The COP21 conference in Paris (November 30 to December 11, 2015) is being heralded as the greatest hope for global action on climate change. Will countries reach a universal and binding agreement to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius? What are the barriers?
97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening, and that it’s our fault. Over the past 150 years, the world’s industrialized nations have changed the balance of the carbon cycle by burning huge amounts of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas), while breeding vast numbers of methane-producing livestock, and cutting down the forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Global temperatures are rising, and the speed of change is too fast for many natural systems to adapt.
The implications are vast, and already being felt – particularly by those living on the periphery of world development such as small island states and Bangladeshi and Syrian farmers. Glaciers are disappearing, sea levels are rising, coral reefs and sea life are dying as the oceans loose oxygen, and seasons are changing, while weather patterns become more extreme. Heatwaves, floods and droughts may cause disease, famine, and more war – leading whole populations into crisis and emigration.
If an agreement to keep carbon emissions down is reached by the world’s governments in Paris this December, will it be strong enough to protect us from the worst effects of climate change?
- Reducing Emissions
What’s the problem?
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) specifically identified past, current and long term implications of continued intensive carbon emissions, underscoring the need for rapid reduction of carbon emissions by the major polluters. Since the inception of the UNFCCC, however, emissions have increased – with the U.S. among the top increased emitters.
What’s the proposed solution?
In 2010, in Cancun, world governments agreed to limit the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius. In the lead up to the Paris 2015 conference, nations responsible for about two-thirds of global emissions have publicised their targets – known as Nationally Determined Contributions.
The U.S. has agreed to reduce its emissions by 26-28 percent (compared to what it produced in 2005) by 2025. China has agreed to cap its emissions by around 2030. The European Union countries have agreed to cut emissions by 40 percent by 2030. If other developed countries follow the commitment made by the U.S., and if developing countries follow China’s promise, the most likely result will be a global temperature rise of 3.6 degrees Celsius in 2100. Only Morocco and Ethiopia have submitted targets that would meet the 2 degrees Celsius target.
Is it enough?
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says a 1.5 degrees Celsius average rise in global temperature may put 20-30 percent of species at risk. If the planet warms by more than 3 degrees Celsius, most ecosystems will struggle. A 2 degrees Celsius increase is the maximum compatible with human civilization as we know it. This means that any agreement in Paris will likely come short of the necessary solution. Some have suggested that businesses could carry the burden of bringing emissions down further. But, as Bill Gates pointed out recently, “the private sector is in general inept” because “there’s no fortune to be made” in addressing climate change. There is hope that future conferences will “ratchet up” various countries’ targets over time. Certainly, the solution will not be agreed by the end of this year.
- Deforestation
What’s the problem?
Forests produce vital oxygen and home many peoples and wildlife. We are cutting down forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air at the amount of approximately 36 football fields a minute.
What’s the proposed solution?
Under the “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” (REDD) plan to be discussed in Paris, the focus is on reducing emissions from deforestation – rather than preventing deforestation.
Is it enough?
Under REDD, it’s possible to replace forests with monoculture plantations – which may have disastrous effects on the ability of people to grow diverse crops necessary for biodiversity and a healthy local agricultural industry.
Also, carbon trading market solutions to the problem may encourage investors and companies to buy forests to earn carbon credits, threatening the livelihoods and freedoms of the peoples who live there. Often, these people are indigenous peoples, who are at the forefront of protecting the earth’s forests – but who could be excluded from their homes by fancy carbon markets, created by those who caused the climate crisis.
- Green technology and Adaptation
What’s the problem?
Currently, countries are locked into reliance on coal, oil and gas. Some governments and companies are investing in research and development to move to green technologies, but most are proposing solutions which would be calamitous for the environment, such as drilling in the Arctic, or fracking. Although countries could effectively move to green energy within a short timeframe (some estimates say within 30 years), governments haven’t made a concerted effort to do so. The lobbying power of the coal industry is immense.
What’s the proposed solution?
Recognizing the historic and continuing role that industrialized nations have played in causing the climate crisis, developing countries want help to invest in clean technology to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, and they want help preparing to adapt their infrastructure to prepare for coming climate disasters.
At the 2009 Copenhagen talks in Denmark, rich countries (predominantly responsible for the crisis) said that by 2020, financial flows of at least $100bn a year would be provided.
Is it enough?
Countries in the global North haven’t been able to provide 10 percent of the $100bn pledged. The funds may come from restructuring existing aid deals, or from loans containing conditions on access to markets, including via the World Bank.
