The two-week negotiations came to a jubilant climax on Dec. 12 as 195 nations voted yes to a world climate accord. Tough negotiations, all-night sessions, citizen protests, good planning and diplomacy by the United Nations and by the French hosts brought accord. Though Paris does not solve the climate problem, for the first time in history virtually all nations of the world came together to pledge their actions against a common problem. The world now has a legal framework within which to measure progress against need and to publicize who is doing good and who is slacking.
Almost 190 countries pledged to cut their carbon emissions by 2030 and switch to green energy. But the poorest countries say, “Wait a minute, coal is our cheapest energy source. Moreover, we can’t afford to invest in solar and wind, and also develop. You rich countries caused the harm to us so you should help us leapfrog dirty coal and oil by providing us at least $100 billion a year by 2020.” These countries are right. Measuring since the start of industrialization, the U.K. and the U.S. are each responsible for about a quarter of the greenhouse gas problem. Half of the problem comes from just our two countries. China contributed about 10 percent. Much contention, but understandably the rich countries said we can’t promise that funding now, let the market do it.
The combined Paris pledges to reduce emissions are not nearly enough to stave off destructive climate change. However, they can be increased in the future as needed.
Under determined U.S. leadership, and against formidable opposition, the conference agreed to ensure transparency concerning country performance. Countries must report their emissions every five years subject to independent, international audit to confirm validity. Thus will trust and veracity be guaranteed.
The Rio Conference of 1992 set the maximum acceptable temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius. Temperature has now increased by 1 degree C and scientists have recently seen faster than expected temperature and ocean level rise and concluded the safe limit should be lowered to 1.5C There was much resistance to lowering the target temperature. Will countries keep their pledges since there is no enforcement mechanism? The media klieg lights will be focused on countries that don’t perform. The hope is that this “Name and Shame” system will keep countries’ feet to the fire.
Will the Paris accord set us on the right track? Many experts think that it will.
Han Schellenhuber, a respected German environmental scientist, declared, “This is a turning point in the human enterprise, where the great transformation towards sustainability begins.”
Though the hands of the world join in celebration, will this accord really do the job? The answer is no. It was a remarkable political success, but still distant from what science says is needed. The hill of energy switching is steep, even precipitous. Replacing the world’s energy infrastructure over the next 30 to 40 years is most unlikely. Experts say Paris sends a strong signal to disinvest fossil and invest green. But, as James Hansen has told us repeatedly, “What counts is the cost of green compared to fossil energy, and today fossil is still cheaper. Private investment follows profits not Paris signals, and profits today flow from fossil energy. It’s so simple. Without a carbon tax to make carbon unprofitable to develop, all the work of Paris may be futile.
We should be proud of U.S. leadership.
Without the U.S.-China agreement, and the U.S. declaration of emission reduction through President Obama’s “Clean Power Act,” the Paris Agreement would have been much weaker. Of course Republicans say they will overturn Paris and that the courts will overturn the Clean Power Act. No matter. The world has grasped the climate rudder for the first time and all nations can work to make Paris the beginning of world climate seriousness and cooperation.
Roy Wehrle of Springfield is a longtime environmentalist and professor emeritus at University of Illinois Springfield. Contact him at wehrle@springnet1.com.
