A matter of degree
9/12/15 16:54![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhen an event is dubbed one of our "last chances" for averting dangerous climate change, it naturally creates a lot of expectations. Especially after the failure of Copenhagen'09. Some have hastened to call the Paris climate summit pointless even before it has begun. Meanwhile, US president Obama has urged for reaching an agreement, thus additionally raising the stakes. In fact, this conference is just a step along a very long road. Its purpose is to merely set some basic directions for what's to come in the future - but of course all will depend on the commitment and dedication of all participant countries.
The good thing is, the positive effect is already visible: the countries are working together on a solution for cutting carbon emissions, and this should send a strong signal to the politicians and business circles. And secondly, this event has put the debate on climate change into the spotlight, and it's gaining momentum. So, Paris'15 is becoming a symbol of a process that's already been underway for a while.
With more than 190 participating countries, the size of the ongoing COP21 conference in Paris is impressive. For a fortnight, governments, scientists and various NGOs will be discussing a possible new global deal on climate change, with the sole purpose of cutting carbon emissions in a meaningful way. And the real work is just beginning these days.
No UN-backed agreement could possibly be adopted by forcing anybody against their will. So the 180+ countries will all present their own views on cutting carbon emissions, and then discuss the possible terms of an agreement. The goal is to limit overall global warming to 2'C above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be the limit beyond which some dangerous consequences are bound to occur. But we've reached a point where even if all promises for cutting greenhouse emissions are made true, it would still result in a 2.7'C warming. Meanwhile, a group of 43 most vulnerable countries have already stated this would be far from sufficient, and they've called for curbing the rise of global temperatures by less than 1.5'C.
Despite the big expectations, the Paris summit itself cannot fix climate change. The actual goal is much more modest: just putting the plans for cutting those emissions that have already taken global proportions into some legal framework that would have a binding force. Climate change already is a fact, to a large extent it is caused by human activity, and it is getting ever more pronounced and dangerous - all these are facts that can hardly be refuted at this point, and the scientific consensus is becoming ever more unanimous on the matter. So far the effort to address the problem has failed to give the desired result, and people need to do more - but they also need to learn to cope with the changes that are already a fact. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere right now is 40% higher than it used to be in pre-industrial times. Which is why the world needs to be far more ambitious in its actions. But the energy companies do not value investment in renewable technologies as much as could be desired. Which is why one of the most significant decisions on this conference should be a firm commitment on shifting more drastically towards developing radical energy innovations.
These are of crucial importance for cutting carbon emissions, but that would still not be enough for reversing climate change, and many people will have to adapt to a more extreme environment anyway. Many will be unable to cope without help from outside. So the question is, who would pay for the transition to green energy and for the climatic adaptation of countries that have never emitted that much carbon, but are the main victims of its effects. The industrialized countries are already working on a plan for collecting 100 billion dollars until 2020 for direct aid for those poorer countries. But even that might turn out insufficient. The Vox editor Brad Plumer gives an example with India, which is now being presented with limitations to the way it could achieve the same type of growth that was afforded to the US, Europe and China - through burning lots and lots of coal. So, India is logically saying it would need over 160 billion dollars per year of foreign investment, if it is to compensate. Meanwhile, a recent research claims that the poorest 48 countries would need 1 trillion dollars between 2020-2030 for cutting carbon emissions and overcoming the consequences of the more extreme climate changes.
One of the problems in Paris is the rift between the industrial countries, whose growth has been based on the extensive use of fossil fuels, and the poorer countries who insist on financial aid in exchange for cutting their carbon emissions - i.e. participating in a deal that could seriously affect their development. The most vulnerable developing countries also want more serious commitments on cutting carbon emissions by the developed economies, because they feel it is unfair that the latter would create a problem whose solution they would then want to externalize throughout countries that have never been anywhere near to being the cause of that problem. Another point of contention is the insistence of the US, Europe and some other countries that all participants should commit to reviewing and updating their targets once in 5 years. Some tensions also emerge from the question if the agreement should have a binding force, most developed countries aiming at legally stipulated emission targets, while the US, being in the nice company of a number of developing countries, is insisting on a non-binding character.
The question is, what could we afford to expect from the Paris conference, and what's the best it could realistically deliver. There are ample qualifications of that meeting as "arguably the most ambitious international cooperation to date". And here's the hard part: the real results ought to meet the expectations and hopes, lest they solely remain some words written on paper. The success of this conference would depend on three elements. First thing is, adopting a mechanism for increasing the contribution of the participant countries, which would allow for reviewing their commitments on cutting carbon emissions once in every 5 years. This would bring us closer to the 2'C target. Second thing, aiming the investments in a direction for long-term actions to achieve a system of net-zero emissions by 2050. And thirdly, transparency. Because it's important to clearly know which country makes what sort of progress in honoring their commitments.