Wealthy countries must be held accountable for the crisis and work cooperatively to move to green technology and industry, and to ensure that developing countries can cope with the human and natural impact of environmental disasters largely attributed to climate change.
Though developed countries prefer for the World Bank to take control, the Bank will not provide the solution. It has an oppositional interest. The World Bank prioritizes the protection of intellectual property rights, rather than openly sharing scientific and engineering insights into the development of green technologies.
Further, the idea that the World Bank can help countries adapt to the worst impact of climate change related disasters when it has a recent history of supporting dam, road, and other projects which have caused significant environmental damage is ironic to say the least.
And, funding for developing countries to move to green technologies and to help adapt to the impacts of climate change should be a right. High carbon emitting countries such as the UK, France and Spain, have never paid reparations for abuses inflicted under colonialism. They have instead helped corporations based in the global North continue to exploit previous colonies, and the World Bank has played a role in this too.
Developing countries have a right to funds, given that they are dealing with the consequences of a crisis they did not cause. They know this, and many of them will be asking for formal recognition in Paris later this year.
Yet, they may only receive funds if they accept loans with conditions that may continue to benefit the wealthiest corporations – who continue to pillage the environment with immunity.
- Climate Justice: Loss and Damage
What’s the problem?
As the impacts of climate change become more severe, adaptation is no longer an option. Millions of people will need to be re-settled as islands disappear, humanitarian camps may need to be established. Property will be significantly damaged as a result of increasing extreme storms.
What’s the proposed solution?
The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage is the main vehicle to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts in developing countries.
Is it enough?
At the moment, this mechanism is still figuring out how it will operate, and attribute fault and this will be sorely debated in Paris. And, there is no indication it will offer redress to climate refugees.
- No games: transparent and accountable
What’s the problem?
The Paris conference has invited governments to make pledges to reduce carbon emissions based on what they “think they can achieve”, rather than make commitments based on their historical contributions to global greenhouse gas emissions.
What’s the solution?
If the proposed – insufficient – levels are agreed in Paris later this year, countries would have to be open about how they are measuring and reporting reductions.
Is it enough?
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this time – in Paris – there is no requirement for countries to reduce their emissions using 1990 levels of emissions as their baseline. The U.S., Canada and New Zealand have used this as an opportunity to promise reductions from their 2005 – not 1990 – levels of emissions, enabling them to show easy ‘improvements’.
Volkswagen’s recent “diesel dupe” marks how easy it is to trick the system. The car giant cheated emissions tests in the U.S. Will countries comply with what are essentially voluntary self-imposed pledges? They certainly won’t be sanctioned if they fail.
- Sustainable Development Goals Vs. Post-Capitalism
What’s the problem?
If we continue on our current path of consumption and production without control, we face mass species extinction, famine, displacement, and conflict over basic resources. We’re in this danger as a result of an economic system that has prioritized profit and economic growth over people and the environment. Companies and governments have not been required to clean up after themselves when they pollute, and so have not included the cost of doing so on the basic items that we buy and use every day.
What’s the proposed solution?
There is increasing recognition of this, and the UN has recently agreed to a set of “Sustainable Development Goals” which include addressing access to energy, gender equality, education and health.
Is it enough?
Much like the Millennium Development Goals, the Sustainable Development Goals are weak. By failing to address the root causes of global inequities, and hold private actors to account, the UN systems are ineffectual and unimpressive. The Special Rapporteur on Migrants attributed many so-called ‘success stories’ under the Millennium Development Goals to the remittances individual migrant workers sent to their home communities, rather than positive state action. In fact, many states will wilfully oppose the regulation of conduct by companies and individuals which is causing climate change, and actively resist carbon neutral schemes. People powered system change is necessary.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
1 Comment
What is one to think when the World Bank already puts out a report a while back mentioning a possible 4 degree rise in temp and things that need to be done. I mean, all these meetings? Of course they will fail because they don’t want to succeed. No intention. None. Zip. Zero. Couldn’t care less. They all know what’s happening. Bullshit, the whole thing. It’s all just old men in suits smoking and drinking. It’s always just that. Old men in suits sitting cross legged so their pants ride up just enough to see that bit of withered skin between the pant’s cuff and the top of the neatly pulled up black sock covering a old white boney foot tucked into Italian leather shoes. Dickheads the lot of them. Some even have children. Poor kids.