When the result of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or CMP 11, was announced, many felt joyous. Finally, 196 countries had banded together and produced a 12-page document that embodied global recognition and cooperation against the issue of global warming. Yet, a few cranky cynics like myself harboured a little more doubt over this hollow victory, especially when you unpack the issue entirely.
Before we begin, let us set the stage. Global warming is the gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and its oceans, which causes shifts in climate. Our emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels have rapidly sped this process, causing an increase in flooding and extreme weather events.
The Paris Agreement this month sought to address this concern, the result being an agreement to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (°C) compared to pre-industrial levels. $100 billion a year would also be invested in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.
On the face of it, the deal appears perfectly reasonable. A global agreement to limit CO2 emissions is precisely what needed to happen, but the way in which it did leaves much to be desired. What is perhaps less publicised is the fact that the agreement will not become binding on its member states until 55 parties, who produce over 55% of the world’s greenhouse gas, ratify the deal. Many doubt whether the U.S. with its Republican-dominated Congress, will even agree to do so. Furthermore, though countries will have to submit their progress at five year intervals, there is no mechanism to force a country to set a target by a specific date, and no sanction if a target is not met. That leaves the entire system open to abuse, and countries can simply choose to ignore their targets or the agreement entirely. US President Barack Obama called it “ambitious”, and he is absolutely right, but that does not translate to real change. Others were not so optimistic.
there is no mechanism to force a country to set a target by a specific date, and no sanction if a target is not met
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” said James Hansen, former NASA scientist. “It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will continue to be burned.” This assertion is completely correct, especially as there is no effective means of implementing a global carbon price to discourage the use of fossil fuels. The entire system is based on voluntary support. Instead of official sanctions, Janos Pasztor, U.N. Assistant Secretary-General on Climate Change, discusses the ‘name and encourage’ system (another way of saying ‘name and shame’). This is the global equivalent of slapping offending countries on the wrist and writing passive-aggressive notes on their fridge asking them to lower their emissions.
The incredible rise of CO2 emissions in developing countries further makes these goals unreachable. Countries like China and India have rapidly constructed new cheap coal-fired power stations in an effort to aid economic development and sustain their burgeoning populations. Since 2010, Chinese state enterprises have finished, begun building or formally announced plans to build at least 92 coal-fired power plants in 27 countries, according to a review of public documents by The New York Times. This is evidenced across the board in other developing countries, because fossil fuels are unfortunately far cheaper than renewable energy sources. Once complete, the 92 projects will have a combined capacity of 107 gigawatts, more than enough to completely offset the planned closing of coal-fired plants in the United States through 2020. The Paris Agreement in its ‘historic’ glory is already being undercut by the growth of fossil fuel use, and as long as the world’s top emitters are on a growth path, it will not matter how many solar panels anyone installs.
Ottmar Edenhofer, official at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: “Emissions are rising and rising…Instead of decarbonizing, we are carbonizing our economy.” The increase in their CO2 emissions will dwarf any cuts in ours, highlighting the main problem. The issue of global warming and CO2 emissions is not so much a political problem, as it is an economic one. The Paris Agreement is testament to the world recognising the issue, but interest in the economy will always take precedence and overshadow future deals unless carbon prices are implemented and renewable energy sources are made cheaper. Nick Dearden, director of campaign group Global Justice Now, said: “It’s outrageous that the deal that’s on the table is being spun as a success when it undermines the rights of the world’s most vulnerable communities and has almost nothing binding to ensure a safe and liveable climate for future generations.”
Member parties would also strive to limit future temperature increases to 1.5°C, requiring zero emissions (i.e. not burning any fossil fuels) sometime between 2030 and 2050. Unless by some miracle we can drastically reduce the price of renewable energy and revolutionise the world energy market in 15 years, this simply will not happen.
interest in the economy will always take precedence and overshadow future deals
To conclude, let’s put this situation into perspective. Imagine the world is a car that it hurtling down a hill towards a cliff, with an array of very bad things at the bottom that’s caused by the greenhouse effect. The Paris Agreement is the equivalent off both recognising we are going to fly off the cliff edge and applying a very small brake, so instead of traveling at 100 mph we are now going at 98 mph. It’s certainly a step in the right direction, but it won’t make a bit of difference if we don’t build on what has been established. And, some would argue, we have already flown off the cliff to our demise, and this deal is merely to make ourselves feel better before the inevitable. The future remains fraught with danger, but I have faith that the Paris Agreement symbolises a global shift towards tackling climate change, which we will build upon with real, effective global deals. Sooner or later, we won’t have a choice anyway.