*As world leaders assembled in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December for the UN Climate Summit, three Georgetown students were also in attendance. One of them was Jessica Robbins (SFS ’12), a Science, Technology and International Affairs major with a concentration in energy and environmental studies. In addition to her course load, Jessie is an intern for Earth Policy Institute, a member of Delta Phi Epsilon and involved in the International Relations Club and its upcoming North American Invitational Model UN Conference, for which she is the director of registration. *

**What motivated you to go to the Copenhagen climate conference?**

I expected it to be a true turning point in international climate change, and I wanted to be there to study it and examine it and be there as closely as I could. I was ready to participate as a civil society [member], which is just voluntary participation by average citizens. Just to be a part of this was important to me.

**Did you travel alone to the conference or was it a group effort? How long did you stay?**

I left Dec. 10, 2009 and flew to Copenhagen with three other undergraduates: Julia Shindel [COL ’10], Olivia Chitayat [COL ’10] and Kathryn Padgett [SFS ’11] . We have a project that came out of this conference, and the project is not going to look at what happened at the conference, specifically with the policy, but will look at it holistically. The final product will be a documentary. We have already completed one panel, which was composed of people from Georgetown that went to the conference. Another panel is planned for the spring, most likely in March after the documentary comes out. We are also working on a blog, bluegrayandgreen.blogspot.com. This published everything that we did there from day-to-day events to things that we saw as well as bigger issues. Some of the things we saw were marches and activists, and a lot of pre-emptive arrests were made while we were there. Copenhagen is known to not be too friendly to civil society due to riots in previous years, so it was really intense and at times violent. Kathryn was able to see Al Gore speak, which was a highlight of the trip.

**What is significant about the Copenhagen conference?**

It’s not significant for its outcome, which was a nonbinding treaty that the [UN Framework Convention on Climate Change] said that [it] would take note of, but wasn’t adopted wholeheartedly as hoped. The accord was not that strong. But it is significant because of the attention that it got. Heads of state got together, which is major. It shows that climate change is important to everyone. President Obama demanded to meet with [the] Chinese delegation when he heard that things were not going as planned, and he took action. This conference gave climate change the attention it truly deserves.

**Describe your experience at the conference.**

It was an overwhelming, exciting, exhilarating, intense experience. It was easy to feel insignificant there because there were so many people, as well as the scope of the conference. The negotiations were closed to the public, so it was hard to tell what was going on even if you were there. The people who were involved in those negotiations had to feel comfortable talking freely, so that’s why it had to be private.

**What was your favorite part of the conference?**

It was really incredible. The people that I met, such as students from around the world, Africans who saw this final decision at the conference as life or death, really made the experience memorable. I remember in particular an old Indian guy who wrote poems about climate change. Just those kinds of experiences changed my viewpoint. Coming in as a Georgetown student, I had a narrow perspective, and I didn’t realize how easy I have it. I can return to my home easily, but some people who were there have to go back to their places and worry if it will still be there in the coming century because it might be underwater by then. I came into it as a student, but meeting people who took the conference as something emotional for them, as something that could truly affect their own life, opened my eyes. It was inspiring. Beyond the negotiations, it was nice to be able to just talk to people. It was incredible-the amount of dialogue that occurred- just talking and learning about each other.

**What did you do at the conference?**

It’s a pretty formal meeting. We watched a working group go over a document and they looked at the text very carefully to make sure that everything was how it should be, focusing on even the minute details such as using words like “shall” or “should” and which is the best to use. Many of the big decisions were made by the bigger nations. Some of the bigger issues were finance, transparency and targets. With finance, the concern was, “Who will pay and how much?” The [European Union] pledged money, and the [United States] hadn’t made a big pledge because they didn’t want to give money to China, since they thought China truly didn’t need it. In the end, everyone wanted to put forth as little as possible and still get the best deals. Finally, the [United States] decided to pledge a lot; [Secretary of State] Hillary Clinton came forward and said she would propose a fund, and although it wasn’t [clear] how much would be contributed, it was still a huge step.

Transparency was with regard to how much control and knowledge people would have about the use of the money being put forth. China didn’t want to let inspectors in or have people poking around their factories, and China is known to give accurate reports. With targets, people wanted to know who would commit and to what. Late Friday night, people began to run out of time for bargaining. The first week and a half I didn’t know what they were doing. We were able to get together, but the big open meetings were empty in substance because it was kind of a repeat of things that were already known.

**If you could change one thing about the conference, what would it be?**

I wouldn’t change too many things. In a perfect world, it would have been more open to interests of countries it represented, such as those most affected but who had the least political platform. If these were involved, their input would have been great. Usually the bigger countries with more influence such as the [United States] and China were most involved in the negotiations, while all of Africa was shut out. The most tragic result of the conference was that these countries had no say. I think that people [were] too caught up in the little details. As a whole, people were too ambitious, and this led to a weak agreement. We need feasible actions to reverse deforestation and establish better technology benchmarks to increase energy, and these would be beneficial to both the environment and the economy. I think they got hung up on the hard things so they couldn’t formalize an agreement.

**Do you think the conference was a success or failure?**

Both. It was a failure because it didn’t produce a strong agreement as hoped. However, the dialogue and attention from heads of states all around the world made it a success. The fact that it failed spurs people on to try harder. I think if we did get an agreement, it might have gotten people to feel complacent, as if they were off the hook. More things need to be fixed on a smaller scale, and I think people are starting to realize that. The situation isn’t hopeless, but we’re running out of time.