COP30 is coming to an end and transparency remains a recurring theme. In this series of essays, I've established that 'the observer' is among the roles least studied, but most influential in the debate around transparency and the climate. Negotiators act within the boundaries set by 'the observer'. Widening and shrinking the realm of what is possible. Due to this complex interplay, the outcome of COP30, whatever it might be, cannot be attributed clearly to one or the other.
György Kepes described this phenomenon precisely, as cited in the title of this essay. Transparent systems lead to a common but striking optical illusion. Two otherwise separate objects are perceived as one. In other words, in a fully transparent system, theoretically, 'the observer' and the observed become one.
I believe this optical illusion translates to the political realm. When perfectly transparent, those being ruled upon appear to be one with those ruling. Transparency promises a state of perfect oneness. Ironically, fueled by the idea of letting the separative, transparent material (the window) vanish entirely.
In pursuing that ideal, while unifying, a crucial mistake is made. When negotiators and observers decide together, the loudest, the strongest, the richest will win. Not the climate. Separation serves a purpose. While the separative material can vary in opacity and shape, letting more or less information through, the idea is to protect those in power from the loud, and the strong. Enabling decisions that serve the climate.
When term limits of Supervisory Body Members are discussed, and when crucial decisions are made behind closed doors (MEP), I don't know who's interest those decisions serve. 'The observer' or those being observed. The Article 6.4 mechanism is at this point transparent enough, for it to reproduce, rather than reveal its underlying power dynamics. Unable to differentiate whether "mistakes" are introduced by the medium or by the subject. Visually and conceptually, we are unable to differentiate the two.
When participation, visibility, and access is the goal, the options are clear. Livestreams, and calls for input, being just some of many possible answers. But when transparency is proclaimed, unity is built on misunderstanding. While it might serve some actors now — whether it is those in the room, or those watching from afar — it is not what we need to limit global warming.
Transparency might unite initially, but in the long run, we need to ask an uncomfortable question. What does it mean exactly?
What we need is clarity, not transparency. And clarity does not come with being one. It comes from clearly written rules. Clearly drawn lines. Who is in the room, and who isn't. Who gets to speak, and who gets to watch, when and why.
This year, COP30 amplified many voices. Many that had not been heard before. Transparency was a core topic of the presidency, but to this day it remains unclear who is on the inside, and who isn't. Indigenous voices were heard both inside the COP30 tent and simultaneously, forcefully removed from its perimeter. Fossil fuels were on the outside — means to be overcome to limit global warming but also represented by 1600 lobbyists. While COP30 might have been transparent. It lacked clarity.
Somewhat semantic, philosophical, and distanced from the negotiations in Belém, this slight difference, between Clarity and Transparency might become the biggest gap, the biggest challenge to overcome, to fight climate change. Together.