THE FINAL VERDICT ON THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT

By Rebecca Leber, Emma Foehringer Merchant, and Sasha Belenky  newrepublic.com

There was uncertainty to the very end of the Paris summit, down to the final moments when the U.S. delegation demanded a change to a single typo in the draft text. Then the confusion finally cleared. After running into overtime on Saturday, the two-week Paris climate conference ended with a deal. “We met the moment,” President Barack Obama said in a victory speech from the White House on Saturday.

Did the agreement save the world? As long as you had moderate expectations headed into Paris, you won’t be disappointed. The 31-page agreement did more than the relatively low bar set for it. Indeed, it represents a powerful step in curbing climate change as the first deal that covers every major polluter. “For the first time in history, the global community agreed to action that sets the foundation to help prevent the worst consequences of the climate crisis while embracing the opportunity to exponentially grow our clean energy economy,” the Sierra Club’s Michael Brune said. Some longtime climate advocates, such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, offered more qualified praise. “While this is a step forward it goes nowhere near far enough,” the presidential candidate said. Environmental groups with high expectations for Paris were sorely disappointed, however. “The Paris Climate Agreement is not a fair, just, or science-based deal,” Friends of the Earth said.

Ahead of the conference, Rebecca Leber outlined six keys to success in her feature article previewing the talks. Here we give you our final verdict on whether the COP21 agreement achieved those goals.

Progress Report   December 14, 2015

Commit to cut carbon emissions significantly by 2030.

You might hear Paris referred to as the “first truly universal agreement on climate change.” That’s because 187 countries responsible for 95 percent of emissions came forward with plans that would mitigate or cut their emissions growth, even though they still get us only halfway to the global goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial averages. Though it’s a considerable success to now count India and Brazil among the nations with plans on greenhouse gases and deforestation, these pledges won’t be legally binding. Instead, the hope is that international expectations and public pressure will be enough to get nations to deliver. The deal also omits a few obvious sources of pollution, like planes and ships.

Establish reporting and transparency requirements.

There was a scuffle over exactly how to handle transparency, with China leading the campaign for more flexibility for developing nations and less oversight. So what you see in the deal is a rather vague call for a framework that is “non-intrusive” and “non-punitive,” repeating more than once the need for “flexibility.” But it will require all nations to publish national inventories of their emissions by source and also share updates on implementing their domestic climate plans to a “technical expert review” that will track progress.

Create a payment system to finance climate adaptation.

Developed nations came forward with many more financial pledges to try to convince poor ones they’re taking seriously their responsibility for climate change. But the agreement itself didn’t ease many of those concerns. It reaffirmed a goal of mobilizing $100 billion in finance a year from 2020 to 2025, requiring developed nations to contribute an unset amount. In the non-binding decision portion of the text, nations promised to reconvene in 2025 to consider a more ambitious goal. It also encouraged developing countries to contribute to their peers. The deal recognized that some countries will suffer losses and damage from a problem they did not create, but it also absolved developed nations of any financial liability.

Put past disagreements aside.

Clearly, the Paris talks reached a middle ground if it ended with a deal. The text’s clunky nature is a testimony to the heavy compromises required to get to an agreement, and it does make allowances for developing nations in nearly every section. Yet the success of the deal is that it finally unites developed and developing nations under a similar framework for transparency and reporting, even if the expectations are still adjusted for unique economic circumstances.

Agree to return to the negotiating table regularly.

Every five years, countries will need to take stock of their emissions and put new national climate pledges on the table—starting with the first formal “stocktake” in 2023. Each successive climate pledge “will represent a progression over time,” a nod to the reality that one-time action on pollution won’t be enough. 2023 is on the late side to reassess new targets. To compensate, the deal also sets up an interim “dialogue” in 2018.

Rethink the 2-degree target.

The deal calls for keeping global average temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial averages, and it is the first time the international community has formally recognized that staying under 1.5 degrees is ideal. To get there, it spells out an ambitious, if vague, long-term goal for countries to reach peak emissions “as soon as possible” and to reach a “balance” of emissions in the atmosphere and forests to remove carbon after 2050.  It also points out the obvious: Developing nations won’t get there as fast.

 

Views: 1139

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Cooper on December 15, 2015 at 4:04

Interesting discussions all, and thanks for the dialogue.  I'll state for the record that I agree that MM Climate Change is a myth, and I am willing to back that up scientifically - but in another forum.

Skip, I believe you are right on many counts - that specifically some equilibrium will be established, and consolidation will occur in the business - not just limited to unconventionals, but also conventionals.  I also agree that we're all gonna be proven wrong on the effects - but it will be matters of degrees (no pun intended), not absolutes.

Having said that, between this matter, the Iranian nuclear pact, ISIS pumping as much oil as possible, and etc. - the supply side of the equation looks, shall we say, interesting.  The MMCC treaty will likely suppress demand as well.  In short, the O&G business continues to be a political football.

