The Paris climate agreement, greeted with ovations and
endorsements from thousands of delegates gathered from around the world, “invites,”
“recommends,” “encourages,” “requests,” “further requests,” and even “urges”
countries to do a number of things. And there are reporting requirements and as
long as a country’s goals are regularly updated to meet the reporting
requirement, and as long as governments “pursue” actions “with the aim of
achieving the objectives,” they are all free to fail without consequence. Al
Gore called it a “universal and ambitious agreement.” Richard Branson said that
“the course of history has shifted.” “This is truly a historic moment,” the
United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon declared.
One of the most remarkable features of the agreement buried
deep in the text is that it actually highlights its own failure, noting that
“much greater emission reduction efforts will be required” to meet even the 2
degree temperature target—and that current country commitments will likely lead
to a 3 or even 4 degree temperature rise. That level of climate change, experts
say, is “incompatible with any reasonable characterisation of an organised,
equitable and civilised global community.” The Paris pact is being viewed by
many as a signal to global financial and energy markets to shift away from
investment in coal, oil and gas as primary energy sources and towards
zero-carbon energy sources like wind, solar and nuclear power yet the text
never mentions fossil fuels. Not even once and the phrase “renewable energy”
appears a single time. Climate change experts are unequivocal that we should be
entirely off of fossil fuels by mid-century but the Paris agreement talks about
a “balance” and the fossil fuel corporations can continue polluting, as long as
they try to develop unproven and risky technologies to capture carbon and store
it somewhere.
Climate finance to mitigate the effects of the environmental
damage is another major failing of the Paris deal. The goal of $100 billion a
year has been weakened, with developed countries striking any mention of “new”
or “additional” funding from the legally-binding part of the agreement. Firstly,
the figure of $100 billion per year was woefully inadequate. According to the
International Energy Agency, in order to meet the 2 degree goal, annual green
energy and efficiency investments need to be approaching $1 trillion
by 2020, with most new spending happening in the developing world.
Much of the $100 billion was supposed to be channeled through the “Green Climate Fund,” created in 2010. It took 4 years for pledges to the fund to reach a mere $10 billion. By the start of the Paris talks, less than $1 billion had actually been collected, and a first round of projects amounting to a grand total of $168 million was hurriedly approved.
The so called 'Paris Climate Deal' is a perfect one - for
the richest of the rich who can stop, block and confound any meaningful and
necessary action on climate change. To survive the world must change. With
climate change we all may become refugees with no place to go either. The
average person, probably heard about it from the media , in between Christmas
shopping advertising and exhortations to increase consumer spending, and now
assumes the crisis has been taken care
of. They could not be more wrong. Capitalists and their corporations are still clearly
willing to destroy life on Earth for their quick, high profits. The World
Socialist Movement is demanding the end of capitalism because it’s not just the
climate change it is responsible for but all the many other crises that are
linked to the profit system, from war, to pestilence and disease, inequality,
oppression and discrimination. We cannot stop climate change without changing
the system. Market forces have no respect for people and they are predicated on
putting a price on human life and dignity. If market forces mitigate climate
change (even if it was remotely feasible), the lives of billions of people
simply become part of an equation. The inequality that is exacerbated by global
capitalism will remain intact, sacrificing the poor to preserve the rich. The
Paris agreement forces no one to do anything. That is what is important about
Paris. Species come and go and diplomatic treaties doesn't control evolution or
determine species extinction. Humanity is currently between a rock and a hard
place. Do people really believe a non-binding agreement will stop already
accelerating warming levels?
2 comments:
Bill Clinntton said " of course there will be no mandates, ha ha" in 1992 when he announced
a high milage car program.
Bill Clinntton said " of course there will be no mandates, ha ha" in 1992 when he announced
a high milage car program.
Post a Comment