.
  • The draft continues to refer to fossil fuels in text and coal is mentioned in particular with regards to phase outs.
  • Ongoing discussions over the language surrounding “phase out” and coal, driven by India on the grounds of subsidies supporting access to fuel for low income populations.

Alok Sharma asserts that the conclusion is imminent and COP26 will be closed this afternoon. Ongoing discussions on the floor, colloquially known as “huddles”, continue however, so delays may continue.

Follow us live on twitter for direct updates throughout the afternoon.

Watch this afternoon’s closing plenary

COP26 Live: Civil Society anxious in final hours

Chair of COP26 Alok Sharma continues to press that later this afternoon a draft will be agreed upon and COP26 closed. Civil society giants such as Climate Action Network International, however, sees ongoing deliberation around several of their core concerns.

The Cover Decision


Loss and Damage is headlining as a clear division, with activists and many policy advisers and environmental lawyers calling for unity in face of strong pressure. British environmental lawyer and climate policy expert at the UNFCCC, Farhana Yamin calls for leadership from LDC countries on this issue to “save COP26” . With so much evidently on the line where Loss and Damage is concerned, and given the appeals from the likes of Tuvalu and Kenya in the Stocktaking plenary yesterday, it is hard to see that consensus will be reached any time soon.

Mohamed Adow, climate policy expert and director of Nairobi-based climate change thinktank “Power Shift Africa”, took a harder line towards these negotiations, accusing wealthier countries of avoiding responsibility.


India has raised concern over the language surrounding coal phase outs, with support from other parties. Ongoing discussions on this issue continue.

Article 6

The biggest huddle taking place was on Article 6 with two key issues emerging. Firstly, reinserting the REDD+ language into the text, something the Rainforest nations want, but the US and others appear to oppose. Secondly, how to handle ‘Share of Proceeds’ under 6.2. Kerry reportedly told AGN and G77 negotiators to drop this as as sticking point, for fear it would collapse the deal. In return, he offered to double adaptation finance. The G77 is apparently now meeting to discuss what is on the table.

Adaptation Finance

No agreement yet reached.

The Mood

Much action on social media as speculation mounts and concerns hit peak levels. Civil society and observers sit in the overflow plenary watching screens to follow debates and negotiations live and in parallel. The speculation and ongoing frustration at accessibility has questions rising over the nature of these negotiations and inclusivity. Policy adviser and climate justice strategist, Alex Rafalowicz, summarises his views:

Follow the twitter thread from CCL coordinator, Isabel Baudish, for commentary and live updates.

COP26 Live: Two key changes in Saturday morning draft

It’s Saturday morning in Glasgow and the third edition of the COP26 cover decision is out. The latest amendments can be tracked here.

Loss and Damage

A previously proposed “Glasgow Loss and Damage Facility” is absent from the latest draft. Facility appears to have been replaced with “dialogue”. Responses on social media from civil society shows a “deep concern“. First Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Doreen Stabinsky, considers these talks to have now essentially collapsed, with pushback reportedly coming from both EU and USA:

Changed Language on Fossil Fuels

Language on fossil fuels remains in this draft, but language surrounding them appears to be less ambitious (bold emphasis our own):

Calls upon Parties to accelerate the development, deployment and dissemination of
technologies, and the adoption of policies, to transition towards low emission energy systems,
including by rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and energy
efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts towards the phase-out of unabated coal
power and inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, recognizing the need for support towards a just

On top of the changes in the second draft that qualified coal phase out with ‘unabated,’ and fossil fuel subsidies with ‘inefficient’ subsidies, the third draft has changed ‘accelerating the phaseout’ to ‘including accelerating efforts towards the phase-out’.

Loss and Damage – The Litmus Test for COP26?


Over the past decade alone, extreme weather and climate-related disasters have resulted in the deaths of more than 410 000 people. The UNFCCC defines as the harms that stem from a combination of these sudden-onset events and slow-onset processes (like sea level rise) as ‘Loss and Damage’ (L & D). Sudden onset process include the lkes of flooding and wildfires, whilst slow-onset include the likes of sea level rise. Consequences of the both can include loss of land, life and large scale migration. However, it’s crucial to recognise that a fundamental part of Loss & Damage is also the loss of identity and culture.