There's no guarantee what the result of the Paris conference would be - if any. As the 350.org founder Bill McKibben wrote for Foreign Policy, "We won't win the climate fight; we won't even come close. But at least we'll know the score - and we'll know how much we have to do in the next few crucial years".
The good thing is, the positive effect is already visible: the countries are working together on a solution for cutting carbon emissions, and this should send a strong signal to the politicians and business circles. And secondly, this event has put the debate on climate change into the spotlight, and it's gaining momentum. So, Paris'15 is becoming a symbol of a process that's already been underway for a while.
With more than 190 participating countries, the size of the ongoing COP21 conference in Paris is impressive. For a fortnight, governments, scientists and various NGOs will be discussing a possible new global deal on climate change, with the sole purpose of cutting carbon emissions in a meaningful way. And the real work is just beginning these days.
No UN-backed agreement could possibly be adopted by forcing anybody against their will. So the 180+ countries will all present their own views on cutting carbon emissions, and then discuss the possible terms of an agreement. The goal is to limit overall global warming to 2'C above pre-industrial levels, which is considered to be the limit beyond which some dangerous consequences are bound to occur. But we've reached a point where even if all promises for cutting greenhouse emissions are made true, it would still result in a 2.7'C warming. Meanwhile, a group of 43 most vulnerable countries have already stated this would be far from sufficient, and they've called for curbing the rise of global temperatures by less than 1.5'C.
Despite the big expectations, the Paris summit itself cannot fix climate change. The actual goal is much more modest: just putting the plans for cutting those emissions that have already taken global proportions into some legal framework that would have a binding force. Climate change already is a fact, to a large extent it is caused by human activity, and it is getting ever more pronounced and dangerous - all these are facts that can hardly be refuted at this point, and the scientific consensus is becoming ever more unanimous on the matter. So far the effort to address the problem has failed to give the desired result, and people need to do more - but they also need to learn to cope with the changes that are already a fact. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere right now is 40% higher than it used to be in pre-industrial times. Which is why the world needs to be far more ambitious in its actions. But the energy companies do not value investment in renewable technologies as much as could be desired. Which is why one of the most significant decisions on this conference should be a firm commitment on shifting more drastically towards developing radical energy innovations.
These are of crucial importance for cutting carbon emissions, but that would still not be enough for reversing climate change, and many people will have to adapt to a more extreme environment anyway. Many will be unable to cope without help from outside. So the question is, who would pay for the transition to green energy and for the climatic adaptation of countries that have never emitted that much carbon, but are the main victims of its effects. The industrialized countries are already working on a plan for collecting 100 billion dollars until 2020 for direct aid for those poorer countries. But even that might turn out insufficient. The Vox editor Brad Plumer gives an example with India, which is now being presented with limitations to the way it could achieve the same type of growth that was afforded to the US, Europe and China - through burning lots and lots of coal. So, India is logically saying it would need over 160 billion dollars per year of foreign investment, if it is to compensate. Meanwhile, a recent research claims that the poorest 48 countries would need 1 trillion dollars between 2020-2030 for cutting carbon emissions and overcoming the consequences of the more extreme climate changes.
One of the problems in Paris is the rift between the industrial countries, whose growth has been based on the extensive use of fossil fuels, and the poorer countries who insist on financial aid in exchange for cutting their carbon emissions - i.e. participating in a deal that could seriously affect their development. The most vulnerable developing countries also want more serious commitments on cutting carbon emissions by the developed economies, because they feel it is unfair that the latter would create a problem whose solution they would then want to externalize throughout countries that have never been anywhere near to being the cause of that problem. Another point of contention is the insistence of the US, Europe and some other countries that all participants should commit to reviewing and updating their targets once in 5 years. Some tensions also emerge from the question if the agreement should have a binding force, most developed countries aiming at legally stipulated emission targets, while the US, being in the nice company of a number of developing countries, is insisting on a non-binding character.
The question is, what could we afford to expect from the Paris conference, and what's the best it could realistically deliver. There are ample qualifications of that meeting as "arguably the most ambitious international cooperation to date". And here's the hard part: the real results ought to meet the expectations and hopes, lest they solely remain some words written on paper. The success of this conference would depend on three elements. First thing is, adopting a mechanism for increasing the contribution of the participant countries, which would allow for reviewing their commitments on cutting carbon emissions once in every 5 years. This would bring us closer to the 2'C target. Second thing, aiming the investments in a direction for long-term actions to achieve a system of net-zero emissions by 2050. And thirdly, transparency. Because it's important to clearly know which country makes what sort of progress in honoring their commitments.
There's no guarantee what the result of the Paris conference would be - if any. As the 350.org founder Bill McKibben wrote for Foreign Policy, "We won't win the climate fight; we won't even come close. But at least we'll know the score - and we'll know how much we have to do in the next few crucial years".
