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 Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2015 at 7:05

I've waited until the end of the conference to post anything on the effort to reach an agreement on reducing greenhouse emissions.  The issue is a global one as reflected in the 189 countries that are parties to the agreement. My interest is in providing a discussion forum on what comes next.  How the agreement will impact how the world goes about doing its day to day business of sourcing energy.  There is of course a partisan political aspect.  Under site rules, any discussions along those lines belong in the Political or Off Topic Group.

Does the agreement signal a wide spread global move away from coal and toward alternative energy sources?  If so, does this bolster the long term demand for LNG?  Does the agreement in general support or increase the demand for natural gas in all its forms? How might the transition from coal impact the demand for and global price of crude? Does retirement of coal fired uses support increased demand for crude?  To what extent does the agreement ramp up investments in renewable energy sources?  How do oil and natural gas fit in a future that transitions over time to more reliance on renewables?

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 14, 2015 at 7:03

I can predict the  great news we will be hearing from this in a few years:

"Billions of tax payer dollars in Government grants and loans are unaccounted for, much of it stolen or diverted for other purposes, with no meaningful change in temperature or carbon emissions as a result of the 2015 Global Pledge to reduce carbon emissions. The cost to taxpayers is mind boggling. Oil remains the only viable alternative to provide our energy needs. Despite the best efforts of scientists with the help of gullible politicians, several trillion dollars in financial pain was wasted in a fantasy to replace hydrocarbons as our primary fuel source and source of thousands of necessary everyday products. Earth scientists have finally been forced to admit they are not as smart as they thought and that we would have been better off buying more air conditioners with that money than handing it over to a bunch of greedy opportunists."

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2015 at 7:53

Tax Me, Says Exxon Mobil, in Declaring Support for Climate Talks

By Alex Nussbaum Bloomberg Business December 2, 2015 — 12:00 PM CST

  • Endorses `meaningful action' to address climate change
  • `Revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy'

Exxon Mobil Corp., a favorite target of global warming activists, said Wednesday that it’s hopeful for a deal out of the climate-change talks in Paris and still thinks the best solution is a tax on carbon pollution.

As the United Nations negotiations moved into a third day, the world’s biggest oil explorer said in an blog post that it supports “meaningful action to address the risks of climate change” as long as it preserved access to the reliable and affordable energy.

“The long-term objective of climate-change policy should be to reduce the risks of serious harm to humanity and ecosystems at minimum societal cost, while recognizing shared humanitarian necessities,” Exxon Mobil General Counsel Ken Cohen wrote in the post.

In the run-up to the Paris talks that began Nov. 30, Exxon has been under heavy assault by environmentalists and politicians who say it misled the public by promoting uncertainties about climate science. New York State’s attorney general has subpoenaed company records about its research going back decades, and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in a Rolling Stone interview published Tuesday, said Exxon’s actions would amount to “a betrayal” of humanity if it’s found to have suppressed knowledge about climate risks.

Revenue-Neutral Tax

Exxon has said it made its research public and did nothing wrong. The Irving, Texas-based explorer takes climate change seriously and has taken steps to reduce its own emissions, Cohen said in today’s post.

The most effective solution would be a revenue-neutral tax on greenhouse gas emissions, Cohen wrote, reiterating a position Exxon has held for years.

“Instead of subsidies and mandates that distort markets, stifle innovation, and needlessly raise energy costs, a carbon tax could help create the conditions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that spurs new efficiencies and technologies,” he said.

“The revenue-neutral carbon tax could be a workable policy framework for countries around the world.”

Long a hard-line opponent to climate-friendly carbon limits, Exxon began to soften its outlook and embrace the need to curb greenhouse gases in 2006 when Rex Tillerson succeeded Lee Raymond as chairman and CEO. The company’s $35 billion takeover of XTO Energy in 2010 was inspired in part by expectations that stricter climate rules would spur natural gas demand as a replacement for dirtier coal.

 


 

 

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 14, 2015 at 11:58

The very last sentence about replacing the coal industry says it all about Exxon's "holy" enthusiasm about this Paris agreement, saying  it represents "meaningful action to address the risk of  climate change" - i.e, replace coal with Exxon natural gas.

Permalink Reply by John Cooper on December 14, 2015 at 11:41

Skip, it's difficult to stay away from the political discussion, but I will try.

In my opinion, this will favor the larger multinationals over the smaller independent companies.  The world will always need energy and refining feedstock from petroleum.  Oil, gas, and for that matter coal, are the most economical ways to produce that energy on a per btu basis, and Oil is really the only feedstock that is available.  I can see some serious taxes being levied in order to force people to use less petroleum, in favor of more expensive types.

So if you buy into my opinions above, it's pretty easy to see that more developed countries such as the US will drill less, while less developed countries will have more activity.  Those costs are best borne by larger companies, and it's gonna destroy the independents and small to mid sized companies.  In my opinion, they will tax it in such a way as to kill both conventional and unconventional plays here in the US - if they can get away with it.