There were a number of expectations for the Glasgow summit to unlock the political stagnation that has mired Loss and Damage talks in previous years, to meet the needs of the climate vulnerable, in the form of specific finance and compensation, technical support capacity building; and averting or at least minimising, further loss and damage. Loss and Damage has been a sticking point when framed in the context of climate debt, climate justice and moral responsibility – vulnerable countries argue that much like the context of war reparations, financial compensation is due them, due to the historical responsibility of the Global North in contributing to climate change. Many nations in the Global North however, have been resistant to making such financial contributions, fearing it will open them up to unlimited claims for damages. One important consideration for many Loss and Damage advocates here is that these contributions are not framed as charity handouts, but moreover, the paying of a debt.

The critical elements that were tabled for Loss and Damage talks during Glasgow included operationalising the Santiago Network on Loss & Damage (SNLD), a process led by G77 and China. Established in COP25 as a mode of offering technical support to non-Annex 1 countries, going into SNLD required definition and substance, in the form of a clear structure, mode of governance, financial feed, clear set of activities and communication. Another focus was to decide where to legally ‘store’ the COP19 Warsaw Implementation Mechanism (WIM) for Loss & Damage which has legal and practice ramifications for accountability and transparency. The call to label L & D as a permanent agenda idea since COP23 will continue, in quest to provide greater discussion space for L & D.  Advocation has also been made to include L&D as a core element in every country’s climate plan, in the same ways as NDCs are.  

And then the million (s) dollar question included  sourcing adequate and secure financing arrangements for Loss and Damage, through avenues including but not limited to Green Climate Fund. It is estimated that by 2030 the costs of L & D will be conservatively in the realm of 580 billion per year. L & D has typically received far far less financial support compared with adaptation finance, which in terms still receives vastly less than mitigation finance. The push from developing a call to establish a compensation fund for Loss & Damage has long been called for by vulnerable countries and civil society where, for example, high emitters (state and non state actors) would pay into a compensation fund. The campaign #PayUp4LossandDamage has been one of the strongest campaigns and focus points in Glasgow, something that many in corridors have reflected as quite the turn around in recent years,

So, heading into the final hours of COP26, or so we hope, where are we on Loss and Damage and what is the crux of the deals that need to be struck in the coming day? Here are the key takeaways.

The Outcomes we know

When it comes to form and function of the SNLD, the functions are agreed, but the form has been deferred to June intersessional. WIM governance questions remain contentious, with a tension over whether the WIM should be ‘stored’ under the COP (the preference of the G77 and ) or CPA (Paris Agreement, the preference of many in the Global North). Where the WIM is stored holds repercussions for accountability mechanisms. These decisions have been deferred to COP27.

When it comes to finance, Scottish Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon headlined COP26 early on with a 1 million pound fund pledge exclusively for Loss and Damage, only to double that figure on Thursday evening. However despite the vastly popular reception from SIDs, LDCs and civil society, she cuts a lonely figure with this pledge – no other countries have followed suit.

The Outcomes still in Play

The G77 and China have tabled what is being referred to as ‘Glasgow Loss and Damage facility,’ a financial facility that would money would flow into. This would act as a delivery vehicle for funds raised now and into the future. There has been support from 130 nations, who in turn represent 85% of the global population. However, there has been significant push back behind closed doors from the likes of the EU and US. The initial draft of the so called COP26 cover decision text, which tables the key conference outcomes of this COP, initially explicitly referred to this facility. However, in the second iteration this reference was removed, to the dismay of many.

Discussions around how to separate financial flows between a. funding the coordinating body for L & D finance b. funding the actual L & D reparations themselves have been a source of debate and delay.

In a tale of good news, Philanthropists have offered funds to initiate any prospective Loss and Damage Facility, taking the responsibility for reparations beyond that of solely state actors. This sum is just the tip of the iceberg, and should by no means assuage the responsibility of state actors in financing Loss and Damage, nor structural mechanisms that see it built into long term agreements and commitments.

