Just a few short months after the COP21 event in December, and coinciding with Earth Day, world leaders gathered today at United Nations HQ in New York City to sign what is being called the “Paris Climate Agreement.” The details of the signing and ratification process are complicated, so I’ll just say that it is likely that it will be signed and ratified by enough nations to come into effect, though I’m not sure when.
Friday’s signing sets a record for the number of countries signing an agreement on the first available day, the Associated Press reported. The old record goes back to the Law of the Sea in Montego Bay, which was signed by 119 countries in 1982, according toAccuWeather.
Signing the accord is only one step in the process. The leaders must now go back to their home countries’ governments to ratify and approve the agreement, which could take months or years. The deal goes into effect once 55 countries representing at least 55% of global emissions formally join.
I am not in a celebratory mood on this occasion. Just since December we have seen the global heat record get “smashed,” as noted by Jeff Masters and Bob Henson at the Weather Underground here. The annual mean growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere also hit a record high in 2015, with 3.05ppm.
The Paris Agreement will be useful IF and ONLY if it triggers massive global action AND we do not use it as cover to grow complacent in our local, regional, and global efforts to combat climate change. I believe, as Bernie Sanders has mentioned and as championed by the Climate Mobilization, that a wartime-scale mobilization to address the climate crisis is our only option. Hillary Clinton still supports burning natural gas as part of a broad energy transition (which I view as a non-starter), and Republican presidential candidates are barely worth mentioning on this front (though Kasich does at least believe it exists).
One of my most trusted climate news aggregator sites, CarbonBrief.org, highlighted these two articles today that I feel are particularly important to consider on this day:
And don’t forget that I keep a curated breadcrumb trail of climate articles I find noteworthy in Mark’s Climate Mag(azine) via Flipboard. Subscribe to this ever-updated collection of articles (662 articles so far!) that I think might be interesting to those who follow my climate work. Great for mobile devices, too. Beautifully formatted on the Flipboard platform.
While not an occasion for a victory dance, today is an important day in climate history. I encourage you to use it as an opportunity to redouble your own carbon reduction efforts at home and in your community. Gather yourself, then step outside of your comfort zone. Nothing less will preserve a livable planet for future generations.
I’ve trimmed it down a bit for the sake of your time, but it is quite comprehensive and covers multiple dimensions around COP21, complete with loads of photos, not to mention videos of the protests and COP21 grounds and booths, and even a brief snippet from noted scientist Kevin Anderson. You can find the slides for the lecture HERE. E-mail me if you’d like a version that contains the notes with the slides: mark [at] yert [dot] com.
Tim Flannery goes into as much detail as he can about carbon sequestration opportunities in the time allotted for his lecture below.
The goal of keeping global average temperatures below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is a noble one, but it instantly points to the inadequacy of our current approaches to reaching such a goal. At this late stage in the game, even instantaneous full decarbonization of the global economy (i.e. instantly removing all dependence on gasoline, natural gas, diesel fuel, and all other carbon emitting power sources) does not give us time to achieve 1.5°C or better. This means that we need to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere on an industrial scale using technologies that are both un-proven and un-discovered. Flannery’s talk dives directly into this important frontier with important implications for government and business research and development opportunities. One of my favorite videos of the year! Thanks to Pirate Television for recording it.
(Paris) We’re one week into the two-week COP21 climate negotiations summit and I can report that COP21 seems very similar to previous COPs, only bigger and more stylish. And more heavily guarded.
