Paris Agreement on Climate Change

In my last post, I talked about the climate conference in Paris. Now the summit is over and an agreement was reached by the attending countries (regrettably not including Taiwan, thanks of course to China, which acts as if it would rather see human civilization collapse due to runaway climate change than recognize Taiwan as an independent nation) to limit the global temperature increase to less than 2 degrees Celsius, with a goal of holding the rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees. This is in many ways an impressive, landmark agreement, as it is the first time that almost all the world’s nations have committed to fighting climate change and set specific goals to mitigate its effects. For this reason, the agreement is being widely celebrated, not only by the leaders who signed it but by many environmental groups and non-governmental organizations. However, there has been some criticism of the agreement as falling short of the truly revolutionary transformation that is needed and for lacking in specific binding steps that countries must take within specific time frames. While I haven’t read the agreement or even seen a detailed summary of it, from what I’ve heard, there is merit to both the positive and negative views of it.

It is certainly fair to say that the agreement is about as good as or even better than could have been realistically expected, considering factors such as political inertia, diversity of interests, and outright obstruction from some parties both inside and outside the negotiations. Past climate conferences have not produced anything nearly as far reaching as this agreement, and the fact that a goal of limiting the temperature increase to less than 2 degrees was included was a pleasant surprise, as the conventional wisdom before the summit was that a 2 degree limit was the best that was likely to be agreed to. As I understand it, the agreement also talks of a target of reducing net carbon emissions to zero by 2050, a big improvement over the vague declarations of the past. It seems that to a point at least pressure from NGOs, civil society, and the nations that will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change, particularly the small island nations whose very existence is in danger, was able to push the negotiators in the right direction.

On the other hand, those who say the agreement falls short have a point as well. Global temperatures have already risen by about 1 degree Celsius over pre-industrial levels. Even if we stopped all production of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and methane immediately, temperatures would still continue to rise for some time afterwards, as the gases already produced would remain in the atmosphere (though methane persists for less long, leading some to point out that stopping methane production – including putting a stop to fracking – would have more immediate benefits as far as limiting temperature increases). Scientists have stated that in order to keep temperature increases to a manageable level, global fossil fuel use needs to have peaked no later than 2020, only five years from now. Given this situation, it is fair to question whether an agreement that doesn’t actually require countries to take immediate action will be able to meet its stated goals. Countries are required to report on their progress every five years, but as far as I am aware, there are no sanctions or penalties for failure to make progress. In other words, while the stated goals may meet expectations, there is no guarantee that they will actually be met. Also, while there is general talk of lower net carbon emissions to zero, there is apparently no specific mention of one necessary step to reach that goal, namely eliminating or at least heavily reducing the use of fossil fuels. Finally, the aid being offered to developing countries by developed ones falls short of what they are likely to really need.

It should be noted that one reason for the lack of binding measures and sufficient funding for developing nations is the US Republican Party. US Secretary of State John Kerry openly admitted that the main reason the US negotiators didn’t want specific language of this sort was that it would mean that US Congress – dominated by climate changing denying Republicans – would have to review the agreement. So while Kerry and US President Barack Obama aren’t to blame for the agreement’s shortfalls (at least no more than most of the other similarly overcautious leaders), the Republicans and their supporters, along with the fossil fuel industry and certain oil producing countries such as Saudi Arabia, are largely responsible for the agreement not being all it could have been. Though to some extent it is not surprising that those who have a vested interest in today’s fossil fuel industry would be reluctant to accept the need to change, it is still extremely irresponsible and selfish, and in some instances possibly even criminal, such as in the case of Exxon’s funding of climate change denialism despite having been warned by its own scientists of the threat of climate change as early as the 1970s and 1980s. As for those who are actually delusional enough to not accept that there is a problem, some may eventually come around, but in any case anyone in leadership positions who is either unable or unwilling to accept the science should definitely be voted out or replaced so they can’t continue to obstruct efforts to make change.

Despite the major caveats discussed above, the agreement should be viewed as an important step in the right direction. While it could be a lot better, it is a global acknowledgement of the seriousness of the problem and provides a framework for further progress. What’s important now is that we all work with the many activist groups focused on this issue to put pressure on our governments to not only fulfill the commitments they made in this agreement but also accelerate their progress toward a clean energy future while we all work to change our societies to make them more sustainable. If we are to avoid potentially disastrous consequences, we have to immediately start building on the limited progress that the Paris Agreement represents.