One thing is clear going into the weekend. As the negotiations run further and further overtime, this becomes more and more of an inclusivity concern, a concern that has plagued COP26. For those with pre-booked travel, high rebooking costs and visa extentions blocking many wiht most at stake from staying longer.

With both sides of the able strongly drawing lines, when the final ball lands remains to be seen.

More to come…

You can read more about Loss & Damage at COP26 here and here.

Climate, Covid and the Global Care Crisis

To mark the start of the Autumn 2021 semester, fourth Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership Stefania Barca delivered the CEMUS start up lecture to a collection of students both in person and online.

You can watch a recording of the talk, ‘Climate, Covid and the Global Care Crisis – New Pathways to a Just Transition,’ below.

Former MSc in Sustainable Development student Juliane Höhle made a graphic recording of the session, found below.

Undoing the Anthropocene

In her book “Forces of Reproduction. Notes for a Counter-Hegemonic Anthropocene” (2020), Stefania Barca, drawing on a materialist eco-feminist analysis of the world, proposes a counter-narrative to the hegemonic one around the Anthropocene. She questions the exclusionary and normative character of the dominant narrative and, thus, she challenges the very foundations of capitalist/industrial modernity. In doing so, by bringing forward a narrative justice, she makes visible and accounted for those who have been removed, silenced, denied existence. These other-than-master subjects and beings are what she calls “the forces of reproduction” – those who do the work of sustaining life in its material and immaterial needs. These life-enhancing forces are, for Stefania, “a queer political subject” and a “political subject in the making”.

In her keynote talk, listen below, she focuses on the above and shows how we need to dismantle the master’s house, by undoing the [hegemonic] Anthropocene.

Forces of Reproduction

In her book Forces of Reproduction: Notes for a Counter-Hegemonic Anthropocene (2020), Stefania Barca, drawing on a materialist ecofeminist analysis of the world, proposes a counter-narrative to the hegemonic one around the Anthropocene. She questions the exclusionary and normative character of the dominant narrative and, thus, she challenges the very foundations of capitalist/industrial modernity. In doing so, by bringing forward a narrative justice, she makes visible and accounted for those who have been removed, silenced, denied existence. These other-than-master subjects and beings are what she calls “the forces of reproduction” – those who do the work of sustaining life in its material and immaterial needs. These life-enhancing forces are, for Stefania, “a queer political subject” and a “political subject in the making”.

Throughout this year Stefania has been involved in a number of events discussing the themes of her book. You can watch the different recordings below. Thank you to all involved for the opportunity to be part of these events!

In April Stefania was invited into a dialogue with Nancy Fraser, Hedda Andersson visiting Professor at LUCSUS, Lund University. The dialogue featured a book presentation by Stefania, followed by a discussion by Nancy Fraser. The event was moderated by Vasna Ramasar(Associate Senior Lecturer at Lund University) and organised by The Pufendorf IAS Advanced Study Group on Social Reproduction and Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS).

In her June keynote talk for the University of Coimbra, she discussed her analysis of reproductive forces, showing how we need to dismantle the master’s house, by undoing the [hegemonic] Anthropocene.

In February, Stefania also gave a seminar about her book for the Environmental Justice research group at ICTA, the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB).

CO2 Budget Conference 2021

This year Climate Change Leadership was glad to co-host the conference with KlimatSekretariat and KlimatRikstag as organising partners together with Fackförbundet Vision.

The conference this year was a 3-day digital format, bringing together researchers, students, the public sector, civil society and others to explore the science and politics of climate change mitigation. This marked the second carbon budgets conference to be held in Sweden, and built on the work established by past Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Kevin Anderson, in designing carbon budgets for Swedish municipalities during his time in Uppsala.

Day 1 of the conference was held in English, and had a particular focus on research and questions at the interface of science and policy. It began with a keynote by Professor of Energy and Climate Kevin Anderson  presenting on moving from net-zero to real-zero, and how we can use carbon budgets to frame Paris-compliant mitigation policies.