Furthermore, I suspect that everybody who came here with a preexisting expectation of what they would get out of it is probably getting exactly that out of it. In other words, while we certainly have have a city-wide, globally impacting, “World Cup of Climate”-scale convergence right now in Paris, I’m not seeing much in the way of breakthroughs, sea changes, or particularly unexpected circumstances. If you expected to see nations defend their self interest at the expense of the common good, you are seeing that. If you planned to see nations coming together in unprecedented ways for the common good, you’re seeing that. If you expected the agreement under consideration to be sufficient or insufficient, you’ll probably get that. If you feel that capitalism and/or technology are or are not up to the task of solving the problem, nothing here will change your mind. I’ve never attended anything so simultaneously over and underwhelming all at the same time! Let’s dig into some of the under/overwhelming highlights of the last few days…
Early Procedural Drama
I arrived in Paris with some cautious optimism that this time, THIS time, when it really really mattered, at the very last possible second, nations would set aside a little bit of self-interest for the sake of the common good. There aren’t clear signals to me about whether or not that is happening. (I wish I could get inside the negotiating back rooms!) One of the first points of “drama” at the conference was when Saudi Arabia blocked the inclusion (in the draft agreement) of a reference to a U.N. study on the impacts of choosing a 1.5°C warming limit vs. a 2°C limit (above pre-industrial levels)(more about that here). Despite the existence of a major cohort of nations (including the United States) seeking language referencing 1.5°C in the agreement (not as a goal, I believe, but just as a “reference”–possibly for more serious consideration in future COPs), the consensus nature of the proceedings makes it difficult to put it in if one country–like Saudi Arabia–doesn’t want it in. That said, the latest version (Dec. 5) of the draft COP21 agreement offers the following clause:
To hold the increase in the global average temperature [below 1.5 °C] [or] [well below 2 °C] above preindustrial levels by ensuring deep reductions in global greenhouse gas [net] emissions;
That means that nations are only considering options of “below 1.5°C” and “well below 2°C,” which I read as very good news (though I have no idea how nations will accomplish it). I’m not sure how Saudi Arabia feels about these options, but it is a bit of a mystery to my why the blockage of a reference was such a drama point if 1.5°C is still explicitly referenced as a potential goal. I’m still learning the nuance of this COP dance…
This is another section that caught my attention in the latest draft agreement. Nations are apparently considering language referencing a long-term goal decarbonization goal in a variety of different ways, including an annual percent reduction per year, zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2060-2080, or more generalized language pointing to the same. Which will it be? I have no idea, but I like that they’re even considering a %/year goal. Here’s the language in the official draft agreement:
[Parties [collectively][cooperatively] aim to reach the global temperature goal referred to in Article 2 through: (a) [A peaking of global greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible[, recognizing that peaking requires deeper cuts of emissions of developed countries and will be longer for developing countries]] (b) [Rapid reductions thereafter [in accordance with best available science] to at least a X [-Y] per cent reduction in global [greenhouse gas emissions][CO2[e]] compared to 20XX levels by 2050]]; (c) [Achieving zero global GHG emissions by 2060-2080] (d) [A long-term low emissions transformation] [toward [climate neutrality][decarbonization] [over the course of this century] [as soon as possible after mid-century]; (e) [Equitable distribution of a global carbon budget based on historical responsibilities and [climate] justice]
One interesting feature that appears to be making its way into this COP21 agreement is a ratchet mechanism that requires nations to only improve their commitments at each review point (likely to be every 5 years). While 5 years is a bit slow for my preference, if a ratchet mechanism can make it into the agreement AND be legally binding, that will be a significant signal to businesses around the world that this is really happening. Indeed, the “ratchet” could be one of the most important features of this agreement. Note the language in the latest draft:
Each Party’s successive ### [shall][should][will] represent a progression beyond the Party’s previous efforts and reflect its highest possible ambition
That said, a ratchet mechanism without sufficient transparency is difficult to enforce. Here’s a snippet that is trying to address that:
…all Parties shall provide the information necessary for the clarity, transparency and understanding…
That same language is also referenced in another section a bit differently:
In tracking progress towards achievement of their ###, Parties shall apply the principles of transparency, accuracy, completeness, comparability, consistency, avoidance of double counting, and environmental integrity, as further elaborated in…
From what I’ve heard around here, people are particularly concerned about transparency with respect to China’s reporting. Accuracy with China’s reporting is quite possibly more important than any other nation on earth, and China hasn’t exactly had the best track record in this regard.