As I sit here trying not to puke, I can only hope that a backlash develops that puts a stop to this - and lets a true free market solution take hold that will be best for all.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2015 at 12:03

Thanks, John.  You came pretty close.  I think the consolidation of unconventional reserves to the larger, better capitalized energy companies will thin the ranks of the independents but it will not be because of any change in the way America sources its energy.  It will be because of risky bets made in a land rush to lock up positions in unconventional basins some of which panned out and some of which did not. Some might have survived but for the timing.  None basically ran out of willing lenders until the bitter end.

I think domestic drilling well find its equilibrium based on global crude prices and an ever rising demand for natural gas - domestically and globally as LNG.  As soon as the glut subsidies, or the demand catches up, drilling will increase for both.  NGLs will support a boom in chemical and plastics in the U.S. - already underway.  Operators can now make acceptable IRRs on Haynesville production at $2.50 and do quite well at any price above $3.  I think that means a return of investment, gradual rising production and a natural gas price that continues to support growing demand.

It will take some time to play out so we will all have time to amend opinions or say our "told you sos" however it is clear to me that the loser in this new global effort is coal.  And whatever replaces coal will prosper.  Crude will not fare as well as natural gas but it won't be something the world does without for many decades.  The world will simply replace oil where it is practical to do so and use it more efficiently and cleaner where it can not.

Permalink Reply by Steve on December 14, 2015 at 12:05

Good luck having an intelligent discussion about climate without mentioning politics , when it is all about politics and money. Does anyone here have something they can actually prove about the efficacy of climate science? 

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 14, 2015 at 12:13

I could link our prior discussion threads but I was hoping for some fresh opinion and projections.  Yes, the politics will follow and it should make for a lively presidential race.  Its a long way to November and much will no doubt occur before we get there.

The acceptance or rejection of climate change is a personal decision.  I do however think we can put to rest any conspiracy charges owing to the fact that 195 countries do not make for a conspiracy.  They make a world movement.

Permalink Reply by Chuck Carroll on December 15, 2015 at 3:21

Skip, you are correct that it is not a conspiracy, at least not a single conspiracy.  It is science fiction.  Why do the world government leaders think that they can work together to take enough wealth from taxpayers to control the weather?  Each one has his or her own agenda for wealth and power.  There are many, many conspiracies and secret agendas in play. Although they use the politically correct term "climate change," what they really want to accomplish is to control the weather.  This is a huge waste of money.

Most politicians seem to think that, with enough wealth and assets, they can save the world.  It is arrogant to think they will do a better job of controlling the weather than God does. 

The politicos chose to focus on greenhouse gas emissions not because it is the real issue, but because it is a means to get to the wealth.  It is bad science to blame climate change on exhaust by-products, just like it was bad science to eliminate Freon to protect the ozone layer over the south pole in winter.  Has anyone seen any recent follow-up report on the status of the ozone layer now that Freon is banned?  How can enough Freon gas, that is 2-1/2 times heavier than air, defy the law of gravity to drift up to the stratosphere and mess with the climate?

The common theme in science fiction is that when government leaders work together on a common issue to save the world with faulty assumptions, they always make it worse.  Then some brave common people will have to stand up to the government to stop making it worse.

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2015 at 3:35

Chuck, instead of starting over again on the subject of what is science fiction and what is science fact, I refer you to this previous discussion thread.

http://www.gohaynesvilleshale.com/forum/topics/interesting-and-unli...

Permalink Reply by P.G. on December 15, 2015 at 3:22

How many of those 195 would be there if they had to pay for it on their own?

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on December 15, 2015 at 3:32

P.G., most will be paying for it on their own to varying degrees.  Hard to project technological advancements too far into the future but the means to provide cleaner energy will reduce costs over time.  I'd like to see some cost projections from the opponents of addressing WGW.  How about the cost of a kilowatt hour 5 years from now?  Or the price of a gallon of regular gas two years from now?  Some metric that has relevance for the average person.  I decided how I would track and judge the price of energy going forward.  I saved the IEA Daily Price page for Monday, December 14, the first daily report after the Parish Climate Agreement.  I plan to save additional reports for Dec. 14 each year going forward.

RSS

Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com

Top Content 

1 Monster’ Gas: Aethon’s 16,000-foot Dive in Haynesville West

Monster’ Gas: Aethon’s 16,000-foot Dive in Haynesville West
2 Texas Standard article - Potential lithium boom simmers in East Texas

Texas Standard article - Potential lithium boom simmers in East Texas
3 Associated gas boom hurting gas-focused producers

Associated gas boom hurting gas-focused producers
4 U.S. natural gas trade will continue to grow with the startup of new LNG export projects

U.S. natural gas trade will continue to grow with the startup of new LNG export projects
5 Could a US lithium glut develop in the near future?

Could a US lithium glut develop in the near future?
6 Update: Companies Withdraw Plan to Set Arkansas Lithium Royalties

Update: Companies Withdraw Plan to Set Arkansas Lithium Royalties

Not a member? Get our email.

Groups



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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service