In 1704 Newton set out to describe the fundamental nature of light. He thought of transparency in a material sense. In the following centuries this merely physical attribute began to absorb meaning. Conveying notions of moral and today forming an integral part of international institutions.
Public participation, accountability, accessibility, and disclosure are just a few ideals that we might convey when speaking of transparency.
Looking at the recent developments around Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, and at the newly founded COP30 Information Integrity Initiative, Newton's observations, although 300 years old, shine light on a useful set of objects. In his eyes, transparency was an effect, a mode of translation. To study the effect, meant to study the objects and materials that gave rise to it.
A perspective that could benefit today's policy makers.
Introducing the simplest of diaphanous tools, let's start with a window. An architectural choice, a sheet of glass. Some crystal clear, while most could need a rinse. But importantly, putting those in power under scrutiny of the public eye.
In the words of Emmanuel Alloa: might this visual access not exacerbate a sense of impotence? Are we forgetting that the sheet of glass, is a visual aid, but a barrier to all other senses?
In the context of Article 6.4, transparency has transcended this two-dimensional stage. Specifically, the meetings of the Supervisory Body are not only streamed and recorded. Stakeholders are encouraged to contribute through 'Calls for Input' — turning transparency into a mode of action: participation.
But when two weeks ago, the Supervisory Body delegated a controversial decision on monitoring timelines to the assisting Methodological Expert Panel, the discussion missed a crucial point. While 'more' transparency was demanded — in other words more windows, bigger screens — maybe a different object was needed, altogether.
In Newton's world, transparent objects would funnel and reflect light. And transparent bodies would by definition contain a degree of opacity. I believe the same is true today. Modern tools of transparency (language, live streams, conferences, and calls for input) will refract and scatter information. Each tool, in its own unique way. The object of choice will define what is reflected and absorbed. Importantly though, 'more' transparency has a definite end in physics (the vacuum), but not in the world of policy. Demanding 'more' is like racing a scale of infinite degrees.
Calls for transparency are everywhere — in policy, finance, and climate negotiations. But transparency is never neutral. As climate institutions expand their platforms and reporting frameworks, ahead of COP30, it's worth asking what kind of "light" they cast, and who will remain in the shadows.