The draft agreement also references quite an array of human rights and progressive-sounding ideas that I’m surprised to see make it this far into a consensus-based agreement involving so many nations. Take a look:
Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration [human rights,][the rights of people under occupation,] vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional, indigenous peoples knowledge and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate.
You’d think that people who knew to use this kind of language in any document would also understand the how closely they’re flirting with disaster embodied by the other terms of the agreement–particularly the non-binding 2°C limit on warming. We shall see…
Those are my reflections for now, on this relatively quiet Monday in Paris. There underwhelmingly remains an overwhelming number (basically infinite) of opportunities for linguistic loopholes to get into the final agreement. I suspect that many will stay, a few will go, and we’ll get some kind of well-ground climate agreement sausage at the end of it all.
(By the way, this past weekend I discovered a bakery around the corner from my apartment that is apparently very highly regarded even by French standards, so I celebrated by having an eclair. It was so good that I had another one today. Tomorrow I’ll brave the croissant. I know. I’m having such a tough time out here. I expect tomorrow to also be relatively quiet, and then things should heat up again between Wednesday and Friday when world leaders supposedly return to finalize the COP21 agreement and release it to the world. Stay tuned, and send questions as you have them!)
Still getting information about this, but it appears that Canada has just endorsed a 1.5°C goal for COP21. That’s pretty big news, and fits into the rare category of a “surprise” at COP21. The U.S. has simply endorsed the inclusion of a verbal reference to 1.5°C, while Canada actually wants it to be the goal. We’ll see if other nations follow suit… Here’s the link.
I just met the Climate Interactive team yesterday at the #COP21 climate summit in Paris and they’ve got an important message about the big 2.7°C “sum of commitments” on the table for the event. Know the facts. The picture might not be quite as rosy as the U.N. says it is. More information at ClimateInteractive.org.
The leadership at COP21 has backed itself into a tricky corner pitting a declaration that “COP21 was a success” against the latest, best science. Leaders have a huge stake in declaring a successful outcome at this conference, but any declaration of success will likely need to suppress or disregard critical pieces of the climate puzzle. So in mid-December if/when the United Nations declares “SUCCESS! We have laid the foundations for keeping the planet below 2°C above pre-industrial levels!” don’t forget to dig into what their version of “success” means by asking these questions:
Success? With what probability? 66%?
Over what time horizon? What happens after 2100?
Assuming what climate feedback mechanisms? Only a subset of known mechanisms?
How much CO2 must be removed from the atmosphere? Probably lots, but how?
At what financial cost and paid by whom? How much have they contributed to-date?
Is 2°C a worthwhile goal? Do coastal cities and African + island nations lose out?
What penalties are applied to unhelpful nations? Is it legally or financially binding?
Once you receive answers to these questions and check them against your own internal senses of right vs. wrong, spin vs. science, and possibility vs. reality, you will have the tools to make your own decision about whether COP21 was a success.
And now for a little bit more detail:
Much of the research that the COP21 negotiators are working from (generally data from the IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) orbits around staying below 2°C with a 66% likelihood of success. That’s often what they mean when they say “likely stay below 2°C.” But I have to ask, would you fly on an airplane or drive in a car that has a 66% chance of delivering you safely to your destination? If we seek a 90% probability of staying below 2°C, then we must stop burning all fossil fuels immediately (per David Spratt, “RECO2UNT”).
Negotiators will often limit predictions about the climate to 2100 as the time horizon. The climate system, however, doesn’t just stop warming when the clock ticks over. It seeks an equilibrium of energy that may not settle out for hundreds of years or more. So if you hear a climate prediction that sounds palatable, dig into whether the estimates work with an equilibrium state or not. Very often estimates just stop at 2100 with no mention that temperatures will likely rise after that year.