What's really interesting is the upheaval this will cause in the economies around the world.  People are gonna start asking why are we paying so much for energy, when we're sitting on top of huge reserves of cheap energy - and (hopefully soon) a real backlash will occur.  Then it could get a little sporty...

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2015 at 4:13

I'll certainly agree that time will make this whole debate much clearer.  Although I support efforts to reduce green house gases I think much of the fall out will be on coal and considerably less on oil and natural gas.  I think that improving technologies and conservation will limit upward pressure on the price of energy.  I think that too many times the extremes of the debate get unwarranted media attention.  I disagree with those that think that we have to wholly give up hydrocarbon fuels in order to mitigate whatever turns out to be the real damages of a warming planet.  And I think there are reasonable and incremental steps to take now to make a start in addressing global warming while we seek to learn more and fine tune a response.

Permalink Reply by jeff on December 15, 2015 at 4:32

I believe we will have climate change regardless of what the world powers agree too.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2015 at 4:36

No doubt.  The question is, now much?  And at what cost?

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 15, 2015 at 4:35

How much reduction in carbon dioxide would be necessary to make a difference.
I mean just a few feet down the earth is hot enough to melt rocks. The earth has only briefly, if one considers the age of the earth, been hospitable for life anyway. In other words, is it even possible to control or manipulate it?

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 15, 2015 at 4:42

The agricultural sector has become one of the main driving forces in gas emissions and land use effects. For example, agriculture contributes to greenhouse gas increases through land use in different ways:

  • CO2 emissions linked to deforestation in temperate regions: where forests and woodlands are cleared to make room for fields and pastures.
  • Methane emissions from rice cultivation and enteric fermentation in cattle
  • Nitrous oxide emissions from fertilizer applications

Together, these agricultural processes comprise 54% of methane emissions, roughly 80% of nitrous oxide emissions, and virtually all carbon dioxide emissions tied to land use. Deforestation for land cleaning purposes also affects regional carbon reuptake, which can result in increased concentrations of CO2, the dominant greenhouse gas. Worldwide, livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the Earth.

http://www.climate.org/topics/agriculture.html

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 15, 2015 at 4:48

So if the governments made everyone turn off their lights, forced them to park all their cars...just how much of a dent is it going to make?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2015 at 4:53

I don't think that turning off the lights and parking the cars is on any country's agenda.  The "dent" will be a moving target that will become better defined over time.  Actions will evolve based on the science and the type and degree of actions will be decided by each country.  Will that work?  Who knows?  IMO it is a step in the right direction.  Doing nothing seems a pretty poor option.

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 15, 2015 at 5:45

Granted, it would not be possible to cut off everyone's lights and parking their cars but making energy very expensive would cause some to suffer as though it was done. Doubtful those doing the enforcing will be the ones making sacrifices.

Trashing people's living standards for unknown results (sake of saying at least something is being done) sounds like a poor option as well.

This global warming concern seem more like political control than genuine answers to a problem.

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 15, 2015 at 5:49

Attacking energy while promoting agriculture (ethanol) which is a serious source of greenhouse gas doesn't sound as though motives are genuine..

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2015 at 6:11

I think it is too early to make projections on how energy costs will change for the average American.  But that's just me wanting to see the actual implementation of changes before forming an opinion.  You see I know we are already well down the road to generating more electricity by means other than coal.  So far electric rates are widely lower  I'd like to see NG fired generation grow and I don't have any fear for electric rates owing to the abundance and cost competitiveness of natural gas for decades to come.  I also have residential natural gas service and I think it will remain a value.  So where will a significant increase in energy cost to the consumer come from?

Permalink Reply by John Cooper on December 15, 2015 at 7:01

But doesn't agriculture somewhat make up for the CO2 by growing crops?  Remember, CO2 is an essential component of photosynthesis...

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Global EV Outlook: IEA

Global EV Outlook: IEA
2 Texas Standard article - Potential lithium boom simmers in East Texas

Texas Standard article - Potential lithium boom simmers in East Texas
3 Texas Smackover Lithium Play

Texas Smackover Lithium Play
4 AI boom to fuel natural gas demand in coming years, report says

AI boom to fuel natural gas demand in coming years, report says
5 Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play

Arkansas Smackover Lithium Play
6 Ashland Field Comprehensive Update

Ashland Field Comprehensive Update
7 SWN wells in King Hill

SWN wells in King Hill
8 New technology helps US shale oil industry start to rebuild well productivity

New technology helps US shale oil industry start to rebuild well productivity
9 Franklin County in the spotlight

Franklin County in the spotlight
10 Fourteen Years Ago: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

Fourteen Years Ago: The Deepwater Horizon Disaster

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service