The day continued with a series of speed talks on the science and politics of rapid mitigation. The talks ran as follows:

  • Christopher Jones (Tyndall Centre) on ‘International outlooks and Translating the Paris Agreement into local climate change goals’
  • Sanna Gunnarsson (KTH) and Derek Garfield (Uppsala University) about municipal and regional carbon budgets as a tool for local climate transitions
  • Johan Gärdebo (Linköping University) on Swedish Just Transition and its relationship to Union Workers
  • Mikael Karlsson (Climate Change Leadership, Uppsala University) on barriers and drivers when using carbon budgets for societal transformations

Following the speed talks, participants had the opportunity to join breakout rooms with one of the speakers:

The day concluded with a panel discussion exploring the opportunities and limitations of carbon budgets and science-based approaches to societal transition. The panel was moderated by CCL affiliated PhD Isak Stoddard and the following guests:

  • Kevin Anderson (Professor of Energy and Climate with joint chairs at the Universities of Manchester, Uppsala and Bergen)
  • Carly McLachlan (Deputy Director on Tyndall Centre)
  • Stefania Barca (Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Uppsala University)
  • Martin Wetterstedt (researcher at Uppsala University and the Mälardalen Energy Agency)

Day 2 and 3 were in Swedish, with Day 2 focusing on questions of local and regional governance, and Day 3 on the roles of civil society.

To learn more about the conference, access presenter slides and more video content visit

Remembering Maria and Zé Cláudio : Earth Defenders from Amazonia, 10 Years On

On May 24, 2011, Maria do Espirito Santo and Zé Cláudio Ribeiro da Silva, nut collectors and members of the agroforestry project (Projeto Agro-Extractivista, PAE) of Praialta Piranheira in the Brazilian Amazon, were brutally murdered as a consequence of their engagement in protecting the forest from illegal logging and timber trafficking. Making their lives out of a non-exploitative and regenerative relationship with the forest, and passionate about the defence of the rights of both Amazonia and its people, Maria’s and Zé Cláudio’s deaths belong to the number of earth defenders whose lives are being taken, year after year, for opposing the infinite expansion of global economic growth and social metabolism (Global Witness 2019). In 2012, the pair were posthumously recognised as Forest Heroes by the United Nations Forum on Forests Secretariat for their work fighting illegal forestry.

This May we honoured their memory and talked about their legacy for environmental justice struggles in Brazil and beyond. Zennström Professor in Climate Change Leadership, Stefania Barca, and Bartira Fortes, representative of Latinamerikagrupperna, held a moderated discussion with: 

  • Claudelice de Silva Santos, Zé Cláudio’s sister and frontline defender, who continues to oppose the human rights and land violations happening in the wake of land grabbing and logging. Claudelice fights for, in her words, the ‘the right to land and to life’, and was nominated for the 2019 Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought, organised by the European Parliament. She is completing a law degree at the Federal University of South and Southeast Pará.
  • Felipe Milanez, one of Brazil’s leading journalists documenting the Amazon, regular contributor to CartaCapital and VICE magazine, and former editor of National Geographic Brazil. He lived and worked closely with Maria and Zé Claudio before their murders, his documentary 2011 film Toxic Amazon tells their story. Felipe is now a professor at the Institute of Humanities, Arts and Sciences and the multidisciplinary Culture and Society graduate program at the Federal University of Bahia. 

You can find recordings from the event in English and Portuguese here.

The tragedy of Zé Cláudio and Maria’s murder is not in isolation. In 2019 alone, it is estimated that over 200 environmental defenders were killed as a consequence of their commitment to protect the environment and indigenous lands. Indigenous leaders and Indigenous women leaders in particular have been at the forefront of this struggle. How can we make sense of the violence against earth defenders in a time when their work is all the more important in the context of climate change? What can we learn from their stories about the transition to a post-carbon future?  

We strongly encourage watching the freely available 60min documentary film from Vice Magazine, Toxic Amazonto give context for the discussion. You can also watch Claudelice’s speech at the European Parliament here (begins at approximately 15:25, select your choice of language.) We also recommend reading more about Maria and Zé Cláudio’s story and other environmental defenders to learn more about the context. This recent book, Environmental Defenders : Deadly Struggles for Life and Territory, includes contributions by Claudelice and Felipe. 

This event was a collaboration between Climate Change Leadership at Uppsala University and Latinamerikagrupperna.