In the pursuit of non-controversial data to support its findings, the IPCC does not take into account all known positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system (for review, a well-known feedback positive mechanism works like this: the arctic icecap melts and changes a highly reflective white ice surface into a highly absorptive dark water surface, accelerating the heating). That’s a problem in my book, and generally causes the IPCC to predict lesser climate impacts than what actually happens. (Consider this detailed assessment of feedback mechanisms by David Wasdell at the the Apollo-Gaia Project.)
All the IPCC scenarios used by the negotiators at COP21 that show us keeping warming below 2°C require some form of massive CO2 removal from the atmosphere. Any way you slice it, we’re no longer looking at a simple emissions reduction as sufficient to keep the planet below that goal. We must also actively pull CO2 from the atmosphere with technologies that have yet to be proven cost effective and/or at scale.
Decarbonizing the global economy will require a whole lot of money. The World Bank recently announced an assessment putting the number in the range of $89 trillion over the next 15 years (to stay below 2°C, and I’m not sure about the probability they use). That money will need to come from somewhere, and whoever it is has yet to put that kind of money on the table. I’m watching this front closely, possibly closest of all. The best intentions will sit on the drawing board without the financing to bring them to life.
The 2°C goal is somewhat arbitrary and is often characterized as a target that will help us “avoid the worst impacts of climate change.” Renowned climate scientists James Hansen calls the 2°C target “catastrophic” and argues for a 1°C limit (we’re already experiencing this in 2015), while many others–even those within the COP21 negotiations process, particularly African and low-lying island nations– are actively trying to get the U.N. to adopt a 1.5°C target at COP21. Why those nations? Because we already have at least 1-3m of sea level rise baked into the system, and many low-lying nations disappear under those conditions. For them, this is a mortal fight. Furthermore, 2°C is a global average, but that value will vary globally depending on many factors including the proximity to oceans vs. large land masses and local weather patterns. African nations are set to bear the brunt of temperature increases for those reasons and more, and since they generally have done little to contribute to the problem, they see it as only fair that developed nations (like the United States) should bear the brunt of the atmospheric CO2 reduction burden. (I discuss the 2°C goal in great detail in the following article on Climate Change Numbers for COP21 in Paris.)
I hate to say it, but sometimes people are moved to act or not act based on the penalties applied to them. In the case of the COP21 climate negotiations, I see little evidence of anybody signing up for a legally binding agreement with any real teeth. If the word is used in a final pronouncement, check to see exactly what is legally binding. It might just be that the only legally binding thing to emerge is a provision for nations to review and revise their 2015 commitments every few years to address updates in the scientific literature.
Whatever the result at COP21 this year, it has already turned out to be a massive international focal point for collective climate action. Do the specifics matter? I think they do, but I suspect we’ll have to take whatever we can get and then cheerlead our way to even greater action the very next day. And the next. And the next. Holding ourselves accountable to the latest science, the possibilities within our collective genius, and our best moral selves.
For additional details and more of my (Mark Dixon’s) personal reflections on COP21, feel free to check out my hour-long lecture here:
I have a big update for you today! The last couple of weeks have been very fruitful: I was able to give climate presentations at the Thomas Merton Center, the Church of the Redeemer, Maren’s Sustainability Salon, and Sustainable Monroeville. The response was extremely positive both via feedback forms and additional donations sufficient to fund an additional two presentations. Thank you for helping to make this presentation/funding mechanism work so well!
I am also pleased to reveal a brand new video of my complete COP21 climate presentation on YouTube for you to watch and share. If you were unable to attend one of my earlier presentations, or you’re out of town or just want to share the information, now you can: https://youtu.be/E_PoMZKZsaY
And one last reminder: I am still looking for venues where I can give more presentations. If you know of a class, a group, a church community, or anybody else who might be interested in hosting a presentation, please let me know!
Yours in service,
P.S. I have scheduled my primary post-COP21 presentation for Tuesday, 1/19/16, at 7:00 P.M. at First United Methodist Church, 5401 Centre Ave, Pittsburgh, PA 15232. We’ll have a detailed discussion of everything that went down in Paris and what’s next. Hope to see you there!